A non-experts tactical view.

[Liaminho9]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

 

[Numpty's Dusty Ruts.]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

This is a top post mate, I think you do yourself a disservice by saying you haven't much of an idea. I really haven't, and it just looks like headless chickens to me, which is probably unfair to our feathered decapitated friends. I can't see where a goal is coming from, let alone a point!!

 

[Grey Blade]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

One of the few post match posts that has been thought out and worth reading. I know it's all been very disappointing so far but many of the knee jerk comments in other threads are ridiculous

 

[Servigliano]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

!00% agree - and in particular the stick Peck gets is ridiculous.

 

[Coolblade]

As often is the case, it depends on what the players are asked to do. Playing Peck as the only centre mid is a huge ask. But then it becomes a much harder task as he wanders forward trying to score.

I think it’s a deeply flawed plan, but if we play today’s formation Peck had to be disciplined and stay in position. He frequently didn’t do so, and losing the ball high up gave us very difficult problems in transition. But was he asked to support the attack? If so it’s all on Selles.

 

[Esteban Cambiasso]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

Good summary but I think picking players in the wrong positions had a biggest influence today, Cannon on the wing ... Then One on the wing, both did fuck all and Godfrey at right back and keeping that centre back pairing was absolutely bemusing

 

[Addison]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

Well thought out summary that should be explained to the manager by his coaching team.

" a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt". This is the crux of the matter for me. I have seen nothing in the games so far that suggests the manager has it in his locker to adapt formation. He seems wedded to it. A problem he has been accused of in the past. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Unfortunately if we continue this way the results are unlikely to change.

 

[Whitby-Blade]

The best managers adapt, they look at the players in front of them and figure out how to get the best out of what’s in front of them, especially your star players.

Hamer currently looks like a bang average championship player, we know he’s better than that, I’m all for playing him more central but get him up the pitch where he can work his magic.

O’Hare is a 10, play him there.

Peck looked great alongside Vini last season… get Soumare alongside him.

Burrows and Seriki are wing backs… maybe use wingbacks?

Yes, we need to buy some Cb’s, but even if Robbo stays, he’s ok on the left of a 3.

If Selles isn’t careful, he’s out the door before he has the players he wants. Use what’s at your disposal, stop players Strikers on the Right wing. Don’t ask Peck to be a midfield destroyer.

 

[sitwell]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

Absolutely spot on, leaving Peck hanging out to dry is disgusting ,especially when Soumare is an unused sub.

 

[beatific blade]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

Great post. I think a lot of people are seeing this at games but articulating it a little less gracefully than you

Only thing I’d contest from your take is the “wing backs” stuff. We don’t play with wing backs. We play a back 4 and with that you only have both full-backs providing width and pushing on if you have 2x CDMs in a Souza/Soumare mould who would sit in providing a 4 block (think Brazil 2010 World Cup). Alternatively if we are intelligent enough we can have a bit more of a flexible midfield pairing (or 3) if only one of the full-backs is pushing on. They can flex it each side and the other sits in shape keeping a 3 with one of the CMs sitting (I.e. Souza last season allowing Peck more freedom with Burrows pushing and Gilchrist sitting in).

Wing backs are generally played with 3x central defenders as with the famous Wilder teams. Enda and Baldock can both push up very high providing width and with 3 central defenders plus Norwood we had a 4 block in place.

The big problem we have right now (as you and many others have noticed) is that with only Peck shielding alone, and both full backs pushing into midfield, we only have a 3 block so if teams just get the ball forward quickly on transition they can get 3v3 situations by hardly even trying. On top of that comes the “in possession” problem where Peck is additionally expected to progress the ball. I suspect Hamer and O’Hare are supposed to be fluid and helping but it’s not working.

The damning thing is that we are all seeing this and the manager is just rolling it out again and again. I wonder if Selles has been expecting to have a whole bunch of new (better) players to be able to more adequately execute his game model.

Problem is in this league you’ve got smart managers who will see a weakness and play route one brute force.

Teams that get promoted from this league always have strong defenders who can play but are also able to handle the more direct pressure of a Millwall or Wrexham. Leeds had Rodon & Struijk who could handle it. At our best in this league we had Egan, O’Connell, Basham, Anel, Souttar.

We currently don’t have a convincing group of defenders to form a solid base, so we HAVE to set the rest of the team up to protect and have better control of games. This is where Selles looks completely ridiculous so far.

If he just plays Peck, Soumare, with Hamer just ahead (sacrificing O’Hare as the sub option), with Barry and Brooks supporting Campbell, we could have a system that protects the CBs, allows Burrows to get high with Barry cutting inside, allows Brooks width on the right, allows Hamer more central attacking link-up, and has enough bodies in the central area to shut down transition attacks (or at the very least have covering bodies).

