Questionable

I'll admit I wasn't there today before anyone gets judgemental but any manager that can pick Mackreth ahead of Arnold and leave both leading scorers on the bench wants his bumps felt.

I WAS there and I totally agree with you

I can understand why Arnold probably hasn't trained in a while so didn't out him in.

He kept the winning side and people would of moaned if he changed it he couldn't win in this case.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I'll admit I wasn't there today before anyone gets judgemental but any manager that can pick Mackreth ahead of Arnold and leave both leading scorers on the bench wants his bumps felt.

you are very rarely there but you continue to spout your usual shite...intercourse off

Quoted from sonofmadeleymariner

I can understand why Arnold probably hasn't trained in a while so didn't out him in.

He kept the winning side and people would of moaned if he changed it he couldn't win in this case.

I doubt very very much if people would have moaned a lot if he had picked Bogle and Amond regardless of last week.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I'll admit I wasn't there today before anyone gets judgemental but any manager that can pick Mackreth ahead of Arnold and leave both leading scorers on the bench wants his bumps felt.

Perhaps because the team he picked won 4-0 away the previous week!

As they say you never change a winning side!

Quoted from Calamarikid

you are very rarely there but you continue to spout your usual shite...intercourse off

See you Tuesday!

Quoted from Calamarikid

you are very rarely there but you continue to spout your usual shite...intercourse off

Nice bloke you are

And a negative rep from me for your abusive language.... No need for it and sick of reading it on here lately

In all honesty has anyone ever seen mackreth beat his man ?

Came here with a decent reputation but never ever really delivered for me.

Quoted from jonnyboy82

In all honesty has anyone ever seen mackreth beat his man ?

Came here with a decent reputation but never ever really delivered for me.

I always find jack to busy thinking about his defensive duty's first before thinking about beating his man

Quoted from Mighty_Mariner

Perhaps because the team he picked won 4-0 away the previous week!

As they say you never change a winning side!

Fairly sure they should also say, "Don't drop two of the best strikers we've had in a decade, repeatedly, regardless of results, performances or either the amount of goals we've scored as a team, or they have individually".

We were poor at Southport. I was there. We created very little; it was just they were utterly atrocious the moment we scored our first (a long range ping with our first foray forward) and we scored with first four shots. It was weird, it was a non-game.

Feel free to change a winning side after a disjointed performance/match against abysmal opposition. Especially when it was perhaps so poor because our four most dangerous players were missing (one through legitimate reasons).

I should be baffled by it all, but I'm not.

UTM

Quoted from PPMariner

Fairly sure they should also say, "Don't drop two of the best strikers we've had in a decade, repeatedly, regardless of results, performances or either the amount of goals we've scored as a team, or they have individually".

We were poor at Southport. I was there. We created very little; it was just they were utterly atrocious the moment we scored our first (a long range ping with our first foray forward) and we scored with first four shots. It was weird, it was a non-game.

Feel free to change a winning side after a disjointed performance/match against abysmal opposition. Especially when it was perhaps so poor because our four most dangerous players were missing (one through legitimate reasons).

I should be baffled by it all, but I'm not.

UTM

The Fishy at it's absolute best. Only on here could a 4-0 away win be described as "poor"  

Quoted from barralad

The Fishy at it's absolute best. Only on here could a 4-0 away win be described as "poor"  

"We were poor at Southport. I was there. We created very little; it was just they were utterly atrocious the moment we scored our first (a long range ping with our first foray forward) and we scored with first four shots."

We created very little - seven shots, away at relegation placed rival.

They were utterly atrocious - hard to provably qualify with bare facts but anyone there (including Southport) would agree.

We scored... ...with our first foray forward - after a third of the first half had elapsed.

We scored with first four shots - true.

*We* is the key word; for those troubled by comprehension. *We* were poor at Southport.

Barralad - this is not the same as, and never will be, "a 4-0 win away from home is a poor result".

Quoted from PPMariner

"We were poor at Southport. I was there. We created very little; it was just they were utterly atrocious the moment we scored our first (a long range ping with our first foray forward) and we scored with first four shots."

We created very little - seven shots, away at relegation placed rival.

They were utterly atrocious - hard to provably qualify with bare facts but anyone there (including Southport) would agree.

We scored... ...with our first foray forward - after a third of the first half had elapsed.

We scored with first four shots - true.

*We* is the key word; for those troubled by comprehension. *We* were poor at Southport.

