What do we need

[NickBFC]

A centre back, central midfielder and a clinical forward. Not easy.

[123EasyasBFC]

A centre back, central midfielder and a clinical forward. Not easy.

Lindelof
Eriksen
Mitrovic

Not links but all would be free agents

[alwaysaclaret]

I think we’d have been better going for quality over quantity. Not sure why we keep signing a new team every year and stock piling players like cattle.

I agree, basically what I was getting at in my post, we still need a cb, cm, and striker, even though we've signed those 3 positions, but it's also become apparent we also now need a rw or rwb, depending on what system we play.

[boatshed bill]

I agree, basically what I was getting at in my post, we still need a cb, cm, and striker, even though we've signed those 3 positions, but it's also become apparent we also now need a rw or rwb, depending on what system we play.

Only because we are using a world-class RB at RCB.
So we are really in need of a RCB as good as CJ Egan-Riley was (or better)

[Jakubclaret]

I’ll be surprised if we sign another striker. Foster just delivered an 8/10 performance against one of the leagues best cb pairings, we just signed Broja for 10-15m and Flemming is back to fitness. We will keep playing a one striker system, so that would feel a bit much.

Tuanzebe is a worry, I think he’d slot in really well for us based on what I saw last season and reviews from Ipswich, but his lack of fitness and injury record is concerning. I think a centre centre back, preferably one that can win headers and attack the ball at set pieces. Charlie Cresswell would be a good option, for me, though you’re looking at 15m probably.

A centre mid is the ‘definite’ one for me. Lesley and Cullen have the potential to be a good duo, but I’d definitely like another. Hayden Hackney or Imran Louza my picks. Both creative passers but still combative, they are both fully match fit and already know either the league (Louza) or country (both). Probably 15-20m for Hackney, 10-12m for Louza.

"One of leagues best CB pairings" based on what? I think in terms of goals conceded last season they was something like 5th from the top. The tightest defence was arsenal & tottenham weren't far off conceding double the amount.

[Darnhill Claret]

I hope that when the players and coaching staff sit down to review the Spurs game, they look at the good, and the not so good, and agree on where they might improve this Saturday and in many of our future games.
If we were asking our central defenders to mark zonally, did it work? If they had marked more man to man, would we have had control of Richarlison?
If it was zonal marking, do we need a higher back line? Can we afford to have players unmarked when their wingers have got behind our full backs?
Shouldn't we anticipate a cross being aimed in the direction of their unmarked players?
If our centre backs are going to be so deep, shouldn't a midfielder be deeper when we are out of position?
Did Lesley improve us enough when he came on as sub?
When Lesley carries the ball forward, are our defenders closing up enough, or is there going to be a big hole between our midfield and back line for opponents to exploit?

I think there is so much we can learn from what went wrong at Spurs to improve us considerably.
Are we taking into consideration the fact that our quicker players, are more likely to lose possession, so do we have enough close support to give them better options than always going alone? Can we get close to them, especially away from home when we are stretched when attacking?
We know that at home, with a slower, more deliberate build up, we will have plenty of options, but are we giving ourselves enough options?

[Elizabeth]

Saturday wasn't our strongest starting eleven by some distance. We need time to get what hopefully will be all our key players currently at the club on the field. That would help for a start.

Then we need to give the players time to learn and adapt as they gel.. I think the current manager is a strength because of his knowledge of what is required at the top level and his ability to create good teams. I think he already has enough there.

[RVclaret]

"One of leagues best CB pairings" based on what? I think in terms of goals conceded last season they was something like 5th from the top. The tightest defence was arsenal & tottenham weren't far off conceding double the amount.

I don’t think Romero and vDV started many games together last season, and this was a large reason they conceded as many as they did. Archie Gray was playing centre back, they had an injury crisis combined with Ange’s tactics. They’ll be far, far better this season under Frank, that’s for sure.

[jojomk1]

Maguire - loan (we need the experience)
Yates - loan Not getting regular starts at Forest and has the tenacity we lack
Antonio - if fit on pay per play

[Funkydrummer]

We need a win on Saturday and then move on from there.

