To All Who Think Paul Hurst Should Go

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

But we won't know how the opposition play until the day, do we?

The fact that Crawley played "more long balls" than expected seemed to completely fox Hurst in his post match interview.

That is the basis of my argument.  Everything is based on events that have gone, and will in effect have no bearing on the next match.

Lew, Hurst is always outwitted when an opposition manager mixes it up!..second half at Bradford that point, Hughes changed things around, shape n personal and Hurst did not have an answer...and its not the first nor the last time it will happen, I'm sure of that.

I feel the Hurst out thing is more about the style of play we produce and the seemingly endless lack of a focal point striker,
i'm sorry, but home fans, in the bottom league of the EFL, do not really want to see their team set up with one up front, understandable for away games perhaps, but  excitement and entertainment at BP really does need to be the norm and it hasnt really been for the last
season and a bit (cup games apart), i reckon most fans would be more patient with our results and league position if we didnt always
seem to play with the handbrake on and a 'hang on to what we have' mentality, which is why we are losing so many points from winning positions in my opinion.
Hurst isn't a bad manager, but far too cautious i think, others may disagree.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

But we won't know how the opposition play until the day, do we?

The fact that Crawley played "more long balls" than expected seemed to completely fox Hurst in his post match interview.

That is the basis of my argument.  Everything is based on events that have gone, and will in effect have no bearing on the next match.

Edit.the only thing you can really have any influence over is the way your own team plays, to a degree. If you hone and perfect a certain way of playing you will always give the opposition problems because although they know how you play they cannot stop it. We seem to have gone the other way - no discernable style to fall back on and an obsession with the opposition.

I read this response before the edit just before heading back downstairs at work and knew it would be hard to provide a fully justifiable answer, because you're not wrong, each game in isolation doesn't mean much when going into the next game. It's when you build the stats up over a period of time that you can paint pictures of the minute detail that provide the fine margins of which to gain an advantage. If PH has come out and said Crawley played more long balls then either they've spotted something in our system that can be exploited, or he's covering. Whether they've learned this observation through the scouts eye or statistics they've adapted and it's proven its value.

As I said, those whose profession it is to understand what the raw data means in context of the game will be able to provide information on each teams 'general' playing style. They'll know whether their system or style changes based on whether they're home or away. They'll know all manner of fine detail that confirms what the naked eye can see and show what the naked eye doesn't. It wouldn't surprise me if it gave some reference to scenarios in games where the opposition make tactical changes and what they look like. As you've rightly pointed out, things might not always go that way, it will never be a 100% exact science, partly because of what you've covered and partly because there will always be human error and interpretation. It doesn't mean that stats don't have their place and provide valuable information, if you have any doubts at all go and ask Brighton and Brentford what stats have helped them achieve.

The edit though I don't think is as solid an argument. The first part I agree with, you can directly influence how you want to play on the training pitch but you can only do so much with the players you have. Harry Clifton will never be De Bruyne for example. But to say the opposition cannot stop it is naive at best. That suggests we have players of a much higher calibre than the League we're in that are man for man better than any team out there. Secondly, we absolutely have a style that we play, it's the theme of why people want PH out. It doesn't obsess over the opposition, it's a patient and progressive build up approach based on possession rather than a gung-ho 'you score 5 we'll score 6' style. There's a difference between not creating many chances and being defensive. It's open to personal interpretation whether you like that style, whether it's working or whether it will work around the corner but we definitely have one.

Quoted from gtfc_chris

I read this response before the edit just before heading back downstairs at work and knew it would be hard to provide a fully justifiable answer, because you're not wrong, each game in isolation doesn't mean much when going into the next game. It's when you build the stats up over a period of time that you can paint pictures of the minute detail that provide the fine margins of which to gain an advantage. If PH has come out and said Crawley played more long balls then either they've spotted something in our system that can be exploited, or he's covering. Whether they've learned this observation through the scouts eye or statistics they've adapted and it's proven its value.

As I said, those whose profession it is to understand what the raw data means in context of the game will be able to provide information on each teams 'general' playing style. They'll know whether their system or style changes based on whether they're home or away. They'll know all manner of fine detail that confirms what the naked eye can see and show what the naked eye doesn't. It wouldn't surprise me if it gave some reference to scenarios in games where the opposition make tactical changes and what they look like. As you've rightly pointed out, things might not always go that way, it will never be a 100% exact science, partly because of what you've covered and partly because there will always be human error and interpretation. It doesn't mean that stats don't have their place and provide valuable information, if you have any doubts at all go and ask Brighton and Brentford what stats have helped them achieve.

