I know some has been said already about this but here are my thoughts.

I think this is a huge myth. I don't see how hurst tinkers or dabbles about with the team anymore than most managers. He makes personnel changes that are necessary due to injury or suspension with the odd tactical (or other due to information we are not aware of) change.

From quickly looking at our team-sheets (so may not be 100percent accurate) For the last last ten games hurst has made four unforced changes. Disley in for paddy for the Lincoln game. Doig for bignot at Halifax. Parslow for Doig at kiddy And Oates in for Disley for the chester game. Not exactly wholesale changes as led to believe.

All the other changes are because of injuries or Boyce going back to his parent club

In terms of the change of tactics- changing from a 442....433/451.....4-3-1-2 . I personally think this is a good thing. The ability to change systems with pretty much the same starting 11 to give us other options. It's a plan B and C. If we couldn't change systems like the last few years we would become too predictable ..... Which is exactly what we became in the second half of the last few seasons. Burnley are getting criticised on the BBC today for not having a plan B. We get criticised for having one and using it at our managers discretion.

To be fair to Hurst he has had a few injuries to contend with,

As long as he does not drop Clay for Disley again,

I think he knows what his best side is,

If they all can stay fit.

Quoted from grimsby pete

To be fair to Hurst he has had a few injuries to contend with,

As long as he does not drop Clay for Disley again,

I think he knows what his best side is,

If they all can stay fit.

Could be wrong but am pretty certain clay was carrying a knock when that happened and deemed not fit to start.

Quoted from 3610

Could be wrong but am pretty certain clay was carrying a knock when that happened and deemed not fit to start.

I think you are right, Clay was on the bench not 100%.

I seem to remember Clay coming on as a sub but not sure.

I'd argue that the majority of the discontent with the tinkering was due to the nature of it rather than the actual tinkering itself. Playing players out of position ahead of others and certainly the lack of trust in two YTs who have proved themselves capable to many fans.

The OP makes comment about a Plan B, I don't actually see hursts tinkering as a Plan B, actually just alternative formations to set up based on the opposition which winds me up, because after all, we are Grimsby Town, and we are better than Dover and Nuneaton and we shouldnt worry about their players but mainly the strengths of our own. The lack of Plan B during games can be frustrating, there are times when we don't look like creating a chance and its left until the last ten mins to make a change.

All this said, his recent 'tinkerings' have proved fruitful, bringing on Oates at Kidderminster turned out to be a master-stroke for example. I think he is tactically capable, I just still see the same stubbornness that existed between him and RS over the previous couple of seasons, which I believe have cost us promotion and could again.

Quoted from Codswede

I'd argue that the majority of the discontent with the tinkering was due to the nature of it rather than the actual tinkering itself. Playing players out of position ahead of others and certainly the lack of trust in two YTs who have proved themselves capable to many fans.

The OP makes comment about a Plan B, I don't actually see hursts tinkering as a Plan B, actually just alternative formations to set up based on the opposition which winds me up, because after all, we are Grimsby Town, and we are better than Dover and Nuneaton and we shouldnt worry about their players but mainly the strengths of our own. The lack of Plan B during games can be frustrating, there are times when we don't look like creating a chance and its left until the last ten mins to make a change.

All this said, his recent 'tinkerings' have proved fruitful, bringing on Oates at Kidderminster turned out to be a master-stroke for example. I think he is tactically capable, I just still see the same stubbornness that existed between him and RS over the previous couple of seasons, which I believe have cost us promotion and could again.

Interesting points.

'The playing of certain players out of position over others'.....  Does this actually happen that often?

In terms of playing different systems to only nullify the opposition, I would be interested to know where did this originally come from? A direct quote from hurst? 'We are changing tactics completely because we are worried about Dover?' Or is it just assumed that if we change tactics against a team it's only to nullify them and not to focus on their weak points?

I would also say that trust in the youth team players is another subject completely.

There is sense in tinkering when you have to play certain teams that play a certain way. Broadly speaking there are a few teams that play what we would call football and a lot more who play sky ball. You have to adapt to both and in that respect Hurst is getting better. Horses for courses I think is the saying. My complaint is that he hasn't got the right players up front but stubbornly believes that he has, and he is too slow (or frightened?)  to change tactics and players during a game.

Oh, and nobody seems able to take a decent dead ball kick.

I'm so grateful it's not just me.
Thankyou salford !

