What really pleased me yesterday, in what was a big game, with a big expectant crowd, was that Jolley chose to give Clifton a centre mid role and threw in Famewo, both of which were bold decisions, given their relative inexperience.

I much prefer a manager who will take a calculated risk, than one who sticks to a rigid pattern of play, with the same line up and formation week after week. It's what infuriated me the most about Hurst and Slade. Jolley clearly goes for the win, rather than going out not to lose, which i really like to see in a manager. It makes for a much better spectacle, and although it will come unstuck now and again, with three points for a win, it's well worth the risk.

I'd much rather watch three good games of football and lose 2 of them, than watch three bore draws. Same result points wise, but much more engaging for the supporters. Of course, if the gamble pays off and you win two, or even three of those games, your points tally soon rises. Think we may be a bit hit and miss for a while, but i like what i am seeing. Fortune favours the brave.

Generally I agree and I felt the same about Hurst especially when we played the minnows at home. But one slight downside on your scenario of win one-lose two scenario is you’re more likely to end up with a negative goal difference than if you draw three. Of course the upside is you’re more likely to get 4 or more points.

whether it was FGR being exceptional ... or our 3-5-2 not being effective .... MJ certainly made the changes at Macclesfield by going 4-5-1 and the performances were like night & day ....again yesterday the 4-5-1 and personnel changes seemed to do the trick.

Would have been happier if the above could maybe have been introduced at half time against FGR as despite winning we were no where near FGR playing 3-5-2 in reality.

Early days and most points in the bag since returning to the League so onwards and upwards.

To badly paraphrase Meat Loaf, one out of six ain’t bad. We’ve had one bad (arguably atrocious) half out of six in the league so far, and even that was largely defined by horrendous individual errors which are unlikely to be repeated on a regular basis.

Yesterday we were incredibly unlucky not to win against a side with a playing budget almost certainly approaching double ours, and whilst it’s still incredibly early days, I think that bodes well.

I don’t see us troubling the top three - I just don’t think we have the quality and depth in the squad for that but I’ve seen enough to believe we have a shot at the play-offs. Even getting close would be unbelievable progress.

Quoted from moosey_club

whether it was FGR being exceptional ... or our 3-5-2 not being effective .... MJ certainly made the changes at Macclesfield by going 4-5-1 and the performances were like night & day ....again yesterday the 4-5-1 and personnel changes seemed to do the trick.

Would have been happier if the above could maybe have been introduced at half time against FGR as despite winning we were no where near FGR playing 3-5-2 in reality.

Early days and most points in the bag since returning to the League so onwards and upwards.

I do wonder whether MJ will go back and have another go at 3-5-2 when the squad building is complete and he's happy he's got the players to execute it more effectively - RHJ and Fox back fit, Thomas signed, new wing-back signed and he's said he's still looking to add to the squad.

Hendrie being described as a wing-back just got me thinking.
And also Thomas being brought in as what I would imagine would be the main central striker. I don't think MJ would want to move Cook away from being central, so maybe he'd want to go back to 2 strikers.

Martin Woolford said in pre-match interview when talking about systems that he didn't think 3-5-2 was dead just that right now Jolley hasn't the personnel to implement. The signing of a wing-back backs up this idea that it still very much in the manager's thoughts; afterall it was worked on very heavily pre-season.

Clifton and Hess just in front of Welsh worked very well yesterday, Welsh clearly knows what he's doing and the other 2 did his running.
Famewo at left back though worried me throughout.
I like the fact that Jolley can accept that something didn't work and isn't afraid to change.

Thus Famewo thing is odd, most happy with his 2nd half but thought the nerves showed in the first, some saying he looked a little off throughout...is he such a curates egg player, or are we seeing him just easing into the role?

Have to say I'm happy with him myself and expect him to grow in stature under MJ.

Quoted from RoboCod

Thus Famewo thing is odd, most happy with his 2nd half but thought the nerves showed in the first, some saying he looked a little off throughout...is he such a curates egg player, or are we seeing him just easing into the role?

Have to say I'm happy with him myself and expect him to grow in stature under MJ.

He just isn't a left back mate.  I'm by no means writing him off and only commenting on yesterdays game. He was played out of position and his first half was poor, did that cloud my judgement of him second half? Maybe, I was wincing every time he got ran at or he got passed to.  