Sorry, went on a bit but I think we have the potential to have a good attacking unit if we can add some more defensive strength and sort out the stupid set up.

We might even finish top half…

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

Good summary but I think picking players in the wrong positions had a biggest influence today, Cannon on the wing ... Then One on the wing, both did fuck all and Godfrey at right back and keeping that centre back pairing was absolutely bemusing

That and playing 4-1-5....

 

[dingledog]

Wow, how refreshing to read a thread that’s actually well reasoned, addresses many of the issues and offers an insight to possible solutions.

 

[Geeblade28]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

Chat GPT is an excellent tool, take out the —, it's the biggest AI give away.... I wish our board would use this AI, as it can clearly see what the problem is! Do we none brand AI?

 

[Inter_blade83]

I dont understand how anyone who watched the last two games (and im including the manager here) can't see that Soumare is the first name on the sheet after Cooper.

Selles must be blind or deluded (or both)

 

[Snowflake]

I dont understand how anyone who watched the last two games (and im including the manager here) can't see that Soumare is the first name on the sheet after Cooper.

Selles must be blind or deluded (or both)

…or Soumare has not been well this week ?

 

[Slug]

View attachment 220055

The best managers adapt, they look at the players in front of them and figure out how to get the best out of what’s in front of them, especially your star players.

Hamer currently looks like a bang average championship player, we know he’s better than that, I’m all for playing him more central but get him up the pitch where he can work his magic.

O’Hare is a 10, play him there.

Peck looked great alongside Vini last season… get Soumare alongside him.

Burrows and Seriki are wing backs… maybe use wingbacks?

Yes, we need to buy some Cb’s, but even if Robbo stays, he’s ok on the left of a 3.

If Selles isn’t careful, he’s out the door before he has the players he wants. Use what’s at your disposal, stop players Strikers on the Right wing. Don’t ask Peck to be a midfield destroyer.

Agree with the 3-5-2. Especially if/when we bring Tanganga and Mee in.

We haven't got the wingers or full backs to play the system that Selles is supposedly wanting but we have two ready made wing backs in Burrows and Seriki. It's a no brainer for me.

 

[Booker4]

I'm guessing that Selles probably also knows that Peck is not ideally suited to current role but then what I don't get is why he didn't play Soumare as others have said. I'm not convinced that Selles wanted Soumare or if he did he thinks he's not ready but why but play him 20 minutes or so? This is where Selles is not helping himself, nor selecting Cannon at right wing.

Only time will tell but Selles needs to pick the right players in the right positions. Campbell up top in his own isn't going to get the best out of Campbell neither unless we're going to play counter attack football and then have Campbell running at isolated defenders. The current system doesn't seem to be suiting anyone.

 

[RAP51]

Season ticket holder for over 25 years. I’ve been in London for the past five, still making the trips back (and lining the pockets of EMR’s CEO every other week).

Today was grim. The side looks more disjointed than I can remember. For me, the core issue isn’t just individuals being off form, it’s the structure—especially in midfield—and how that cascades across the entire team.

1. The midfield problem
At our best last season, we had a functional pivot:

• Souza: the destroyer. Broke up play, did the dirty work, and released the ball quickly.
• Peck: the playmaker. Received it, dictated tempo, fed the attackers.

That sequence mattered because the transition window between ball recovery and ball progression is tiny—maybe two seconds. When Souza won it and released quickly, the forwards used that micro-transition to get into shape. Peck then had angles and options to push us forward.
Now, Peck is being asked to do both jobs. He’s tackling, recovering, and immediately trying to progress. The problem: by the time he looks up, the forward line hasn’t shifted. He plays it anyway, but 80–90% of the time it’s into a static front line. The move dies before it starts.

2. Knock-on effects
This midfield imbalance has consequences everywhere else:

• Forwards: O’Hare and Hamer aren’t turning possession over high up the pitch, because they’re already advanced, waiting for service that never comes. It leaves them spectators until the ball is lost.
• Centre-backs: with the midfield screen missing, the two CBs are exposed. They’re being asked to defend wider spaces with less protection.
• Wing-backs: Burrows and Seriki are neutralised. A wing-back system relies on them breaking forward to give width and overlaps. Instead, they’re pinned back, constantly firefighting, which means we never stretch teams horizontally.

3. Attacking predictability
Because the wing-backs aren’t advancing, both wingers are left isolated. And since both are inverted, their only real option is to cut inside—every single time. Opposition defences know it, set themselves, and suddenly our strikers are outnumbered two or three to one in the box. We end up recycling sideways or losing it altogether.