[jlup1980]

We need to get shut of about a dozen players, sign three or four experinced PL players, and have a tiny bit more luck with injuries! We haven't suitably replaced Trafford or Egan Riley yet, but I do think Big Les will be a good replacement for Brownhill (although I'd still argue Brownhill would start ahead of Hannibal or Laurent). Roberts and Flemming picking up knocks in pre-season was a huge blow. Amdouni doing his cruciate another.

But more worryingly, we have more dead wood than a forest. Sambo has gone, but would we miss Worrall, Green, Ramsey, Benson, Tresor, Banel, Beyer, Delcroix, Churlinov, Obafemi, Agyei? Not a single one of them will be anywhere near the starting 11 this season.

Our transfer strategy over the last few years has worked on occasion (Trafford, Berge, Odobert for example), but we've been left with a bloated squad of players who simply aren't good enough, or are injury prone. Add to that the fact we've brought in another couple of players with worrying injury records in Tuanzebe and Broja, and things don't look great!

This is by no means a panic post, but this weekend has been an eye opener. I believe Sunderland and Leeds had very favourable opening matches. West Ham are a mess, and Everton don't have a proper back four due to injuries, but they still had to turn up and get the job done. Leeds were aggressive last night. They really took the game to Everton and should have been a couple ahead by half time. We, on the other hand, look exactly what we are. We're a team with a few glaring issues.

Ekdal and Sonne aren't PL quality. Laurent shouldn't be starting in the PL, the jury is still out on Hannibal in the number 10 role, and Foster remains an enigma. We need to get back to the same formation as last season, with as many of the important components of that team as we can, then we'll see where we are. The additions of players like Lindelof, Eriksen, Mitrovic etc would improve us hugely though.

Dubravka
Roberts Walker Esteve Hartmann
Cullen Big Les
Edwards Hannibal Anthony
Foster/Flemming

[Mattster]

It depends on how Parker is planning on setting us up. If the 5-2-2-1 formation is going to be the main one then we need an athletic right wing back (if Walker is going to be the right sided CB) and a physically dominant CB (like Cresswell that RVClaret suggested) to play in the middle of the back 3, then probably another physical midfielder in the mould of Ugochukwu for depth and competition.

If the 5-2-2-1 is just an occasional thing then we're probably fine as we are, though could still do with the dominant CB to strengthen the starting 11.

But the issue is if the 5-2-2-1 formation is going to be a regular thing (and the U21s playing it seems to suggest it will be) then it's a questionable decision from Parker given the makeup of the squad and our recruitment this summer is less than ideal. Why choose a formation that doesn't use wingers when we have so many wingers and then recruit 2 more wingers this summer? Why choose a formation which requires a physically dominant CB in the middle when we don't have one and seem to not be attempting to sign one? Why choose a formation which requires athletic wing backs if the only PL level one we sign is to be played at CB? There doesn't appear to be joined up thinking from anyone.

[ollieclarets8]

Dubravka
Roberts Walker Esteve Hartman
Cullen Big Les
Edwards Hannibal Anthony
Foster/Flemming

Yes, Walker has to be a better option than Ekdal even though Walker isn't even a central defender.

However I bet Roberts is a while away from returning, that's the problem.

[ervi34]

Yes, Walker has to be a better option than Ekdal even though Walker isn't even a central defender.

However I bet Roberts is a while away from returning, that's the problem.

Blessing for us could be the fact that the international break is just around the corner.

[Woodleyclaret]

Benny back in .A good performance for u21 last night.A dominant cb in on loan along with a cm box to box player on loan

[CharlieinNewMexico]

It depends on how Parker is planning on setting us up. If the 5-2-2-1 formation is going to be the main one then we need an athletic right wing back (if Walker is going to be the right sided CB) and a physically dominant CB (like Cresswell that RVClaret suggested) to play in the middle of the back 3, then probably another physical midfielder in the mould of Ugochukwu for depth and competition.

If the 5-2-2-1 is just an occasional thing then we're probably fine as we are, though could still do with the dominant CB to strengthen the starting 11.

But the issue is if the 5-2-2-1 formation is going to be a regular thing (and the U21s playing it seems to suggest it will be) then it's a questionable decision from Parker given the makeup of the squad and our recruitment this summer is less than ideal. Why choose a formation that doesn't use wingers when we have so many wingers and then recruit 2 more wingers this summer? Why choose a formation which requires a physically dominant CB in the middle when we don't have one and seem to not be attempting to sign one? Why choose a formation which requires athletic wing backs if the only PL level one we sign is to be played at CB? There doesn't appear to be joined up thinking from anyone.

