Print Topic - Archive

Fishy Forum  /  Archive  /  
Posted by: mimma, November 8, 2014, 5:21pm
After the 1st. 10 mins we were second best all over the park.

They were quicker than us, won every second ball, played it around with ease. We couldn't get near them.

IF we go up, then that's the pace we have to play every week. With the present squad we've got we will struggle.

Posted by: Hagrid, November 8, 2014, 5:25pm; Reply: 1
Yeah i would agree, we were poor today, all goals came from stupid errors, 1st a poor corner routine and caught on the break, 2nd clay gave it away and caught on the break, 3rd poor marking! Thought paddy looked good when he came on, oxford deserved their win, Utm on tuesday
Posted by: Chrisblor, November 8, 2014, 5:30pm; Reply: 2
The whole team had an off day (and we weren't helped by the awful, lop sided and ineffective formation Hurst had us playing in the first half). I don't think Oxford were particularly good - we just wasted possession thoroughout with bad passing and miscontrolled balls. Mackreth, Disley and Clay were all very poor. Pittman & Arnold looked like they had no idea where to play. LJL had one good run and shot which clattered the post, but was otherwise anonymous. The back 4 was disjointed and error prone. Just a terrible all round performance.

We looked marginally better with Neilson and McLoughlin in the team, but Hannah managed to get caught offside 3 times in his short cameo, so nothing has changed there.
Posted by: BIGChris, November 8, 2014, 5:32pm; Reply: 3
Fine lines.
If LJL's superb effort goes in rather than hitting the post, our confidence grows and they become jittery.

It didn't go in though and after conceding when we played a stupid short corner we were punished.

Oxford thoroughly deserved their victory, the number 16? in the defensive midfield role was superb.

Not too concerned with the defeat and would have swapped a defeat today for 3 points on Tuesday.

Important we don't get on the players or managers back. We went into the game on the back of 5 consecutive wins, one blip ( hopefully) against a side in the league above should not distract the manager players or fans from our main aim.

The 5 in midfield didn't work from the start because when we didn't have the ball Arnold or Pittman didn't do enough. Pittman looked more effective 2nd half when he went up alongside Lennie.

Pearson got the sponsors MOM. Not sure who I'd give it to? The Shop?

Put the FA Cup dream away and get your voices ready for Tuesday! GTFC needs you!
Posted by: The Old Codger, November 8, 2014, 5:33pm; Reply: 4
Normal cack whenever I go. Pearson at fault for first, Clay the second and multiple culprits for the third. I'd have had Mackreth as the worst till Hannah came on. Arnold and Pittman looked disinterested, Neilson probably MoM for his cameo.
Posted by: ginnywings, November 8, 2014, 5:34pm; Reply: 5
Wrong tactics for me. Tried to outfootball better footballers. A more up and at em, in their faces tactic would have been better. We looked physically bigger than them but gave them way too much time and space to play. Thought Macca could have done better with both the first goals and it was an all round damp squib of a game.

Think we don't get enough runners in the box to cause problems for teams. Often out numbered in forward situations with no options.

The better side won and they aren't even that good a side going on their league record. We just cannot sustain any concerted pressure.

Another BP disappointment.
Posted by: Maringer, November 8, 2014, 5:44pm; Reply: 6
They had more pace than us but, more importantly, they looked willing to put the effort and running in to close us down endlessly. We just sat back and it was a very poor performance from the midfield and the error-ridden defence.

It helped them a bit that the wind died down a good deal at half-time as we were really struggling to clear in the first half, but they always looked in control.

Just an off-day hopefully. Up to the players to put in a proper performance on Tuesday night now to get things back on track.
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 8, 2014, 5:47pm; Reply: 7
Quoted from The Old Codger
Normal cack whenever I go. Pearson at fault for first, Clay the second and multiple culprits for the third. I'd have had Mackreth as the worst till Hannah came on. Arnold and Pittman looked disinterested, Neilson probably MoM for his cameo.


Don't go on Tuesday then,

We need to win that one. ;)
Posted by: oldun, November 8, 2014, 5:52pm; Reply: 8
A comfortable win for Oxford, quicker and sharper all over the pitch attacked in numbers and at pace and our defence did not cope with their movement. If Lenny's superb effort early on goes in instead if smacking the post then it could have been game on. After the second went in then game over, maybe suspicion of an offside in the build up and yes on another day we might have had a penalty but Oxford were comfortable and worked hard and ended up deserved winners. The lad who scored the first two was making his debut and took his chances well. The big bald guy who played the defensive midfield role controlled things. We need to dust ourselves off and go again on Tuesday and hopefully get back to winning ways.
Posted by: fleabag1970, November 8, 2014, 6:32pm; Reply: 9
Beaten by the better team , it happens evry now and then .  Only complaint was the change of formation thinking we could match them ................ I suppose that was Paul Hurst not worrying too much about the oposition ? 8) Should have had at least one penno also
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 6:35pm; Reply: 10
Wasn't half as bad as the scoreline suggested IMO.

Was actually quite impressed again with some of our football 1st half.

Goals change games.
If Lenny's shot goes in, I really think we go on to win.

We started off what looked to me like 4-2-4.
Seemed to change to 4-3-3 as the game went on,
Then after the subs came on 2nd half, 4-4-2.

Listening to Hurst in the car on the way back, thought he was spot on !
Albeit a little harsh on himself/the team I thought, even if he made some excellent observations.

Was thinking myself players maybe stood off them too much and dropped a little bit too.
And yes perhaps Pearson should have showed him down the line (good point !).

But let's be honest, you could see Oxford's class in attack and it was a great 1st goal from their "highly rated" winger.
And the 2nd came when they hit us on the break. (looked offside to me !)
Add to that a shocking ref who didn't award a pen and gave us near zilch.

So all in all, yes there are 1 or 2 things here and there to look at.
(Will give my player thoughts in a bit.)

But for me, I remain confident for Tuesday.

No doubt in my mind we can win gain promotion.
If we didn't already know by now....
KEEP THE FAITH
Posted by: moosey_club, November 8, 2014, 6:38pm; Reply: 11
Quoted from The Old Codger
Normal cack whenever I go. Pearson at fault for first, Clay the second and multiple culprits for the third. I'd have had Mackreth as the worst till Hannah came on. Arnold and Pittman looked disinterested, Neilson probably MoM for his cameo.


