Quote Originally Posted by slack_pie View Post
But that approach led to us conceding an embarrassing number of goals. I agree that we should maintain our identity as an attacking team that takes the game to the opposition, not a negative one that plays for the point, but we have to do something to address our frailty at the back. To a certain extent it is about personnel - and we've already made improvements there - but it's also about the system. Plus, we managed to play attacking, exciting football with a solid back four away at Newport, so it can be done.
Those are fair points.

I like our latest signing being described as an excellent 'one-v-one' defender. It also tells us what they've been looking for. With Jones, Nemane, that's what we need. And what many were saying last summer. It didn't happen.

Ditto, with the formation. If we have a guiding approach/philosophy, I'm sure it doesn't say we must play a back 3. Great attacking football can be play with a back 4, of course. We've seen it all our lives. Two things there though A) you need FBs who can overlap, play good football and get forward, B ) I don't think our fans should expect a back 4, or start demanding it, SM is more likely to prepare and start with a back 3. He's already shown he's more willing to change formation than LW, between and within games.