So you start off saying this somewhat neutrally but eventually circle back to your default position both on X and here that is Parker is to blame for everything. You do not know that he hasn’t asked for other players and you do not know whether other players were within our budget and you do not know whether we still have a budget so consequently what you post again comes across as verbal diarrhea

[jlup1980]

Yes, Walker has to be a better option than Ekdal even though Walker isn't even a central defender.

However I bet Roberts is a while away from returning, that's the problem.

Dubravka
Walker Ekdal Esteve Hartman
Cullen Big Les
Edwards Hannibal Anthony
Foster

I wouldn't be against this team versus Sunderland. It offers Ekdal the protection he needs, but gives us a few more options going forward. The fact the front four were all on the books last season shows how poor our recruitment has been over the summer though. Someone should have been brought in to immediately improve at least one of these positions. We can't even argue that Broja is better than Foster, as we haven't seen the lad yet!

[alwaysaclaret]

Only because we are using a world-class RB at RCB.
So we are really in need of a RCB as good as CJ Egan-Riley was (or better)

There's nothing whatsoever to suggest CJER would have been any better at all than Ekdal, and infact Ekdal has more Premier league experience than CJER, as thing's stand Ekdal has the shirt, but initially I was under the impression that we'd signed Tuanzebe to play that rcb position, on the basis he'd played there for Ipswich last season and supposedly been decent. Yet he's either not fit or deemed not good enough and has been with us for a couple of months now, so why sign him and still be in a position that we still need a rcb. I think KRBFC was making the same point I originally replied to, we've brought player's in that position yet still need to do so, a little bit similar to Ugochukwu and Broja, even though their through the door, we still look light in those positions because it's quantity over quality kind of thing, or not fit enough, we need players in ready to play. Frustrating to say the least.

[Mattster]

So you start off saying this somewhat neutrally but eventually circle back to your default position both on X and here that is Parker is to blame for everything. You do not know that he hasn’t asked for other players and you do not know whether other players were within our budget and you do not know whether we still have a budget so consequently what you post again comes across as verbal diarrhea

I'm posting on the topic. If this was not a post made by me, but by someone else would you disagree with the points being made?

When we have so many wingers, why choose a formation which doesn't use wingers and then also sign two more? The former is a question of Parker's tactical choice, the latter is a question of the recruitment team. If the decision was made that this was the go to formation that's in Parker's remit and I've no issue with that, but we would then need to sign players who are more natural in the "10" roles that Anthony and Hannibal played. Why have we not signed any 10s and instead signed more wingers when we already have plenty and don't look like using them? It's the combination of the two that's the issue. Same with the RWB and CB issue. The formation change doesn't suit the squad we had and the recruitment has not remedied that. It is not me singling out Parker, as I said the thinking of Parker and the recruitment doesn't seem to be joined up - that's the issue IMO.

But obviously you can't separate out the points from the person making them so that's probably just more diarrhoea to you.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

I'm posting on the topic. If this was not a post made by me, but by someone else would you disagree with the points being made?

When we have so many wingers, why choose a formation which doesn't use wingers and then also sign two more? The former is a question of Parker's tactical choice, the latter is a question of the recruitment team. If the decision was made that this was the go to formation that's in Parker's remit and I've no issue with that, but we would then need to sign players who are more natural in the "10" roles that Anthony and Hannibal played. Why have we not signed any 10s and instead signed more wingers when we already have plenty and don't look like using them? It's the combination of the two that's the issue. Same with the RWB and CB issue. The formation change doesn't suit the squad we had and the recruitment has not remedied that. It is not me singling out Parker, as I said the thinking of Parker and the recruitment doesn't seem to be joined up - that's the issue IMO.

But obviously you can't separate out the points from the person making them so that's probably just more diarrhoea to you.

Have you dared to consider there isn’t a “go to” formation and that it will fluctuate from game to game based on tactical needs? Just like the people that say “ he doesn’t know his first choice eleven “ when in reality no coach has a first choice eleven anymore that went out in the 90s?

[Mattster]

Have you dared to consider there isn’t a “go to” formation and that it will fluctuate from game to game based on tactical needs? Just like the people that say “ he doesn’t know his first choice eleven “ when in reality no coach has a first choice eleven anymore that went out in the 90s?

