are we better than last season ?

Was just thinking as a squad who thinks this is a stronger squad than last season ? Individually I'm not so sure, Eisa Rodgers conteh and surprisingly gnahouha are the standouts for me .

But in general as a squad I'm not sure , I think last year's squad is similar and I'm not sure we have massively improved in quality, in league 2 it's pretty much a merry go round in players I just think the transfer window was a big dissapointment in bringing in quality. We are just that bit short I think in quality to be anything but mid table again.

We’re better than last season, unfortunately so are 70% of the rest of League Two. I think it might take a couple of years of the bigger spenders going up before we can challenge for promotion.

I think rose is a quality player. Not an out and out striker but he leads the line well. I also think that Eastwood is marginally better than max. In eisa and conteh we have 2 cracking players and gnahouh is a gem of a find.

I like Rodger’s and mullarkey too. Definite improvements in those positions.

The jury is out on vernham’s as he didn’t necessarily impress that much pre injury and Pyke and Wilson haven’t had enough game time really.

It’s been a tough start having played the sides we have so far. Yes, they we have to be play against them at some time, but to have the fixtures we have has been a tough start. What gets me though is the amount of times we’ve had a lead and not been able to keep hold of it. Am not saying hurst should stay or go, but, it’s frustrating to say the least.

I believe we have better footballers who are much more comfortable on the ball and are better at retaining possession but we have failed in improving the quality of our goal threat. We also lack some pace on the break and this in turn reduces our threat on the counter attack. Individually players like Rose, Gnahouha and Eisa are decent and obviously Eisa has scored some cracking goals, but I’m not convinced they provide any more goal threat then the combination of Lloyd and Orsi, albeit Orsi was given very little opportunity.

A couple of really decent forward players would, IMO, make us real contenders for the play offs whereas I feel the current side should result in a slightly improved league position on last season. All a bit frustrating but just because we got turned over yesterday doesn’t mean we are in for a poor season but maybe demonstrates there is still quite a bit of improvement required to challenge for those top spots.

Without doubt better than last season in my opinion. If we win yesterday then the question doesn't even enter anyone's head.

Forgive me if the question is simply a level headed 'what do we think' question, I read it as 'we've lost our second game of the season, we must not be very good' type question.

Based on that, I don't think I'll ever stop finding it frustrating that if we don't win 10 games on the spin there must be something categorically wrong.

My assessment so far, for what it's worth in the public domain;

We look very assured on the ball. It took a few games to get that familiarity but I don't think I've ever seen a more dominant 45 minutes of football than that first half at Bradford from a Grimsby Town team. They barely touched the ball. Similar against Wrexham we controlled large parts of the ball during the parts I was able to watch.

Notts County were comprehensive against us and I thought they were fantastic, yet we still had good spells in that game. Mansfield - over the course of 90 minutes - were the most competent all round we've seen this season. We made top of the league Gillingham look poor and we made light work of a 'fancied' Salford side. Wimbledon on the opening day doesn't look such a poor draw given their start to the season.

5 of our 8 games have been against sides currently occupying the top 6 positions.

Our glaringly obvious weak point at the moment is turning possession and dominance of the ball into high quality chances. We haven't yet really taken the game to the opposition in respect of constant pressure in and around their penalty box and we build heavily from the back which allows teams to get organised, in turn making it difficult to exploit spaces and/or create overloads.

Personally, I'm more than comfortable with how we maintain possession, I enjoy watching that style of football. It cuts both ways when we don't win; if we play well and draw/lose by a single goal it only magnifies the attacking difficulties we've experienced so far. Conversely, it means we're not being beaten because we're outright not good enough to be in this division. That can of course make it doubly frustrating, knowing we have a good team who play good football but simply can't find a means of creating better quality chances and getting more points that our general football deserves.

The league table is what the vast majority will judge our season on for obvious reasons and I'll take some of my markers by the final league position, but it won't be the everything. If we play throughout the entire season in a similar fashion then I maintain my prediction for an 8th place finish and I would be satisfied with our performances. The lack of goals and genuine chance creation will be what reserves that being 'impressed' with performances. It's then on for a pre-season of adding the next level to our game and being more competent in the final third, this of course if we don't manage to find that recipe as the season progresses.

The last point for me is what the second poster mentioned in that the whole of L2 has near enough improved over the summer, wholly agree with that statement.

Just had a quick look at Doncaster, they've also played 5 of the top 6 and sit 22nd in the league. Could be worse for us.

We’re definitely a better squad than last season in every department. We could still do with another striker on current evidence. That’ll probably have to wait until next summer when Conteh has considerably added to our player budget .

I do think we are better , but not by much and as somebody pointed out all the other teams seem better .

The style of play seems improved , but we lack the cutting edge / killer instinct to really hurt teams (maybe even more so than last season .

Orsi/Mcatee/Taylor and Lloyd were all better options than Pyke ; Wilson we don't yet know about. Rose is a very good player but the workload is heavy being the only real option .

