I thought I'd enter into this hot topic....

At the moment we have four good strikers on our books and two midfielders in Arnold and Monkhouse who can play in more advanced positions and score goals.

Barely since the days of Rees and Woods or back to Wilkinson and Lund can I remember having this sort of depth in the squad (relative to our league position).  Hurst has to take a lot of credit.  Good strikers are hard to get and last season it took until the second half of the season to get even remotely near this position - Alan Connell anyone?

At the moment we are second highest scorers in the league so Hurst and the players must be doing something right.

So what two should he have chosen last night.

He can choose from:

Pittman - together with Amond, probably the most skilful forward we have.  Injury prone so unlikely to be available all season but when fully fit and in form, why should he be dropped?  I also think JPP plays well alongside a big nuisance striker like The Shop, Ollie and Tomlinson.

Amond - has been injured, back to full fitness but is he ready to play from the start.  Why risk it when Pittman is fit and in form?

Bogle - we have to remember Bogle is a 3 year investment to the club, has loads of promise but new to professional football, full time training and has been a bit vulnerable to injury early in the season.  Hurst always said he would ease him into things.  Against some of the more 'knowing' teams in the league he may benefit from being rested and saved for the lesser matches to start with.

Tomlinson - clearly not everyone's cup of tea but he is a striker with a decent track record at this level, and with the experience to deal with a bit of pressure.  He has been playing alongside Pittman in matches where we have had some decent results.

I imagine it wasn't a slam dunk decision for Hurst last night but maybe having already decided to freshen up the right side of the pitch he decided for continuity up front.  To blast him every time he doesn't play Amond and Bogle seems crazy to me.  He has to plot success over 46 and maybe 49 league games.  He needs 4 fit and hungry strikers for all those games and it seems to me that he is managing his resources sensibly.

Good post. Most on here will not look beyond the goalscoring charts when thinking about which forwards should play but when you start to think a bit more deeply about the tactics employed by football managers and the selections made as I like to do you start to understand the decisons that pro managers tend to make.

My theory is that the powers that be have told Hurst not to play Bogle and Amond because their goalscoring bonuses will bankrupt the club if they carried on at that rate.  ;)

I suspect the choice of strikers has more to do with improving the defensive record than the scoring record.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

I suspect the choice of strikers has more to do with improving the defensive record than the scoring record.

After last night I agree 100%

4 strikers on the books is no bad thing.Keeps players on their toes as there will be competition for places.

With regard to Tomlinson, I thought he had quite a good game last night apart from he never really looks like scoring and it took a couple of great moments from Nathan Arnold to win that game against what some of us were saying was the poorest Gateshead side seen for some time.

I would still prefer to see Amond play.

I agree with RRFC and Barra on this too.

for me v Braintree I'd like us to now give tomlinson a well earnt rest and really go for them. I've not been often enough to say which 2 of the other 3 to start but I'd like us to go there with them mindset 'we are going to score more than you' they defence are now settling so lets go for it.
reading them orginal post it kind of does make sense to me.  I've seen bogle 3 times and although he's scoring I still think he's raw and has time to learn. I think this year's a learning curbe for him and to settle and whatever division we are in, next season I can see him really kicking on and turning into a real pro.

apologise for the extra letters on words. stupid phone likes to try guess what I am going to say!

Heh !

Go steady lads.

This thread is getting far too sensible .

Quoted from chaos33

I agree with RRFC and Barra on this too.

Someone obviously doesn't! ;D

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. ;)

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

Someone obviously doesn't! ;D

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. ;)

why is JPP a 'reserve'.  Arguably the best striker at the club.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

I suspect the choice of strikers has more to do with improving the defensive record than the scoring record.

As much as Lenny was maligned, you could rely on being able to pump it out to him and he would hold it up. Rather that it getting lost and straight back at our defense.
Could well be where a few of our silly goals have come from.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

Someone obviously doesn't! ;D

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. ;)

There you go I agree with you and then you spoil it.  ;D I don't think the "pattern changed" deliberately nor that Bogle and Amond "didn't get the support the other two did earlier in the game" I'm utterly convinced we didn't attack with the same vigour because we didn't press far enough up the park. The first half was as much about a pressing game forcing Gateshead into errors on a difficult surface. Would we have had the same success with Amond and Bogle up top. It's at least a moot point. In balance, as I said in another thread, I would have fancied Amond in particular to have stuck away one or more of the chances that Tomlinson didn't.
We might not agree with Hurst's selection but I think last night's should have proved to any doubters that it is certainly a viable option.

