Just Back

Hurst gets accused of being negative. I think he tried to be far more positive on Saturday and it cost us. Moving Mullarkey inside and bringing in Glennon allowed us to play more attacking fullbacks and try not to sit as deep as we would have if Waterfall had played. Someone in this thread moaned about wingers being selected for there ability to track back and defend. If they thought that on Saturday they can't have been watching Khan very closely. I also think Conteh has played so well this season that he's covered us only having one in front of a back 4. He had an off game on Saturday and we looked wide open.

I think we've signed some good players this summer but I don't think we've found quite the right balance of a team yet. We started with two deep midfielders but didn't get anyone in the box. So then it's Clifton and Holohan which improves energy and getting bodies in the box but reduces our ability to use the ball as well. Mullarkey and Amos are solid defensively at full back but you're not going to get many overlapping runs.

I'm afraid Hunt has cooked his own goose. Hurst obviously wanted him to be an integral part of the team but after the umpteenth time of being sloppy in possession Hurst has had enough. He wasn't even trying difficult chance creating passes he kept losing possession in the middle of the pitch.

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

Hurst gets accused of being negative. I think he tried to be far more positive on Saturday and it cost us. Moving Mullarkey inside and bringing in Glennon allowed us to play more attacking fullbacks and try not to sit as deep as we would have if Waterfall had played. Someone in this thread moaned about wingers being selected for there ability to track back and defend. If they thought that on Saturday they can't have been watching Khan very closely. I also think Conteh has played so well this season that he's covered us only having one in front of a back 4. He had an off game on Saturday and we looked wide open.

I think we've signed some good players this summer but I don't think we've found quite the right balance of a team yet. We started with two deep midfielders but didn't get anyone in the box. So then it's Clifton and Holohan which improves energy and getting bodies in the box but reduces our ability to use the ball as well. Mullarkey and Amos are solid defensively at full back but you're not going to get many overlapping runs.

Agree. Think it's just something some fans revert to whenever we lose, "Hurst is too negative/Hurst is too cautious". I don't think we were at all on Saturday. We were crap, sure, but i don't think for one moment we tried to just sit back and defend.

I really like Clifton but he hasn't looked half as effective this season, so far anyway.  He did have a positive impact when he came on against Man City Under 21's, but they were also down to ten-men at that point too.

Lincoln Mariner nails it when he says that it's too similar in the middle of the park.  There isn't anyone who's going to unlock a team with a range of passing.  Conteh, Clifton and Holohan all have their roles to play in the team and they largely do them well.  But we can't just rely on energy and intensity.  

Since he signed permanently for us Hunt's best run of league games is four consecutive starts, which came just after he signed.  Since then his best is 3, which include the AFC Wimbledon double-header from last season into this one. so effectively 2 back-to-back games.

He hasn't quite hit the heights I expected when he did sign permanently, but the lad hasn't really had a fair crack of it has he?  It's almost Orsi like, Hurst signs a player and then just doesn't seem to want to give them a chance to succeed.

In Eisa we've got someone who can do something out of nothing from wide, but that's pretty much it across the whole team.  I like Gnahoua but he's very much someone who will continue to put a shift in rather than produce moments of magic, I would add he's getting better each week too.  Khan too is another I like and I'm pleased he's back, but I'd describe him more as a worker than someone who consistently creates something.  One guy out your midfield four/five who can do something isn't enough I'm afraid.  Even more so when we're playing with one up top.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I'm afraid Hunt has cooked his own goose. Hurst obviously wanted him to be an integral part of the team but after the umpteenth time of being sloppy in possession Hurst has had enough. He wasn't even trying difficult chance creating passes he kept losing possession in the middle of the pitch.

And I do get that.  I think in front of his own goal he can be a liability with the type of passes he tries.  It frustrates me that he does seem unable to do the simple things when needed.  But it begs the question, why the intercourse is Hurst using him as a defensive midfielder?  He isn't one.  Creative players take risks, so you let them do it in places on the pitch that will cause you the least harm yet also cause the most damage to the opposition.  His little passes round the corner and quick one-touches look nice when they come off when he's facing our centre-backs, but they're not gonna cause much damage. They do make us vulnerable when they don't come off, just because of the proximity to our own goal and the lack of players between it and the ball.  He does them further up the pitch and it just might create a chance for someone, if they don't come off...plenty of players in between the ball and our goal.  