I think likely we will be 10th-12th come January in a very tight league , and then whether we can invest a bit more or find the right player or 2 in forward areas  to push us on . If so I think we can push for the play-offs , if not it might fade out to a mid table finish .

Yes we are a stronger side this season but the problem we have is that other sides have improved plus the sides that came up have at least League 1 squads and a couple of the side that came down are very strong.
What I have noticed again this season is the size of these teams in our league, again yesterday we looked like a team of midgets compered to Wrexham.

Quoted from gtfc_chris

Without doubt better than last season in my opinion. If we win yesterday then the question doesn't even enter anyone's head.

Forgive me if the question is simply a level headed 'what do we think' question, I read it as 'we've lost our second game of the season, we must not be very good' type question.

Based on that, I don't think I'll ever stop finding it frustrating that if we don't win 10 games on the spin there must be something categorically wrong.

My assessment so far, for what it's worth in the public domain;

We look very assured on the ball. It took a few games to get that familiarity but I don't think I've ever seen a more dominant 45 minutes of football than that first half at Bradford from a Grimsby Town team. They barely touched the ball. Similar against Wrexham we controlled large parts of the ball during the parts I was able to watch.

Notts County were comprehensive against us and I thought they were fantastic, yet we still had good spells in that game. Mansfield - over the course of 90 minutes - were the most competent all round we've seen this season. We made top of the league Gillingham look poor and we made light work of a 'fancied' Salford side. Wimbledon on the opening day doesn't look such a poor draw given their start to the season.

5 of our 8 games have been against sides currently occupying the top 6 positions.

Our glaringly obvious weak point at the moment is turning possession and dominance of the ball into high quality chances. We haven't yet really taken the game to the opposition in respect of constant pressure in and around their penalty box and we build heavily from the back which allows teams to get organised, in turn making it difficult to exploit spaces and/or create overloads.

Personally, I'm more than comfortable with how we maintain possession, I enjoy watching that style of football. It cuts both ways when we don't win; if we play well and draw/lose by a single goal it only magnifies the attacking difficulties we've experienced so far. Conversely, it means we're not being beaten because we're outright not good enough to be in this division. That can of course make it doubly frustrating, knowing we have a good team who play good football but simply can't find a means of creating better quality chances and getting more points that our general football deserves.

The league table is what the vast majority will judge our season on for obvious reasons and I'll take some of my markers by the final league position, but it won't be the everything. If we play throughout the entire season in a similar fashion then I maintain my prediction for an 8th place finish and I would be satisfied with our performances. The lack of goals and genuine chance creation will be what reserves that being 'impressed' with performances. It's then on for a pre-season of adding the next level to our game and being more competent in the final third, this of course if we don't manage to find that recipe as the season progresses.

The last point for me is what the second poster mentioned in that the whole of L2 has near enough improved over the summer, wholly agree with that statement.

Just had a quick look at Doncaster, they've also played 5 of the top 6 and sit 22nd in the league. Could be worse for us.

Do you know I'm not sure we are better. I can't imagine this team reaching the heights of last, think about how we played in the cup, and despite not being exhilarating in the league we still had a very respectable league position.

My gut feeling is that Hurst himself isn't too impressed either - so many times he talks about what he expects the players to do but they are seemingly not doing it. Yesterday he highlighted the quality of the crosses and lack of bodies in the box and not long ago mentioned the January window so I think we might see more changes than we first thought then.

I do agree the league is more competitive than ever but we keep saying we are not here to make the numbers up so we will have to find a way to combat that.

Yes

Max vs Eastwood is tight. Although, based on Max’s post Christmas performances, it’s probably a slight upgrade.

Lloyd possibly, although I prefer Rose. But if you played Rose and Lloyd you would have to leave out one of Eisa or Gnahoua.

Obviously, talent wise, a fit McAtee would walk into this season’s team but only if he was fit, motivated and wanted to be here. Hypothetical of course!

We are definitely better on an individual basis.

I think we’ve improved on the ball definitely. In Conteh, Rodgers, Rose and Eisa we have four very good players for this level. I think Gnahoua is showing signs of that too and I think there’s more to come from him. Mullarkey is a good defender but very limited in an attacking sense. I also think Eastwood is an upgrade on Crocombe, certainly the Crocombe from January onwards.

However, we’re still lacking in some of the basic areas that we were lacking last season which are very important for this level. We don’t seem to have any genuine pace in the team and therefore don’t trouble teams with the threat of getting in behind. Eisa and Gnahoua are no slouches but it’s not raw pace, the sort that gives defenders nightmares. We’re also not a particularly big or physical side and whilst we’re comfortable on the ball, we don’t have these physical elements that disrupt and panic the opposition. I think this is compounded by most of our central midfielders not being creative or overly good on the ball. Holohan and Clifton offer combativeness and energy but neither offer much in the way of dictating play or sliding balls through for others. Perhaps Khan will improve things in this respect or Ainley but we’re yet to see him.