Disagree.....we have been unable to deliver a set piece all season...today we tried a few short one's which didnt work either....this is training ground stuff that should have been identified and sorted by now, as bad as that corner was we still had them in the corner taking a throw in...Pitman IMO failed to a simple job of marking at that throw in giving them an easy out...yes Pearson could have maybe challenged earlier but that phase of play started at that throw in.

The lop sided, unbalanced and new formation didnt help at all either throughout the first half, its a shame Tondeur hasnt got the nuts to ask the questions as to why Hurst went with such a changed line up when we were on such a winning run.
Posted by: mariner tommy, November 8, 2014, 6:40pm; Reply: 12
80sglory--
Sorry to disagree with you but it was as bad as the scoreline suggests.
Several posters have summed it up spot on, read Maringer, ginnywings and oldun's posts.
That's the game I saw, not the one you have commented on.
I can honestly say I was not impressed with anything I saw today.
A very bad day at the office, best forgotten quickly.
Sorry.

UTM
Posted by: gobby, November 8, 2014, 6:42pm; Reply: 13
Better team on the day won. It did show where we are lacking but hopefully we will learn from it. Very disappointed with the Ref for showing LJL a yellow for simulation when from where we was sat it was one of the clearest penalties this season. But hey ho, some you get some you don't, roll on Tuesday. 8)
UTMM
Posted by: friskneymariner, November 8, 2014, 6:51pm; Reply: 14
Oxford were at their when we had a corner,Ilost count of the number of times they counterattacked from our corners.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 6:52pm; Reply: 15
Quoted from mariner tommy
80sglory--
Sorry to disagree with you but it was as bad as the scoreline suggests.

Sorry to disagree but I disagree.

Quoted from mariner tommy
Several posters have summed it up spot on, read Maringer, ginnywings and oldun's posts.

I will when I get round to it....
Only had a very quick glance at people's comments so far.
But from the very little I saw, Big Chris has it right about fine lines or whatever.

Posted by: ginnywings, November 8, 2014, 6:52pm; Reply: 16
The problem for me was that we thought we were a match for them and had the wrong mindset. Had we been playing a side where we were considered big underdogs, a Sheff Utd say, we would have approached it differently and closed them down more and generally battled more. Hoisted by our own petard.
Posted by: mariner tommy, November 8, 2014, 6:54pm; Reply: 17
Quoted from ginnywings
The problem for me was that we thought we were a match for them and had the wrong mindset. Had we been playing a side where we were considered big underdogs, a Sheff Utd say, we would have approached it differently and closed them down more and generally battled more. Hoisted by our own petard.


Spot on for me that, absolutely agree.
Posted by: Maringer, November 8, 2014, 7:04pm; Reply: 18
I don't know about thinking we were too good. Looked more of a case of a lot of the players not really being properly up for the game to me.

Just have to chalk it down to 'one of those days' I think.

One thing I will say is that a lot of our players seriously need to do something about their footwear. Too many of them were slipping and sliding around all game (something we often see) and I wonder if this was down to moulded boots or just studs that were too short?
Posted by: ginnywings, November 8, 2014, 7:13pm; Reply: 19
Quoted from Maringer
I don't know about thinking we were too good. Looked more of a case of a lot of the players not really being properly up for the game to me.

Just have to chalk it down to 'one of those days' I think.

One thing I will say is that a lot of our players seriously need to do something about their footwear. Too many of them were slipping and sliding around all game (something we often see) and I wonder if this was down to moulded boots or just studs that were too short?


Not too good but on a par with. Think that was the general consensus among the fans and looked like the players thought the same but they were just too quick in thought and deed.

Appleton saying they would play fringe players probably got our lot thinking " we'll show 'em". Hurst out thought imo.
Posted by: chaos33, November 8, 2014, 7:46pm; Reply: 20
Hard to disagree with that Ginny but as I didn't witness the performance my opinion doesn't really carry much weight. From listening to the game and reading the comments, I have to say I don't really understand Hurst's tactical approach or some of the positioning of players today.

Not bothered about being out of the cup, but if there really are concerns emerging from the performance and tactics then that makes me uncomfortable with today's outcome. It seems that many of those players wouldn't really have a case to complain if they were dropped on Tuesday. I want Hurst to go 4-3-1-2 or at least, the shape that brought rich rewards against Gateshead and Alfreton on Tuesday but I don't think he will. Why has he deviated from this? Genuine question.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 8:02pm; Reply: 21
Quoted from mariner tommy
read Maringer, ginnywings and oldun's posts.

Ok I have now... (except Maringer)

I agree with oldun.

I gave ginny a tick (for his 1st, not the 2nd)
However is he suggesting we run around at 110mph or treat it like the battle of Trafalgar (especially at 0-2) before a vital game on Tuesday ?
Not for me.
Whether it's Oxford, Sheff Utd or Barton Old Boys I personally couldn't give a toss.
That said, I don't think there was any massive amount of "lack of effort", they put a good enough shift in for me and gave it a good go.

If you ask me what we maybe SHOULD have done was defend more (i.e. see Hurst's comment regards 'defensive midfielder') then hit them on the counter with the crowd behind us.

But Hurst said he wanted to go positive.
And fair enough, I can understand why...

Yes "positivity" can be important but there's degrees of positivity and "risk-taking".

Yes it's worth throwing on subs with 20 mins to go at 0-0 if the game is there to be won.  
But you don't go to Man Utd and go 2-3-5 just cos you "believe".
If the answer to success was that simple, every team would already be doing it...

Quoted from mariner tommy
I can honestly say I was not impressed with anything I saw today.

I can - Oxford !

Quoted from mariner tommy

A very bad day at the office, best forgotten quickly.
Sorry.

No problem - I agree with you.
Posted by: diehardmariner, November 8, 2014, 8:09pm; Reply: 22
I've missed Ross Hannah and his one-man attempt to change the offside rule. Bless him.


By bless, I of course mean offload him asap.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 8:10pm; Reply: 23
Quoted from chaos33
Hard to disagree with that Ginny but as I didn't witness the performance my opinion doesn't really carry much weight. From listening to the game and reading the comments, I have to say I don't really understand Hurst's tactical approach or some of the positioning of players today.

Not bothered about being out of the cup, but if there really are concerns emerging from the performance and tactics then that makes me uncomfortable with today's outcome. It seems that many of those players wouldn't really have a case to complain if they were dropped on Tuesday. I want Hurst to go 4-3-1-2 or at least, the shape that brought rich rewards against Gateshead and Alfreton on Tuesday but I don't think he will. Why has he deviated from this? Genuine question.