Barralad - this is not the same as, and never will be, "a 4-0 win away from home is a poor result".

So *we* gave a "poor" performance and still managed to win 4-0? There wasn't the same urgency in the second half as there was in the first because the game was won. Hurst may have torn them a collective new one for not keeping up the pressure and getting double figures but I suspect that it is human nature to take your foot off the gas in such a one-sided game.

Quoted from jonnyboy82

In all honesty has anyone ever seen mackreth beat his man ?

Came here with a decent reputation but never ever really delivered for me.

I think there are two factors to this.

1) Confidence. I think the main issue is he lacks a bit of self confidence. Doesn't believe he can do it. Even when he does beat his man on the outside and throw in a cross, it can be another hour sometimes before he tries it again.

2) Maybe he's not quite as quick as people think he is. Maybe muscle injuries have taken a toll on him and slowed him down a bit from when he was at Barrow earning himself a reputation.

Fair points. He's much too 'in and out' for me and he doesn't create or score enough goals, even though he can look dangerous. I don't think he's improving or showing signs of becoming a better player, and he should be. I think that's key. Offensively at least. He works hard and does a good job defensively.

Quoted from Mighty_Mariner

Perhaps because the team he picked won 4-0 away the previous week!

As they say you never change a winning side!

It's never stopped him before! In my mind you pick your strongest team/best players when you play the league leaders.    

Quoted from MuddyWaters

See you Tuesday!

It's "see you next Tuesday".

Quoted from barralad

So *we* gave a "poor" performance and still managed to win 4-0? There wasn't the same urgency in the second half as there was in the first because the game was won. Hurst may have torn them a collective new one for not keeping up the pressure and getting double figures but I suspect that it is human nature to take your foot off the gas in such a one-sided game.

Pretty poor I'd say. Southport were absolute shite. So yeah, I'd say he was right.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

It's "see you next Tuesday".

lol very good.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Pretty poor I'd say. Southport were absolute shite. So yeah, I'd say he was right.

Does the phrase "Damn my luck the first time I can make a comment and we play alright" ring any bells? It should do because its what you wrote a week ago in the Southport "Just Back Thread"

You got me banged to rights there Barra.

Alright. Yeah. We were alright. No more. Not enough to warrant the "mustn't change a winning team" argument.

I blame my inconsistency on it being  long season, with lots of games coming thick and fast, and I have to change my mind to suit the opposition.

The 'mustn't change a winning team' notion is flawed though isn't it. It's a bit of a red herring.

Marshall looked threatening when he came on (as he did at Southport), would hope he gets a start now. Don't know why Pittman was taken off when Tomlinson didn't look like he'd seen a ball before. The subs were made too late, missed a big chance to close the gap this week, now we're losing touch. We're still in a position to take this league but can't have faith with performances like that, no confidence for long spells!  

Quoted from chaos33

The 'mustn't change a winning team' notion is flawed though isn't it. It's a bit of a red herring.

We should play our strongest team every game , I dont believe we have been doing for the last four seasons

Quoted from grimps

We should play our strongest team every game , I dont believe we have been doing for the last four seasons

Agree with the sentiment - my problem with it is that PH doesn't know what it is. Whether or not Bogle is a work in progress, Amond is the best finisher we've had here in years and (if fit) should start every game. Mackreth is not half the player that either Marshall or Arnold are - therefore to leave all 4 out against the team you could really do with beating is questionable.

Quoted from chaos33

The 'mustn't change a winning team' notion is flawed though isn't it. It's a bit of a red herring.

Of course it is flawed. Any decent manager will pick a side he thinks will beat the opponents in front of his team. There is loads of evidence on here though that people think he tinkers too much with the formation. Doesnt really apply to you but double standards abound. For the record Id have liked very much to have seen Amond or Bogle partner JPP. I havent read any compelling evidence as to why JPP shouldve made way and for me his performance justified his selection.

The only thing that justifies his selection IMO is that Hurst likes hustle and bustle players in the Shop mode, if they happen to score that's a bonus.
To leave your leading scorers on the bench at home is defensive tactics IMO and we should be more adventurous, a word foreign to him I'm afraid

Quoted from Garth

The only thing that justifies his selection IMO is that Hurst likes hustle and bustle players in the Shop mode, if they happen to score that's a bonus.
To leave your leading scorers on the bench at home is defensive tactics IMO and we should be more adventurous, a word foreign to him I'm afraid

I'm not sure if that is aimed at my post but if it is and you are talking about JPP then I honestly cannot see that the two players are in any way shape or form similar. Pittman has skill and touch in abundance.