The area that Hurst has really let himself down in the transfer window is upfront. Rose has been an excellent signing but he’s been flogged to breaking point and we’re only in September. The injury to Wilson is unfortunate and he might give us some much needed pace, but then you shouldn’t be reliant on one player for that. But to only have one other striker in Pyke who is a downgrade from both Mani and Abrahams from what we’ve seen so far is spectacularly poor planning. It’s madness that slightly over a year after getting promoted, we have a significantly more toothless forward line than we did in the play off final.

Plus we should have signed a left back. By all accounts I think they must have been close to getting one but neither Amos or Glennon are good enough for a starting spot in a top 7 L2 team.

So in summary, we are better than last season in some ways and individually have improved quite a lot. Conteh is a significant upgrade on Green. Rodgers is much better than Waterfall. Rose is much better than last season’s Taylor. Eastwood is better than Crocombe. But we are still lacking in some areas that are pretty crucial. I can put up with that as long as we see progression as the season goes on.

Quoted from mariner91

The area that Hurst has really let himself down in the transfer window is upfront. . But to only have one other striker in Pyke who is a downgrade from both Mani and Abrahams from what we’ve seen so far is spectacularly poor planning.

Really, so do you know how many strikers PH tried to sign, and how many decided to go elsewhere for whatever reason?  I'm not going to tell you how many parameters need to be met for some players, because I don't know, and neither do you, but I would guess quite a few..  To say it is 'spectacularly poor planning' is a ridiculous statement, as you have no idea what planning went into searching for strikers who are available and willing to come here.

Quoted from 123614

Really, so do you know how many strikers PH tried to sign, and how many decided to go elsewhere for whatever reason?  I'm not going to tell you how many parameters need to be met for some players, because I don't know, and neither do you, but I would guess quite a few..  To say it is 'spectacularly poor planning' is a ridiculous statement, as you have no idea what planning went into searching for strikers who are available and willing to come here.

It’s spectacularly poor planning because we’ve played 8 league games already and we’re yet to have 2 fully fit strikers available. Injuries are bad luck and happen but if you only have three to start with then you’re always only two injuries/illness/suspension away from the bare bones. Furthermore both Wilson and Pyke were injured relatively early in pre-season so this wasn’t a situation forced upon Hurst with little time to plan and rectify it. I accept that he’ll have been trying to get people in but when you’re struggling for numbers and as toothless as we are at times I’d expect something in at least even if it’s only third or fourth choice. He’s had three windows since promotion but our attacking options in the play-off final were significantly better both in quality and quantity than at any time since then. That is not good management.

I think we are about the same better in midfield less up front.

Quoted from jimgtfc

We’re better than last season, unfortunately so are 70% of the rest of League Two. I think it might take a couple of years of the bigger spenders going up before we can challenge for promotion.

100% this. We are much better in personel and in the approach and way we keep the ball. It's just a shame a couple of first teamers have long term injuries and a couple have niggles

Think over all we are not as good.. how many defenders played yesterday and how many free headers given away.. midfield same as last year so far . and dont mention strikers . Tell other teams who plays as striker for us  and they will say WHO.  Seems most teams can come up with strikers but us . Is that because anyone who has a clue does not want to play striker for us having to play from our 18 yard line because they have to be a defender as well

Midfield...
Conteh is an upgrade on Green and Morris.
Defense..
Rogers is an upgrade on Waterfall
Mullarkey is an upgrade on Efete.(defensively, juries out attacking wise)
Goalkeepers..
Eastwood and Cartwringht are upgrades on Max and Ollie.
Upfront...
Gnouhua, Eisa and Rose are better than anything last seasons squad gave us, I'm including Macatee be auss personally he disappointed me last season.
So all in all, yes we have an improved squad, but I'm still expecting nothing more than mid table due to the quality and budget of the teams that will sit above us.

Weird one on Mullarkey as I think he is very good going forward , especially carrying the ball which I think he is much better than Michee at ,as Michee's first thought is to pass backwards whereas TM's seems to be about attacking the other teams left hand side .

All about opinions though

We have 5 less points than this time last season
We have scored less goals than this time last season (8 v 10)
We have conceded more goals (5 v 8 )
We have won less games than this time last season (2 v 4)

If we are better it isn't very apparent is it ?

Quoted from mariner91

It’s spectacularly poor planning because we’ve played 8 league games already and we’re yet to have 2 fully fit strikers available. Injuries are bad luck and happen but if you only have three to start with then you’re always only two injuries/illness/suspension away from the bare bones. Furthermore both Wilson and Pyke were injured relatively early in pre-season so this wasn’t a situation forced upon Hurst with little time to plan and rectify it. I accept that he’ll have been trying to get people in but when you’re struggling for numbers and as toothless as we are at times I’d expect something in at least even if it’s only third or fourth choice. He’s had three windows since promotion but our attacking options in the play-off final were significantly better both in quality and quantity than at any time since then. That is not good management.