Ok you can over-tinker but there's nothing wrong with mass tinkering if you win.
The weaker team you can field to get that win the better.
No point in using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (just so long as you DO crack it with a smaller hammer)
This is why it's a brave managerial call.

Seasons ago (especially in the Trophy) most suggested I was off my rocker for wanting to play an understrength team in the early rounds.

The fact that the team often won and progressed seemed to make little difference to opinion - i.e. it was tinkering so it was wrong...

What we're facing tomorrow is a question of whether to stick to the one size fits all "never change a winning team" myth.
Or e.g. bring in LJL.
As for Disley, it would be a very brave call but the fact he's already got a few games under his belt won't do him any harm.
The alternative is to leave him (and Paddy?) out all season - is this really utlilizing the entire squad to give us the best chance ?  ??)

Whatever happens, I just hope people will wait for the end result before they start protesting while also appreciating it's a marathon and not just all about the next game.

I find it impossible to believe the same 11 players can play every game until the end of the season without the odd break here and there.
The fact Hurst has already started subbing Neilson (quite rightly when you're ahead), may suggest it's already a concern long term.

It's also about picking the right players for different situations and keeping/getting those not involved match fit in the case we pick up injuries and they need to come in anyway.

Quoted from Codswede

actually just alternative formations to set up based on the opposition which winds me up, because after all, we are Grimsby Town, and we are better than Dover and Nuneaton

With 8 players out injured, I'm not so sure there's that much in it !
It's alright fans saying Hurst should "go for it" every time, but it's not their head on the chopping block if he ignores the opposition's strengths and we lose and end up in a state of mass protest.
Yes I know draws are little comfort but I can forgive him when we had our chances to win but players just didn't take them.

I agree with the OP. There's also the myth of him having "favourites" who are undroppable. I think Disley has played fewer games than any of the other centre mids but every time he does get a game someone says he's picking his favourites again.

What a great point !  :)

Nothing wrong with changing personnel and players, as well as formations. I just don't think he is very astute at it.  I also think that he is very slow to make changes and never to my knowledge has made a change at half time. Think ljl  should have been on sooner on Saturday for instance. Get the feeling he is 're-active rather than active.

Then again, I'm a joiner, so what the hell do I know?

If a manager isn't "tinkering" with his team he isn't doing his job, surely?

I also think he's a little slow to make some changes too.
But in his defence, if you react too quickly and it goes wrong, you look like completely clueless.

One that I vaguely remember is the Kiddy one where he admitted post match he was thinking about changing things sooner but said sometimes you've got to allow the game to settle down. (or words to that effect)

What's been more a concern for me over past seasons is the slow starts.
I hope we can continue to get on the front foot from the off more often than not.

Quoted from 137

If a manager isn't "tinkering" with his team he isn't doing his job, surely?

Exactly - team picks itself after a win ? I think not...

A lot of really good points in this thread.

I bet Paul has a really good laugh when he reads this thread,

AND

We know he does. :)

Quoted from ginnywings

Nothing wrong with changing personnel and players, as well as formations. I just don't think he is very astute at it.  I also think that he is very slow to make changes and never to my knowledge has made a change at half time. Think ljl  should have been on sooner on Saturday for instance. Get the feeling he is 're-active rather than active.

Then again, I'm a joiner, so what the hell do I know?

You may be able to advise him on draws ;)

Quoted from 3610

Interesting points.

'The playing of certain players out of position over others'.....  Does this actually happen that often?

In terms of playing different systems to only nullify the opposition, I would be interested to know where did this originally come from? A direct quote from hurst? 'We are changing tactics completely because we are worried about Dover?' Or is it just assumed that if we change tactics against a team it's only to nullify them and not to focus on their weak points?

I would also say that trust in the youth team players is another subject completely.

Excellent point IMO

Quoted from ginnywings

I just don't think he is very astute at it.  

If that's your opinion then fair enough- no arguing with that.  I just find it very hard to come to that conclusion on something that isn't measurable in anyway.

If you make changes and you win. It doesn't mean those changes were the right ones.

If you make changes and lose. It doesn't mean those changes were the wrong ones.

There is no real way of telling for sure one way or another. We may have won or lost by more without any changes?!

Interesting how you think he is re active- when many people believe he is a 'tinkerer' which would suggest he is over 'pro active' in their eyes! All about opinions!

Quoted from ginnywings

Nothing wrong with changing personnel and players, as well as formations. I just don't think he is very astute at it.  I also think that he is very slow to make changes and never to my knowledge has made a change at half time. Think ljl  should have been on sooner on Saturday for instance. Get the feeling he is 're-active rather than active.