Regularly fluctuating between completely different defensive setups isn't ideal IMO.

But say it was, have you "dared to consider" that still doesn't address the fact that the squad we had didn't fit the 5-2-2-1 formation and that the recruitment appears to have compounded that issue more than it has remedied it? By signing more wingers when (assuming we "fluctuate") we are going to often deploy a formation that doesn't use any wingers and it's questionable whether we have any PL quality 10s, for example. Or not having a PL quality RWB (or the one we do have being intended to be deployed as a CB), for another example.

[Woodleyclaret]

Benny back in .A good performance for u21 last night.A dominant cb in on loan along with a cm box to box player on loan

[Goliath]

Benny back in .A good performance for u21 last night.A dominant cb in on loan along with a cm box to box player on loan

No chance. Benson is an absolute luxury. I don't think we will see much of him

[fidelcastro]

Benny back in .A good performance for u21 last night.A dominant cb in on loan along with a cm box to box player on loan

Benny will have to earn his place, as well as prove he can stay fit for longer than five minutes.

[fidelcastro]

No chance. Benson is an absolute luxury. I don't think we will see much of him

I've just realised who I was replying to. He's either senile or one of this board's wind-up merchants.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Regularly fluctuating between completely different defensive setups isn't ideal IMO.

But say it was, have you "dared to consider" that still doesn't address the fact that the squad we had didn't fit the 5-2-2-1 formation and that the recruitment appears to have compounded that issue more than it has remedied it? By signing more wingers when (assuming we "fluctuate") we are going to often deploy a formation that doesn't use any wingers and it's questionable whether we have any PL quality 10s, for example. Or not having a PL quality RWB (or the one we do have being intended to be deployed as a CB), for another example.

Word salad.

He’s the first team coach and will select a team based on the players available or presented to him for each game.

If you can’t understand that basic point I have nothing else for you

[Mattster]

Word salad.

He’s the first team coach and will select a team based on the players available or presented to him for each game.

If you can’t understand that basic point I have nothing else for you

Basically what I've said. The question I'm asking is why would a coach choose a formation which requires 2 10s and no wingers when we don't have any PL quality 10s and lots of wingers? And if that is the decision the first team coach is making, why isn't the recruitment team signing players for that formation (ie. Some 10s) and instead signing another 2 wingers?

[CoolClaret]

Basically what I've said. The question I'm asking is why would a coach choose a formation which requires 2 10s and no wingers when we don't have any PL quality 10s and lots of wingers? And if that is the decision the first team coach is making, why isn't the recruitment team signing players for that formation (ie. Some 10s) and instead signing another 2 wingers?

Hannibal played several games as a 10 for Man United, VK deployed Ramsey there, Flemming is also considered a 10, and Amorim played Edwards there for Sporting.

I'm pretty certain we won't be married to 3 at the back, but who knows? Just support the gaffer instead of this little game you've got going on so you can try and say ..."I told you so" if we struggle this year, after you're predictions were wildly off the boil last season!

[ArmchairDetective]

If Tuanzebe and Beyer aren't close to playing then we need another CB. Ridiculous really given the amount of CB's we have in the squad. But Ekdal did look to lack pace on Saturday.

[gc14]

Tuanzebe started the friendly at Shrewsbury and looked pretty sharp and had a bit of pace but unfortunately pulled up
after 20 mins and came off , i thought at the time hamstring but he was doing sprints up and down the touchline after
he came off (as did all the substituted players ) so not 100 % what the injury is and haven't heard anything about the player
since ..

[Mattster]

Hannibal played several games as a 10 for Man United, VK deployed Ramsey there, Flemming is also considered a 10, and Amorim played Edwards there for Sporting.

I'm pretty certain we won't be married to 3 at the back, but who knows? Just support the gaffer instead of this little game you've got going on so you can try and say ..."I told you so" if we struggle this year, after you're predictions were wildly off the boil last season!

Like Charlie, your issue seems to be more with me than the points I'm making. I'm not playing a game, I'm answering the topic. I genuinely didn't think questioning whether the recruitment and the system are joined up would be so controversial - the thread is asking what we need which suggests there's holes and the answers seem pretty consistent in thinking that.