If we lose our first 2 CB's we have Waterfall and who? If we lose our first two goalkeepers, what do we have? If we lose Conte and Clifton, who have we got defensively? If we lose 2 rb's or 2 lb's what option do we have? 2 wingers? What do we have?

Ultimately, you're constrained by budget, and you cannot have too much quality as a third choice. Budget wise, we're probably already hit it. When everyone's fit, having great players outside the squad isn't a good thing.

Wilson was injured, but due back around now. Pyke was fit to deputise. Unfortunately we lost Rose for Saturday, which was a real kick in the balls. With Eisa gone too, it could not have been any more painful from an attacking sense.

When we have Khan battling Eisa and Gnahoua, and Wilson battling Rose for a place, and those players making an impact off the bench, this could be quite a different picture.

But looking into it. I'd say we have improvements in:


Morris -> Conte
Smith -> Rodgers
Cropper -> Mullarkey
Wearne -> Gnahoa
Taylor -> Wilson
Crocombe -> Eastwood
Ollie -> Cartwright

Out of our hands, but looking alright:

McAtee (last seasons on loan McAtee, that is) -> Eisa
Lloyd -> Rose
Scannell -> Vernam

Jury is still out on:

Orsi -> Pyke

Just going on defence smith a rolls royce if compared to maher same as rodgers to waterfall , is mullarkey better than michee ? left back continues to be an issue max or jake jury out on that as well at moment

Quoted from mariner91

It’s spectacularly poor planning because we’ve played 8 league games already and we’re yet to have 2 fully fit strikers available. Injuries are bad luck and happen but if you only have three to start with then you’re always only two injuries/illness/suspension away from the bare bones. Furthermore both Wilson and Pyke were injured relatively early in pre-season so this wasn’t a situation forced upon Hurst with little time to plan and rectify it. I accept that he’ll have been trying to get people in but when you’re struggling for numbers and as toothless as we are at times I’d expect something in at least even if it’s only third or fourth choice. He’s had three windows since promotion but our attacking options in the play-off final were significantly better both in quality and quantity than at any time since then. That is not good management.

I would suggest that not getting the strikers he wanted is just bad luck.

Quoted from fishcake63

Just going on defence smith a rolls royce if compared to maher same as rodgers to waterfall , is mullarkey better than michee ? left back continues to be an issue max or jake jury out on that as well at moment

Smith left, Rodgers came in.

You cannot compare Maher to Smith as he was here last season so isn't technically a replacement. Technical Rodgers replaced Smith. Maher displaced Waterfall.

Secondly, Smith is not our player. He is contracted to a bigger club, in a bigger league with a bigger budget. We have to ask if we loan a player off them. If Hurst loaned Smith twice, it's unlikely, he wouldn't want to do that again unless there was good reasons (budget or availability).

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

Do you know I'm not sure we are better. I can't imagine this team reaching the heights of last, think about how we played in the cup, and despite not being exhilarating in the league we still had a very respectable league position.

My gut feeling is that Hurst himself isn't too impressed either - so many times he talks about what he expects the players to do but they are seemingly not doing it. Yesterday he highlighted the quality of the crosses and lack of bodies in the box and not long ago mentioned the January window so I think we might see more changes than we first thought then.

I do agree the league is more competitive than ever but we keep saying we are not here to make the numbers up so we will have to find a way to combat that.

I don't think any Grimsby Town team within the next 50 years is likely to do that again. What happened last year was against the odds, which made it more special but you could have several improvements year on year and I don't think we could repeat that feat of knocking out 5 teams in higher divisions in a row. We'll also have to wait until the end of the season to compare league finishes. Even then I don't think that's always the ideal barometer of improvement. Conceding less and scoring more would be improvement, but can be skewed by improvements elsewhere in the league, the same can be said for more points. We may score more points, more goals, fewer conceded and still finish a couple of places below if the quality of the league has improved.

I agree on the Hurst front, but he's never fully impressed and rightly so. The original question was 'are we better than last season?', PH will be asking after every game whether we can be better still. He will constantly be looking for players who he believes are better than what we have already. It's his job to constantly want more and even if we were top and he could sit back and say 'I've done a good job here', that wouldn't be enough and that's how it should be.

Quoted from moosey_club

We have 5 less points than this time last season
We have scored less goals than this time last season (8 v 10)
We have conceded more goals (5 v 8 )
We have won less games than this time last season (2 v 4)

If we are better it isn't very apparent is it ?

Last season, apart from the first 2 games, we had a much easier start.  

1st L Orient 0-2
3rd D Northampton 1-1
24th W Rochdale 1-0
14th D Sutton 0-0
16th W Walsall 1-0
15th W Newport 2-0
17th D Gills 1-1
20th W Colchester 1-0

Quoted from bedders78

Last season, apart from the first 2 games, we had a much easier start.  