Quoted from LondonMariner43

why is JPP a 'reserve'.  Arguably the best striker at the club.

Possibly so, I don't dislike him. But he was the reserve at the start of the season in the minds of most supporters based on previous performance. And, his fitness issues make it a bit dodgy to reply on him being the main goalscorer for a championship seeking side.

Quoted from LondonMariner43

why is JPP a 'reserve'.  Arguably the best striker at the club.

I assume he meant that for most of last season and the start of this season he wasn't first choice.

Quoted from barralad

There you go I agree with you and then you spoil it.  ;D I don't think the "pattern changed" deliberately nor that Bogle and Amond "didn't get the support the other two did earlier in the game" I'm utterly convinced we didn't attack with the same vigour because we didn't press far enough up the park. The first half was as much about a pressing game forcing Gateshead into errors on a difficult surface. Would we have had the same success with Amond and Bogle up top. It's at least a moot point. In balance, as I said in another thread, I would have fancied Amond in particular to have stuck away one or more of the chances that Tomlinson didn't.
We might not agree with Hurst's selection but I think last night's should have proved to any doubters that it is certainly a viable option.

Same difference really Barra. I agree with you on that. My worry would be that Tomlinson signs on and turns into this season's LJL, first name on the team sheet not because he scores goals but because he runs about a lot and it helps the defensive aspect of the side.

Bogle is already a good player. I don't agree with this "bring him on gently" philosophy. If he's worth £50k as he is then he's worth playing and doing his learning on the park. He won't learn much warming the bench and doing the odd 15-20 minutes to appease the faithful. I doubt he will learn much about being a striker from the manager on the training pitch either. He needs games and more games and then he will do the business eventually. No good needing him to come in and do it in in February when he's spent the last 4 months suffering from piles in the dugout.

Agree with both of you again.  :)

Quoted from LondonMariner43

why is JPP a 'reserve'.  Arguably the best striker at the club.

Feel that strikers have to earn the right to be called the best here.No one should be labelled a reserve unless they merit it.Pitman in fairness is not a bad player to have at this club and certainly if he is doing the business shouldent  be dropped.

I think we should also take stock of the fact that the teams he has picked have not lost to FGR, Wrexham or Gateshead. Three difficult teams who have caused plenty of problems for others.

I think although Bogle is a natural goalscorer, his decision making is a cause for concern to Hurst as he does tend to lose possession in some dangerous places for the team. It's a tough one because had him and Amond started last night, we may have swept them away in the 30 minute purple patch at the beginning of the game, but then we may not have played as well as a unit if Bogle had been trying to score every time he got the ball instead of getting his head up and playing in others. If we had scored the goals our domination merited in that first half, then you couldn't argue with Hursts choices. The fact that we didn't led to calls for the front two to be replaced.

I'm surprised neither of Amond or Bogle are starting but we're averaging more points per game when neither of them start than when both of them or just Bogle did. We've only lost two games this season and Amond and Bogle started up front in both of them. Statisitics only tell half the story but I'd suggest they hint that PH's decision making isn't quite as crazy as some on here like to suggest.

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

I'm surprised neither of Amond or Bogle are starting but we're averaging more points per game when neither of them start than when both of them or just Bogle did. We've only lost two games this season and Amond and Bogle started up front in both of them. Statisitics only tell half the story but I'd suggest they hint that PH's decision making isn't quite as crazy as some on here like to suggest.

I think what's going on here is, its a very fine balancing act between getting goals or keeping a very tight defence.
We started off with goals galore and a very panicked defensive unit when put under the slightest pressure, so ph has now reverted back to what he does best. Defence first and foremost.
He's bought Tomlinson in on loan who will do the same as Lewis did last season for him, defend from the front, run round all day long, but maybe needs 6 games to get a goal. Ph will take that all day long and hope we can nick a goal from somewhere somehow, by who it doesn't really matter.
As for bogle and podge, I don't know what will happen but they won't be happy sat on the bench, because I wouldn't

Tomlinson last season: 14 goals in 46 appearances for a bottom half team.

That's a bit better than 1 in every 6 games. Could and perhaps should have had a couple for us by now but generally, he's not played badly. If he can regain his Lincoln form, all the better. I'm guessing his loan spell will perhaps be extended?