Hannibal played maybe 3 PL games as a 10. The only start there was against us when really he was more of an 8 with Bruno Fernandes playing as a 10. I agree with you that Flemming would be best as a 10 in this system, he came on as a striker though against Spurs - whether he is a PL level 10 is questionable, we didn't even use him there in the Championship. Ramsey's senior football has mostly been on the wing, but his youth career was at 10. Same thing though, fitness and PL level are questions. Edwards is a winger though he was used as a 10 there by Amorim, but playing wider than Hannibal did against Spurs with Pedro Goncalves playing narrower (so the opposite way round we played Anthony and Hannibal).

But let's be generous and say there's 3 who could play as a 10 naturally, are they PL level? Possibly, but surely we strengthen there rather than sign two more wingers? Or one of each if it was felt we needed another winger to replace Sarmiento and we're going to swap formations regularly*

*which I don't think we will, the U21s are playing the same 5-2-2-1 despite it not fitting the players we have particularly well. Seems a top to bottom decision to align the system but I could be wrong.

[mikeS]

What do we need?

3 points Saturday. 40 by May Day.

[boyyanno]

We've lost 1 game and Mattster is back telling everyone Parker has lost the plot.

Talk about tiresome.

[Mattster]

We've lost 1 game and Mattster is back telling everyone Parker has lost the plot.

Talk about tiresome.

Where have I said that?

[boyyanno]

Where have I said that?

I quote:

"There doesn't appear to be joined up thinking from anyone"

[123EasyasBFC]

I quote:

"There doesn't appear to be joined up thinking from anyone"

I’m first to call out Matt on their issue with Parker, however in their post they don’t actually mention Parker, he seems to say as a collective there isn’t a joined up thinking.

I agree to, if we are going to be playing the system that we did against spurs then we don’t have the right profiles behind the number 9. We need more creative number 10s rather than out and out wingers.

[Mattster]

I quote:

"There doesn't appear to be joined up thinking from anyone"

So nowhere then. Thanks for clearing that up.

If anything I'm going after the recruitment team because Parker doesn't have players to make his chosen system work with pushing £20m spent on wingers when the chosen system doesn't use wingers.

But clearly you're another who can't see past the name of the poster.

[boyyanno]

I’m first to call out Matt on their issue with Parker, however in their post they don’t actually mention Parker, he seems to say as a collective there isn’t a joined up thinking.

I agree to, if we are going to be playing the system that we did against spurs then we don’t have the right profiles behind the number 9. We need more creative number 10s rather than out and out wingers.

Are you blind/have you read his post? The name Parker appears throughout....

[boyyanno]

So nowhere then. Thanks for clearing that up.

If anything I'm going after the recruitment team because Parker doesn't have players to make his chosen system work with pushing £20m spent on wingers when the chosen system doesn't use wingers.

But clearly you're another who can't see past the name of the poster.

I can't see beyond posting absolute rubbish after 1 game.

[boyyanno]

I’m first to call out Matt on their issue with Parker, however in their post they don’t actually mention Parker, he seems to say as a collective there isn’t a joined up thinking.

I agree to, if we are going to be playing the system that we did against spurs then we don’t have the right profiles behind the number 9. We need more creative number 10s rather than out and out wingers.

"Why choose a formation which requires athletic wing backs if the only PL level one we sign is to be played at CB? There doesn't appear to be joined up thinking from anyone."

That's Mattsters post. Can you answer who you think chooses the formation? Because if the answer is Parker then this is clearly questioning him no?

[Mattster]

I can't see beyond posting absolute rubbish after 1 game.

Thanks for proving my point

[boyyanno]

Thanks for proving my point

Ahhh sorry Mattster, you're right: Parker and the club don't have a clue, there's been no joined up thinking by anyone as evidenced in our 100 percent loss record this season.

[Mattster]

Ahhh sorry Mattster, you're right: Parker and the club don't have a clue, there's been no joined up thinking by anyone as evidenced in our 100 percent loss record this season.

Nothing to do with the loss.

I'm confused what point you're trying to make other than just anything I say is absolute rubbish.

Are you saying the squad needs no further additions to use the 5-2-2-1 formation regularly? That the signings we've made are exactly what was needed (ie. more wingers when we have 5 or 6 already and the formation doesn't use wingers)? Is the thinking between the system and the players we've recruited lined up in your opinion?