Then again, I'm a joiner, so what the hell do I know?

We said the same. Oates had gone before the hour mark....

Quoted from ginnywings

Nothing wrong with changing personnel and players, as well as formations. I just don't think he is very astute at it.  I also think that he is very slow to make changes and never to my knowledge has made a change at half time. Think ljl  should have been on sooner on Saturday for instance. Get the feeling he is 're-active rather than active.

Then again, I'm a joiner, so what the hell do I know?

On the same wave length as you . Slow to change , Oaks was running on empty on 60 mins . Regarding the formations of 4 5 1 0r 4 4 2 or 4 3 3 . It was mentioned on tv that even in the premier it takes them , who are better quality and more skillful than us, a few games to get accustomed to that particular style

Then again I'm old and don't know what I'm on about !

Quoted from ginnywings

Nothing wrong with changing personnel and players, as well as formations. I just don't think he is very astute at it.  I also think that he is very slow to make changes and never to my knowledge has made a change at half time. Think ljl  should have been on sooner on Saturday for instance. Get the feeling he is 're-active rather than active.

Then again, I'm a joiner, so what the hell do I know?

Totally agree with the OP but this is a very valid point, it often frustrates me when players who look exhausted have to play on until the 70th minute or when we're losing and the changes aren't made until the 65th minute, often 10 minutes too late.

Perhaps the point being missed about Oates is he hadn't had a lot of game time and needed mins under his belt.
So still think Hurst did the right thing keeping him on for a bit longer, giving him a good blow out.
Hopefully it will have done him the world of good and he will strip fitter in the future.

That is a good point. The only way Oates is going to gain fitness and experience/knowledge is to get game time under his belt and we need him to do that to get the best out of him. That said, I think it's almost a dead cert that he will be replaced by LJL on Tuesday (seems to be a consensus that this is what we should do too) and will have to be content with coming off the bench. I think, if you see Oates coming on as a sub at 60 - 70 mins or so, you'd have some confidence that he could score a goal or cause problems for tiring defenders, especially big, slow-turning types like Macdonald.

Quoted from barralad

We said the same. Oates had gone before the hour mark....

True but the game was won, the lad needs minutes on the pitch to get fit and Lenny was coming back from an injury, it wasnt an urgent situation.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

True but the game was won, the lad needs minutes on the pitch to get fit and Lenny was coming back from an injury, it wasnt an urgent situation.

Agree, different if we were losing

Quoted from chaos33

That is a good point. The only way Oates is going to gain fitness and experience/knowledge is to get game time under his belt and we need him to do that to get the best out of him. That said, I think it's almost a dead cert that he will be replaced by LJL on Tuesday (seems to be a consensus that this is what we should do too) and will have to be content with coming off the bench. I think, if you see Oates coming on as a sub at 60 - 70 mins or so, you'd have some confidence that he could score a goal or cause problems for tiring defenders, especially big, slow-turning types like Macdonald.

Good points in return !

Have to say I don't think it would necessarily be so terrible to see the same lineup.
What I'm wondering is whether LJL is the type of player who could change a game.
On the one hand he's big so maybe this constitutes a "Plan B".
On the other, he's not what you'd call a "grab you a goal" player per se. (though judging by when he came on Sat looked unlucky)

I suppose Oates has certainly fitted into the "change a game" category though.

Quoted from Garth

You may be able to advise him on draws ;)

.......or dovetailing a team together!

This thread is getting plane daft.

I thought you wood chip in Pete.
Can we please stick to the joint ?

Talking about tinkering.
We had Hannah & Oates up front on Saturday and won at a canter playing some great stuff on the deck. So Hurst "tinkers" and drops Oates and sticks in LJL thus changing the whole dynamic of the way we played tonight.
It was easy for Big Mac to mop up everything that was lobed into LJL tonight.
Why change a winning team???????????????????

Oates did pretty much nothing on Saturday so a change was understandable.

The difference was that Chester weren't up and at 'em in the same way as Southport tonight and, of course, the rest of our players weren't simply awful on Saturday as they were tonight.

Quoted from Maringer

Oates did pretty much nothing on Saturday so a change was understandable.

The difference was that Chester weren't up and at 'em in the same way as Southport tonight and, of course, the rest of our players weren't simply awful on Saturday as they were tonight.

