Podge

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.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

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.

Quoted from Maringer

Your evidence for this? Come on, you must have some. If not, do you seriously believe that Hurst would deliberately sign and then field a player who he knew was worse than his other options, just "to teach those players a lesson"?

He's a manager of a Conference football club whose future career depends on the team winning games and (hopefully) promotion, not flipping Machiavelli. He can't risk deliberately losing points just to make his point.

Next, we'll be hearing claims that he's making selections to 'spite the fans' or somesuch nonsense.

Call me crazy, but I think is actually probable that he signed Tomlinson because we were short due to lack of numbers up front and injury and then made the choice to play him because he thought it was the right decision for each of the games in which he appeared. Similar to the way in which he signed Robinson as cover for Clay and then didn't renew the loan when Clay was ready to return to the team. Signing players on loan to cover absences or offer something different isn't exactly a whacky concept.

If Tomlinson goes for good after Saturday's game, we'll certainly need to sign another striker on loan because we are still short on numbers for the important league games. If we re-sign Tomlinson after the Cup matches (as some suspect), I would think he will be selected to play as injuries/form require, just like any other loanee.

Quoted from Maringer

Your evidence for this? Come on, you must have some. If not, do you seriously believe that Hurst would deliberately sign and then field a player who he knew was worse than his other options, just "to teach those players a lesson"?

He's a manager of a Conference football club whose future career depends on the team winning games and (hopefully) promotion, not flipping Machiavelli. He can't risk deliberately losing points just to make his point.

Next, we'll be hearing claims that he's making selections to 'spite the fans' or somesuch nonsense.

Call me crazy, but I think is actually probable that he signed Tomlinson because we were short due to lack of numbers up front and injury and then made the choice to play him because he thought it was the right decision for each of the games in which he appeared. Similar to the way in which he signed Robinson as cover for Clay and then didn't renew the loan when Clay was ready to return to the team. Signing players on loan to cover absences or offer something different isn't exactly a whacky concept.

If Tomlinson goes for good after Saturday's game, we'll certainly need to sign another striker on loan because we are still short on numbers for the important league games. If we re-sign Tomlinson after the Cup matches (as some suspect), I would think he will be selected to play as injuries/form require, just like any other loanee.

Quoted from Hertsmariner

At least it proves some of us can have a civilised debate without recourse to foul-mouthed garbage!

Quoted from LongEatonMariner

^do I need to point out that was typed in jest or is some uptight town fan going to be offended?