What really suprises me is you're not even at the games and you're dishing out the advice as to what Hurst should be doing and what formation(s) he should go with.

In any case if fans are suggesting we go with 1 formation and just stick with it, I think it fails to take into account the opposition and our own personnel we decide to put out on the field.

For example I picked a weakened team and therefore picked a 5-3-2 / 3-4-1-2 formation to suit MY choice of players

Unfortunately "One size fits all" solutions don't work.
Posted by: jimgtfc, November 8, 2014, 8:14pm; Reply: 24
Like others have said bad day at the office, at least it means a game or 2 less to play, just need to ditch the fa trophy now as well and leave a clean run for promotion.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 8:15pm; Reply: 25
Agree with Maringer's last comment...
Posted by: chaos33, November 8, 2014, 8:18pm; Reply: 26
First of all, I'm not dishing out advice. I said what I want Hurst to do. That's different. Secondly, I wasn't at today's game and I prefaced that fact by saying my opinion doesn't carry much weight. Ok with you? Can't say fairer than that can I. I'll be at the game on Tuesday. I don't know why you said 'games'. I assume it was a typo.
Posted by: The Old Codger, November 8, 2014, 8:23pm; Reply: 27
Would have been nice for the manager to inform the paying fans that he was going to play an experimental team. Those of us that paid might have decided to watch paint dry instead.
Posted by: TownSNAFU5, November 8, 2014, 8:23pm; Reply: 28
My views are the same as Oldun.  Oxford were better.

They wanted it more than us and worked harder.  Eg, closing our keeper down.  They nearly got possession a few times.  Also, in the first half Thomas stopped and let the ball go out.  However, their player kept running and kept it in.  They very nearly created their second goal from this attack.

They broke in numbers and at pace.  We could not handle this.  (Not used to teams doing this in NL).

We missed Brown today (to win and keep the ball) and Neilson (to offer some direct running at their players and some creativity).  He did this when he came on.  Playing for a place on Tues probably. Near the end he chased back 40 yards to try and close their player down.

Our built up play was far too slow.  In the first half Toto was getting stick for taking his time.  He then played a 15 yard ball straight to an Oxford player.

Arnold and Pittman seemed to share the same role.  In the first half we had no natural winger on the right.

No one played well.  Best to get the mistakes out of the system today.  Bring on Tuesday.  Maybe changes from today.  Pell should be back in as well.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 8:23pm; Reply: 29
Quoted from chaos33
First of all, I'm not dishing out advice. I said what I want Hurst to do. That's different.

Sounds the same to me but if you say so.

Quoted from chaos33
Secondly, I wasn't at today's game and I prefaced that fact by saying my opinion doesn't carry much weight. Ok with you? Can't say fairer than that can I. I'll be at the game on Tuesday. I don't know why you said 'games'. I assume it was a typo.

Just an assumption really cos I've never seen you offer a match report on "Just back".
Look forward to your in depth analysis on Tuesday.
Posted by: chaos33, November 8, 2014, 8:29pm; Reply: 30
I don't presume to think that people want to read my 'in depth analysis', unlike yourself. I'm not that self important and indulgent. I'll no doubt have something to say midst. If it's ok with you. I'll keep it cogent and interesting and brief (ish) though. Watch and learn.  ;)
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 8:34pm; Reply: 31
Quoted from TownSNAFU5
They broke in numbers and at pace.  We could not handle this.  (Not used to teams doing this in NL).

Exactly !
Did anyone also notice Oxford exploiting "gaps" between our midfield and in front of the back 4 ?
Not suprised Hurst mentioned "defensive midfielder" at all.

Quoted from TownSNAFU5
No one played well.

Well I thought Lenny was outstanding 1st half and Disley marshalled the midfield quite well.

Posted by: TAGG, November 8, 2014, 8:54pm; Reply: 32
Quoted from 120797
Wasn't half as bad as the scoreline suggested IMO.

Was actually quite impressed again with some of our football 1st half.

Goals change games.
If Lenny's shot goes in, I really think we go on to win.

We started off what looked to me like 4-2-4.
Seemed to change to 4-3-3 as the game went on,
Then after the subs came on 2nd half, 4-4-2.

Listening to Hurst in the car on the way back, thought he was spot on !
Albeit a little harsh on himself/the team I thought, even if he made some excellent observations.

Was thinking myself players maybe stood off them too much and dropped a little bit too.
And yes perhaps Pearson should have showed him down the line (good point !).

But let's be honest, you could see Oxford's class in attack and it was a great 1st goal from their "highly rated" winger.
And the 2nd came when they hit us on the break. (looked offside to me !)
Add to that a shocking ref who didn't award a pen and gave us near zilch.

So all in all, yes there are 1 or 2 things here and there to look at.
(Will give my player thoughts in a bit.)

But for me, I remain confident for Tuesday.

No doubt in my mind we can win gain promotion.
If we didn't already know by now....
KEEP THE FAITH


"Wasn't half as bad as the scoreline suggested"---Yes it was. Did you really go to the game??????
"harsh on himself"--- so he should be, the way he set the team up today was all wrong and he should have changed things at half time but didnt.
I was so looking forward to the game today and having the buzz of a good cup run but I think the players conned the fans today No balls, No graft and No idea.
Will be at BP Tuesday to see a lot better performance UTM  :)
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 9:13pm; Reply: 33
Maybe you're right, he should have changed it at HT.

Could've been better I agree.
All I meant was we started brightly, played some good stuff, Lenny hit the post and the goal(s) knocked the stuffing out of us a bit.

That said 2nd half was gutted Pittman didn't pull the ball back for Neilson cos he was wide open in space.  :B
To be fair, would have shown great vision had he done.  

Also starting to wonder if the refs higher up the pyramid are really any better than NL.
Posted by: BIGChris, November 8, 2014, 9:14pm; Reply: 34
Thought the ref was much better than what we normally get in our League
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 9:15pm; Reply: 35
Really ?
I thought he gave us very little.
Posted by: BIGChris, November 8, 2014, 9:17pm; Reply: 36
Quoted from 120797
Really ?
I thought he gave us very little.


He shouldn't be 'giving' us anything should he?
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 8, 2014, 9:19pm; Reply: 37
I think he should be giving us those decisions we deserve !
Anyway it's all about opinions...
Posted by: gary_elton, November 8, 2014, 9:46pm; Reply: 38
During the first half , chattin to the chap next to me , we both agreed that Neilson would have made a difference
and we missed him... his jinky runs and clever play.  When he finally came on he did just that...  I hope he starts on Tuesday.