The edit though I don't think is as solid an argument. The first part I agree with, you can directly influence how you want to play on the training pitch but you can only do so much with the players you have. Harry Clifton will never be De Bruyne for example. But to say the opposition cannot stop it is naive at best. That suggests we have players of a much higher calibre than the League we're in that are man for man better than any team out there. Secondly, we absolutely have a style that we play, it's the theme of why people want PH out. It doesn't obsess over the opposition, it's a patient and progressive build up approach based on possession rather than a gung-ho 'you score 5 we'll score 6' style. There's a difference between not creating many chances and being defensive. It's open to personal interpretation whether you like that style, whether it's working or whether it will work around the corner but we definitely have one.

This is totally the issue for me. The style is a negative, we play to force a mistake rather than to generate our own chances. Also, I disagree with your comment about the opposition. There was absolutely no reason to mess with the defence who played Bradford but we went to Wrexham, he went to a back 5 and we got turned over without laying a glove on them.

Quoted from petethemariner

I feel the Hurst out thing is more about the style of play we produce and the seemingly endless lack of a focal point striker,
i'm sorry, but home fans, in the bottom league of the EFL, do not really want to see their team set up with one up front, understandable for away games perhaps, but  excitement and entertainment at BP really does need to be the norm and it hasnt really been for the last

If you look at the top level, which teams actually set up with 2 up top? Man City and Arsenal have 1 striker. Boring?

Football has changed, and you cannot often afford to go 2 up top if you actually want to see the ball and actually have possession. Of course, it's about wide players and midfielders joining the attack and chipping in with goals. Eisa and Holahan for example. Obviously the balance we have isn't working right now, and we need Rose back, but I just don't get this obsession with 2 up top. It's not 1995 any more.

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

If you look at the top level, which teams actually set up with 2 up top? Man City and Arsenal have 1 striker. Boring?

Football has changed, and you cannot often afford to go 2 up top if you actually want to see the ball and actually have possession. Of course, it's about wide players and midfielders joining the attack and chipping in with goals. Eisa and Holahan for example. Obviously the balance we have isn't working right now, and we need Rose back, but I just don't get this obsession with 2 up top. It's not 1995 any more.

Although what you say about  some prem  teams only playing 1 up front is correct, they can do this because of forward thinking , fluid,  talented midfield players worth tens of millions,  all whom are comfortable inter changing positions, you cannot  possibly compare those  sort of teams with us, or any team in league 1 or 2 IMO.
Success in the lower leagues requires two forwards, or at the very least wide men who can actually get behind opponents defences and pull the ball back for midfielders  joining the solitary forward in the box, this is something we do not do.
I would suggest that successful teams in League 1 or 2  usually play with 2 up top

If Eisa was an out and out centre forward scoring tap ins people would be ecstatic with his strike rate. I don’t really see what the difference is.

Quoted from Vance Warner

If Eisa was an out and out centre forward scoring tap ins people would be ecstatic with his strike rate. I don’t really see what the difference is.

Not that I’m shítting the bed just yet personally, but I think the logic is two-fold:

1. He’s almost exclusively been scoring individual goals the kind of which no one else is really scoring

2. There are valid concerns about his injury proneness - he made 20 league appearances out of a possible 92 in the previous two seasons due to injury

I think some might be getting a little carried away with their derision of our attacking capabilities, but I sort of understand the nervousness that 45% of our goals have come from Abo Eisa (whilst conceding that it’s of course better that he scored those goals than he didn’t).

Quoted from Vance Warner

If Eisa was an out and out centre forward scoring tap ins people would be ecstatic with his strike rate. I don’t really see what the difference is.

Think the nervousness arises from the fact that the majority of fans wouldn’t expect a player to continue to score “worldies” throughout the season however, you would anticipate that throughout a season there will always be opportunities for the 6 yard tap in merchant to grab his regular goals. Unfortunately at present we just do not create enough chances nor get sufficient players in the box to create problems for the opposition.

Quoted from Lincoln Mariner 56

Think the nervousness arises from the fact that the majority of fans wouldn’t expect a player to continue to score “worldies” throughout the season however, you would anticipate that throughout a season there will always be opportunities for the 6 yard tap in merchant to grab his regular goals. Unfortunately at present we just do not create enough chances nor get sufficient players in the box to create problems for the opposition.

And yet on Saturday, we created lots of chances; far more than they did, but it seems forcing the opposition into mistakes isn't classed as creating goal scoring opportunities by some. We had 17 shots, with 7 on target. You can argue that we are not finishing those chances, but to say we are not creating any wasn't the case on Saturday. They had 3 shots on target, and they all went in. The first a fluke, the second a volley, that 9 times out of 10 goes flying over the bar. The third was a sh1tshow defensively, and even then we had a great chance to level it, which went begging.

Eisa and Rose have 7 goals between them so far. Eisa has played 8 games and Rose 7, so they are doing pretty well all things considered. Holohan has chipped in with a couple, but others need to step up.

On Saturday, 2 goals should have been enough, as it was against Salford and Gillingham, but the much changed defence had a nightmare. They capitalised on our poor defensive display, but we didn't on theirs.