1st L Orient 0-2
3rd D Northampton 1-1
24th W Rochdale 1-0
14th D Sutton 0-0
16th W Walsall 1-0
15th W Newport 2-0
17th D Gills 1-1
20th W Colchester 1-0

On paper maybe, but Salford and Gillingham were shocking, Walsall and Wimbledon average when we played them and Wrexham have (had) a shocking defence. Bradford down to the bare bones and have had a poor start.

We were also supposed to have a better team this season, and still might with a fully fit squad but injuries being such an integral part of the game I don't put much store on that.

I don't see any easy games on the horizon so we might be in for a bumpy few weeks until the team gels, if it does.

“Gillingham were shocking”. They’re top of the table ffs, they can’t be that bad. Maybe, just maybe, we made them look bad that day?

Which I think highlights the issues with the team this year. Fully fit and firing, this team is better. But I don’t think the strength in depth has improved really. If we’re missing key individuals or those key individuals have an off day, the rest of the squad isn’t good enough to carry them.

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.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

On paper maybe, but Salford and Gillingham were shocking, Walsall and Wimbledon average when we played them and Wrexham have (had) a shocking defence. Bradford down to the bare bones and have had a poor start.

We were also supposed to have a better team this season, and still might with a fully fit squad but injuries being such an integral part of the game I don't put much store on that.

I don't see any easy games on the horizon so we might be in for a bumpy few weeks until the team gels, if it does.

In the next couple of months we play nearly all of the current bottom six who have lost 30 games + between them already and have only won  about 6  , I struggle to see how we have not got easier games and with our start would hope we go on a decent run .

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

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.

Totally agree we play noticeably differently this season. Disagree about us being likely to drop 4 1 4 1 for 4 3 3 etc, as others have said, because 4 1 4 1 suits conteh and he's very good in that position we are likely to persist with it.

Anyone watching sky footy tonight?

Interesting analysis of how to score goals using statistics. Brentford manager Thomas Franks showing they try to get players into opposition box and shoot.

How often do mariners get 3-4 players in opposition boxes.

I mentioned something like this yesterday as Leeds scored 3 goals on breakaway with three or so players n the box but got usual red cross. Hope it wasn’t PH who gave me my red cross!

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!

Interesting post.
In his incarnation Hurst seems keen on full backs pushing forward, last season we frequently had effete as a spare man pushing as forward as a winger. Glennon was an effective attacker from wing back and full back, getting numerous assists. In clifton and holohan We have central midfielders who are more athletic than creative. So I'd have thought option 1 was more likely?

Quoted from IlkleyMariner

Anyone watching sky footy tonight?

Interesting analysis of how to score goals using statistics. Brentford manager Thomas Franks showing they try to get players into opposition box and shoot.

How often do mariners get 3-4 players in opposition boxes.

I mentioned something like this yesterday as Leeds scored 3 goals on breakaway with three or so players n the box but got usual red cross. Hope it wasn’t PH who gave me my red cross!

Such a complicated game! Get bodies in the opposition box and shoot. I think I worked that out in 1971 when we had a squad of 14 , had a manager a coach and a physio and that was the total back room staff ,nobody had heard of sports science, data analysis or expected goals and the players had a ciggie at half time (or in Matt Tees case got his pipe out). Where did it all go wrong.!

Quoted from IlkleyMariner

Anyone watching sky footy tonight?

Interesting analysis of how to score goals using statistics. Brentford manager Thomas Franks showing they try to get players into opposition box and shoot.

How often do mariners get 3-4 players in opposition boxes.

I mentioned something like this yesterday as Leeds scored 3 goals on breakaway with three or so players n the box but got usual red cross. Hope it wasn’t PH who gave me my red cross!

Pretty much what I said the other day re Brighton beating Man U 3-1,  1st goal 3 in box, 2nd goal 4 in box and 3rd goal 5 in box, this from the away team.

Quoted from IlkleyMariner

Anyone watching sky footy tonight?

Interesting analysis of how to score goals using statistics. Brentford manager Thomas Franks showing they try to get players into opposition box and shoot.

How often do mariners get 3-4 players in opposition boxes.

I mentioned something like this yesterday as Leeds scored 3 goals on breakaway with three or so players n the box but got usual red cross. Hope it wasn’t PH who gave me my red cross!

You don't need stats to tell you that, surely?

We don't score enough goals for this very reason.

I have got to say so far I do find the Pyke signing a strange one ,not that  I see him as a bad player but to me he seems a player that is better with the ball in front of him rather than a back to goal striker .

He played 2 seasons as a right back/right wing back in league 1 and seemingly did really well .

You can only assume he signed with the promise of playing as a striker , maybe Hurst thinks he can mould him into the new Shop or something .

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

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.