Quoted from Maringer

Tomlinson last season: 14 goals in 46 appearances for a bottom half team.

That's a bit better than 1 in every 6 games. Could and perhaps should have had a couple for us by now but generally, he's not played badly. If he can regain his Lincoln form, all the better. I'm guessing his loan spell will perhaps be extended?

I don't think he's a bad player, quite the apposite. I thought he had a half decent game last night tbh, but by reading things, I'm in the minority.
Wouldn't mind seeing him have a go with podge, because the movement from both of them is very good.
Getting ready for a slaying  8)

It's a tricky situation though it is one that managers are paid to face.

On one hand an unbeaten run based on last season's ethic , on the other hand the two players signed to take us one step further are sitting on the bench.

On one hand draws against teams above us in the table and a win against Gateshead, on the other hand the draws could easily have been wins and we would have been up with FGR & Cheltenham.

Perhaps most importantly - on one hand the unbeaten run continues, on the other hand the margins in several matches have been thin to say the least. All it would take is one error and ......... well, there's no room for error is there? But for two super strikes by Arnold last night would we have had the fire power to come back from 0-1? It's a moot point, certainly not guaranteed.

I agree with Ginny that Bogle has a bit to to learn on decision making but presumably, having watched him for a long time, the manager knew about that before spending £50k on the lad. He was bought because he scored goals for fun not because he was Einstein, so yes he has to learn but also the team has to adapt to get the best from him. One thing's for sure, he won't be learning much sat on the bench. Otherwise he's just a very expensive mascot.

I think we're worrying too much about the strikers. We just need Arnold to knock in a couple of belters every game and we'll be sorted.  :)

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

On one hand draws against teams above us in the table and a win against Gateshead, on the other hand the draws could easily have been wins and we would have been up with FGR & Cheltenham.

Perhaps most importantly - on one hand the unbeaten run continues, on the other hand the margins in several matches have been thin to say the least. All it would take is one error and ......... well, there's no room for error is there? But for two super strikes by Arnold last night would we have had the fire power to come back from 0-1? It's a moot point, certainly not guaranteed.

Or maybe we might have lost the games we've drawn. You're right about fine margins but who can say we wouldn't have drawn 2-2 last night if he'd played Bogle and Amond or lost 2-1 on Saturday. Like you say we might have beaten Forest Green and stuffed Gateshead. Obviously we don't know but surely 8 games unbeaten he deserves some level of trust that he is getting it right?

One thing about Bogle's play that drives me mad is that when he gets possession he invariably tries some sort of a trick - a step-over or flick. Now, this isn't bad when he's trying to beat a man (and he almost got through a couple of challenges with a trick last night), but he also seems to attempt it when there is nobody near him and it can't possibly achieve anything!

The very best players only use such tricks sparingly because good old-fashioned running, close-control and movement is generally what is required to succeed. Bogle's got those in his locker as well so I, for one, would be pleased to see him simply laying the ball off more frequently instead of attempting various tricks in the midfield area. His best touch last night was a first time lay-off finding a good Amond run so I'd like to see more effective, simple play of that sort than backheels which get him and us nowhere.

Quoted from Maringer

One thing about Bogle's play that drives me mad is that when he gets possession he invariably tries some sort of a trick - a step-over or flick. Now, this isn't bad when he's trying to beat a man (and he almost got through a couple of challenges with a trick last night), but he also seems to attempt it when there is nobody near him and it can't possibly achieve anything!

The very best players only use such tricks sparingly because good old-fashioned running, close-control and movement is generally what is required to succeed. Bogle's got those in his locker as well so I, for one, would be pleased to see him simply laying the ball off more frequently instead of attempting various tricks in the midfield area. His best touch last night was a first time lay-off finding a good Amond run so I'd like to see more effective, simple play of that sort than backheels which get him and us nowhere.

Wouldn't disagree. I remember Tony Rees used to drive me mad with that kind of thing when he first came. I don't know how Buckley did it but we saw fairly soon less of the blind flick ons and stuff.

We didn't really have much choice at the start of the season with forwards. We only had three and i don't think JPP was quite up to speed. I think Bogle was probably thrown in quicker than Hurst wanted and him and Doig will be wanting to work on his team ethic before he's to be a first choice. The fact he banged in 7 goals seems by the by for Hurst. My first impressions of him was that he's a handful but very raw, which i said in my first just back thread of the season. Amond is a much better all round player i feel but he's down the pecking order too at the moment. We just have to trust that Hurst gets the right balance because it's the thing that has stopped us being successful so far. We've had spells of scoring lots but letting too many in (the Hearn period) and spells of being mean at the back but not scoring enough ( last season), which we need to get right if we want out of this league.