I thought the referee had a poor game.. some of his decisions were a little baffling to say the least...
Posted by: Tommy, November 8, 2014, 10:19pm; Reply: 39
Overall feeling of disappointment for me.

A game I thought we could win and we were comfortably beaten. Perhaps more concerning was how much we were outplayed and the gap between the teams appeared much greater than it actually is.

The first 10 minutes we were reasonably bright. LJL unlucky with his shot that hit the post.
After that, Oxford settled into their passing game and their very expansive formation.
Before the 1st goal I thought we had looked the most likely to score despite having less possession. But definitely after the first goal Oxford settled down and played out from the back quite well. However, we made it easy for them to do this.

We weren't trying to win the ball very high up the pitch. We stood off men and tried to react too late after the ball went to them. We didn't re-organise and manage the problems they were giving us on the pitch. That's where you need a Scott Kerr type player in there for a bit of game-management on the pitch and leadership in midfield.

We went with 2 up front for the start of the second half and it was long overdue. We should've done that after half an hour and stopped allowing the centre-backs to split and play the ball out. Either that or get Arnold closer to LJL, or Mackreth and Pittman pushed further forward to impose ourselves on them. None of that happened and we were nearly out of sight by half time.

Both goals were down to our daft decisions in Oxford's half and getting done on the break. The third killed us so early in the second half although it looked like we could have had a penalty? Oxford continued to pass and move very well and they looked better footballers than us all over the pitch. But again, the time we allowed their centre-backs and the bald holding midfielder to have was disappointing as those three looked like if we had pressured them we would have had some success and forced errors.

We miss Brown massively in midfield and although I haven't seen Pell in a Town shirt I am sure he would've improved our chances too.
But I think Appleton and the way his team are set up caused too many problems that Hurst was slow to react to and couldn't really nail down.

Disappointing (especially after beating 2 League 2 sides last season) but not the end of the world. We win Tuesday and today is forgotten.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 2:31am; Reply: 40
Quoted from chaos33
I wanted him to explain the positioning and tactics but it just didn't happen.

Well maybe JT is the one at fault then.

Let's be fair, he partly did what you suggested...
http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1415161277//id-910446#num35
Quoted from chaos33
Personally I would play Nielson, Pitman and McLaughlin on Saturday, even if they only get 30-40 minutes at some point. I think we can still field a very strong team - perhaps many people's idea of our 'strongest team' (a complicated concept in itself) and try to nurture sharpness and morale across the squad.

It's a shame if you can't give him any credit for it.

Quoted from chaos33
I want Hurst to go 4-3-1-2 or at least, the shape that brought rich rewards against Gateshead and Alfreton on Tuesday but I don't think he will. Why has he deviated from this? Genuine question.

Sure none of us have the power to read Hurst's mind...

Let's look at the facts instead shall we ?
Gateshead was 4-3-3
Alfreton was 4-4-2
You want him to go 4-3-1-2 at least.
However we've also racked up LOTS of wins playing 4-5-1.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw.  
Suppose I'm thinking there's no "magic formation".
Regards formation and which players he should drop, I'm sure "Team for Halifax" will be up in the near future if you wish to make any specific suggestions.

Here's my very basic summary on the recent chain of events...
Hurst wins.
He gets criticized for 4-5-1.
He changes the formation to go more attacking.
We lose.

Not that we shouldn't go more attacking when it suits IMO.
Just unfortunately we've no divine right to keep beating League 2 teams even if we have done before.
Scunny and Northampton were struggling when we turned them over.
Laws got the boot straight after the replay defeat.
Northampton just about survived relegation.
We pushed Huddersfield in the Championship but they were hardly flying at the time either.
How good Oxford (and we) were on the day is obviously debatable...
Posted by: Nelly GTFC, November 9, 2014, 4:08am; Reply: 41
All 4 goals on this video >> [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29907423]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29907423[/url]
Posted by: chaos33, November 9, 2014, 8:09am; Reply: 42
Quoted from 120797

Well maybe JT is the one at fault then.

Let's be fair, he partly did what you suggested...
http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1415161277//id-910446#num35

It's a shame if you can't give him any credit for it.


Sure none of us have the power to read Hurst's mind...

Let's look at the facts instead shall we ?
Gateshead was 4-3-3
Alfreton was 4-4-2
You want him to go 4-3-1-2 at least.
However we've also racked up LOTS of wins playing 4-5-1.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw.  
Suppose I'm thinking there's no "magic formation".
Regards formation and which players he should drop, I'm sure "Team for Halifax" will be up in the near future if you wish to make any specific suggestions.

Here's my very basic summary on the recent chain of events...
Hurst wins.
He gets criticized for 4-5-1.
He changes the formation to go more attacking.
We lose.

Not that we shouldn't go more attacking when it suits IMO.
Just unfortunately we've no divine right to keep beating League 2 teams even if we have done before.
Scunny and Northampton were struggling when we turned them over.
Laws got the boot straight after the replay defeat.
Northampton just about survived relegation.
We pushed Huddersfield in the Championship but they were hardly flying at the time either.
How good Oxford (and we) were on the day is obviously debatable...


You're obsessed.

I agree that Tondeur was to blame for the post match interview. He no longer dares to ask challenging questions.

Ok, he went 4-4-2. Nielson got about 10 minutes, Paddy a bit more. Both evidently did well. Pitman was played out of position for the most part. Almost everyone who had commented has said they couldn't understand the formation and positioning of certain players. Tondeur couldn't, but he thought it inappropriate to ask about it evidently.

I have recently been giving Hurst credit when getting it right. It's just my view that 4-3-1-2 or 4-3-3 would be ideal at home on many occasions, just as it's just my view that we should have adopted the pressing game advocated by Big Chris. Never mind.

Ok, have some credit Mr Hurst. You got it right today (?) and my ideas are cr@p anyway ?!?
Haven't I already said (and repeated) that my opinions on today are worth little?

I'm moving on. Big game Tuesday.
Posted by: DocTower, November 9, 2014, 8:18am; Reply: 43
Well , when the team was announced I wondered what formation it would be . As has been said Pittman and Arnold appeared to be doing the same role in the same position .  Lenny was busy but again well marshaled , had his shot gone in ! might have altered Oxfords game plan doubt it really . Twenty minutes in our midfield seemed to do a Chuck Norris and go missing in action .

My big concern is that if they are in the lower half of division 2 and they controlled the game .They passed the ball better , controlled the ball better won every second ball , just how many saves did their keeper have to make ?     Even if we managed to gain promotion big changes would have to be made again .