Maybe , I think Khan is probably more effective down the middle than on the left , as I find him pretty predictable on the wing he just comes inside everytime . It will be interesting to see how he does because he needs to have a good season - he seems a bit of a journeyman type player who's had quite a few clubs already and never really had any length of time at a club  . If he is going to have any sort of career above league 2 (or maybe even just stay in it)  he needs a good year or 2 really or he will probably fade into the NL imo.

Quoted from toontown

Interesting post.
In his incarnation Hurst seems keen on full backs pushing forward, last season we frequently had effete as a spare man pushing as forward as a winger. Glennon was an effective attacker from wing back and full back, getting numerous assists. In clifton and holohan We have central midfielders who are more athletic than creative. So I'd have thought option 1 was more likely?

I agree that I think that was the original intention going into the season, but Glennon kept getting found out in those early games. I think Hurst has decided that having our full backs be the ones to get forward leaves us too exposed, and is therefore now looking for the midfielders to do that job instead - hence the signings of Andrews and Ainley. But I might be wrong!

What do Town need to improve?

Players to support the lone forward quicker and closer.

Wingers or overlapping wing backs who can actually cross a ball more accurately to one of our players, not into a goalie's hands, or too hard for players to chase.

An attacking version of Conteh.

Some fit forwards to give Hurst any form of player / formation choice for games.

A shoot on sight policy - Eisa has the right idea, just need him to stay fit !

A Rose clone - he can't do what he does for 90+ minutes in every game.

A regular No 10 player - that's the link between mids and strikers where things are breaking down, with no Taylor / McAtee style partnership forming.

Lloyd back in January if recovered / fit and allowed to come back on loan could be a solution. His mobility, harassing, aggression and odd few goals would dovetail into the current playing style.

We have more comfortable ball players this year, our passing and possession seem better, just a lack of a killing edge up front and poor wings service.

Quoted from Mappers

I have got to say so far I do find the Pyke signing a strange one ,not that  I see him as a bad player but to me he seems a player that is better with the ball in front of him rather than a back to goal striker .

He played 2 seasons as a right back/right wing back in league 1 and seemingly did really well .

You can only assume he signed with the promise of playing as a striker , maybe Hurst thinks he can mould him into the new Shop or something .

He has all the attributes of a player that should be tough to play against, he's obviously a pretty good footballer as he's played a lot of games in the division above and Shrews fans said he was a good player. Hurst has obviously brought him in as a bit of a gamble hoping he hit the ground running. Something you can't train is that nack of scoring goals and being in the right place at the right time. Podge had it to a T, he wasn't fast, wasn't tall, wasn't strong but he knew where to be and when. Saying that, if you told me after 10 games that Liam Hearn would go on to be one of the best strikers we'd had in the past 20 years i'd of told you to urine off.

Yes. We are.

100% we are.

Quoted from LocalLadGTFC

He has all the attributes of a player that should be tough to play against, he's obviously a pretty good footballer as he's played a lot of games in the division above and Shrews fans said he was a good player. Hurst has obviously brought him in as a bit of a gamble hoping he hit the ground running. Something you can't train is that nack of scoring goals and being in the right place at the right time. Podge had it to a T, he wasn't fast, wasn't tall, wasn't strong but he knew where to be and when. Saying that, if you told me after 10 games that Liam Hearn would go on to be one of the best strikers we'd had in the past 20 years i'd of told you to urine off.

I'm not sure about that, you could tell Liam was a proper player and once he scored, he'd explode.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Such a complicated game! Get bodies in the opposition box and shoot. I think I worked that out in 1971 when we had a squad of 14 , had a manager a coach and a physio and that was the total back room staff ,nobody had heard of sports science, data analysis or expected goals and the players had a ciggie at half time (or in Matt Tees case got his pipe out). Where did it all go wrong.!

The past is a different country, they do things differently there. I think that was part of our previous owners issue and look where that got us. It can be understandable to hark back to the past when we were young but time moves on, for better or worse and that perspective is partly driven by our age.

While watching some performances has been hugely frustrating I’m not yet ready to discount some of the best moments I’ve had over the past two seasons in fifty plus years of following the team. I don’t think all is yet lost and the return of some of our more attacking players may yet change the dynamic of our performances and in summary I think we are better placed now than compared to last season.

We've just given 18 year old Gardner a 3-year contract, so were certainly moving in the right direction.

Quoted from RonMariner

Yes. We are.

No, not on that showing.

What ever is better is not winning games  so how can we be better . Or are we waiting once again for the next window  next season etc... Hurst out now

On this evidence no where near

Quoted from DB

We've just given 18 year old Gardner a 3-year contract, so were certainly moving in the right direction.

What on earth has that got to do with being better?

Starting to come to the opinion that we are no better than last season, despite having some players that are better than we had last year.

Quoted from Tommy

Starting to come to the opinion that we are no better than last season, despite having some players that are better than we had last year.

We used to have a keeper who wasn’t afraid to catch a ball for starters.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

What on earth has that got to do with being better?

