are we better than last season ?

Quoted from pontoonlew

For me there’s no doubt we’re better than last season man for man.

Eastwood
Mullarkey
Rodgers
Conteh
Eisa
Rose

All undoubtedly better than what we had in those positions previously. Are we playing better though? It’s hard to tell given the very tough start we’ve been handed but I feel last years squad may have lost some of those draws.

What does concern me though is the way we play hasn’t improved one single bit, it’s pretty much exactly the same. It’s laboured & toothless in the most part. Either the players aren’t doing what Hurst is asking (which he seems to allude to) or Hursts tactics just aren’t working. I think it’s a mix between the two, the players need to take some responsibility but at the same time our record from winning positions is dreadful & that part for me falls solely on the managers in game tactics.

I’m still excited about the season, but we’ve got to kick on now.

I don't disagree with the comment after the bit in bold about being toothless, but I can't agree that our play is exactly the same as last season. We are clearly trying to dominate possession a lot more and are much, much better at building possession in our defensive third and into the middle third. We've clearly brought players in to be able to play this way so it's clearly something Hurst wanted to do. I actually think there were games last year that showed he wanted us to play this way but couldn't because of the players we had.

The obvious deficiency we have is getting into the final third and maintaining the same control and adding creativity. But I think our style has noticeably changed this season.

How do we change or improve what we're with struggling with at the top end of the pitch? For starters, although I'm happy with Rose as a signing, we don't have much quality(options) up top really do we. Secondly, do we get enough players into the final third to prevent us being so overloaded by opposition players defending that we'd find it hard to keep the ball in that final third? Then, is this through lack of runners making those forward runs, is it through having one striker and no-one close to him centrally (think McAtee in a no.10 role). Would we need to come away from this 4141/433 and move to the 4231 we used in nonleague and at times last season, to have someone centrally to link with the no.9?
For me, that player in the middle of the 3 supporting the striker needs to be someone with craft and creativity, not just a runner such as Clifton/Holohan. Do we have that player in the squad? Ainley seems to fit the mould of that type of player if he fulfils some of his promise there. Other than that we don't really have anyone for that role that I can think of.

I agree with others that have said our forward options were healthier when we won promotion than at any time since (McAtee, Taylor, Mani, Abrahams), which is frustrating.

Often the most creative players, or goalscorers, are the ones that don't necessarily clock up 100k on the GPS every Saturday, or maybe have an ego, or maybe are a bit of a buffoon. Is our focus on signing good characters is so strong that we get attackers who are grafters rather than genuine quality. Hurst & Doig seemed to manage McAtee ok and he definitely had a (healthy level) of ego and arrogance, so hopefully they wouldn't be too put off bringing that type of personality in again.

Think we are an improvement on last year.
With our strongest 11 on the field then probably Crocombe vs Eastwood is around even with Eastwood potentially better if he can retain his form better than Max.

Mullarky is definitely an improvement of Efete in the defensive duties, with maybe not as much pace going forward, although looking at the goal at Bradford definitely has a better delivery into the box.

Rodgers vs Waterfall.  A mile and a half better. Harvey offers pace, is more reliable, quick on the return and in the recovery. As much as i love Waterfall, and there will be games we need to call upon him against the more direct teams, Rodgers is ahead of him.

Conteh. Regardless of who he's in to replace, be it Bryn Morris or Kieran Green, hes the best midfielder we have and had for a long time (potentially). Cool in possession, a good shield for the defence and given a bit more licence to get forward may well chip in with some goals.

Eisa. Been impressed so far, offers a goal from anywhere and a great addition. Keeping him fit and in form will be key to our season and Clifton is blowing hot and cold and Vernam especially was very poor before his injury.

Pyke vs Ryan Taylor, hard to judge as Pykes not got going yet and Taylor had a poor season last year due to age, immobility and injury. Would suggest though that Rekeil is not the answer but someone, like Orsi who could be called upon up front and wide as and when required.

