Having watched it back, I am going out on a tiny limb here to say it was not 5 at the back that killed us (though it was much better with 4), but just good, old fashioned, shit play that led to the first goal, and to an extent the second. Giving away possession so sloppily, more than once, in our half / the final third, against a very good side, is suicide no matter what the formation.
Confidence is hugely important and ours is very low and got worse quickly last night. Adams restored some belief but it was way too late.
We need to believe, so need to take the lead, somehow and start to remember how to win again.
In terms of the formation argument, I just think it comes down to the players having a far better grasp of their responsibilities when we play with a back four. It has been deeply ingrained over the years. To the extent that itâs muscle memory half the time.
If the wingbacks get caught high up the pitch (which is where they need to be to offer us a prayer in an attacking sense) then itâs left to a centre back coming across in to unfamiliar territory and then leaving space right where the ball gets cut back too. Guaranteed problems especially if the midfield runners arenât tracked by our own midfield.
In terms of yesterday, the first goal was a crap and unnecessary pass from Alcaraz and then nobody going with their runners.
Similarly nobody went with the runners for the second goal.
We have recruited players over the years to play in a back 4, not a 3/5. Our fullbacks are that, not wingbacks. Which is a specialist position.
Thatâs just how I see it but ultimately, for whatever reason, it doesnât work well for us so Jones should accept that and cease trying it because we are giving ourselves a mountain to climb.
Interested to see how we shape up now that we have purchased two left wingers and a massive lump of a target man upfront.
Too right. - not only are we a side full of borrowers, we cant string a set of 5yds passes together let alone accurately spraying 30 yarders all over the pitch