At one time none of the youth got a contract when they were 18, so it has to be better. He's also been on the bench. Going back over the years we nearly built a team on youth players so it has to be good for the future.

1Crocombe
26 Smith
6Waterfall
31Maher
7Emmanuel
8Holohan
16Hunt
3Driscoll-Glennon
15Clifton
10McAtee
9Lloyd

Sorry but I’d rather have this team than the one we have now.

Last season we would not have caved like we did today.

Like i have said before i dont think we are any better  but the way hurst sets us up is dire  and he has wasted nearly a million to play like we do . The buck stops with him  

Quoted from davmariner

1Crocombe
26 Smith
6Waterfall
31Maher
7Emmanuel
8Holohan
16Hunt
3Driscoll-Glennon
15Clifton
10McAtee
9Lloyd

Sorry but I’d rather have this team than the one we have now.

Better as individuals yes.

But somehow the team is less than the sum of its parts. Especially up front where  we are utterly toothless.

Overall we somehow seem to have gone backwards from last year despite a massive budget increase....

Quoted from toontown

Better as individuals yes.

But somehow the team is less than the sum of its parts. Especially up front where  we are utterly toothless.

Overall we somehow seem to have gone backwards from last year despite a massive budget increase....

The worry is if 'the going get's tough ' we no longer have the characters to go into the trenches .

I think Eastwood has done ok in general , but when Crocombe left I had the expectation of a ready made high end keeper , rather than a work in progress .

It seems like up top we made the same as normal mistake  ,of letting Orsi go when Hurst thought we could get better , before we actually signed anyone so we have ended up with a striker who has played the last 2 seasons as a right back  who IMO is obviously worse than Orsi.

The frustration is that we’ve had decent spells in most games until yesterday. Even though we took a two goal lead, Crawley looked a greater threat with a striker that we deemed to be not good enough. Nothing against Gav but he’s not a superstar and when he’s comfortably your most effective midfielder then you’ve got a problem.

Crawley got about Conteh and he couldn’t boss the game. That then exposed Clifton and the midfield options off the bench (Andrews and Ainley) didn’t/couldn’t affect the game. That then leads to questions about Hunt and Khouri- what the f*** is going on?

Quoted from toontown

Better as individuals yes.

But somehow the team is less than the sum of its parts. Especially up front where  we are utterly toothless.

Overall we somehow seem to have gone backwards from last year despite a massive budget increase....

If there is a significant increase in budget where has it gone?

Eastwood - surely not on significantly more in wages than Crocombe given that he’s not played that much football considering his age?
Mullarkey - has had half a season in the FL during which he was relegated. Again surely not on a huge wage?
Rodgers - quality signing from a higher division, can understand if he’s on a good wage.
Conteh - good signing but he’s very young. Again surely not a huge wage.
Eisa - good player but injury prone the last two seasons so that could lower what he’s able to command in wages.
Gnahoua - signed late in the window so also maybe not on huge wages.
Vernam - hit and miss player that did nothing last season. Has some good spells in this division but also has periods where he’s anonymous for multiple games which we’ve seen first hand. I worry that with a three year deal he’s possibly on far more money than a player of his consistency should be.
Ainley - signed after the window closed so surely not on huge wages as he’d have been more desperate than we were.
Rose - proven striker at our level, presumably on a good wage and that’s fine.
Wilson - can’t judge him as a signing yet.
Pyke - a 26 year old “striker” with less than five goals in the FL who has inexplicably been signed as our number 9. I’d sincerely hope that he isn’t on a big wage.

So other than Rodgers and Rose the rest of the players either due to inexperience, timing (out of contract well in to the season) or injury history surely can’t be on huge wages? So that begs the question; is the budget that much better/competitive or has Hurst seemingly squandered it with a squad that is still lacking in some crucial areas?

Biggest budget he Hurst will probably get and he’s taken us backwards.

No we are not better than last season but everything is just so difficult to call, in football in general but particularly Hurst.

I remember saying after the first game I didn't think we would concede many, but now we are leaking goals for fun. I thought we might be in for a season of cast iron defence and allow our technically better players to win us games, but that hasn't happened.

We had 2 defensive midfielders in that first game which made it difficult to mount attacks so we were calling for just one, and now we have we are wide open and still find it difficult to mount sustained attacks and our set pieces are poor.

I don't envy Hurst in having to try to sort it out but I think a lot of teams look better drilled in whatever style they choose, they seem to dictate games better when using subs and changing formation within games, where we tend to struggle in those areas.

Hurst being Hurst will probably bring a rabbit out of the hat with an unexpected win, but things just don't feel right to me.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

No we are not better than last season but everything is just so difficult to call, in football in general but particularly Hurst.

I remember saying after the first game I didn't think we would concede many, but now we are leaking goals for fun. I thought we might be in for a season of cast iron defence and allow our technically better players to win us games, but that hasn't happened.