All well and good saying a bad day at the office , just shows how , without Magney and Brown we are a mid table conference side .  As we walked out , my son said it was a bit of a nothing game , probably right .
The bright red sky was nice and the strange cloud formations were interesting though .  
Posted by: DocTower, November 9, 2014, 8:31am; Reply: 44
Quoted from TAGG


"Wasn't half as bad as the scoreline suggested"---Yes it was. Did you really go to the game??????
"harsh on himself"--- so he should be, the way he set the team up today was all wrong and he should have changed things at half time but didnt.
I was so looking forward to the game today and having the buzz of a good cup run but I think the players conned the fans today No balls, No graft and No idea.
Will be at BP Tuesday to see a lot better performance UTM  :)



Don't know about you TAGG , but I was thinking it was like last season after christmas,  when our displays didn't come up to much . They shouldn't have been that better than us , in all honesty we gave them an easy game .
Posted by: chicaneuk, November 9, 2014, 8:44am; Reply: 45
Quoted from DocTower

My big concern is that if they are in the lower half of division 2 and they controlled the game .They passed the ball better , controlled the ball better won every second ball , just how many saves did their keeper have to make ?     Even if we managed to gain promotion big changes would have to be made again .

All well and good saying a bad day at the office , just shows how , without Magney and Brown we are a mid table conference side .  As we walked out , my son said it was a bit of a nothing game , probably right .
The bright red sky was nice and the strange cloud formations were interesting though .  


Exactly what I said to my mate after the third goal went in - if they're a failing league two team, who didn't have their best goal scorer available and were using their third choice keeper and they still comfortably walked all over us, we've had a real reality check about what awaits us in League 2 assuming we even manage to get promotion this year.

It was a tough, frustrating watch yesterday no doubt about it. What I don't understand is why, when we went 3-0 down and were pretty much done for (and therefore had nothing to lose) why we didn't change to a more attacking formation and just throw everything we had at them and attack our asses off? It wouldn't have really mattered if we'd subsequently conceded another three goals (except perhaps to psychologically unsettle Macca, which of course we wouldn't want) but at least we'd have given it our all.

Oxford consistently got the ball and broke extremely fast and straight at us - in fact I couldn't believe how quickly they got from action in their own goal mount, and down to our half. Whereas we'd get the ball, pass it around, pass it back to Macca, who'd hoof it up field and it'd drop to one of their players. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Such a frustrating game.
Posted by: Mrs Doyle, November 9, 2014, 8:59am; Reply: 46
Interesting comments I agree if Lennies effort had gone in earlier it would have been a lot better contest the crowd were getting up for it but they were fast and slick on the break the lad took his goals well in the first half.  Their big bald guy mopped everything up in the air and on the ground he was immense definitely their MOTM.

Us  we started off brightly and passed it around lovely but faded after half an hour both teams looked relaxed as normal with the pressure of League off only we looked far to relaxed at the back unable to cope with their pace. Thought Neilson looked lively and industrious certainly hungry for the ball which was nice to see, we were beaten by a better side but hey ho it's over let's focus on the most important thing getting back into the league proper. Still think we have players capable of that and it's the best team we have had since we came down.  KEEP THE FAITH UTM.
Posted by: gobby, November 9, 2014, 9:09am; Reply: 47
What did JT see for Pearsons goal! Quote 'And Pearson got a foot in'??????? 8)
UTMM
Posted by: oldun, November 9, 2014, 9:15am; Reply: 48
Quoted from gobby
What did JT see for Pearsons goal! Quote 'And Pearson got a foot in'??????? 8)
UTMM


That's what it looked like from the press box. Having seen the goals again it was a great finish.
Posted by: Cumbrian Mariner, November 9, 2014, 9:22am; Reply: 49
Quoted from Chrisblor
The whole team had an off day (and we weren't helped by the awful, lop sided and ineffective formation Hurst had us playing in the first half). I don't think Oxford were particularly good - we just wasted possession thoroughout with bad passing and miscontrolled balls. Mackreth, Disley and Clay were all very poor. Pittman & Arnold looked like they had no idea where to play. LJL had one good run and shot which clattered the post, but was otherwise anonymous. The back 4 was disjointed and error prone. Just a terrible all round performance.

We looked marginally better with Neilson and McLoughlin in the team, but Hannah managed to get caught offside 3 times in his short cameo, so nothing has changed there.


Disagree that Disley and Clay had poor games. Mackreth and Arnold were invisible and not getting back, that was why these two couldn't put their stamp on the game.  Thought that Sisley in particular played well and our best moves in the first half came through him.  Lenny did well holding the ball up but our side midfielders failed to give him options when he got the ball, had the one that hit the post actually have gone in then it would have made Oxford come at us instead of weighing us up before hitting us on the break with pace.

For me, the tactics/set up in the first half was wrong - we should have gone at them with an attacking formation.

At the end of the day we weren't ever gonna win the cup (hard to accept I know) so let's move on and get a win against Halifax on Tuesday, the cup will be forgotten about by then.

UTM
Posted by: Garth, November 9, 2014, 9:52am; Reply: 50
Quoted from Cumbrian Mariner


Disagree that Disley and Clay had poor games. Mackreth and Arnold were invisible and not getting back, that was why these two couldn't put their stamp on the game.  Thought that Sisley in particular played well and our best moves in the first half came through him.  Lenny did well holding the ball up but our side midfielders failed to give him options when he got the ball, had the one that hit the post actually have gone in then it would have made Oxford come at us instead of weighing us up before hitting us on the break with pace.

For me, the tactics/set up in the first half was wrong - we should have gone at them with an attacking formation.

At the end of the day we weren't ever gonna win the cup (hard to accept I know) so let's move on and get a win against Halifax on Tuesday, the cup will be forgotten about by then.

Disappointing though, truth is players that you would have thought pre match would match theirs and shine did not/could not,( and apart from Nielson when he came on) that was the problem, was it the way they was set up or was it the comics they had read that day, excuses,  excuses lets move on to Tuesday

UTM


Posted by: Chrisblor, November 9, 2014, 10:21am; Reply: 51
Quoted from Cumbrian Mariner


Disagree that Disley and Clay had poor games.