The most pointless trick last night (a back heel when in plenty of space that lost possesion) came in the second half from Tomlinson.

Quoted from LH

My theory is that the powers that be have told Hurst not to play Bogle and Amond because their goalscoring bonuses will bankrupt the club if they carried on at that rate.  ;)

Its a conspiracy I tell you  ;)

Quoted from ginnywings

We didn't really have much choice at the start of the season with forwards. We only had three and i don't think JPP was quite up to speed. I think Bogle was probably thrown in quicker than Hurst wanted and him and Doig will be wanting to work on his team ethic before he's to be a first choice. The fact he banged in 7 goals seems by the by for Hurst. My first impressions of him was that he's a handful but very raw, which i said in my first just back thread of the season. Amond is a much better all round player i feel but he's down the pecking order too at the moment. We just have to trust that Hurst gets the right balance because it's the thing that has stopped us being successful so far. We've had spells of scoring lots but letting too many in (the Hearn period) and spells of being mean at the back but not scoring enough ( last season), which we need to get right if we want out of this league.

Reasonable enough.

I think its great that we have all forwards competing and scoring with a mixture of experience, talent and raw ability that needs polishing UTM 8)

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

I'm surprised neither of Amond or Bogle are starting but we're averaging more points per game when neither of them start than when both of them or just Bogle did. We've only lost two games this season and Amond and Bogle started up front in both of them. Statisitics only tell half the story but I'd suggest they hint that PH's decision making isn't quite as crazy as some on here like to suggest.

Didn't believe it and had to check and surprised myself. You're right.

Overall average: 25 from 15 = 1.67 pts/game
4 games with neither B nor A starting: Southport, Wrexham, FGR and Gateshead. 8 points. Average 2 pts/game
11 games with B&/A starting: 17 points. Ave 1.55 pts/game

So maybe you're right on your other point: Hurst isn't as crazy as some of us thought  ;)

Not sure this directly relates to why we've shipped so many soft goals, which came less from sustained pressure by the oppo than through defensive errors.

A much better argument than the usual anti-anti-Hurst statements.

Quoted from LondonMariner43

I thought I'd enter into this hot topic....

At the moment we have four good strikers on our books and two midfielders in Arnold and Monkhouse who can play in more advanced positions and score goals.

Barely since the days of Rees and Woods or back to Wilkinson and Lund can I remember having this sort of depth in the squad (relative to our league position).  Hurst has to take a lot of credit.  Good strikers are hard to get and last season it took until the second half of the season to get even remotely near this position - Alan Connell anyone?

At the moment we are second highest scorers in the league so Hurst and the players must be doing something right.

So what two should he have chosen last night.

He can choose from:

Pittman - together with Amond, probably the most skilful forward we have.  Injury prone so unlikely to be available all season but when fully fit and in form, why should he be dropped?  I also think JPP plays well alongside a big nuisance striker like The Shop, Ollie and Tomlinson.

Amond - has been injured, back to full fitness but is he ready to play from the start.  Why risk it when Pittman is fit and in form?

Bogle - we have to remember Bogle is a 3 year investment to the club, has loads of promise but new to professional football, full time training and has been a bit vulnerable to injury early in the season.  Hurst always said he would ease him into things.  Against some of the more 'knowing' teams in the league he may benefit from being rested and saved for the lesser matches to start with.

Tomlinson - clearly not everyone's cup of tea but he is a striker with a decent track record at this level, and with the experience to deal with a bit of pressure.  He has been playing alongside Pittman in matches where we have had some decent results.

I imagine it wasn't a slam dunk decision for Hurst last night but maybe having already decided to freshen up the right side of the pitch he decided for continuity up front.  To blast him every time he doesn't play Amond and Bogle seems crazy to me.  He has to plot success over 46 and maybe 49 league games.  He needs 4 fit and hungry strikers for all those games and it seems to me that he is managing his resources sensibly.

At last! Someone who makes a properly reasoned argument rather than jumping down the manager's critics' throats. I think if there was more of this a lot of the sting would be taken out of the "debate" on this board.

People are more likely to be convinced by posts like yours LM, which actually take you through the possible thought processes in a decision, than the "shut up what do you know, you aren't a proper fan" type of post.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Didn't believe it and had to check and surprised myself. You're right.

