After 3 minutes it was obvious that formation wasn't going to work. There no 23 had the freedom of the pitch in front of their back 4 and ran the first half. Flicker has to come up with a consistent and coherent way of playing. People might have slated Hill but it was absolutely clear what he was trying to achieve. I find it bizarre that anyone likens the two. The changes at half time vastly improved things but you shouldn't be making seismic changes to your formation and style of play at half time. I think it is possible to set yourself up to counter different teams. But if you are adapting to the opposition and setting plans it shouldn't be obvious to everyone within the first 5 minutes that the plan is destined to fail. We need to stop worrying about others, pick a formation and team and stick with it. Probably 3-5-2 or failing that 4-5-1. We aren't good enough to play 4 in midfield, certainly not against teams of Watford's quality who only have 1 up top. As for the players they are fortunate that Flitcroft is channeling the flack because there were some poor poor performances, largely by players I've been defending on here. Just to add though, although RNL did look good going forward he has a hell of a lot to learn about positioning and particularly work rate if he's going to get a game regularly. To finish on a positive, I'm often hugely frustrated by JoB but his quality of cross in open play was excellent yesterday, well done lad. And McCourt has dancing feet. Pick a team, pick a formation, and pick a style of play. Have conviction in it and hold your nerve. We have a very tough run of games and things might not pick up immediately, but consistency will bring its rewards.
The bit about RNL - he's an attacker, always has been. But he's already much better in terms of positioning and workrate than Kennedy. Much better. And the similarities between DF and Keith are there - chopping and changing for no reason; starting at 3pm with the wrong shape/selections, then altering it when it's too late at 4pm; talking about more recruits, just as Keith did when under pressure; starting to blame the "lads that I've trusted"; habitual failures retaining their place ahead of better options who are easily droppable; baffling interviews; the stubbornness regards Hassell; playing players out of position despite a plethora of options. And I could go on. The Flitcroft at present, is very similar to the Keith we saw in his final 2 months at the club. In my opinion obviously. You disagree, fine. But it's not bizarre that I believe it.
It doesn't mean he can stand and watch when he losses the ball though. He's young and exciting and I would love to see him playing week in week out. I'm just pointing out what he is going to have to add to be successful. My point regarding Hill is that he had an absolute clear philosophy and style of play. Even when it wasnt working it was clear what he was trying to achieve (and I would argue we were only a COG away from achieving it). When he made changes there tinkering within a framework. But at the moment I can't explain what type of team we are. It doesn't change weekly, it changes within a single half of football.
I loved Keith. I think he had the rug pulled in January 2012 and never recovered. He was never backed to the extent that Flicker has been, either. Reubs is a forward. He's been trained defensively for a short while now - Keith's idea - whereas Kennedy has been playing/training in that role his entire career. You wouldn't notice that though, this season.
