Newport match report

fwiw i thought Hewitt had a damn good game at right back, although his crossing wasn't good enough.
Bunney and Idris were both disappointing - had been expecting better from the Ipswich lad, who's looked marginal in both game

I thought Bunney started ok, couple of nice passes early doors not just standard ones, and also played a couple of nice channel balls that we gained yardage on.
He got himself into a bit of a jumble on one occasion  and then never recovered. Clearly tired after only about 40 mins I thought.

Yet again though.....that's the third left back who has experienced the same thing, no real natural player in front of them making it harder for them.  El Mizouni certainly wasnt hugging the touchline that side and doesnt look a natural left winger or wide man to me.
Hurst didnt do Bunney any favours by leaving him on as long as he did when he was clearly flagging and with Habergham supposedly having a great delivery it may have been better to have him stretching the game wide left and peppering balls into the mixer.

Quoted from moosey_club

Yet again though.....that's the third left back who has experienced the same thing, no real natural player in front of them making it harder for them.  El Mizouni certainly wasnt hugging the touchline that side and doesnt look a natural left winger or wide man to me.

Hurst said in his post-match interview, when asked about substitutions, that he didnt want to change it and go to a straight 442 which would have matched them up in midfield after their reshuffle. And he said he stuck with our lopsided shape.

So it was the intention to have El Mizouni infield pretty much as a 3rd central midfielder. Something Hurst has done before (Nolan starting from the left, also remember Scott&Hurst playing a lopsided 433 with only one of the forwards wide (either Makofo or Coulson, with 2 central strikers).

I didn't think it was particularly obvious during the game that that was the plan. Like you say, El Mizouni certainly wasnt hugging the touchline, but I wouldnt have said he was playing centrally, at least until a point in the second half where he started to wander about a bit to get on the ball (which is actually when he looked better).

Quoted from moosey_club

Hurst didnt do Bunney any favours by leaving him on as long as he did when he was clearly flagging and with Habergham supposedly having a great delivery it may have been better to have him stretching the game wide left and peppering balls into the mixer.

2nd half should have been all about how many good crosses we could load into their box. With Hanson and Payne on, and them sitting deep enough to allow us to get forward enough into crossing positions plenty of times. It was clear Bunney and Hewitt couldn't have crossed a road. I'm sure Habergham could have managed 45 minutes to play the 2nd half and show us some of the good delivery he's meant to have.

Quoted from Tommy

Hurst said in his post-match interview, when asked about substitutions, that he didnt want to change it and go to a straight 442 which would have matched them up in midfield after their reshuffle. And he said he stuck with our lopsided shape.

So it was the intention to have El Mizouni infield pretty much as a 3rd central midfielder. Something Hurst has done before (Nolan starting from the left, also remember Scott&Hurst playing a lopsided 433 with only one of the forwards wide (either Makofo or Coulson, with 2 central strikers).

I didn't think it was particularly obvious during the game that that was the plan. Like you say, El Mizouni certainly wasnt hugging the touchline, but I wouldnt have said he was playing centrally, at least until a point in the second half where he started to wander about a bit to get on the ball (which is actually when he looked better).



2nd half should have been all about how many good crosses we could load into their box. With Hanson and Payne on, and them sitting deep enough to allow us to get forward enough into crossing positions plenty of times. It was clear Bunney and Hewitt couldn't have crossed a road. I'm sure Habergham could have managed 45 minutes to play the 2nd half and show us some of the good delivery he's meant to have.

i recognised the lopsided approach from his previous tenure but as nearly all advice from any manager, ex pro, pundit etc is when playing against ten men you need to stretch the game and move the ball quickly,  it was disappointing for us to pretty much do the opposite.

In my opinion Bunney was largely the only person on the left flank, as Idrs tended to be tucked inside and at points central.

I though Bunney was largely ok, which is fine for a first game back.

In midfield I think Idris and Matete would work well in tandem, and have Morais and Adams on the wings.

Bunney, Menayese, Waterfall and Hewitt is the most reliable at the moment.