When people on here are advocating changes the reasoning seems to be focusing exclusively on attacking.
I think the manager would agree there are a number of tweaks that could be done to get more attacking qualities into the team.
But he also has to pay attention to the defensive side of things. If we're poorly balanced, underestimating the threats of the opposition, we'll be punished. It happened vs Wolves, 2-0 down after 6 minutes. We struggled a couple of times even before Egan was left alone with Watkins in the sending off situation.
Even if we do have a more attacking qualities, it will be more difficult to create and score if we've conceded early. Last season's success was built on a very solid defence. Since then Henderson is gone, JOC is gone. Bash, Egan and Stevens + Norwood and Fleck are a year older, with some of them looking three years older. Our promotion momentum is gone and teams have realised there are effective moves to deal with our unusual style.
It's almost as if people are taking a good defensive record for granted.
I think the management looked at the first couple of games, then the fixture list, and decided it was necessary to try and regain our defensive solidity. It's not worked as well as we'd hoped, some of it due to bad luck/rotten refereeing. We could have beaten Leeds, and losing 1-2 at Arsenal wasn't a disaster and it could have been different if another refereeing decision had been right.
Fulham may be an exception, but we have more tough games coming up after that, so I expect more of the same.