[Colburn_Claret]

A little bit of luck, and a lot more composure.

[jrgbfc]

Tbf its a valid point about the squad being a bit lopsided. If he wants to play a back 3 we don't have anybody good enough to play right wing back at this level. Plenty of wingers, most of whom are unlikely to see much action, and barely any cover in centre mid.

[boyyanno]

Nothing to do with the loss.

I'm confused what point you're trying to make other than just anything I say is absolute rubbish.

Are you saying the squad needs no further additions to use the 5-2-2-1 formation regularly? That the signings we've made are exactly what was needed (ie. more wingers when we have 5 or 6 already and the formation doesn't use wingers)? Is the thinking between the system and the players we've recruited lined up in your opinion?

I believe we've recruited what we can where we think we need and we will continue to do so. I think anyone who thinks we would get PL quality players in all of our positions is bonkers. I think there are lots of different ways to play and the formation will be fluid in games and across gameweeks. I think we haven't even yet seen a starting 11 with all of our new signings playing so to make a judgement after 1 game is mental. I think what Parker wants from his players may differ to what you want.

But most importantly: I think Parker has earned our trust and support after his achievements last year so I'm willing to give it more than a game before I decide that there's been "no joined up thinking" at the club- a knee jerk reaction to a 3-0 defeat after everyone had been quite positive about our buisness so far.

[Mattster]

I believe we've recruited what we can where we think we need and we will continue to do so. I think anyone who thinks we would get PL quality players in all of our positions is bonkers. I think there are lots of different ways to play and the formation will be fluid in games and across gameweeks. I think we haven't even yet seen a starting 11 with all of our new signings playing so to make a judgement after 1 game is mental. I think what Parker wants from his players may differ to what you want.

But most importantly: I think Parker has earned our trust and support after his achievements last year so I'm willing to give it more than a game before I decide that there's been "no joined up thinking" at the club- a knee jerk reaction to a 3-0 defeat after everyone had been quite positive about our buisness so far.

So you've answered none of the questions there, just posted a bunch of platitudes which basically amount to "we've done what we've done, we're doing what we're doing and you shouldn't question it". I'll number the questions for you this time, see if you can actually respond.

1)Are you saying the squad needs no further additions to use the 5-2-2-1 formation regularly?
2)Are the signings we've made are exactly what was needed (ie. more wingers when we have 5 or 6 already and the 5-2-2-1 formation doesn't use wingers)?
3)Is the thinking between the system and the players we've recruited lined up in your opinion?

[boyyanno]

So you've answered none of the questions there, just posted a bunch of platitudes which basically amount to "we've done what we've done, we're doing what we're doing and you shouldn't question it". I'll number the questions for you this time, see if you can actually respond.

1)Are you saying the squad needs no further additions to use the 5-2-2-1 formation regularly?
2)Are the signings we've made are exactly what was needed (ie. more wingers when we have 5 or 6 already and the 5-2-2-1 formation doesn't use wingers)?
3)Is the thinking between the system and the players we've recruited lined up in your opinion?

You're either being purposely obtuse or you're really stupid. I've answered them all but for recap:

1. The system will change across games and gameweeks so it's a loaded question. The window also hasn't closed, but I'd ideally like a dynamic RWB. Apart from that with everyone fit (Tuanzabe) there's no reason why we couldn't play that formation regularly.
2. Yes, you don't know what system, formation, style we will deploy across the season because it's been one game away from home against Spurs. You're getting hung up on wingers because the system doesn't use them apparently and yet Anthony played well this weekend...Other wingers are out of favour.
3. Obviously it's lined up. We signed more athletic players that we lacked last time and we addressed some key areas, Midfield, Striker, Left Back, we replaced Trafford and CJ.

You're looking for crumbs to quibble about because we've had a crap result and you don't like the manager. Parker himself said the buisness hasn't finished- you throw statements out like there's been 0 joined up thinking when the majority of our buisness and work has been good/positive and you've no idea what is to come no club or manager is perfect- you're making mountains out of molehills. You're just a really tiresome poster to read, different angles, same target every time.

