Paul Evans' interesting article

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/paul-evans-malky-mackays-tactics-6391985

Interesting read but he gives himself an impossible task of defending our current tactics:

"I believe the accusations of negativity in our last two matches come from a perception that 4-5-1 is a negative formation. My opinion is that it can be, but it can also be a more positive formation than the 4-4-2 that many are calling for now."


He firstly acknowledges the criticisms of the current model:

"I see similarities with the situation we were in towards the end of the 2011-12 season where Malky Mackay stuck with a 4-5-1 despite a very frustrating series of home matches where Kenny Miller cut an isolated figure as the lone striker in a team short of midfield players who thought and reacted like attackers.

Therefore, our midfield five seldom got forward in sufficient numbers to assist Miller as a series of low-scoring draws at Cardiff City Stadium threatened to derail our play-off bid."


But he doesn't seem to offer any credible argument in defense of our current setup.

Anyone want to play devils advocate and join Evans in supporting his assertion that Malky is actually playing attacking, not defensive, football?

As a big malky fan even I can see that something needs to change, Not necessary the manager just a more attacking formation, If malky fails to make such changes against WBA then I cant see us winning and unfortunately I think he will be sacked,

I agree with him; 4-5-1 is not necessarily a more defensive formation than 4-4-2. It's all to do with the players however, and at the moment it's clearly not working.

This all reminds me of the Dave Jones era when his formation was always questioned amidst a lack of change. I often wonder whether a manager stays up late and watches MOTD to see what pundits feel about the performance. It must be hard to stick to your guns when in your head you think you are right and everyone else around you is screaming for change. By the way I am not defending MM's tactics here but just putting thoughts out there

You're right, it's not necessarily an outright defensive formation. But, for whatever reason, Malky had not been able to make it work - this session or last!

Sometimes I worry that 442 had been thrown out as unfashionable when it can actually be an effective, and flexible formation

steve.western.52 wrote:This all reminds me of the Dave Jones era when his formation was always questioned amidst a lack of change. I often wonder whether a manager stays up late and watches MOTD to see what pundits feel about the performance. It must be hard to stick to your guns when in your head you think you are right and everyone else around you is screaming for change. By the way I am not defending MM's tactics here but just putting thoughts out there

Yes, I was just thinking about the Dave Jones era. Although he ultimately was unable to bring promotion, our football was definitely more exciting then than it has been under malky (rose tinted glasses?). With a few choice exceptions ( the fa cup final is still my favourite game of all time), I just remember enjoying more games under Dave.

Not because he is a better manager, clearly not, but because of his tactics were a bit more daring and less safe.

But DJ didnt have a plan b,... at least malky brings noone on 3 minutes before final whistle,

So....for a fan....is it better to play exciting football and risk almost certain relegation or to play safe, boring football and stay up?

The old fashioned 4-5-1 was a defensive formation, players were rigidly frozen in their positions and the goal was simply to swamp the midfield. You needed a big strong goal scoring forward like Ibrahimovic to make it work.

The new age 4-5-1 is a hybrid however. Used by Barcelona despite their centre forward being only 5'6. It should allow the wing players massive flexibility, to either become inside forwards and turn into a hyper attacking 4-3-3, or at back and become an ultra defensive 5-3-1. Arsenal play the same formation beautifully, because they have the talent pool to encourage a staggering amount of creative freedom - against us Wilshere was highlighted as operating as a centre midfielder, a left winger, a right winger, a striker and also a defensive midfielder all in different plays.

The problem with Malky's tactics is he doesn't like creative freedom, which a 4-5-1 demands. We're highy unlikely to see him ever sign someone like Neymar, who will drag players all over the pitch to open holes. Because that would leave our left wing open. I think the mere idea of Malky playing a free flowing formation like Arsenals would give him an aneurysm.

steve.western.52 wrote:So....for a fan....is it better to play exciting football and risk almost certain relegation or to play safe, boring football and stay up?

This is an easy one for me - stay up, every single time.

This is a difficult first season and we need to average roughly just over a point per game. With 14 points from 15, we're relatively still on target. We've picked up points where I didn't expect and lost points where I did but frankly, I don't care how the team play as long as that points number keeps ticking over. It's a tough learning curve for the manager, the team and the club and right now I think we're doing fine - regardless of our last two performances.

When we're overflowing with cash and a regular, guaranteed Premiership team will I ever worry about whether we are playing exciting football.

And, yes, the Dave Jones era definitely had more exciting games (the Cardiff v Leicester game, 2nd leg play off I still rate as probably one of the best games I've ever seen) but ONLY when the players could be arsed, which wasn't all that often and was one of the main reasons why DJ could never deliver promotion.

I really don't mind what formation we play tbh. What I mind is sticking to a formation when it clearly isn't working.
Start every game 451 if you want. But when we're two goals down and getting battered, try something else.