Podge

Just listened to his interview. Top, top man. Very articulate and humble. Love him.

magnanimous......simple.

His interview is here, in case anyone missed it:

https://audioboom.com/boos/368.....s-against-fc-halifax

Quoted from Belfast Town

His interview is here, in case anyone missed it:

https://audioboom.com/boos/368.....s-against-fc-halifax

Excellent interview with a very honest, professional intelligent young man.

Very interesting to hear what he said about defending from the front. Like the support for Tomlinson as well.

I thought he was very professional.

The lad's done himself no harm there.

Coming off the back of getting 4 goals, he didn't sound a bit cocky. Good man. Good man.

All of the above, "very magnanimous", were my exact words.

Excellent interview, so happy to have a player with that attitude to play for us.

UTM

Bound to be dropped next game for not getting 5....


(This is a joke, for those about to red cross the excrement out of this post...,!)

Who was the last Town player to score four in a game? Hearn vs Alfreton 2011?

Quoted from LH

Who was the last Town player to score four in a game? Hearn vs Alfreton 2011?

Err,
AMOND !!  vs Halifax 2015
😉😀😜
UTM

Podge - a class act. He clearly isn't as shortsighted about PH as many others are. Further evidence for me that Hurst knows what he's doing.

A nice interview. Said all the right things.

When Hurst dropped Podge before he came on and scored a cracker against Torquay,

This time Hurst left him out the side for a few games and he responds by scoring 4,

The next time Hurst drops him,

He will come back and score 6,

There better not be a next time though.

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.    

Was a quality interview, everytime on twitter he has been very supportive of Hurst and think he is a top class character, as well as a somewhat decent striker, very good to have at the club!

keeping a straight face and sounding sincere while almost praising Hurst for dropping him...wouldnt want to play poker against him.  

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.    

It's just a shame that a section of the posters on here can't see this. These posters don't know PH, have never socialised or conversed with him and never worked for him yet are quick to dish out their character assassinations based on their own suppositions.

Perhaps it goes to show why see players who we are underwhelmed with when sign end up stars -Hurst has the eye and the savvy to sit them down one to one and tell them what they need to work on to make their game better around and specific points to slot into the bigger team ethos.

Perhaps there was a bit of dissent behind the scenes but Hursty's resolve will not be shaken and people perhaps realise got to buck up and fall into line or will end on the wilderness.

The ability to get a tune out of the vast bulk of his men and have them firing at the top of their capabilities cannot be underestimated.

A certain Mr Mourinho is (usually) a master of such arts... *


* -awaits bombardment for the ridiculous Hurst/Mourinho comparison   -I speak of this matter only, not tactical nous etc

Comparison:  Hurst has had a better start to the season.

If Mourinho is the special one, Kloppo the normal one.....

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.

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.

Excellent assessment from a fan's perspective - let's just play the first team and see (not stick players in corners with 'dunces' caps on). (If I could 'tick' this up, I would).

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.

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.

It's funny but when he deliberately weakened our team the results improved.

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.

Having read  both of the contributions contained within Im more in tune with Maringers definition. The thought that a manager would weaken his team to teach certai  players a lesson is quite frankly barmy. Rodleys post sums it up better than me

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.

I didn't say "deliberately" weakened the side. The side was weaker without those players - in my opinion - and I think quite a few people would agree with that.

In the manager's opinion he clearly wasn't deliberately weakening the side, signing Tomlinson was strengthening it in his eyes and with a very useful side effect of being able to say to Bogle & Amond -  "there you are lads, that's the sort of workrate we need from you". He's the manager, it's his call. Who am I to argue with the man who gets paid to pick the team? I'm only a supporter expressing a supporter's opinion. Other people may have other opinions and think the omission of Bogle and Amond for several games was a good thing. I just don't happen to think that leaving two of your best players out for several games is a very clever move when there were points we might have gained in some of those drawn games.

Maybe he doesn't drop players to teach them a lesson, but does it until they improve their attitude in training and put in the effort he requires of them.

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

Quoted from Hertsmariner

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

Oh p**s off you stup** c***!

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

Quoted from LongEatonMariner

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

Someone is.  

Some really interesting talking points in this thread. I agree with several but tend to agree with RRFC generally I think. I do believe the side was weakened in terms of goal threat, even if Hurst felt he was improving it. I'm also interested in the idea that the results improved with Tomlinson in the side. We only won two out of five did we not?

We'd won 2 out of 7 or 8 before that and lost twice.

Much tougher run of games too. We definitely tightened up but with the downside of not scoring as much. We'll never know if we would have won more points with Bogle/Amond up front against FGR, Wrexham, Braintree etc. I think it was the loss to Altrincham that started the pack shuffling by Hurst.

Yeah ok, to be fair that's right I suppose, if a bit of a crude IMO. Hard to make a proper comparison really because Tomlinson didn't play 7 or 8 games, and it's not just about him is it. Lots of variables. I think, generally speaking, we've been drawing too many games and not winning enough. No point going back over old ground again now.

No but there certainly isn't evidence to support the idea that his inclusion significantly weakened us. His run of starts included some tough games as well. Maybe his inclusion steadied us as much as anything and hopefully we can now extend the unbeaten run with more wins than draws.

Quoted from chaos33

Yeah ok, to be fair that's right I suppose, if a bit of a crude IMO. Hard to make a proper comparison really because Tomlinson didn't play 7 or 8 games, and it's not just about him is it. Lots of variables. I think, generally speaking, we've been drawing too many games and not winning enough. No point going back over old ground again now.


