Strikers - a different perspective

I posted pre-season (before Bogle & Amond had signed) that a front two of Pittman and Arnold would be good enough to get us out of this league, and that we shouldn't panic about the lack of signings (panicking was rather in-vogue at the time). Still hold that view - though I'm not saying that would be my first-choice pairing.

Thing is, despite our perceived strength in the striker department, it took two wonderful individual goals from Arnold to get us the points on Tuesday - without them we'd be reading bitter comments about Tomlinson's Shop-like effort straight to the keeper when unmarked in front of goal.

Quite sure that ginnywings is correct when he says PH would rather out-defend opponents than out-score them (even at home) - and that's clearly why Tomlinson is playing. It's also the reason I didn't renew my ST. Given our outstanding away form last season, it's obvious that it was our poor home form which cost us promotion - which I put down to Hurst's lack of adventure at BP. Doesn't look like that will change, though the points-per-game argument is fairly compelling justification. I've no beef with PH for trying to do things his way....it's my choice not to fork out plenty to watch it.

Seems to be a slight danger that 'Bogle & Amond' are becoming a double-act....we play both or neither! I'd start JPP and Amond, and sub the Pope after an hour with Bogle. Of more concern to me is midfield: Mackreth is the right type of player - but not quite good enough IMO.
And we need a very good midfielder to cover for Disley, on whom we're relying too much.

Quoted from Tommy

I understand why people say that, but I don't think it's that important.

It comes down to a Manager's coaching/management philosophy rather than the position they played as a player. The position they used to play can influence their coaching philosophy, but there's plenty that go against the theory too.

Eddie Howe was a defender but his Bournemouth team play nice attacking football.

George Graham was a forward but his teams were the dull but effective type, famously grinding out 1-0 wins.

Besides, let's not forget we are the 2nd highest goalscorers in the division.

Exactly. Even the glorious 97/98 team (managed by a striker) was built on defence; we only scored 55 goals (2 less than relegated Carlisle!) and our top scoring striker got 8.

Quoted from Abdul19

Exactly. Even the glorious 97/98 team (managed by a striker) was built on defence; we only scored 55 goals (2 less than relegated Carlisle!) and our top scoring striker got 8.

Been and had a look at the stats for that season. We won 19 and lost 12, with 15 draws. One more defeat and we would have finished 9th. We only won one of our first 8 games and the manager was getting plenty of stick as i recall. Fine margins.

Quoted from ginnywings

Been and had a look at the stats for that season. We won 19 and lost 12, with 15 draws. One more defeat and we would have finished 9th. We only won one of our first 8 games and the manager was getting plenty of stick as i recall. Fine margins.

And after a very good pre season then as well if I recall

In this day of t'internet, there would have been howls for his dismissal long before now. We had 20 points after 15 games that season and were one of the biggest spenders in the transfer market, as I recall. We were in 17th place at the end of October! Boo, Buckleys Out!  

There was a lot of discontent and folk wanting him out. Lots didn't want him back at all. No need for your electronical messaging systems to spread discontent.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

Someone obviously doesn't!

Seems a shame to me that a side works hard & plays well for an hour or so and then when the strikers are swapped the pattern changes to more defensive. Maybe just tiredness in midfield, maybe deliberate, maybe both, but people seem agreed Bogle and Amond didn't get the support the other 2 did earlier in the game.

Fot a home game we needed to win I'd have started with the best two and made the most of possession and buried Gateshead by half time then bring on the reserve and loanee to run about for the final quarter. Wasn't all the pre-match talk about going for the jugular? While it's great to see super strikes from Arnold and I'm really pleased for the lad, they should have been the icing on the cake, not relied on to win the game.

But there again, I'm as pig ignorant about this game as every other fan. Managers know best.

That could have been the case but I think you could be doing Gateshead a disservice here. They made a couple of subs and changed their approach at around the same part of the game. It's easy to forget that the opposing manager also sees the game develop and introduces his own counter-measures.

Of course Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh are the best pairing, but some days, against some opponents, you need a bit of Ian Bishop and Patrick Patterson to get the job done.

Even though I prefer a combination of Amond / Bogle / JPP, I would honestly take Tomlinson till the end of the season if we can, he's got goals in him scoring 18/14/18 over the past three seasons at this level, so the chances are the goals will start popping in and this is what Hurst is thinking regardless if he says he's not bothered if we win and the strikers don't score.

Whatever way you look at it, Tomlinson has played 5 games and not scored, this won't do him any favors at jumping straight back into Barnet's setup as their manager seemed keen to take him back when the loan was initiated, so the chance of extending his loan further have probally greatly increased due to that very fact and Hurst loves him. Tomlinson's loan is due to expire on Saturday, 17th October.

If he had banged in 5 goals in 5 games, we would of been saying "tada" to him come next week, I think the fact he hasn't scored yet will be to our advantage in the coming months.

I wonder. Even though I am keen to see Bogle justify his fee and I think Amond is the best finisher we have, I wonder if sometime it will be in Hurst's mind to use Arnold more as a central striker. He has looked at the idea briefly before.

From Hurst's point of view it solves one of his greatest desires, a deep defence with a very quick striker as an outlet playing alongside a more conventional striker. That seems to me to fit the Hurst mantra perfectly.

From the supporters viewpoint we have seen this counter-attack system before a few times. Slade used it with Reddy, Tony Ford also spent a successful season or so as a central striker and before that McMenemy used Stuart Brace in more or less the same role. All scored a lot of goals by using the space behind the defence. But you do need a Dave Boylen type player to put the ball in the right place for them.

Not saying this would be my preference but I bet the thought has crossed Hurst's mind especially after Tuesday.