...what do you think of this?
"Humphreys...could be asked to return to the job he did when he first signed for Pools in 2001. In those days he was a striker." N Loughlin, to-day.

its not April 1st is it

It could pay off Roy of the Rovers style, but I doubt he could last the pace up front for 90 mins anyway.

It could however be an attempt to lull our opponents into a more fuller sense of security than they already are. I sense a Baldrick like cunning plan coming from Turner.

No, I don't think it's the fan club...it's come from an interview with CT who has said, 'I put him on for the last few minutes at Crewe on Saturday in an advanced role, to try and keep the ball up the top end......he doesn't feel comfortable at left back (but) unfortunately we haven't had that cover or player to come in and release him from the job."

I still think that maybe richie would be more suited as a holding midfielder replacing ben clark who should be in defence, that way he would have to do so much running and be able to play simple balls that would allow the more advanced players infront of him to get up the field.

halle-fucking-lujah someone with some sense. our shape would be much better with him playing there and clark playing defense. Humphreys short range passing is still excellent and his workrate would be suited to that position

Regarding mid-fielders, I don't know why Stephen Turnbull was let go. Wish we had him now.

Its extremely sad that people on this board keep on creating posts about him trying to work out where we can play him. Its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, if he doesnt seem to fit then get rid. We dont HAVE to fit him in anywhere. Other players get released when they cease to serve a purpose, we dont start playing them in alternative positions merely to ensure they stay on the payrol.

If Ritchie is suited to playing elsewhere then great, give him a new contract BUT (and it s a big but) regardless of where we play him his lack of pace will go against us. We are frequently second to the loose balls in this division and we need some more pace in the team. We will be greatly over-run in midfield with Humps playing there

Why do you assume that anyone is working out where to play Ritchie, or thinking we have to play him so that he can stay on the payroll? No-one has said that, as far as I remember.
It's fairly obvious he'll be asked to stay on in a coaching role, when he retires from playing, so he'd be on the payroll anyway, if he wanted to be.
Why can't you ever say anything on this board without immediately being labelled as something or other, or without people assuming you mean things you don't??

grave, humphreys is a midfielder ben clark is not. So there would be round pegs for round holes if he played there. There is no difference in pace between the two either. Richie has plenty to offer further forward.

I think tha the midfield will be more balanced with him in it for the time being:

Butz
liddle Nelson Clark skarz
Humphreys
Nardiello Jones Monkhouse
Porter Parker

But Nelson is horseshite.

Tinker, tinker

The best managers never fook about with winkywanky formations, they don't work

Can you honestly say you ever saw Paisley, Clough, the turd from Monchesta fooking about with bits of paper and such

They seemed to work for Jose Mourinho playing 5 in midfield or a holding midfielder with two up front, granted claude makelele was brilliant at doing this. And I suppose pools tried and tested 4-4-2 has worked wonders this season

Comparing the tictacs of Murhwhateverheho and Turner and Wilson is like comparing a Bentley to a bike......

The best managers during my time following Pools didn't fook about with holding players and all of that shite, they played each player in the correct position and you know what Compo...

It works!

which is precisely why humphreys should be in midfield with clark in defense...

oh and thats not strictly true. Cooper used to play robson left back, williams right wing, barron right back. And i could be wrong but didnt he try tinkler and centre back too?

and you know what it worked

Matty is a left back and Barron was a right back, converted to centre back

Williams was the only long term conversion

But I will stand by my argument, good managers, unless their hands are well and truly tied, don't fook about with daft bounder formations

FACT!

robson is an out and out winger. Barron was a centre back converted to right back.

How is what i proposed a daft formation is really a 4-4-2 with richie playing a little deaper i understand the term "if it isnt broke dont fix it", but to continue along the lines of "we will keep it as it is even though were are loosing until they get it right" is madness.

I agree play people in position that resulted in use doing well and going to cardiff but why not try Humphreys in midfield in the role i suggested rather than how turner see's him from the original post up the field

Arrrgghhhh!!! You just brought back memories of Tranmere away!!!!

He's just not good enough, stop moving him about, stop making excuses for him.

He has the heart of a lion, a very good quality at this level, which he should be credited for, but the talent has faded.

Tinkler, Williams, Barron...

All moved when not good enough.

Now it's his time

your basing that on him playing out of position. Its impossible to judge.

Did Barron ever officially retire from playin?

Yes.

a spade is a spade misterb, regardless of wherever you dig

That's correct... a spade is a spade and it's impossible to judge.

sorry but thats the biggest load of rubbish i have ever heard. I tell you what, ask james brown to play right back for two year, then come back and tell me a spade is a spade. What a load of tosh

Check you out, getting all Seamus Heaney!

i've always been a smart bastad mumps swift!

This simply proves my point further. Why should he have a shoe-in to a coaching role??? Are there not better coaches out there who will be more qualified? [I dont know how good a coach he will be, nobody does]

If Ritchie is a better bet for such a role than other coaches then brilliant, offer him a contract at the expense of other people but if IOR are a business then players should not simply be guaranteed a coaching role as they are 'liked'.

Its another example of what POK implied the other day, Ritchie seems to get treated as if he is above the team. Mark Tinkler gave 100% but did he get a coaching role? Effion? etc etc

There wasn't a coaching role available when Tinkler went, plus he didn't retire, he kept on playing. I assume it will be the same with humphreys, if we decide enough is enough, maybe he will move on and continue to play, if not then if there is a position available then fair enough.

Humphreys and Tinkler are both qualifed coaches.. I watched them both do their assesment..


Humps Coaches Pools U15's

Tinks coaches at Middlesboro's Academy