Podge

What 'one' would Mr Hurst be?

Answers on a postcard please. Whatever that means. Answers on a postcard I guess  

Our one

Quoted from Hertsmariner

And perhaps the most important thing to emerge from the interview was/is Hurst's constructive demands for continuous improvement in each of those players he sees a weakness. As we have seen on other occasions (Thomas and Neilson for example), players without the right attitude and determination to improve, have no place in Hurst's 'world'. And quite right too. Many contributors to this site seem unable to see that Hurst has no 'first XI' (perhaps Dis and Mac are the exceptions), but that he continues to try to build a squad of equals, providing genuine competition in every corner of the team sheet. What is also obvious is that the players have 'bought in' to Hurst's philosophy and support each other even from the bench. Had there been a 'Hurst first XI', with some players scarcely ever given a start, I doubt whether this team spirit would survive for long. It is, however, a delicate balancing act for Hurst's man-management skills, and particularly with the likes of Venney and Clifton hoping to seize their chance too.    

one of the best posts I have read on here, ever

Quoted from oldun

Our one

Us one.

Hurst is either "us one" or "The Yorkshire One"

Obi One?

Use the force Omar,use the force

The Short one

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Hurst is either "us one" or "The Yorkshire One"

'Appen.

Quoted from Hertsmariner

And perhaps the most important thing to emerge from the interview was/is Hurst's constructive demands for continuous improvement in each of those players he sees a weakness. As we have seen on other occasions (Thomas and Neilson for example), players without the right attitude and determination to improve, have no place in Hurst's 'world'. And quite right too. Many contributors to this site seem unable to see that Hurst has no 'first XI' (perhaps Dis and Mac are the exceptions), but that he continues to try to build a squad of equals, providing genuine competition in every corner of the team sheet. What is also obvious is that the players have 'bought in' to Hurst's philosophy and support each other even from the bench. Had there been a 'Hurst first XI', with some players scarcely ever given a start, I doubt whether this team spirit would survive for long. It is, however, a delicate balancing act for Hurst's man-management skills, and particularly with the likes of Venney and Clifton hoping to seize their chance too.    

I would agree about Thomas & Neilson, though once again it was Hurst who signed them and presumably had done his homework so why it should be a surprise they didn't fit the profile he wants is a bit of a mystery.

Every manager looks for continuous improvement. Hurst is no different, his job depends on it. We should have learned by now to take interviews and press comments with a large pinch of salt as neither manager nor players are likely to disagree with each other or say anything contentious and likely to jeopardise their futures.

What is hard to understand about Hurst's management is that he left players out and weakened the side, we assume to teach those players a lesson. He's done it before, especially with Neilson, but here Tomlinson was signed for that reason as well as just giving cover, so he could leave out first choice players and park them on the bench. It would be a big assumption to say Hurst actually planned to return both Bogle and Amond to the side against Halifax. Circumstances forced his hand in the form of Pittman's injury and probably the Tomlinson non-scoring streak and unpopularity with some supporters, and the loan ending situation. Otherwise my guess would be only one of the dynamic duo would have played and the other would have been on the bench.

As it happened, the team was spot on for the opposition and Hurst certainly deserves a lot of credit for sending the players out with the right attitude and keeping them going full tilt for 90 minutes.

The strikers have got most of the attention and headlines but in some ways the most interesting part of Tuesday's performance was the way the rest of the team played. The central midfield particularly played at least 10 yards further forward than they have been doing in most games and they kept to that more or less for the 90 minutes. The full backs supported the wingers and forced the opposition back. Obviously Halifax ain't very good and it might be a different story perhaps against better teams but it was noticeable. It seems to me that Bogle/Amond are instrumental in that simply because they are both such good players with abilities Tomlinson just doesn't have. It's not only running that counts, it's intelligent movement. They bring wingers and midfield into the game as a result. They also make more room for the rest by frightening defenders and dragging more defenders to them. Goal 5 was the best example of the night when the final pass meant Clay had so much space to just place his shot.

Of course that works both ways. Once the midfield is pushing up it helps the strikers and that aspect has been absent for long periods in games this season and last and hence the overdoing of the long ball looking for LJL and this year Monkhouse.

That makes it all the more puzzling to me as to why they have been left out for so long. Injuries are only a bit of the story I suspect. But if the manager wanted to make a point it didn't need all these missing games to do it, and if he wanted them to learn it seems a bit odd to not let them learn on the pitch. I'm all for taking the long term view but such decisions have cost points and could have cost more points that I hope we don't need later on. It will be interesting to see what the team selection is for the next two games especially if Pittman is available. More of the same and tonking Torquay by a good score would be a great workout and confidence boost for the Cheltenham game.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

I would agree about Thomas & Neilson, though once again it was Hurst who signed them and presumably had done his homework so why it should be a surprise they didn't fit the profile he wants is a bit of a mystery.

Every manager looks for continuous improvement. Hurst is no different, his job depends on it. We should have learned by now to take interviews and press comments with a large pinch of salt as neither manager nor players are likely to disagree with each other or say anything contentious and likely to jeopardise their futures.

What is hard to understand about Hurst's management is that he left players out and weakened the side, we assume to teach those players a lesson. He's done it before, especially with Neilson, but here Tomlinson was signed for that reason as well as just giving cover, so he could leave out first choice players and park them on the bench. It would be a big assumption to say Hurst actually planned to return both Bogle and Amond to the side against Halifax. Circumstances forced his hand in the form of Pittman's injury and probably the Tomlinson non-scoring streak and unpopularity with some supporters, and the loan ending situation. Otherwise my guess would be only one of the dynamic duo would have played and the other would have been on the bench.

As it happened, the team was spot on for the opposition and Hurst certainly deserves a lot of credit for sending the players out with the right attitude and keeping them going full tilt for 90 minutes.

The strikers have got most of the attention and headlines but in some ways the most interesting part of Tuesday's performance was the way the rest of the team played. The central midfield particularly played at least 10 yards further forward than they have been doing in most games and they kept to that more or less for the 90 minutes. The full backs supported the wingers and forced the opposition back. Obviously Halifax ain't very good and it might be a different story perhaps against better teams but it was noticeable. It seems to me that Bogle/Amond are instrumental in that simply because they are both such good players with abilities Tomlinson just doesn't have. It's not only running that counts, it's intelligent movement. They bring wingers and midfield into the game as a result. They also make more room for the rest by frightening defenders and dragging more defenders to them. Goal 5 was the best example of the night when the final pass meant Clay had so much space to just place his shot.

Of course that works both ways. Once the midfield is pushing up it helps the strikers and that aspect has been absent for long periods in games this season and last and hence the overdoing of the long ball looking for LJL and this year Monkhouse.

That makes it all the more puzzling to me as to why they have been left out for so long. Injuries are only a bit of the story I suspect. But if the manager wanted to make a point it didn't need all these missing games to do it, and if he wanted them to learn it seems a bit odd to not let them learn on the pitch. I'm all for taking the long term view but such decisions have cost points and could have cost more points that I hope we don't need later on. It will be interesting to see what the team selection is for the next two games especially if Pittman is available. More of the same and tonking Torquay by a good score would be a great workout and confidence boost for the Cheltenham game.

Not sure why you got red crossed for that. I thought it was a reasoned post.