Clay gave the ball away allowing them to break and score the second. Until then he was playing well but faded badly. Both he and Disley were guilty of poor control throughout the game and for me caused promising moves to break down as they both dallied on the ball with attacking players ahead of them in threatening positions. Disley barely received any applause at all when he went off because he was so ineffective. I do agree that they weren't helped by the formation though since it wasn't clear who our wingers were and subsequently none of the attacking players provided any defensive cover which left us very exposed.
Posted by: headingly_mariner, November 9, 2014, 10:49am; Reply: 52
Not a good performance but that is quite out of character. I think we were too adventurous with the team selection and that had completely unbalanced us, we missed someone sat in front of the back four allowing the rest to go press and play higher up the pitch. I'd like to see neilson and pell back in on Tuesday for Arnold and Mackreth.
Posted by: TheRonRaffertyFanClub, November 9, 2014, 11:23am; Reply: 53
We got results by being boringly hard to beat and leaving one up front in the hope of a break. I don't like it much but that is the manager's style and the way he has drilled the players and it appears to be working, so why change it instead of having the courage of his convictions?
Posted by: captainox, November 9, 2014, 11:24am; Reply: 54
Surprised but delighted with the result. Fantastic to see our new young striker get a couple and sounds like a few other good performances. Hopefully we can use it to kick on now.

Best wishes for the rest of the season, hope you get out of that league Asap
Posted by: sutton mariner, November 9, 2014, 11:36am; Reply: 55
Lets get out of this excrement league before we start talking about how we'll fair in league 2!
Posted by: ginnywings, November 9, 2014, 12:02pm; Reply: 56
Quoted from captainox
Surprised but delighted with the result. Fantastic to see our new young striker get a couple and sounds like a few other good performances. Hopefully we can use it to kick on now.

Best wishes for the rest of the season, hope you get out of that league Asap


Hope you get a good draw. Your lot played football the right way and were just too good for us on the day. We were just not our usual selves and played some weird formation that was baffling to most of us and we just stood off you and let you knock it around. Couldn't cope with the speed you moved the ball up the pitch.
Posted by: Maringer, November 9, 2014, 12:10pm; Reply: 57
I thought Clay was poor yesterday. Just not really involved and lost possession practically every time he got the ball. Disley wasn't great, but was the better of our two midfielders. I'd have kept him on instead of Clay.

That said, Clay wasn't the only one of our players who was well below par yesterday so he doesn't deserve to be singled out particularly much. I notice that Mackreth has picked up a lot of criticism for his game yesterday. Obviously, he wasn't great but you'd have to say that he was much more involved than Arnold who did very little all game. I'd have brought Neilson on earlier but for Arnold, not Mackreth.
Posted by: The Old Codger, November 9, 2014, 12:25pm; Reply: 58
Quoted from Maringer
I thought Clay was poor yesterday. Just not really involved and lost possession practically every time he got the ball. Disley wasn't great, but was the better of our two midfielders. I'd have kept him on instead of Clay.

That said, Clay wasn't the only one of our players who was well below par yesterday so he doesn't deserve to be singled out particularly much. I notice that Mackreth has picked up a lot of criticism for his game yesterday. Obviously, he wasn't great but you'd have to say that he was much more involved than Arnold who did very little all game. I'd have brought Neilson on earlier but for Arnold, not Mackreth.


Can understand what you're saying but why play Arnold in a role that was clearly suited to Neilson? Neilson for Mackreth with Arnold going out wide would have been my substitution. I thought Clay was marginally better than Disley till his error for the second goal, then he seemed to lose faith in himself. I assume Magnay will be fit for Tuesday, if so will Parslow and Pell play instead of Clay and Disley?
Posted by: grimsby pete, November 9, 2014, 12:59pm; Reply: 59
After looking at the goals several times,

I was surprised how poor we defended,

Our defence has been our strongest unit this season,

I think it was just a bad day at the office,

Normal service will resume on Tuesday. :)
Posted by: TAGG, November 9, 2014, 1:02pm; Reply: 60
Quoted from Cumbrian Mariner


Disagree that Disley and Clay had poor games. Mackreth and Arnold were invisible and not getting back, that was why these two couldn't put their stamp on the game.  Thought that Sisley in particular played well and our best moves in the first half came through him.  Lenny did well holding the ball up but our side midfielders failed to give him options when he got the ball, had the one that hit the post actually have gone in then it would have made Oxford come at us instead of weighing us up before hitting us on the break with pace.

For me, the tactics/set up in the first half was wrong - we should have gone at them with an attacking formation.

At the end of the day we weren't ever gonna win the cup (hard to accept I know) so let's move on and get a win against Halifax on Tuesday, the cup will be forgotten about by then.

UTM

Of course were not gona win the cup but thats no excuse to just give up.
Yes Tuesdays game is important but we had 90 minutes of a Cup game to play first.
Fans pay hard earnt cash to watch the team give there all to the final whistle.
For Hurst to say he was thinking about the next game whilst still playing just sums up him and his total lack of respect for the fans. Hurst you are a twit.



Posted by: chiangmaimariner, November 9, 2014, 1:47pm; Reply: 61
Quoted from TAGG

Of course were not gona win the cup but thats no excuse to just give up.
Yes Tuesdays game is important but we had 90 minutes of a Cup game to play first.
Fans pay hard earnt cash to watch the team give there all to the final whistle.
For Hurst to say he was thinking about the next game whilst still playing just sums up him and his total lack of respect for the fans. Hurst you are a twit.


But this is the Manager of the Month you're speaking about!

Personally I think he did the right thing - getting out of this league is all-important, and I'm glad he thinks so too.

I understand your point of view, but that's why football fans are frequently described as "long-suffering".
Posted by: Grimal, November 9, 2014, 2:11pm; Reply: 62
Quoted from DocTower
Well , when the team was announced I wondered what formation it would be . As has been said Pittman and Arnold appeared to be doing the same role in the same position .  Lenny was busy but again well marshaled , had his shot gone in ! might have altered Oxfords game plan doubt it really . Twenty minutes in our midfield seemed to do a Chuck Norris and go missing in action .

My big concern is that if they are in the lower half of division 2 and they controlled the game .They passed the ball better , controlled the ball better won every second ball , just how many saves did their keeper have to make ?     Even if we managed to gain promotion big changes would have to be made again .

All well and good saying a bad day at the office , just shows how , without Magney and Brown we are a mid table conference side .  As we walked out , my son said it was a bit of a nothing game , probably right .
The bright red sky was nice and the strange cloud formations were interesting though .  


Damn it I missed the best attraction of the afternoon then. after the third goal went in I was watching the boats sailing up and down the Estuary,sad I know.(icon_redface)
Posted by: TAGG, November 9, 2014, 3:32pm; Reply: 63
Quoted from chiangmaimariner


But this is the Manager of the Month you're speaking about!

