So what are you actually going to do about it Alex Neil?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

How many more times are we going to hear "I am not a quitter", and "I believe I will turn this around". We get it Alex, but what are you actually going to do to arrest the slide?

As an aside to this, football is littered with players that have potential when they are young, but do not go on to fulfil that potential, I guess the same must apply to young managers, I wonder if Alex Neil is going to fulfil his early potential or whether he has developed as far as he can as a manager.....

[Paul Spector 0]

His only answer to this seems to be "work harder".

But then, someone wiser than me once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Alex is clearly out of his depth. Thank you for the memories of Wembley, but for the sake of the club please step aside.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

it needs fresh ideas a fresh voice and fresh coaching

in others words the sack for AN and fat frankie and take Irvine with them

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

If you look at his team selections, you can hardly accuse him of doing the same thing over and over again.

[Guest]

[quote user="Mary Poppins"]If you look at his team selections, you can hardly accuse him of doing the same thing over and over again.[/quote]

But if you look at the formation you can.

Even when we are losing the gospel is 4-2-3-1.

Obviously McAvoy and Irvine are just yes men.

[morty 0]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="Mary Poppins"]If you look at his team selections, you can hardly accuse him of doing the same thing over and over again.[/quote]

But if you look at the formation you can.

Even when we are losing the gospel is 4-2-3-1.

Obviously McAvoy and Irvine are just yes men.[/quote]Or because that formation is the one that best suits the players we have available.Please don''t go onto an extended whine about it clearly not working, or how we should try 4-4-2.

[hogesar 9,609]

To be fair Morty, evidence suggests it might not be the best formation for the players we have available. Certainly, we''ve lost Pinto at RB and this formation is so heavily reliant on our fullbacks getting up the pitch - RM isn''t doing that to great effect and we persist? Our attacks are easily nullified at the moment.

If players suit 4-2-3-1 then equally we can suit 4-4-2 diamond or not. 

We could even try 4-3-2-1 with Wes and Pritchard behind a striker.

There''s plenty of options. To think we''ve literally only got the players to play one rigid, fixed formation is non-sensical and naive.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]To be fair Morty, evidence suggests it might not be the best formation for the players we have available. Certainly, we''ve lost Pinto at RB and this formation is so heavily reliant on our fullbacks getting up the pitch - RM isn''t doing that to great effect and we persist? Our attacks are easily nullified at the moment.

If players suit 4-2-3-1 then equally we can suit 4-4-2 diamond or not. 

We could even try 4-3-2-1 with Wes and Pritchard behind a striker.

There''s plenty of options. To think we''ve literally only got the players to play one rigid, fixed formation is non-sensical and naive.

[/quote]Now Mulumbu is fit, possibly.For me with him and Howson both out, 4-4-2 couldn''t work.

[hogesar 9,609]

No but even with Mulumbu out, 4-2-3-1 wouldnt have worked. Who''d have been the other holding midfielder?

So 4-4-2 diamond would certainly have been an option. One holding midfielder, one attacking, two genuine wingers and two strikers.

[Indy 3,283]

Looking at it logically, the core of our team has been here under Lambert, he liked a diamond midfield with a little large combo uptop, which worked nicely, our players would suite this system better, why not bring it back v Brentford?

I''d even go so far as to play Jerome and Naismith up top, with Wes in behind and Mulumbu or Dorrans just in front of the defence.

It''s ok to keep tinkering with the players but it might just be the system isn''t to our players strength!

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

Two up front implies Lafferty or Oliviera, and on the evidence so far both are gash.

Naismith maybe, off Jerome. Not ideal but possible.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]No but even with Mulumbu out, 4-2-3-1 wouldnt have worked. Who''d have been the other holding midfielder?

So 4-4-2 diamond would certainly have been an option. One holding midfielder, one attacking, two genuine wingers and two strikers.

[/quote]Nah.Anything resembling 4-4-2 needs a high energy, dominant, box to box midfielder included in it.And only really Mulumbu and Howson come close to that.In my opinion.