Quoted from ginnywings

What really pleased me yesterday, in what was a big game, with a big expectant crowd, was that Jolley chose to give Clifton a centre mid role and threw in Famewo, both of which were bold decisions, given their relative inexperience.

I much prefer a manager who will take a calculated risk, than one who sticks to a rigid pattern of play, with the same line up and formation week after week. It's what infuriated me the most about Hurst and Slade. Jolley clearly goes for the win, rather than going out not to lose, which i really like to see in a manager. It makes for a much better spectacle, and although it will come unstuck now and again, with three points for a win, it's well worth the risk.

I'd much rather watch three good games of football and lose 2 of them, than watch three bore draws. Same result points wise, but much more engaging for the supporters. Of course, if the gamble pays off and you win two, or even three of those games, your points tally soon rises. Think we may be a bit hit and miss for a while, but i like what i am seeing. Fortune favours the brave.

I don't think Clifton got that many mentions in the just back thread but I thought he had by far his best game for Town and was my man of the match, a little surprised he was taken off.

Famewo showed some nice touches but defensively looked a bit weak as he has done in the few games I have seen him played.

I thought Famewo was excellent after a slightly shaky first 20 minutes or so, though he wasn't the only defender making errors in that period.

His positioning wasn't perhaps the best at times, but his pace and strength made up for that. I'd be happy if he remained our left-back based on that performance as he can only get better as he learns the role. Failing that, perhaps we'll see him in a back 3 if some wing-backs are sorted out? The additional pace is a real asset if you have it available.

Game of opinions and all that but think some are going (predicably) overboard on Famewo. I thought he was great once he settled in to his 2nd ever football league start, and only gave the ball away as much as anyone else. Think he’ll be great on the left side of that 3.

Thought Famewo settled into the role after a nervous start, young lad, big crowd, affects some more than others, he will be Okay

Famewo's pace means he is a better long term bet than Dixon. Clifton was on a yellow. Thought Max could have replaced Hooper who had little impact in final 15 min.

Famewo from minute 1 was a different prospect from the Famewo of minute 90. Visibly grew as the game wore on. Sometimes as fans, we need to be a bit more patient, and give a young player a bit of leeway.

Who of us were good at their jobs right from day 1?

Like others, I thought Famewo looked very nervous first 10 mins and misused a few passes/clearances. Very understandable in a big game,. In front of a large crowd and only his second ever league start.

Afternthat period he grew into game remarkably well and I thought he was excellent from there on out. He showed great pace and strength, calmness on the ball to control and pick out black nd white shirts under pressure and wasn't afraid to carry the ball forward. Defensively, he was very good and Anderson and later Green got nothing from him.

You can see why Jolley was keen to sign him as he carries the ball forward really well, backed up by pace and power!

I always thought Hurst set his teams up to nullify the oppositions strengths whereas Jolley seems to focus on their weaknesses.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

I always thought Hurst set his teams up to nullify the oppositions strengths whereas Jolley seems to focus on their weaknesses.

I certainly think he is more positive than Hurst as a rule but against Lincoln we started with 4 centre backs - very much thinking about nullifying the opposition's strength!

Yeah there's no question Jolley does focus on the strengths of the opposition and how we can stop them. But the difference is I don't think he doesn't prioritise that over our own strengths (and the oppo weaknesses) that we can exploit.

Hurst wouldn't take calculated risks - opening up to try and win a game that was level, putting extra attacking players on or playing younger/less-experienced players. His "fear of losing" he's spoken about since going to Ipswich perhaps leads to this approach of: safety first, and we'll nick a win if we can.

At the match I commented on how much time Famewo seemed to have even when clearing the ball. Sign of a good player when they have time.

Quoted from psgmariner

I certainly think he is more positive than Hurst as a rule but against Lincoln we started with 4 centre backs - very much thinking about nullifying the opposition's strength!

Yes but that also had the opposition not knowing what to do, clearly their management team has not got a plan b at the moment and this resulted in a poor and disjointed performance from them. So what looked like a negative tactic turns into a positive one. Whether that was the intention or not we will never know of course, but if your opposition has to change to plan b then you have achieved your first goal, if they have not plan b then happy days.

UTFM