I am sure many would agree with you there Stewart but you cannot deny that the system and starting line up have and are continuing to be an overwhelming success despite the obvious narrow margin wins. Dare he change it now at this crucial stage? I really don't think so and there are no guarantees that staring Atenio and Jarvis with a more attacking style from the off would be successful. Now is not the time to tinker.
My education started when I left Highweek School for boys..
The fact that they often took up more central positions resulted in a lot more space down the wings for Oastler and Nicholson, and also Lathrope was able to get forward more as Port Vale were pegged back, even before they were reduced to ten men.
I think it's a case of chicken and egg here.
It's not so much the wide men pushing up allowing room for the full backs to push up, it's more a case of the full backs pushing up and allowing the wide men to play more as strikers.
So why don't we just do that from the start?
Because there are two teams wanting to grab control of the game - one of them far more expensively-assembled than the other so in theory "better" players, one jaded after three consecutive long-haul coach trips, one playing with the strong wind blowing from the Babbacombe end to the Ellacombe end, one playing against it.
Whether some or all of those factors contributed or not, Port Vale succeeded in wresting the initiative. I don't think that was a "tactic", it was just what happened.
Given that Port Vale were "winning" the midfield, it would have been suicide to stick three men up front and tell the full backs to push up. Port Vale would have knocked the ball in behind the full backs and slaughtered us.
It would have been like the charge of the Light Brigade. "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie".
You have to win the right to play and THEN play - something that this particular team seems to have grasped perfectly.
The whole thing with the formation is that it is flexible.
If you lose the midfield battle, your full backs naturally stay back to defend and your wide men naturally fall back into wide positions. It naturally becomes a 4-5-1 - an effective formation when under the cosh.
If you win the midfield battle, your full backs naturally push up and your wide men naturally push up front. It naturally becomes an attacking 2-5-3 formation.
The substitutions did not make that happen - it had already happened. When I saw the subs getting ready, I commented that I hoped Lingy did NOT change the formation by taking off Lathrope and going 4-4-2 / 4-2-4 as we had already gained the upper hand and pushed up, putting them under pressure.
Atieno and Jarvis provided fresh legs and they both did well when they came on. Neither Stevens nor Morris were quite up to their usual standard for whatever reason, but both of them deserve starting berths based on what they have done so far this season.
I think we should respect the manager's decision on the starting eleven - I've got a feeling he might just know what he is doing!
I don’t really trust them not to build more houses and then not deliver the stadium and just sod off
All this talk of formations, I may have missed if anyone else mentioned it but England started off the Holland match with OUR formation. Adam Johnson on right, Welbeck as Rene and I forget who the right footer on the left was. Not effective for them that night, but we look better drilled at it by our coaching staff and Daniesta not called up, so inevitably deficient. I forget also who played the Makelelathrope role that night, but no chance they were anywhere near as good.