If you read my post you will see Im saying that we played the ball on the deck with Oates and Hannah and did very well with that system so why change??????????.
Sticking LJL in (not criticising LJL)  changes the whole way we played from Saturday but you will never agree being a Hurst apologist.

I'm not apologising for Hurst or his choices, I'm pointing out that Oates did nothing at all on Saturday so expecting him to keep his place doesn't make sense. The way our midfield played (or didn't play) tonight, I think we would have been hoofing it aimlessly regardless of who was up front. LJL was definitely out of sorts and got absolutely no change from their big No. 5 (who played better than McDonald), so I shudder to think how young Oates would have done had he started. When Oates did come on, we continued to punt it forward which was food and drink to their 3 central defenders.

The idea that we only punted because LJL was on the pitch doesn't really hold true because in our better performances and results with LJL in the team, we have passed the ball well and played some good football. The punting tonight was a reflection of the bad performance, not the only cause of it.

Quoted from Maringer

I'm not apologising for Hurst or his choices, I'm pointing out that Oates did nothing at all on Saturday so expecting him to keep his place doesn't make sense. The way our midfield played (or didn't play) tonight, I think we would have been hoofing it aimlessly regardless of who was up front. LJL was definitely out of sorts and got absolutely no change from their big No. 5 (who played better than McDonald), so I shudder to think how young Oates would have done had he started. When Oates did come on, we continued to punt it forward which was food and drink to their 3 central defenders.

The idea that we only punted because LJL was on the pitch doesn't really hold true because in our better performances and results with LJL in the team, we have passed the ball well and played some good football. The punting tonight was a reflection of the bad performance, not the only cause of it.

Who decides the tactics, the players on the pitch or the manager?  If it's the players then why do we need a manager?  If it's the manager, he keeps getting it wrong.  

We had no joy in the air tonight, a fair point.
But equally we played it on the deck a fair bit too I thought, we just couldn't unlock them.
If Oates was the reason perhaps things would have been different when he came on as sub.
Suffice to say it wasn't.

Do you really think the manager told the players to go out and punt it forward towards their 3 giant centre-backs, because I certainly don't. The buck stops with the manager but tonight the fault was mostly with the players.

Pretty much every time we attempted to pass the ball around, we struggled tonight due to inaccuracy, poor movement and overall poor performances. The midfield was hopeless tonight. Was it any surprise that the defenders, especially, ended up punting it forward all too often? I lost count of the times we lost possession through simple passes going straight into touch or the ball just being kicked straight to the opposition.

I just hope that we can put this game behind us quickly as I really didn't expect we could play as poorly as that at home against one of the weaker teams in the division.

Quoted from Maringer

I'm not apologising for Hurst or his choices, I'm pointing out that Oates did nothing at all on Saturday so expecting him to keep his place doesn't make sense. The way our midfield played (or didn't play) tonight, I think we would have been hoofing it aimlessly regardless of who was up front. LJL was definitely out of sorts and got absolutely no change from their big No. 5 (who played better than McDonald), so I shudder to think how young Oates would have done had he started. When Oates did come on, we continued to punt it forward which was food and drink to their 3 central defenders.

The idea that we only punted because LJL was on the pitch doesn't really hold true because in our better performances and results with LJL in the team, we have passed the ball well and played some good football. The punting tonight was a reflection of the bad performance, not the only cause of it.

You are a Hurst apologist.
Hope you happy together at the end of the season when we are still in this excrement league.

Quoted from TAGG

You are a Hurst apologist.
Hope you happy together at the end of the season when we are still in this excrement league.

Oh, grow up.

I'm stating that I understand many of the choices made by the manager because they are sensible. Are they working? Not all the time, no.

I've stated in the Stick or Twist thread that I'm not a fan of sacking managers in mid-season, let alone less than 2 months into the season. Getting a new manager in at this point is much more likely to be a failure than a success so that's my viewpoint. There aren't exactly a lot of talented and successful managers available willing to come to a non-league club at this time of the year either, are there?

I think we're good enough to reach the play-offs and I think we will. Hope we ultimately play well enough to win promotion if we get there.

Quoted from Maringer

Oh, grow up.

I'm stating that I understand many of the choices made by the manager because they are sensible. Are they working? Not all the time, no.

I've stated in the Stick or Twist thread that I'm not a fan of sacking managers in mid-season, let alone less than 2 months into the season. Getting a new manager in at this point is much more likely to be a failure than a success so that's my viewpoint. There aren't exactly a lot of talented and successful managers available willing to come to a non-league club at this time of the year either, are there?