I agree it's crude and but after Altrincham he made lots of changes; too many if you ask me and Pittman, then Tommo were preferred to Bogle in general and Amond in particular for a good few games. Pittman of course took his chance and Amond couldn't get back in, with Tommo being preferred to Bogle. I'm of the opinion that too many changes were made, not just in attack but we'll never know if they were the correct calls or not.

Too many draws as you say but at least we haven't lost many and over a season all those 1 points add up, keeping us in contention for when that winning run happens. Still think he should have stuck with Bogle and Amond and rode it out though.

Yes I do too, although there was clearly a case for Tomlinson playing in some of those games.

Quoted from chaos33

Yes I do too, although there was clearly a case for Tomlinson playing in some of those games.

I wonder if his natural cautiousness led him to feel some games, like Wrexham, were 'must not lose'. Maybe if we'd been more positive we'd have picked up more points but we'll never know. Ultimately, one way or another we're on a good run, climbing the table and getting closer to FGR. Just need to keep going.

Yeah I think you're right on all counts there RM.

Agree with most of these. Tomlinson was probably used for his defensive capabilities against the good teams so we didn't lose, something which might've continued with Podge and Bogle, despite possibly winning more. Have a feeling the main two will be used from now on, especially against the weaker teams.

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.

Excellent post. Some good points, well reasoned.

JPP's turn to sit on the bench, fully recover, and be breathing down both of the other two strikers necks.

This type of challenge, play well, score or be dropped will keep the forwards really keen for the full season, and I would expect all 3 to make it to 20 goals at least, given the amount of games each plays moving on.

I also expect Arnold to probably go into the 10 to 15 mark with current form on his return. if Diz then gets his customary 10, then we should have sufficient fire power across the board.

The mobility of the back 4 is now enhanced with Conor returning, with no disrespect to either of the other backs. With the youth and vitality, passing and mobility coming into most areas, the signs are looking good for a decent winning run to come together.

Fear no one, let them fear our players, and then unleash the bench to refresh the team late on to maintain the pace and style. Strong defense, harder midfield, great forwards - now go for clean sheets and good goals for ratios.

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

I wonder if his natural cautiousness led him to feel some games, like Wrexham, were 'must not lose'. Maybe if we'd been more positive we'd have picked up more points but we'll never know. Ultimately, one way or another we're on a good run, climbing the table and getting closer to FGR. Just need to keep going.

Absolutely. There was clearly a caution factor if not a fear factor at work. That's why I said elsewhere it will be interesting to see the team selection for the next two games. Particularly Cheltenham.

Quoted from acko338

I also expect Arnold to probably go into the 10 to 15 mark with current form on his return. if Diz then gets his customary 10, then we should have sufficient fire power across the board.

I don't think there is much chance that Disley will get near 10 goals this season. He's got just one goal so far and I think this is because he has been playing a good bit deeper this season than in the past couple of years. Hopefully, this shouldn't be an issue as we have plenty of forwards and wingers who should get the goals we need. If we can get Arnold scoring over 10 goals, Monkhouse around 10, Marshall and Mackreth getting a few and some from the defenders at set pieces, we ought to have enough in attack to mount a proper challenge this year with the forwards we have (plus another signing in due course). Last season we were too reliant on LJL until the arrival of Palmer half way through the season.

P.S. Defence, please. We're not Americans.  

Deeeeeeeeee-fense.  

Quoted from Maringer

I don't think there is much chance that Disley will get near 10 goals this season. He's got just one goal so far and I think this is because he has been playing a good bit deeper this season than in the past couple of years. Hopefully, this shouldn't be an issue as we have plenty of forwards and wingers who should get the goals we need. If we can get Arnold scoring over 10 goals, Monkhouse around 10, Marshall and Mackreth getting a few and some from the defenders at set pieces, we ought to have enough in attack to mount a proper challenge this year with the forwards we have (plus another signing in due course). Last season we were too reliant on LJL until the arrival of Palmer half way through the season.

P.S. Defence, please. We're not Americans.  

I got myself so worked up after seeing that spelling I thought I might need to call a mortician

Quoted from barralad

I got myself so worked up after seeing that spelling I thought I might need to call a mortician

That would be a good trick Barra. Not many people have managed to call a mortician after they've snuffed it.

I think I'll now go and fill my pail from the faucet before I kick it!

I reckon Podge needs his own song...

"Podge Amond wooooaaho
Podge Amond wooooaaho
He's Irish so be told,
His boots are leaking goals"

Etc etc.

I'll get my coat.  

If 'goals' and 'told' rhymed that still wouldn't be very good Les  

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

If 'goals' and 'told' rhymed that still wouldn't be very good Les  

Isn't it called assonance or something, when words nearly rhyme? Vague memories of boring English lessons.

Quoted from Les Brechin

I reckon Podge needs his own song...

"Podge Amond wooooaaho
Podge Amond wooooaaho
He's Irish so be told,
His boots are leaking goals"

Etc etc.

I'll get my coat.  

Amond is a striker
He wears a strikers cap
He plays for super Grimsby
He is a lovely chap
He scores em from the left side
He scores em from the right
And when we played the Yorkies
He scored all fecking night

Fish One

Quoted from Civvy at last

Amond is a striker
He wears a strikers cap
He plays for super Grimsby
He is a lovely chap
He scores em from the left side
He scores em from the right
And when we played the Yorkies
He scored all fecking night

Ohhh! My Amond's a striker
I'd just change the first line - otherwise it's a pretty good song.