Rousseau

I agree, I just think we're missing a step. We need a better structure to allow those strikers to make their runs; supporting runs, covering positions, better defensive structure -- not formation --, a clearer idea of what they need to do. I do feel like it's 'off-the-cuff', as if the players are left to their own devices. I hate that; everything I read about modern football has pre-conceived and -drilled player movements and pressing traps, etc.; If you watch Man City, if one player moves position, then another will move to compensate. Similarly, though, there is a mistaken belief that more strikers equals more goals. That's a complete fallacy to me.

For me, it's not really about the formation; It's a good basic structure, fitting the players, but it's how we play it. We are far too linear in our approaches -- it may as well be a 4-4-2! It's always one winger and full-back combination trying to fashion and cross or shot. This is easy to deal with most of the time. We need to get in behind; we need more dynamic play. We need triangles as opposed to simple linear overlaps from the full-back. This is the heart of Murty's deficiencies, for me. A formation switch will not change this. Leicester's game against Chelsea, although they didn't win, showed how to play a more dynamic game; it was just a basic, simple difference -- and that was with a 4-4-2! One of the CM, or one of the forwards would come wide to create little triangles with the Full-back and Winger; sometimes both. All the play was diagonal, not linear, to give Chelsea something to think about. The aim was to get in behind. It wasn't brilliantly executed, but it shows how they way a team approaches their build-up is much more important than formation in trying to create chances. Even Barca play 4-4-2 nowadays, but you'll never see them play in a linear, static fashion: one wide player comes inside to make a diamond at times with Paulinho --PAULINHO, the Tottenham DM reject! -- playing the No.10; Paulinho is the worst 'creative' No.10 you'll ever see. Anyway, my point -- perhaps poorly made -- is that the formation is not the issue, but the way we play it. Tottenham -- another, final example -- play a 4-2-3-1, but you'd never accuse them of being static, linear or struggling to break a side down.

It went out of fashion when teams with "numbers [...] clip-boards/diagrams, videos" humped them.

Very interesting question. I don't think so. Case in point, Stoke: they propelled up the leagues with a basic approach, brutal to watch but effective percentage football; but once they tried to develop further, and they made improvements all-over, but ultimately failed. I think there's a ceiling with that style of football; it only takes you so far. You'd then need a Guardiola. Leipzig are the only side to really propel up the leagues and then challenge for the title. Their style is completely unlike Clarke; its all fast transitions -- a style that already had pedigree at the top end of the table with Salzburg. (I've said before but Salzburg would be a terrific model for us.) I've waffled there...

That's very true. Taking a quick look at the games you'd expect them to 'dominate', it's either a tight game that ends in a 1-0 win or a draw, or it's a narrow victory (3-2 comes up a lot). But that's against teams that will sit-in, but will tend to have a go much more than against us or Celtic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't get past that 'style' -- for want of a better word -- difference.

We're pretty direct as it is; get it wide a get a cross in or wangle a shot. I'm not sure lumping it in the box from even deeper gives defences in this league anything to worry about?

Perhaps my post went too far. I don't see 'taking the chances' as the issue, it's the 'creation of chances'. I think we can do better with our first-team. A change in formation won't change the way we play. 4-4-2 is out of the question for me, unless it's a diamond. I think we're asking for trouble with 1 DM -- the other CM will be roaming forward -- and high full-backs on the break. I don't think we have the pressing game in the defensive transition to make the 4-4-2 work. It can work -- see Leipzig and Atletico -- but we don't look like we can play it; it needs to be coached.

Take away Windass' goals and we'll have someone who can 'get stuck in'. We'll be in a better position then...

Style was the wrong word. I just don't think it's as easy as it seems. Like I've said several times this morning already, getting a small side punching above their weight does not mean he can get a side challenging for the title. It's easy enough to get a side well-drilled and compact and then counter, but can he break down a well-drilled, compact side? Has he ever done that? His record suggests not. How often do we sit-in and break? We don't because we'd never win games.

Ok... Clarke may well be, but I'm not convinced it's an easy transfer; can he really go from making a small team punch above their weight, to taking on title challengers? It's the same as thinking Dyche is doing well at Burnley so give him the Man Utd or Chelsea job; we both know it doesn't work like that.

It's not as easy as that. Do you really think he'd have us winning titles? I can't see it. It's a whole different ball game from getting a small side punching above their weight. Dyche is doing well at Burnley, should Man Utd or Chelsea appoint him to improve them? They've both taken about 9 points out of 21 in the League, think of what Dyche could do with Chelsea's budget. I don't think it's as easy as that: It's a different style of football altogether.

You wouldn't be derailing the thread, so...

It's what I do.

Ha! I saw it on Twitter. Mental. Everyone's like, 'just don't look at it'.

I can't argue with that, but Murty is too inexperienced. To became the manager he may become -- he may well become a good one -- he has to learn the ropes first; he can't learn the ropes here, IMO.

Our home record is poor, however, I was dismayed to hear jeering and anxiety after 15 minutes yesterday; that can't help. 15 minutes!?

Murty has not had his apprenticeship; he's not learned from a proper manager; he's just been given a youth coach role then straight into this role. It's not something we didn't already know. I'm not sure why there is this sudden 'realisation' that he's not good enough?

Mulumu played well, but the only reason he looks so good is because of the compact team around him; put him in the Rangers or Celtic sides and he'd look lost. Holt would look like the white Mulumbu if we played that way; but we can't play that way or we'd never win a game.

That's true; I've admitted as much before. His detractors seem to be very vehement in their vitriol, though. (Vitriol is perhaps harsh but I like the alliteration... )

In your opinion... You're just seeing what you want to see. Arrogant attitude? Have you looked in the mirror?

Yes, and many don't.

That's subjective; you're seeing what you want to see.

Are there any standout, British-based candidates that we could go for? None come to mind.

And what about Murphy and Candeias yesterday? He's in a 'creative' position, but he doesn't play a creative role; he's not that type.