Danny Rose, not going to compare him to anyone except maybe George Lloyd as is a different player.  Good in the air for his height, holds the play, wins free kicks to relieve pressure and can see him scoring some goals. problem for me is we need to get him a strike partner.

Jurys out still on Gnohoua and Ainley as still need to see more of them and Cartright/Battersby I would suggest are about the same atm as little exposure to the first team.

Overall an improvement on last years team.   I would suggest though, to seriously compete in the league this year, we are a left back and a striker short. Something I hope can be solved shortly or during the January window

Nice thoughts Tommy ,another gold star from me .

I understand where you are coming from , but I think Hurst will stick with the 4-1-4-1 when he has his best players available , maybe Ainley can be the answer as one  of the more advanced midfield players ?

The only reason I see him sticking with the formation is because  it's built around Conteh ; and he's effectively 1 and half players with his positional sense and ability so you don't need a second holding midfield player IMO . I don't think it's coincidence either that with him in that role we have more of the ball , as he takes 1 or 2 opposition players out of the game a lot of the time as they know we want to play through him , therefore leaving more space available for the rest of the team
to retain the ball better with more time ; which no disrespect to them neither Hunt (for a while)  or Green do very well .

I think the answer may well lay in us being effectively able to get the wider players closer to Rose ,rather than hogging the touchline ; although you could argue it's been quite effective so far even in terms of goals scored .

Gnahoua is definitely capable of coming in off the line and making an extra body to link up in the box and between the lines  (just look at that lovely touch for the goal at Bradford , and i think he will turn out to be an excellent signing actually ).

What I will add is , I still think we are one or two short of been a top end team , I don't think we are far off at all one creative midfielder (maybe Ainley?) , a top end striker and probably a left back ; as much as I like Amos , he worries me at times . We may well just be missing the final pieces of the jigsaw and I think if that's the case it's imperative we retain the core of 9 players for the next couple of years while adding the few we need .

Quoted from Mappers

Nice thoughts Tommy ,another gold star from me .

I understand where you are coming from , but I think Hurst will stick with the 4-1-4-1 when he has his best players available , maybe Ainley can be the answer as one  of the more advanced midfield players ?

The only reason I see him sticking with the formation is because  it's built around Conteh ; and he's effectively 1 and half players with his positional sense and ability so you don't need a second holding midfield player IMO . I don't think it's coincidence either that with him in that role we have more of the ball , as he takes 1 or 2 opposition players out of the game a lot of the time as they know we want to play through him , therefore leaving more space available for the rest of the team
to retain the ball better with more time ; which no disrespect to them neither Hunt (for a while)  or Green do very well .

I think the answer may well lay in us being effectively able to get the wider players closer to Rose ,rather than hogging the touchline ; although you could argue it's been quite effective so far even in terms of goals scored .

Gnahoua is definitely capable of coming in off the line and making an extra body to link up in the box and between the lines  (just look at that lovely touch for the goal at Bradford , and i think he will turn out to be an excellent signing actually ).

What I will add is , I still think we are one or two short of been a top end team , I don't think we are far off at all one creative midfielder (maybe Ainley?) , a top end striker and probably a left back ; as much as I like Amos , he worries me at times . We may well just be missing the final pieces of the jigsaw and I think if that's the case it's imperative we retain the core of 9 players for the next couple of years while adding the few we need .

I'm wondering if Khan can do that central role with Eisa and Gnahoua on the flanks. If Conteh and Clifton are sat behind him, it could be quite powerful. Obviously, we'll have to wait until he's proven his fitness a bit. We don't want to go too hard and losing him again. I'd prefer him fit for the rest of the season, not 2 games.

I agree with Mappers point that Conteh is essentially 1 and a half players, and that Hurst will therefore persist with the 433/4141 shape.

Essentially, there are two attacking problems that teams in this shape need to solve positionally.