Overall average: 25 from 15 = 1.67 pts/game
4 games with neither B nor A starting: Southport, Wrexham, FGR and Gateshead. 8 points. Average 2 pts/game
11 games with B&/A starting: 17 points. Ave 1.55 pts/game

So maybe you're right on your other point: Hurst isn't as crazy as some of us thought  ;)

Not sure this directly relates to why we've shipped so many soft goals, which came less from sustained pressure by the oppo than through defensive errors.

A much better argument than the usual anti-anti-Hurst statements.

Plus the 2 point per game average has come against better sides (Southport apart) and vindicates Hurst somewhat. I think given the choice between outscoring opponents and out-defending opponents, Hurst will take the latter option. He clearly felt Bogle and Amond were not defending from the front enough and Bogle in particular is prone to giving the ball away in dangerous areas leading to counter attacks from the opposition with players committed up the pitch and full backs being exposed. A lot of the goals were coming from the wings when we had lost our shape.

It's all well and good having 4 good strikers but we've got to use them properly, does anyone think that our coaching staff setup is too defence minded, Hurst ex defender, Doig ex defender, Moore ex defender... Would be nice to get someone that was an ex attacker on there to see how that goes..

Quoted from Neilo83

It's all well and good having 4 good strikers but we've got to use them properly, does anyone think that our coaching staff setup is too defence minded, Hurst ex defender, Doig ex defender, Moore ex defender... Would be nice to get someone that was an ex attacker on there to see how that goes..

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.

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! ;D

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.

Quoted from Maringer

Tomlinson last season: 14 goals in 46 appearances for a bottom half team.

That's a bit better than 1 in every 6 games. Could and perhaps should have had a couple for us by now but generally, he's not played badly. If he can regain his Lincoln form, all the better. I'm guessing his loan spell will perhaps be extended?

Surprised nobody has picked you up on this Maringer,

14 goals in 46 games is nearer 1 in 3,

If he could do that for us I would be pleased.

Personally, I think Arnold tends to do his best work when running towards the goal from just inside the opposition half. If he was to play through the middle, it might negate this threat as he would need to be playing with his back to goal a lot of the time.

On the other hand, I think he could certainly do a job in 'the hole' behind a front two. This would require either a 3-4-1-2 or 4-3-1-2 formation, however. As noted in the past, I don't think our midfield options are quick or mobile enough to play with just 3 in the middle.

One formation I haven't seen us try is 3-5-2. With Toto, Gowling and Pearson, I think we'd have the strength and pace to play three at the back, but the question then is how would Robertson do in a left midfield/wing-back role? Not sure he has enough pace for this though he has no problems getting up in advanced areas. East could do the job on the right as, I suppose, could Tait which would leave East to play on the left. I do think that it helps when wing-backs play on their stronger side, however, so we might be imbalanced with this formation.

I doubt we'll ever see it but it would be interesting to see how such a formation worked out.

Quoted from grimsby pete

Surprised nobody has picked you up on this Maringer,

14 goals in 46 games is nearer 1 in 3,

If he could do that for us I would be pleased.

Pleased? I'd be bloody delighted!  ;)

Will be really interesting to see which players Hurst picks for Saturday.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

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.

Think this could appeal to Hurst as he can then get Mackreth into the side for his tracking back, although Arnold did that too on Tuesday. He was seemingly everywhere.

Quoted from LondonMariner43

I thought I'd enter into this hot topic....

At the moment we have four good strikers on our books and two midfielders in Arnold and Monkhouse who can play in more advanced positions and score goals.

Barely since the days of Rees and Woods or back to Wilkinson and Lund can I remember having this sort of depth in the squad (relative to our league position).  Hurst has to take a lot of credit.  Good strikers are hard to get and last season it took until the second half of the season to get even remotely near this position - Alan Connell anyone?

At the moment we are second highest scorers in the league so Hurst and the players must be doing something right.

So what two should he have chosen last night.

He can choose from:

Pittman - together with Amond, probably the most skilful forward we have.  Injury prone so unlikely to be available all season but when fully fit and in form, why should he be dropped?  I also think JPP plays well alongside a big nuisance striker like The Shop, Ollie and Tomlinson.

Amond - has been injured, back to full fitness but is he ready to play from the start.  Why risk it when Pittman is fit and in form?