[Mattster]

You're either being purposely obtuse or you're really stupid. I've answered them all but for recap:

1. The system will change across games and gameweeks so it's a loaded question. The window also hasn't closed, but I'd ideally like a dynamic RWB. Apart from that with everyone fit (Tuanzabe) there's no reason why we couldn't play that formation regularly.
2. Yes, you don't know what system, formation, style we will deploy across the season because it's been one game away from home against Spurs. You're getting hung up on wingers because the system doesn't use them apparently and yet Anthony played well this weekend...Other wingers are out of favour.
3. Obviously it's lined up. We signed more athletic players that we lacked last time and we addressed some key areas, Midfield, Striker, Left Back, we replaced Trafford and CJ.

You're looking for crumbs to quibble about because we've had a crap result and you don't like the manager. Parker himself said the buisness hasn't finished- you throw statements out like there's been 0 joined up thinking when the majority of our buisness and work has been good/positive and you've no idea what is to come no club or manager is perfect- you're making mountains out of molehills. You're just a really tiresome poster to read, different angles, same target every time.

Thanks. You got there in the end, well done.

1) OK. I disagree that all that is missing, even in the magical world where all our players are fit, is a RWB. We also don't have a central CB for a back 3 and lack quality across two 10 roles. Also any system which requires Laurent to be anything more than a squad player is missing a centre midfielder. I also disagree that we'll change the system gameweek to gameweek, as much out of hope as anything else - the difference between a back 3(/5) and a back 4 in terms of demands on both defenders and midfielders is huge. Asking our players to alternate match to match is a recipe for disaster IMO.
2) Wow, OK if you really think we needed another 2 wingers on top of the 5 or 6 we already had when at least some of the season is going to be played with a system that doesn't have wingers in it then there's not much I can say to that other than I really disagree. On Anthony, he was decent, he obviously wasn't natural in the role and it doesn't really play to his strengths IMO, but for a winger playing as a 10 he did well as could be expected.
3) You've not really answered this one, talking about the squad as a whole (which I'd agree with) rather than how it lines up with the 5-2-2-1 system. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad, as they say.

Then it devolves into another go at me specifically (and simultaneously criticising me for making assumptions about what we'll do in the future whilst making assumptions about what we'll do in the future which is quite amusing). But at least that came after engaging with the points this time so that's nice.

[claretspice]

So you've answered none of the questions there, just posted a bunch of platitudes which basically amount to "we've done what we've done, we're doing what we're doing and you shouldn't question it". I'll number the questions for you this time, see if you can actually respond.

1)Are you saying the squad needs no further additions to use the 5-2-2-1 formation regularly?
2)Are the signings we've made are exactly what was needed (ie. more wingers when we have 5 or 6 already and the 5-2-2-1 formation doesn't use wingers)?
3)Is the thinking between the system and the players we've recruited lined up in your opinion?

For what it is worth, I think there is only on signing that we uniquely need in order to give us the tools to play 3-4-2-1 / 5-4-1 / 3-4-3 (all basically the same thing) effectively, and that is a genuinely athletic attacking right back. Curiously, there aren't many of them about at the moment.

The other players we arguably need are players that would be equally desirable to play 4-4-2 / 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3. I would always have expected us to spend money on a more dominant centre half this summer (as yet, we haven't), and I think another central midfield option would be helpful whether we're playing three centre backs or two.

I also can't see that the players we've signed are disconnected from the system we're playing. We've only signed two attacking midfielders this summer, and both appear to be players who naturally come off the line rather than holding width. That is also true of Anthony and Edwards. All seem to me on paper equally suited to "wide inside forward" roles as to "winger" roles, and I'm not sure the role is that different to the way Parker set the team up in a 4-3-3 last season. Indeed the only out and out wide player currently in the squad is Koleosho, and he appears out of favour. Walker and Tuanzebe appear to have been signed with this system in mind and first thoughts are it also suits Hartmann who looks better going forwards than backwards at this stage (naturally, as he adapts to the Premier League)

The only thing I'd say is that if we sign another attack minded right back, we'll have four credible right backs on the books, which only makes sense if we're committed to using Walker as a third centre back. That's why I'd prefer the right back we sign to be someone who is comfortable on the right of midfield should we adopt a back four. But it will be interesting to see how much we plan to change formation - certainly, I think the 3-4-2-1 shape can be effective at this level (Luton caused us and others problems using it two years ago), but chopping and changing formation does come with risks.