1. Getting players close enough to the centre forward to threaten the opposition.

2. Maintaining width to stretch the opposition.

If you don't do the first one, then the centre forward gets marked out of the game, and you have meaningless possession out wide and deep. This is the issue we have been facing early in the season, in my view.

If you don't do the second one, then the opposition can defend really narrow, meaning there's no space between them and attacks end up being a congested mess.

To simplify, there are two primary ways to solve both these issues.

1. Have your wingers play narrower and get close to the striker, with the full backs overlapping and maintaing the width. Central midfielders focus more on holding their shape and covering the gaps left by the full backs. See Klopp's Liverpool, Zidane's Madrid.

2. Have your wingers stay wide to stretch the opposition full backs, with the central midfielders bombing forward and finding space in the gap between centre back and full back. Full backs tuck inside and support the lone holding midfielder. See Pep's City, Ange's Spurs.

As it stands, our full backs aren't getting forward enough for the first option (likely out of fear of being exposed as Glennon was early on), but our central midfielders also aren't getting into those attacking spaces with enough regularity. The result is that we have a lack of penetration, as opposition full backs can mark our wingers without having to worry about our full backs overlapping or our midfielders running in behind them.

I think Hurst maybe intended Glennon to be a full back who would get forward all the time, but that clearly didn't work as teams targeted us down that side and we had no answer. I now suspect he is looking for our midfielder players to get forward more while our wingers hold the width and the full backs tuck in - this would explain the signings of Ainley and Andrews, two attack minded midfield players.

It might see us lining up something like:

Eastwood
Mullarkey Rodgers Maher Amos
Andrews Conteh Ainley
Gnahoua Rose Eisa

Idea being that Gnahoua and Eisa use their pace and attacking threat to stretch the full backs, while Andrews and Ainley attack the space and support Rose. Mullarkey and Amos would play a little more conservatively, tucking in alongside Conteh, and acting as auxillary midfielders.

Just some thoughts about what Hurst might be planning - I'm probably well wide of the mark though!

Quoted from Tommy

I don't disagree with the comment after the bit in bold about being toothless, but I can't agree that our play is exactly the same as last season. We are clearly trying to dominate possession a lot more and are much, much better at building possession in our defensive third and into the middle third. We've clearly brought players in to be able to play this way so it's clearly something Hurst wanted to do. I actually think there were games last year that showed he wanted us to play this way but couldn't because of the players we had.

The obvious deficiency we have is getting into the final third and maintaining the same control and adding creativity. But I think our style has noticeably changed this season.

How do we change or improve what we're with struggling with at the top end of the pitch? For starters, although I'm happy with Rose as a signing, we don't have much quality(options) up top really do we. Secondly, do we get enough players into the final third to prevent us being so overloaded by opposition players defending that we'd find it hard to keep the ball in that final third? Then, is this through lack of runners making those forward runs, is it through having one striker and no-one close to him centrally (think McAtee in a no.10 role). Would we need to come away from this 4141/433 and move to the 4231 we used in nonleague and at times last season, to have someone centrally to link with the no.9?
For me, that player in the middle of the 3 supporting the striker needs to be someone with craft and creativity, not just a runner such as Clifton/Holohan. Do we have that player in the squad? Ainley seems to fit the mould of that type of player if he fulfils some of his promise there. Other than that we don't really have anyone for that role that I can think of.

I agree with others that have said our forward options were healthier when we won promotion than at any time since (McAtee, Taylor, Mani, Abrahams), which is frustrating.

Often the most creative players, or goalscorers, are the ones that don't necessarily clock up 100k on the GPS every Saturday, or maybe have an ego, or maybe are a bit of a buffoon. Is our focus on signing good characters is so strong that we get attackers who are grafters rather than genuine quality. Hurst & Doig seemed to manage McAtee ok and he definitely had a (healthy level) of ego and arrogance, so hopefully they wouldn't be too put off bringing that type of personality in again.