Personally I think he did the right thing - getting out of this league is all-important, and I'm glad he thinks so too.

I understand your point of view, but that's why football fans are frequently described as "long-suffering".


So your saying its OK just to chuck in the towel??
In my book its not, its just like sticking your fingers up at the fans.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 4:07pm; Reply: 64
Quoted from chaos33
Nielson got about 10 minutes, Paddy a bit more. Both evidently did well.

Did they ?

Neilson looked sharp (as most subs tend to) and was unlucky to misplace a couple of well intended passes with the right idea.
He showed energy to track back and showed what he was all about with his dribbling but how much value you place on doing around your box is debatable.
As for Paddy maybe I missed something but didn't see much to get excited about at all.

Quoted from chaos33
Pitman was played out of position for the most part. Almost everyone who had commented has said they couldn't understand the formation and positioning of certain players. Tondeur couldn't, but he thought it inappropriate to ask about it evidently.

What we've got to realise (maybe !) is RH isn't a "John Tondeur platform" to impose his own impressions and observations as questions.
If he starts asking "Why weren't players doing x, y and z ?" then perhaps he's leaving himself open to Hurst replying and asking for his OWN interpretation.
If that then amounts to "criticism" of the manager then JT's hardly doing his job as questioner and interviewer IMO.

Presumably his job is to ask general questions regarding the game itself, not impose his own personal views which aren't likely to be in the mainsteam.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 4:13pm; Reply: 65
Quoted from TAGG
In my book its not, its just like sticking your fingers up at the fans.

I see your point but see it the opposite way tbh !
If most fans are saying how important the league is then he's arguably doing what most of them want ?
Let's be fair, he can't please everyone whatever he does.
In any case we got one back and kept going to the end.
Posted by: oldun, November 9, 2014, 4:39pm; Reply: 66
Neilson seems to be a bit of a crowd pleaser, and he causes a stir when he runs with the ball at the opposition. However I question the end product, if he cannot get a shot away there is no end product because he is not aware of where team mates are and he rarely passes it in those situations. He does add a spark to proceedings though. As for Paddy, during his time on the pitch he spent too long running towards our goal or passing back. He did make one good forward surging run which is what I want to see him do.
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 5:16pm; Reply: 67
I appreciate some good points Oldun. (+1)

All I'd say regards Neilson (in his defence) is both his (failed) passes yesterday reminded me of the Wrexham game.
i.e. he mazed his way centrally before passing a beautiful reverse ball left through to an advancing Aswad who was tripped for the penalty that Lennie duly dispatched.  :)
If your memory doesn't match that of an elephant, please have a look on MP and I hope you'll see what I mean.
Or if it does, perhaps that's what you mean by "rarely".

For me, it's a tricky one because IMO we've got 3 players who could all play wing and are arguably worth a place in the team.

I know many don't rate Mackreth (even if he is top assister !)
But in addition to being able to run at defenders, think he puts SO much unnoticed running and work in for the team.
Even if he maybe didn't have the greatest game yesterday...

Right wing is another issue for me - how suitable do we think Arnold or Neilson might be there ?
Cos I've little idea tbh having seen them mainly left side this season.

Think Abdul made the argument that if Neilson plays right side he'll be sticking to his position more.
I'm honestly not sure if it's a good thing or not.
At a wild guess, him playing more as a rigidly placed and disciplined winger just concerns me it's not making full use of his potential.
(But obviously it's about tracking back at times too !)

If that's indeed true though, where he fits into the team's formation is open to debate.
In short, I wonder if it's possible we'll see Arnold, Neilson AND Mackreth ALL in the same XI at some point this season and whether it would be effective.
Posted by: moosey_club, November 9, 2014, 7:42pm; Reply: 68
Quoted from 120797


Presumably his job is to ask general questions regarding the game itself, not impose his own personal views which aren't likely to be in the mainsteam.


If as the regular media observer and interviewer (with the professed title of the voice of the mariners)  you "notice" that the regular line up, formation and positions have been abandoned and a completely new line up is presented to you would you not think that the question would be extremely relevant not only out of journalistic intrigue but also of interest to your intended audience?

It looked as though you started with a new formation today Paul, can you talk us through the changes and the thoughts behind them?

A nice easy open question, giving the interviewer plenty of opportunity to pick any further points out of the response...but no..
  
Bottled it !

Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 7:45pm; Reply: 69
Quoted from moosey_club
It looked as though you started with a new formation today Paul, can you talk us through the changes and the thoughts behind them?

"I wanted to be positive" ?

Your go JT.

Posted by: moosey_club, November 9, 2014, 7:46pm; Reply: 70
Quoted from 120797

"I wanted to be positive" ?

Your go JT.



You changed at half time so where did you feel it went wrong?
Posted by: moosey_club, November 9, 2014, 7:49pm; Reply: 71
Paul...Paul....oh sorry listeners...he's fked off  ;)
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 7:54pm; Reply: 72
Well you're asking me to read Hurst's mind / speak for him here.

But if you want me to blindly guess what he might say, I'll have a go...

"Well I didn't make any changes at half time but it was obvious the positive approach wasn't working and maybe we were too open with Oxford catching us on the break and gaps in midfield. So I decided to go back to a slightly more "solid" or "less open" formation but with JP up front to support Lennie in the hope we could get one back and maybe get us back into the game. As it happened they scored right after the break and although we managed to pull one back after that, as it turned out, it wasn't quite enough to see us through to the round 2 draw on the day."
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 7:56pm; Reply: 73
Quoted from moosey_club
Paul...Paul....oh sorry listeners...he's fked off  ;)

Very good.
Luckily Hurst doesn't have to sit at a keyboard typing away.
Posted by: chaos33, November 9, 2014, 7:58pm; Reply: 74
Quoted from moosey_club


If as the regular media observer and interviewer (with the professed title of the voice of the mariners)  you "notice" that the regular line up, formation and positions have been abandoned and a completely new line up is presented to you would you not think that the question would be extremely relevant not only out of journalistic intrigue but also of interest to your intended audience?

It looked as though you started with a new formation today Paul, can you talk us through the changes and the thoughts behind them?

A nice easy open question, giving the interviewer plenty of opportunity to pick any further points out of the response...but no..
  
Bottled it !



