Some may consider it post defeat bingo, but it's the common criticism of the lack of plan B for when plan A isn't working for whatever reason.
Unlike last season when we routinely tweaked things and came back from behind on an almost weekly basis, this season we've been completely incapable of making productive changes and recovering.
Now our injuries have some input to that yes, when the bench isn't as strong as it could be then productive changes is harder. But we seem locked into this rigid 4-4-2 despite whatever players are available.
And our attempt at plan B against Leicester Burnley, and seemingly yesterday from what i can tell, is to aimlessly throw forwards players on without any structure or system what so ever. One extreme to the other.
Would be very interested to know Eddie's thinking behind this. Cos on the face of it, to a mere mortal, it seems crazy.
Think back to lower league football 10 or more years ago. There was a real taboo about playing 1 up front. I can remember the meltdowns on our forum when SOD or Bond did this
ZOMFG ONE UP FRONT! AT HOME!!! FFS
Now think about what level and era Eddie and most of the coaching staff played. The 4-4-2 was king and managers would pride themselves on playing 2 strikers rather than “defensive 4-5-1”
Of course at top levels, for many years clubs have used strikers in wider positions. The traditional touch line hugging winger no longer covers his full back, instead he plays in the front line as an inside forward. The much maligned defensive 4-5-1 has become an attacking 4-3-3 as Man City and Liverpool spectacularly demonstrate.
We obviously don’t have the same level of player as Salah, Mane, Sterling or Sane. But if / when Fraser or Brooks move to a bigger club, do you really think they’ll be employed wide in a flat midfield 4? Of course they won’t.
There no reason at all why we couldn’t use Brooks, Fraser or even King here in similar roles as part of an attacking 4-3-3. We’d likely get even more out of them than in their current roles.
I don’t think Eddie is naive to this. I just don’t think he has the level of experience to coach this system. What he does have a lot of experience from his playing and coaching career is generally successful 4-4-2 systems.
This is why he talks a lot about losing our identity. He knows how to make a 4-4-2 work but I think he’s failed to recognise we no longer have the type of player to play that system. It doesn’t even have to be 4-3-3, but younger players will be far more familiar with more modern formations than 4-4-2.
The so called old guard of S. Cook, Francis, Daniels and Pugh are the ones who know how to play a 4-4-2. With most of them no longer having the ability to play to PL standard, so has our ability to play Eddie’s favoured system too.
IMO of course!