Fair comment on us dominating possession more, my thoughts were more aimed at the fact we struggle to create very much.

I said in the Just Back thread on Saturday that I think the reason we’re weak going forward is because we’re so obsessed with having players who contribute defensively that we lose any attacking impetus as a result. It’s Hursts job to find a balance to that.

I can barely name a creative wide player that’s thrived here under Hurst, which isn’t a dig at him personally, but it seems very obvious why that is and we surely have to look at how to find a balance.

Quoted from MaccasBoots

I agree with Mappers point that Conteh is essentially 1 and a half players, and that Hurst will therefore persist with the 433/4141 shape.

Essentially, there are two attacking problems that teams in this shape need to solve positionally.

1. Getting players close enough to the centre forward to threaten the opposition.

2. Maintaining width to stretch the opposition.

If you don't do the first one, then the centre forward gets marked out of the game, and you have meaningless possession out wide and deep. This is the issue we have been facing early in the season, in my view.

If you don't do the second one, then the opposition can defend really narrow, meaning there's no space between them and attacks end up being a congested mess.

To simplify, there are two primary ways to solve both these issues.

1. Have your wingers play narrower and get close to the striker, with the full backs overlapping and maintaing the width. Central midfielders focus more on holding their shape and covering the gaps left by the full backs. See Klopp's Liverpool, Zidane's Madrid.

2. Have your wingers stay wide to stretch the opposition full backs, with the central midfielders bombing forward and finding space in the gap between centre back and full back. Full backs tuck inside and support the lone holding midfielder. See Pep's City, Ange's Spurs.

As it stands, our full backs aren't getting forward enough for the first option (likely out of fear of being exposed as Glennon was early on), but our central midfielders also aren't getting into those attacking spaces with enough regularity. The result is that we have a lack of penetration, as opposition full backs can mark our wingers without having to worry about our full backs overlapping or our midfielders running in behind them.

I think Hurst maybe intended Glennon to be a full back who would get forward all the time, but that clearly didn't work as teams targeted us down that side and we had no answer. I now suspect he is looking for our midfielder players to get forward more while our wingers hold the width and the full backs tuck in - this would explain the signings of Ainley and Andrews, two attack minded midfield players.

It might see us lining up something like:

Eastwood
Mullarkey Rodgers Maher Amos
Andrews Conteh Ainley
Gnahoua Rose Eisa

Idea being that Gnahoua and Eisa use their pace and attacking threat to stretch the full backs, while Andrews and Ainley attack the space and support Rose. Mullarkey and Amos would play a little more conservatively, tucking in alongside Conteh, and acting as auxillary midfielders.

Just some thoughts about what Hurst might be planning - I'm probably well wide of the mark though!

I think we will see the full backs being more adventurous after the Swindon game. I think many would acknowledge that Hurst does consider the opposition in his plans. When you look at our opening fixtures, and when you think about continually building and gelling a team and creating a base level of performance, it would not surprise me at all to learn that although the full backs do play reasonably high when in possession (always a forward option from the CBs, rarely sideways), they've also had some restriction placed on them when in the final third.

Although they're not getting to the byline often, most of our crosses are coming from full backs, Mullarkey in particular. I think Hursts' caution will be on them not getting in advance of the wingers and being able to recover quickly on losing the ball. As the midfield becomes more settled and familiar with their roles and the trust that builds as a result, I think he'll encourage the full backs to get beyond, with the wingers coming inside to act as a second striker, creating the space for the marauding full back. When a lot of the signings were made and PH talked of the players, a lot of them he quoted as being wingers with the ability to play up front if needed, which I think is a nod to that tactical thinking in mind.

Quoted from MaccasBoots

I agree with Mappers point that Conteh is essentially 1 and a half players, and that Hurst will therefore persist with the 433/4141 shape.

Essentially, there are two attacking problems that teams in this shape need to solve positionally.