Absolutely. My point also. And this happens now because it has caused problems in the past when Tondeur or Matt Dean has asked challenging questions, especially after poor results. Both Hurst (and Scott/Hurst), and Fenty have reacted angrily on previous occasions, accusing RH of being negative, or disingenuous. So, we don't go there anymore. Pity.

It's a good job that Burns doesn't cover Town games for RH because he'd play his own game and be far less restrained.
Posted by: moosey_club, November 9, 2014, 8:02pm; Reply: 75
Quoted from 120797
Well you're asking me to read Hurst's mind / speak for him here.

But if you want me to blindly guess what he might say, I'll have a go...

"Well I didn't make any changes at half time but it was obvious the positive approach wasn't working and maybe we were too open with Oxford catching us on the break and gaps in midfield. So I decided to go back to a slightly more "solid" or "less open" formation but with JP up front to support Lennie in the hope we could get one back and maybe get us back into the game. As it happened they scored right after the break and although we managed to pull one back after that, as it turned out, it wasn't quite enough to see us through to the round 2 draw on the day."


not asking for you to read his mind, nor am i asking to be JT but at the end of the day just about every person at the game and listening in could not figure out what we were playing and who was supposed to be doing what. JT didnt either so why the fk didnt he ask?
Hurst could have given a multitude of answers, good bad or indifferent but we may have at least understood what he was attempting to achieve...as we are we are just left thinking WTF!
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 8:11pm; Reply: 76
I certainly can't remember all the interview but struck me one of the first things he said was wanting to be positive.
Whether JT should delve deeper and question Hurst's "positive" approach/formation by way of extra interrogation at the risk of boring his listeners is a matter of opinion.
But hey, I've answered your questions...
Posted by: arryarryarry, November 9, 2014, 8:13pm; Reply: 77
Quoted from 120797
Wasn't half as bad as the scoreline suggested IMO.

Was actually quite impressed again with some of our football 1st half.

Goals change games.
If Lenny's shot goes in, I really think we go on to win.

We started off what looked to me like 4-2-4.
Seemed to change to 4-3-3 as the game went on,
Then after the subs came on 2nd half, 4-4-2.

Listening to Hurst in the car on the way back, thought he was spot on !
Albeit a little harsh on himself/the team I thought, even if he made some excellent observations.

Was thinking myself players maybe stood off them too much and dropped a little bit too.
And yes perhaps Pearson should have showed him down the line (good point !).

But let's be honest, you could see Oxford's class in attack and it was a great 1st goal from their "highly rated" winger.
And the 2nd came when they hit us on the break. (looked offside to me !)
Add to that a shocking ref who didn't award a pen and gave us near zilch.

So all in all, yes there are 1 or 2 things here and there to look at.
(Will give my player thoughts in a bit.)

But for me, I remain confident for Tuesday.

No doubt in my mind we can win gain promotion.
If we didn't already know by now....
KEEP THE FAITH


Really? for most of that game I thought they were more than a class above and that for a team effectively only eight places above us.

Dreadful tactics from the manager and some dreadful performances from some if not most of the players.

Do they talk tactics during the week and ever mention what to do with corners, I mean what is the frigging point in bringing your big guys up from the back then take a short corner. That led to their first after we had screwed it up and I know many on here were singing Parslow's praises that he had re-signed but he was Hattonesque with his defending or should I say lack of it, for the first two goals, he was nowhere to be seen, the first one Pearson had to come across and try to cover and the second Thomas.

As for Macreth, having seen most of his games this season, I still don't see that he brings much more to the team than Colbeck did.

I also thought McKeown should have done better with the first two goals.

Hard to pick out a player who did well.

Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 8:22pm; Reply: 78
Quoted from arryarryarry
I know many on here were singing Parslow's praises that he had resigned but he was Hattonesque with his defending or should I say lack of it, for the first two goals, he was nowhere to be seen, the first one Pearson had to come across

Think that's a fair point.

I hope Magnay is back...
Posted by: moosey_club, November 9, 2014, 8:34pm; Reply: 79
Quoted from 120797
I certainly can't remember all the interview but struck me one of the first things he said was wanting to be positive.
Whether JT should delve deeper and question Hurst's "positive" approach/formation by way of extra interrogation at the risk of boring his listeners is a matter of opinion.
But hey, I've answered your questions...


He said the positive thing without any prompting or questions on that subject, in my mind he was getting his defence in m'lud before he was asked...but he never got asked....he got it wrong, we will never know what the exact tactical choices were and we are now out of the cup.
Whatever happens next i am sure it will be different from this weekend so come 10 p.m Tues we can all have a b!tch about something else.....or can all be revelling in joy and happiness.

UTM
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 8:38pm; Reply: 80
Never got asked what though ?
If you can think of any questions, feel free I'll do my best.
Posted by: moosey_club, November 9, 2014, 9:06pm; Reply: 81
Quoted from 120797
Never got asked what though ?
If you can think of any questions, feel free I'll do my best.


Groundhog day.....
Posted by: KingstonMariner, November 9, 2014, 10:30pm; Reply: 82
Quoted from 120797

Very good.
Luckily Hurst doesn't have to sit at a keyboard typing away.


And I thought the Not Chairman said computer skills were part of his armoury.  ;D
Posted by: 120797 (Guest), November 9, 2014, 10:44pm; Reply: 83
Lol Kingston.
Well he must have some "IT skills" cos he reads the fishy (that's according to Pete of course ! ;))
Posted by: The Old Codger, November 10, 2014, 9:48am; Reply: 84
Quoted from arryarryarry


As for Macreth, having seen most of his games this season, I still don't see that he brings much more to the team than Colbeck did.



He always looked useful when he played against us. He looked useless on Saturday - bit like Colbeck really without the strength.
Posted by: Garth, November 10, 2014, 10:28am; Reply: 85
Quoted from arryarryarry


Really? for most of that game I thought they were more than a class above and that for a team effectively only eight places above us.

Dreadful tactics from the manager and some dreadful performances from some if not most of the players.

Do they talk tactics during the week and ever mention what to do with corners, I mean what is the frigging point in bringing your big guys up from the back then take a short corner. That led to their first after we had screwed it up and I know many on here were singing Parslow's praises that he had re-signed but he was Hattonesque with his defending or should I say lack of it, for the first two goals, he was nowhere to be seen, the first one Pearson had to come across and try to cover and the second Thomas.

As for Macreth, having seen most of his games this season, I still don't see that he brings much more to the team than Colbeck did.

I also thought McKeown should have done better with the first two goals.

Hard to pick out a player who did well.



Exactly as I saw it
Print page generated: May 13, 2021, 1:38pm