Gunner89 wrote:
Anzac wrote:
I don't see how 3 new starters can change a decade of stagnation even if they were part of a new spine, let alone in 1 season in which he had to change formation half way through.
He really didn't NEED to change the formation.
In fact I'd argue it actually made us worse given we have 2 decent CBs in the squad and playing 5 at the back requires 3 CBs to start.
Many times he had to make significant changes after the first half because his initial 11 played was not cohesive which is quite damning.
What decade of stagnation?
This wasn't a squad that has been out of the CL for 10 years.
Then we'll agree to disagree as IMO he had little option as a result of those injuries - particularly to both Holding and Bellerin, who represented half the starting defence at the time. I think the bac3 was to cover the defence until Kos was available, and the WBs because it was the lesser evil defensively whilst still allowing to use both Laca and PEA as twin ST, whereas with the 4231 he had to use 1 out of position or off the bench.
Changes at half time do not mean that he got it wrong - I'd say a number of those changes were part of the tactical match plan to run the opposition ragged before switching out to different players to exploit the spaces or to close out the game.
Likewise stagnation and decline are not directly associated with missing top4, and IMO missing top4 is the consequence of a period of decline rather than being the start of it. TBH IMO we have been shite for most of this calendar decade, and the current TV deal revenues & then the change of style has simply exposed the level of decline.
That said I doubt any manager could have made a silk purse from this sow's ear in their first season.
