Nigel Pearson question time....

I found the substitutions baffling as well, although the result was never in doubt and it's highly unlikely that they mattered.

And if we've accepted our fate, all the more reason to go all-out attack and try to enjoy ourselves. If we start 5 at the back against Hull at home, there will be boos and they'll probably be deserved.

Dung your right if we are going down, go down like the Bismark all guns blazing away.

Honour in defeat not well we never lost by more than the odd goal.

It does slightly frustrate me when I see everyone blaming the formation for our lack of success. There is a problem with the formation, but more specifically there is a problem with the personnel within the formation. The two have to go hand in hand. There is no reason why 5-4-1 shouldn’t get the best out of our players, just as there is no reason why we shouldn’t get the best out of 4-4-2 or 4-Diamond-2 or 5-3-2 etc… etc.. etc..

We’ve started the last 4 games with a flat back 5. Simpson and Konchesky have little attacking merit and, to be fair, are probably not being asked to provide width. Mahrez and Schlupp are still providing the width which, in turn, leaves Kramaric totally isolated on his own up front. This formation might work if we’d got someone in the side with serious crossing ability and somebody with serious heading ability in the middle. It might work if we’d got somebody in midfield making lung busting runs to get up and support Krammy from the midfield two, whilst still having presence of mind to perform the defensive duties.

It doesn’t work because the players currently being selected in this formation do not have the requisite abilities to make it work in a creative and inventive way. All it will achieve is defensive rigidity, invite the opposition to monopolise possession and hope they don’t score. The only plan I could see against Man City was hope we get lucky with one of our few chances on the break or, failing this, hold them for as long as possible before we change the formation, or personnel, to chase the result in the last few minutes. Or were we just hoping to hold on for 90 minutes and get a draw?

You could argue that it would be suicide to try anything else against such formidable opposition, but we’ve now tried it against Arsenal, Aston Villa, Everton and Man City and exactly the same scenario has unfolded in every game: we’ve stood firm, they’ve scored, we’ve changed and we’ve become more creative and created opportunities.

The formation against Hull might be important depending upon how they play. Much more importantly for me, however, is that we start a side that provides some balance between defence and attack as Hull City at home is a game we have to chase. If NP starts the same personnel, in the same formation, for this one then I’m afraid that he will have demonstrated that he doesn’t have the flexibility of thought or invention to manage us out of this hole we’re in. Without being reckless we HAVE to give ourselves a chance of taking the game to Hull.

There is something to be said for a 5-4-1 that becomes a 3-4-3. That needs to include De Laet and Schlupp as wing backs, with Mahrez and probably Nugent playing wide right and left, getting forward to support Kramaric.

The problem with it is that we have to play at least one centre back that really shouldn't be in the team right now (Morgan and Upson), and would probably play 2 of them. At least playing 4 at the back will get one of them removed from the 11.

^^^ Yes Dunge, I agree with all of that.

If you start with the assumption that 5 at the back is right for Hull (not saying it is, but just as a premise) then it has to work in an attacking sense. You might choose Schlupp and De-Laet to provide the width, which might allow for an extra body in midfield or might allow the two support strikers to get closer to Krammy.

You might well question whether our 3 CBs are good enough or whether Ritchie and Jeff are good enough to act as wing backs, but that’s a judgement call for NP. If the answer is no then we do have to start with 4 at the back.

I would simply like us to start with a team where I’m optimistic that we’re not just simply handing the initiative over to the opposition. We are far beyond the point where creditable draws are anywhere near good enough. In every game we play a point for the opposition is better for them than us.

De Laet can't cross the ball for toffee so he'd be a useless wingback.

I'd play Albrighton and Schlupp as you need quality deliver from your wingbacls to make it work. That is more important than the defensive element for me.

Wingers always make the best wing backs.

That's all very well Merseyside, but who is this "Albrighton" you speak of?

Mersey, you do make me laugh.

Albrighton?

Next you’ll be telling me you’d drop Morgan.

RDL can't cross disagree strongly pace and skill its his defending thats a bit dodgy.

I'd have him back in regardless now. We need attacking forays even if his crossing leaves something to be desired.