Quoted from barralad

Of course it is flawed. Any decent manager will pick a side he thinks will beat the opponents in front of his team. There is loads of evidence on here though that people think he tinkers too much with the formation. Doesnt really apply to you but double standards abound. For the record Id have liked very much to have seen Amond or Bogle partner JPP. I havent read any compelling evidence as to why JPP shouldve made way and for me his performance justified his selection.

Yes, agreed.

Quoted from jonnyboy82

In all honesty has anyone ever seen mackreth beat his man ?

Came here with a decent reputation but never ever really delivered for me.

In the second half he could have beaten his nan and would have been on for goal. He can't beat his man and has little pace, a winger should be able to stretch the full back and put in dangerous balls.

Jack is one of those hard working players with whom we normally look more solid and ship less goals. When he gets going and pressies forward he can be a real nuisance to defenders. Like someone else said, if he runs with the ball in the box more we'll gets loads of penalties.

On the negative side, he looks like he's got a chip implanted in his head which gives him and electric shock sometimes or he's on an invisible piece of string that stops him going forward too far.

Quoted from barralad

I'm not sure if that is aimed at my post but if it is and you are talking about JPP then I honestly cannot see that the two players are in any way shape or form similar. Pittman has skill and touch in abundance.

You may be shocked by this - I totally agree! LJL had little skill, JPP has plenty. What LJL had was heart and a considerable work ethic which is possibly what JPP and Bogle are a little short of. Neither are an LJL type target man and we need to stop the hoofball.

Jack is a real confidence player will always remember that goal when he cut in a scored that screamer if only he had the confidence to do that more. Sometimes he beats his man only to pass it back he as the skill to get past players but lacks confidence to run into the box directly for goal.He is not blessed with blistering pace Marshall is quicker.

Don't understand why many of you lot constantly pick on Mackreth, I was sat behind a scout yesterday and reading his notes over his shoulder Jack and clay were getting plenty of attention. Jack always puts in a good shift for me, he was one of the better players yesterday, most of the threat coming down the right, also the reference to speed and beating his man, suggest that's got a lot to do with where and when he gets the ball, put it in behind the defender and he would beat the full back all the time, looks like he is conditioned to keep the ball, so the cut back to the right back may not be kind on the eye, but keeps the ball and the defender is better placed to make the cross. Finally suggest you all take a look at the left wing, not a fan of monkhouse but forgot he was playing yesterday as he contributed nothing.

Quoted from Fan

Don't understand why many of you lot constantly pick on Mackreth, I was sat behind a scout yesterday and reading his notes over his shoulder Jack and clay were getting plenty of attention. Jack always puts in a good shift for me, he was one of the better players yesterday, most of the threat coming down the right, also the reference to speed and beating his man, suggest that's got a lot to do with where and when he gets the ball, put it in behind the defender and he would beat the full back all the time, looks like he is conditioned to keep the ball, so the cut back to the right back may not be kind on the eye, but keeps the ball and the defender is better placed to make the cross. Finally suggest you all take a look at the left wing, not a fan of monkhouse but forgot he was playing yesterday as he contributed nothing.

I know it's not Hursts way of doing things but I can't help but think that we would score a hatful of goals if Marshall and Arnold played as the wide men with East and Tait as full backs - we might concede a few more but that amount of pace would terrify defences in this league.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I know it's not Hursts way of doing things but I can't help but think that we would score a hatful of goals if Marshall and Arnold played as the wide men with East and Tait as full backs - we might concede a few more but that amount of pace would terrify defences in this league.

You see I could live with conceding a few more but Id give it one week of winning 3-2 or drawing to see the must keep a clean sheet brigade in full voice.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I know it's not Hursts way of doing things but I can't help but think that we would score a hatful of goals if Marshall and Arnold played as the wide men with East and Tait as full backs - we might concede a few more but that amount of pace would terrify defences in this league.

Absolutely.

Tait not had a look in since the beginning of the season.

I like him.

Quoted from 28195

In the second half he could have beaten his nan and would have been on for goal. He can't beat his man and has little pace, a winger should be able to stretch the full back and put in dangerous balls.

Yep.

I reckon he could have beaten his nan, it would certainly give him a confidence boost.