[hogesar 9,609]

Certainly don''t think you play a diamond with a box-to-box holding midfielder - way too exposed. If anything by having the singular defensive mid they have to be far more disciplined - Tettey could do it. I''m sure we even had David Fox doing that role under Lambert.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Morty wrote;

Anything resembling 4-4-2 needs a high energy, dominant, box to box midfielder included in it.

And only really Mulumbu and Howson come close to that.

If my memory serves me right, that''s the role Mulumbu carried out for West Brom, and did it well (when fit)he needs players around him to let him go, and again Dorrans fits that role. imo.

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

But who are your two up front?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

If we were to play a traditional 442 we may even see Dorrans on the left...

[morty 0]

But seriously, does anyone else use their approach in their chosen profession?"Nuts to it, I''ll try that, my job is on the line, but whats the worst that could happen"?[:D]

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]If we were to play a traditional 442 we may even see Dorrans on the left...[/quote][:)]

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I''m serious though Morty. A lot of our attacking players would not be suited to a traditional 442. Don''t know where we''d put Wes. Maybe on the left? Not ideal. Dorrans would be a good shout. 

And I also think you could only play one of Wes, Pritchard. Jacob, Josh, Canos if even that one. Whoever said our squad was not built for that is correct IMO. The plus would maybe be that Naismith could play in a front two.

[morty 0]

Wes doesn''t belong anywhere in 4-4-2.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

The plus would maybe be that Naismith could play in a front two.

Would be a good way to bring Carlton Morris in to the mix.

[Jools 584]

[quote user="morty"]Wes doesn''t belong anywhere in 4-4-2.[/quote]Correct.

[Paul Spector 0]

Wes played some of his best stuff in a 4-4-2 under Lambert.

But a 4-4-2 diamond, as opposed to the traditional flat 4-4-2.

[Guest]

[quote user="Jools"][quote user="morty"]Wes doesn''t belong anywhere in 4-4-2.[/quote]Correct.[/quote]

Totally incorrect. It is a myth about players not playing in certain formations. And Wes is always seen as someone who can only play one way.

Wes could quite easily play central midfield. People seem to think that at 34 he is old and infirmed. What a load of poppycock.

He is a fit player and can quite easily play the role of playmaker.

[Norfolkn Good 7]

So 4-4-1-1 - with 2 attack and 2 defensively minded MFs?

Lets call it 4-2-3-1 again shall we

[Woodman 92]

4-4-2 diamond using the current fit and available players...

---------------Ruddy------------

Martin Klose Bassong Olsson

--------Tettey/Mulumbu-------

Murphy-------------------Brady

-------------Wes-----------------

------Jerome------Naismith

We definitely have the players to suit the formation.

[morty 0]

The diamond is not 4-4-2.

I dare say Wes could play in a 4-4-2.

Against a pub team.

[Guest]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="Mary Poppins"]If you look at his team selections, you can hardly accuse him of doing the same thing over and over again.[/quote]

But if you look at the formation you can.

Even when we are losing the gospel is 4-2-3-1.

Obviously McAvoy and Irvine are just yes men.[/quote]Or because that formation is the one that best suits the players we have available.Please don''t go onto an extended whine about it clearly not working, or how we should try 4-4-2.

[/quote]

Are you setting the rules of debate?

My opinion is we should try 4-4-2. That is not a whine but an opinion.

You like to ridicule people when they give an honest opinion but you normally have very little to offer apart from being rude to other posters.

Many people are keen to see the team return to form and are putting forward ideas to that end.

You should try coming up with something constructive other than believing the current regime is doing a good job.

And I''m not getting into a pi$$ing contest with you because this is an inclusive forum and not just for a handful.

[Guest]

[quote user="morty"]The diamond is not 4-4-2.

I dare say Wes could play in a 4-4-2.

Against a pub team.[/quote]

Of course a diamond is a 4-4-2. It is a variation of the two central midfield players with narrow wide men.

[morty 0]

No it isn''t.

*pi$$es higher*

😁