1. Getting players close enough to the centre forward to threaten the opposition.

2. Maintaining width to stretch the opposition.

If you don't do the first one, then the centre forward gets marked out of the game, and you have meaningless possession out wide and deep. This is the issue we have been facing early in the season, in my view.

If you don't do the second one, then the opposition can defend really narrow, meaning there's no space between them and attacks end up being a congested mess.

To simplify, there are two primary ways to solve both these issues.

1. Have your wingers play narrower and get close to the striker, with the full backs overlapping and maintaing the width. Central midfielders focus more on holding their shape and covering the gaps left by the full backs. See Klopp's Liverpool, Zidane's Madrid.

2. Have your wingers stay wide to stretch the opposition full backs, with the central midfielders bombing forward and finding space in the gap between centre back and full back. Full backs tuck inside and support the lone holding midfielder. See Pep's City, Ange's Spurs.

As it stands, our full backs aren't getting forward enough for the first option (likely out of fear of being exposed as Glennon was early on), but our central midfielders also aren't getting into those attacking spaces with enough regularity. The result is that we have a lack of penetration, as opposition full backs can mark our wingers without having to worry about our full backs overlapping or our midfielders running in behind them.

I think Hurst maybe intended Glennon to be a full back who would get forward all the time, but that clearly didn't work as teams targeted us down that side and we had no answer. I now suspect he is looking for our midfielder players to get forward more while our wingers hold the width and the full backs tuck in - this would explain the signings of Ainley and Andrews, two attack minded midfield players.

It might see us lining up something like:

Eastwood
Mullarkey Rodgers Maher Amos
Andrews Conteh Ainley
Gnahoua Rose Eisa

Idea being that Gnahoua and Eisa use their pace and attacking threat to stretch the full backs, while Andrews and Ainley attack the space and support Rose. Mullarkey and Amos would play a little more conservatively, tucking in alongside Conteh, and acting as auxillary midfielders.

Just some thoughts about what Hurst might be planning - I'm probably well wide of the mark though!

I don't see it being Andrews though. Andrews has 8 full time football games as experience. 1 in the football league. Ainley fell out of favour and got released. He's got work to do to get himself back to where he needs to be. If he's determined, it may not take too long. Maybe they fight and force their way in, but even Clifton and Holahan have goals in them when further forward. They just need to be given that license to push forward. They might get pinned back in a game like Wrexham, but they still have proven to do a job. Khan would definitely be a good pick in those areas also.

Bit of a minor observation but I think the movement from our attacking midfielders is too straight, rigid & predictable. Seen it a lot this season but we often advance into the final third with one of the fullbacks carrying the ball, and the winger that side hugs the touch line which opens up a bit of space between the CB and opposing fullback for Clifton/Holohan to attack.

Fine in theory but you often end up with one of the midfielders just sprinting straight into the gap which then needs the ball to be inch perfect and given the angle they’re coming from they pick the ball up going away from goal and it either fizzles out or we just advance in the corner. Saw it a million times at Bradford in the first half where we had a perfect view over Mullarkey’s shoulder - the lad on the left of their 3 kept coming out leaving a big gap and Holohan just disappeared behind him leaving him with nothing on. Sometimes managed a nice little triangle down the right but couldn’t do the same down the left as Eisa had a man up his ringpiece all afternoon.

Think Khan coming into that role will offer us something different as he can pick it up short and drive either left or right, as well being able beat a man or two. Ainley too supposedly comfortable on the ball with quick feet & good vision. Have to wait and see I suppose.

To better last season we must finish top 10 & from what i'v seen so far we wont score enough goals to achieve that especially if eisa & rose miss games on a regular basis , without them saturday we was toothless i'd love to see us  gamble abit more with bodys in box even at 2-0 nobody busting a gut to get into box , rather lose 3-0 having ago rather than 3-0 playing with handbrake on