Bogle - we have to remember Bogle is a 3 year investment to the club, has loads of promise but new to professional football, full time training and has been a bit vulnerable to injury early in the season.  Hurst always said he would ease him into things.  Against some of the more 'knowing' teams in the league he may benefit from being rested and saved for the lesser matches to start with.

Tomlinson - clearly not everyone's cup of tea but he is a striker with a decent track record at this level, and with the experience to deal with a bit of pressure.  He has been playing alongside Pittman in matches where we have had some decent results.

I imagine it wasn't a slam dunk decision for Hurst last night but maybe having already decided to freshen up the right side of the pitch he decided for continuity up front.  To blast him every time he doesn't play Amond and Bogle seems crazy to me.  He has to plot success over 46 and maybe 49 league games.  He needs 4 fit and hungry strikers for all those games and it seems to me that he is managing his resources sensibly.

And.........Nathan could do a job up there if we where pushed and also apparently Monkhouse has player CF previously.

Good post this and one that has recognised that in the past we have not scored enough.

Quoted from LondonMariner43

I thought I'd enter into this hot topic....

At the moment we have four good strikers on our books and two midfielders in Arnold and Monkhouse who can play in more advanced positions and score goals.

Barely since the days of Rees and Woods or back to Wilkinson and Lund can I remember having this sort of depth in the squad (relative to our league position).  Hurst has to take a lot of credit.  Good strikers are hard to get and last season it took until the second half of the season to get even remotely near this position - Alan Connell anyone?

At the moment we are second highest scorers in the league so Hurst and the players must be doing something right.

So what two should he have chosen last night.

He can choose from:

Pittman - together with Amond, probably the most skilful forward we have.  Injury prone so unlikely to be available all season but when fully fit and in form, why should he be dropped?  I also think JPP plays well alongside a big nuisance striker like The Shop, Ollie and Tomlinson.

Amond - has been injured, back to full fitness but is he ready to play from the start.  Why risk it when Pittman is fit and in form?

Bogle - we have to remember Bogle is a 3 year investment to the club, has loads of promise but new to professional football, full time training and has been a bit vulnerable to injury early in the season.  Hurst always said he would ease him into things.  Against some of the more 'knowing' teams in the league he may benefit from being rested and saved for the lesser matches to start with.

Tomlinson - clearly not everyone's cup of tea but he is a striker with a decent track record at this level, and with the experience to deal with a bit of pressure.  He has been playing alongside Pittman in matches where we have had some decent results.

I imagine it wasn't a slam dunk decision for Hurst last night but maybe having already decided to freshen up the right side of the pitch he decided for continuity up front.  To blast him every time he doesn't play Amond and Bogle seems crazy to me.  He has to plot success over 46 and maybe 49 league games.  He needs 4 fit and hungry strikers for all those games and it seems to me that he is managing his resources sensibly.

I am sure tonight's result will be prompting lots of 'that's why Amond/ Bogle should have been playing thread' (in fact there is one already!) but lets remember, Amond was injured and JPP was knocking in goals.  Amond has had to wait his time to get back in the team and maybe that has made him extra hungry to prove himself.  Now he is in the team and when JPP gets back to full fitness, he will have to wait his turn and be pushing hard in training to get picked.  That is the benefit of having several good strikers in the squad; keep them fresh, keep them hungry.  Over the course of the season, we need that.  Good management I say.

Now I'd better put my tin hat on...

I agree London, competition for places is a good thing.  The squad that PH has built up this season has 17 / 18 first team players.  They all have to take their chance when they get it.  

Quoted from LondonMariner43

I am sure tonight's result will be prompting lots of 'that's why Amond/ Bogle should have been playing thread' (in fact there is one already!) but lets remember, Amond was injured and JPP was knocking in goals.  Amond has had to wait his time to get back in the team and maybe that has made him extra hungry to prove himself.  Now he is in the team and when JPP gets back to full fitness, he will have to wait his turn and be pushing hard in training to get picked.  That is the benefit of having several good strikers in the squad; keep them fresh, keep them hungry.  Over the course of the season, we need that.  Good management I say.

Now I'd better put my tin hat on...

I think the difference is this year we are blessed with good players for most positions. Obviously I don't know but I guess Hurst sees that as a means by which he can ensure that players don't rest on their laurels. If, and I can see no reason at all why it wouldn't be the case, Amond's attitude as described in his interview is typical of the whole squad then we are in for some pretty special times.