4. Why it matters
This isn’t about a few players being off colour—it’s systemic. A chain reaction that starts with imbalance in midfield and ripples across defence and attack. Without a destroyer-creator balance, everything else collapses:

• Defence is stretched.
• Wing-backs can’t provide width.
• Wingers are predictable.
• Strikers are isolated.

And the real concern: this isn’t hard to spot. I noticed it in the opening couple of games. We’re now four in, and nothing has been addressed. That suggests it’s not just form—it’s either a tactical blind spot or a refusal to adapt.

TLDR

• Peck is being asked to do both destroyer and playmaker roles.
• That kills the transition window and nullifies half our attacks.
• O’Hare/Hamer too high, CBs exposed, wing-backs pinned back.
• Attack is predictable: inverted wingers cutting in every time, strikers isolated.
• Until balance is restored in midfield, the whole structure unravels.

I’m not claiming to be an expert or a coach—I’ve got no badges, just years of watching football home and away. But when you’ve seen enough games, you start to notice patterns, and this one has been obvious from the first whistle of the season. That said, football’s all about perspective, and I’d genuinely welcome other views. Maybe I’m over-simplifying it, maybe I’ve missed something. Either way, it would be good to hear how others are reading the same problems.

Think you sum things up very well. Due to being abroad, today was the first game I've watched this season. I was aware of the criticism Peck's been getting but the kid's being asked to cover a full third of the pitch, running from side to side to cover a weak back 4 and also setting up our forward play as the deep midfielder.
Given the fact that he's being asked to perform the work of at least 2 players I thought he did okay today and think any criticism should be aimed at a clueless manager who left out Soumare and played a striker who himself is struggling out on the right wing.
This season is already reminding me of the terrible seasons under Harry Haslam who despite having some decent players managed with the help of Martin Peters to take us to the basement of the football league

 

[diplomat]

This is a top post mate, I think you do yourself a disservice by saying you haven't much of an idea. I really haven't, and it just looks like headless chickens to me, which is probably unfair to our feathered decapitated friends. I can't see where a goal is coming from, let alone a point!!

I missed today’s game as I’m in wales on hollibobs but the brief highlights suggest we were unlucky not to score, couple of really good saves. But I also feel what you’re saying.

 

[Sydney1889]

Good OP, and agree with all comments about the midfield 3 - Peck being asked to do too much, Hamer/O’Hare not working in combination as a 3 - I would drop one of them and replace with Soumare in a 4-2-1-3, or play Peck/Soumare and Hamer/O’Hare further forward, with Campbell/Barry/other up top as a 4-2-2-2 (which changes in transition with Hamer/O’Hare dropping deep without the ball and pushing on with the ball, along with Peck. Needs full-backs to push forward with the ball for width).

Also, I could be wrong about Soumare but I thought I saw that when the subs were warming up at half-time, Soumare was absent. Initially, I thought that meant he was coming on for 2nd half but obviously not so perhaps injured/unwell? Wonder if anyone else saw that and/or heard about him?

 

[Railway Blade]

We didn't get 20 minutes of real domination though. We were better. We created more chances. But they sat back. I thought they were equally likely to score as us (on the break) and they could have had more if they were interested.

View attachment 220055

The best managers adapt, they look at the players in front of them and figure out how to get the best out of what’s in front of them, especially your star players.

Hamer currently looks like a bang average championship player, we know he’s better than that, I’m all for playing him more central but get him up the pitch where he can work his magic.

O’Hare is a 10, play him there.

Peck looked great alongside Vini last season… get Soumare alongside him.

Burrows and Seriki are wing backs… maybe use wingbacks?

Yes, we need to buy some Cb’s, but even if Robbo stays, he’s ok on the left of a 3.

If Selles isn’t careful, he’s out the door before he has the players he wants. Use what’s at your disposal, stop players Strikers on the Right wing. Don’t ask Peck to be a midfield destroyer.

You've saved me a job. I was going to post this too.
Only thing I would add is that it also gives us more options. Assuming Tanganga comes, you could play him in the centre and Robbo or Zatterstrom on the left. Robbo is more experienced, Zatterstrom a lot quicker so you could play a higher line.
You could play any of Barry, Hamer and O'Hare as the two 10's or you could play one 10 and two strikers.
I just think it looks more balanced and solid with the players we have.

 

[Back post bob]

Spot on post , fans are becoming divided,Wilder v Selles getting on players backs I'm not a great fan of Cannon but come on why did the manager play him like a right winger yesterday I felt sorry for the lad.Square pegs Round holes comes to mind.We all know those players are better than yesterday's performance.We need a manager to put a arm around players and get them playing a system they understand.