Don't get me wrong, he needs to be worked on and coached on the when to try stuff. But unless I'm missing something in the squad, I'm not seeing an awful lot of creativity available.

Quoted from sam gy

Agree. Think it's just something some fans revert to whenever we lose, "Hurst is too negative/Hurst is too cautious". I don't think we were at all on Saturday. We were crap, sure, but i don't think for one moment we tried to just sit back and defend.

Y'see I do think he's too negative and cautious, but that's not saying I think he parks the bus and tries to defend. I think it's more that he won't be bold.

We were crap on Saturday, there's no two ways about that and the players should be as accountable as anyone for their roles in it.  But it was Hurst who persisted with the same lone striker system that was woeful for anything after 25 minutes.  Even when he brought Wilson on, he took Pyke off rather than going with a front two.  

I think as fans it's easy to want to see more attacking and fluid football.  On paper it looks easy, two flying wingers, two strikers and at least one midfielder who bombs on, oh and maybe overlapping full-backs too.  Realistically I don't think anyone is calling for that.  But we're just too steady for my liking for too long in games.  I really do like the high-press and intense possession that we're starting with in a lot of games, I think it's effective and also entertaining.  But we can't sustain it for long enough.  We either need an alternative option to see us through for the final 60 minutes of games or he has to be better with the use of his subs to continue it.

My frustration with Hurst's cautious approach is that he seems so reluctant to deviate from the approach that we have in the first minute of games.  Bit tired of seeing us batter teams early on in games, only for opposition managers to change it a little and we can't respond.

I don't think the formation lets Clifton show his best abilities, but his energy is missed if he isn't in there.

On the other hand, I've actually been quite impressed with the way Holohan has played in the past couple of home games - he's retained possession and moved the ball along well.

The problem on Saturday, wasn't so much the fact that the defence was re-jigged, it was that two of the defenders played poorly (Glennon and Mullarkey) and the other two had indifferent games. Also, Conteh was well out of sorts. I sort of felt sorry for Efete, as he piled up the line lots of time when we were only the attack, only for our midfield to lose possession so he found himself hopelessly out of position. I don't think he made too many mistakes himself, but Mullarkey was ropey, especially in the build up to their winner.

Whilst I don't think it's his best position, I think there's something about putting Clifton out wide.  

He naturally drifts in so it gives that energy and overload anyway, but it frees up a midfield slot for someone else too.

I've always felt he should be played inside as opposed to on the wing.  But I reckon, without checking any stats, that we're better when he's out wide than not.

Quoted from diehardmariner

And I do get that.  I think in front of his own goal he can be a liability with the type of passes he tries.  It frustrates me that he does seem unable to do the simple things when needed.  But it begs the question, why the intercourse is Hurst using him as a defensive midfielder?  He isn't one.  Creative players take risks, so you let them do it in places on the pitch that will cause you the least harm yet also cause the most damage to the opposition.  His little passes round the corner and quick one-touches look nice when they come off when he's facing our centre-backs, but they're not gonna cause much damage. They do make us vulnerable when they don't come off, just because of the proximity to our own goal and the lack of players between it and the ball.  He does them further up the pitch and it just might create a chance for someone, if they don't come off...plenty of players in between the ball and our goal.  

Don't get me wrong, he needs to be worked on and coached on the when to try stuff. But unless I'm missing something in the squad, I'm not seeing an awful lot of creativity available.

I agree with you. Why he has been played so deep is a question for Hurst. To be honest our Paul seems to like to challenge the players all the time instead of just playing them to their strengths.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Whilst I don't think it's his best position, I think there's something about putting Clifton out wide.  

He naturally drifts in so it gives that energy and overload anyway, but it frees up a midfield slot for someone else too.

I've always felt he should be played inside as opposed to on the wing.  But I reckon, without checking any stats, that we're better when he's out wide than not.

I agree with that as well. He is basically anonymous in the middle, and although not a winger he is very effective indeed out wide especially on the left.

I think I did mention this earlier in the season but posters naturally said well you can't move Eisa who is most effective on the left cutting in. I'm sure Clifton has played wide right a few times so I would play him there.