We had 2 defensive midfielders in that first game which made it difficult to mount attacks so we were calling for just one, and now we have we are wide open and still find it difficult to mount sustained attacks and our set pieces are poor.

I don't envy Hurst in having to try to sort it out but I think a lot of teams look better drilled in whatever style they choose, they seem to dictate games better when using subs and changing formation within games, where we tend to struggle in those areas.

Hurst being Hurst will probably bring a rabbit out of the hat with an unexpected win, but things just don't feel right to me.

Even when we dominate (first half at Bradford for example), we don’t create enough. Even yesterday our chances were created by individual brilliance or poor Crawley defending. Not from decent team play.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Even when we dominate (first half at Bradford for example), we don’t create enough. Even yesterday our chances were created by individual brilliance or poor Crawley defending. Not from decent team play.

This. So many of our goals come from loose balls, lucky bounces or great individual play from Eisa. We create very little from team moves.

Oh, and Pyke looks a notable downgrade on Orsi

Some better players as individuals but as a team definitely not. We are slow, ponderous and create very little. We are conceding bad goals at a rate you would never expect from a Paul Hurst team and we don't appear to have the spirit or determination of last year's squad either. This team does not excite me and I don't have any sort of anticipation when I watch them. I think I got out of my seat twice during yesterday's match. One to applaud the brilliant second goal (1 stroke of genius) and once when in the second half and we were clear through with just the keeper to be beat but put in the tamest, most feeble shot you could imagine straight at him.
We are dull, boring and predictable. Just not fun to watch.

Quoted from mariner91

If there is a significant increase in budget where has it gone?

Eastwood - surely not on significantly more in wages than Crocombe given that he’s not played that much football considering his age?
Mullarkey - has had half a season in the FL during which he was relegated. Again surely not on a huge wage?
Rodgers - quality signing from a higher division, can understand if he’s on a good wage.
Conteh - good signing but he’s very young. Again surely not a huge wage.
Eisa - good player but injury prone the last two seasons so that could lower what he’s able to command in wages.
Gnahoua - signed late in the window so also maybe not on huge wages.
Vernam - hit and miss player that did nothing last season. Has some good spells in this division but also has periods where he’s anonymous for multiple games which we’ve seen first hand. I worry that with a three year deal he’s possibly on far more money than a player of his consistency should be.
Ainley - signed after the window closed so surely not on huge wages as he’d have been more desperate than we were.
Rose - proven striker at our level, presumably on a good wage and that’s fine.
Wilson - can’t judge him as a signing yet.
Pyke - a 26 year old “striker” with less than five goals in the FL who has inexplicably been signed as our number 9. I’d sincerely hope that he isn’t on a big wage.

So other than Rodgers and Rose the rest of the players either due to inexperience, timing (out of contract well in to the season) or injury history surely can’t be on huge wages? So that begs the question; is the budget that much better/competitive or has Hurst seemingly squandered it with a squad that is still lacking in some crucial areas?

Yeah there is a significant increase in budget, we signed numerous players for fees, early in pre season  and in a number of cases from a higher level.

Conteh ain't dropping from the championship for peanuts mate, even fringe players in the championship will be on good money. And fair enough he's on a 3 year deal and looks the business.

Vernam was someone we'd chased for ages, paid a fee for and signed from a higher level, on a 3 year deal, he will be on a good whack. It's not looking good at the moment for that being great business, but yeah he will be on v high wages for us I suspect.

Mularkey again was someone we had chased for a while and paid a fee for, he will be on much more money compared to Jordan cropper who he replaced.

There was other players who we paid a fee for too, can't remember them all, and we persuaded loads of players to sign for us early invthe window. To do that you have to convince them your offering a good deal and there is no need to wait and see if they get a better offer. That's something we haven't been able to do until this season, but this year we had the money to do it.

Then if there is a significant increase in the budget it appears so far to have been poorly spent. No improvement in goal, still don’t have a good left back, right back isn’t loads better, short on quantity and quality up front; little to no flair, creativity or quality on the ball in the middle of midfield, no strength in depth at all and we’re still chronically lacking in pace throughout the squad.

What is concerning is the lack of team spirit on the pitch, when compared to our promotion season. There doesn't seem to be a leader in the team and the captain appears to be a role for choosing heads or tails.

In the promotion season, the players seem to want to play for each other and some shattered at the end of the game. Not anymore, lack of effort, lack of skill and no gelling on the park after these opening games. Injuries, yes we have some, but all teams do, and that's when you expect others to step up to the mark to want a 1st place. We were totally let down by motivation and enthusiasm yesterday, summed up by a demure interview by Hurst who just seemed downcast with no apology for the display from squad he picked.

Hurst out, not for me as he turned a bad spell round before but don't play Pyke.

As admitted by the board we have a bigger budget compared to last season but is there a marked improvement apart from Eisa ? I'm not sure.

Still early days but imo can't see a major improvement all over the team.