I think we're good enough to reach the play-offs and I think we will. Hope we ultimately play well enough to win promotion if we get there.

"good enough to reach the play-offs" ye maybe so but not with Hurst in charge.
Its not "mid-season" only the first quarter so there is plenty of time to turn us into a promotion team if Fenty pulls his finger out and sacks this idiot.
I dont know what managers are out there.
You keep supporting him and be happy when we are still in this excrement hole getting 2000 attendances at the end of the season.

Quoted from Maringer

I'm not apologising for Hurst or his choices, I'm pointing out that Oates did nothing at all on Saturday so expecting him to keep his place doesn't make sense. The way our midfield played (or didn't play) tonight, I think we would have been hoofing it aimlessly regardless of who was up front. LJL was definitely out of sorts and got absolutely no change from their big No. 5 (who played better than McDonald), so I shudder to think how young Oates would have done had he started. When Oates did come on, we continued to punt it forward which was food and drink to their 3 central defenders.

The idea that we only punted because LJL was on the pitch doesn't really hold true because in our better performances and results with LJL in the team, we have passed the ball well and played some good football. The punting tonight was a reflection of the bad performance, not the only cause of it.

That's never stopped him continuing to play LJL when he has been crap, just as he was tonight, so it will be interesting to see if he starts with LJL on Saturday.

Hurst had to play LJL. He's bigger, stronger, fitter and more experienced than Oates and putting him in was the right move.

My gripe is that after LJL and Hannah, neither of whom look like scoring regularly, the cupboard is bare. We have no forward options in the squad and that is squarely the fault of Hurst.

If you base your attack around LJL, you're asking for trouble unless you have a very prolific striker alongside him. Once again, we have no-one threatening the scoring charts.

Cue someone saying that it doesn't matter who scores. The others aint scoring regularly either.

There is a mindset in the players. Given time to play and a charitable side that doesn't pressure them in midfield like Chester, they will play the ball around on the floor. Even then the back 4 is always anxious to by-pass midfield and bang the ball into the channels. There are times when the ghost of Mike Lyons is at work because this was his one and only tactic. Chase the ball down and force an error.

Hurst is afraid. You don't have to be Mystic Meg to realise that. He says or implies to players to pass and move if they have time, otherwise play it safe. When he puts LJL in the team that naturally encourages the tactic because he is such a physical asset.

A manager like Buckley would have been incandescent on the touchline, berating players for not doing what he told them and for not continuing to pass the opposition to death. Hurst doesn't know whether he wants them to excrement, shave or shower so his side is schizophrenic. They look clueless and they are clueless because they have no regular, disciplined way to play.

If Hurst wants to play up and under then he should sell Neillson, Brown, Clay, Arnold and co. and go buy Brodie again. Then buy a copy of the Mike Lyons coaching manual. It's cheap, just one page with big print that says "Hit the illegitimate into the corners".

Quoted from TAGG

You are a Hurst apologist.
Hope you happy together at the end of the season when we are still in this excrement league.

Yah! boo! sucks!  I can't think of a decent argument so I'll abuse you instead.... ;D

Quoted from ginnywings

My gripe is that after LJL and Hannah, neither of whom look like scoring regularly, the cupboard is bare. We have no forward options in the squad and that is squarely the fault of Hurst.

If you base your attack around LJL, you're asking for trouble unless you have a very prolific striker alongside him. Once again, we have no-one threatening the scoring charts.

I've defended Hurst quite a bit but there's very little argument against this.  :-/

A manager like Buckley would have been incandescent on the touchline, berating players for not doing what he told them and for not continuing to pass the opposition to death. Hurst doesn't know whether he wants them to excrement, shave or shower so his side is schizophrenic. They look clueless and they are clueless because they have no regular, disciplined way to play.

If Hurst wants to play up and under then he should sell Neillson, Brown, Clay, Arnold and co. and go buy Brodie again. Then buy a copy of the Mike Lyons coaching manual. It's cheap, just one page with big print that says "Hit the illegitimate into the corners".[/quote]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes AB would have been shouting and jumping up and down like a mad man .
All we have is PH and DM chatting . What imput does our assistant manager have ?
At times we looked like eleven individuals who were picked out of the stands , a bit harsh I know but still frustrated by if all , and its only October 1st .

Quote  I know but still frustrated by if all , and its only October 1st

Me too that match and display hurts like hell and it will take a while to recover