Well why is it being implemented then? When he played 4 at the back with Ajax and Inter? The idea of 3 at the back is that whilst defending you have 5 defenders instead of 4. It's not the being more attacking we've struggled with, it's having players with the intelligence to adapt to the system. What other possible reason does De Boer have to go against his and a famous Dutch formation he's played in during his entire managerial career and majority of playing career?

I swear when people don't like someone it clouds their judgement and it's impossible to fathom any responsibility or blame lying with anyone but De Boer.

If the players can't play that formation then why are we playing it. Facking hell.

What's the PL speed record for losing dressing rooms?

Your still missing my point. I never expected, nor wanted us to play 3 at the back - I've never been a big fan of it because even the teams who win trophies with it historically end up getting found out anyway, this isn't the first time a batch of teams in the Premier League have gone with it after watching a team be successful with it (Chelsea). This craze won't last in the premier league for long.

I'm saying that Franks idea of playing 3 at the back was undoubtedly taking into account (rightly or wrongly) our deficiencies as a team and aiming to give us the ability to play whilst still defending in numbers. That is clearly the idea, I'm not saying it's the right one, but Franks systems of 4 at the back are evidently more attacking ones that the 3 at the back he's taken to Palace, he played it for 5 years at a team winning the league every season. So I'm just questioning this idea that all of a sudden under Frank we'll be more defensively solid with 4 at the back. I'll ask again, why would he all of a sudden implement 3 at the back at Palace when he's never done it at more attacking sides who dominate the league if it weren't for more defensive security? Even if his idea is flawed?

Your arguing with me about if it works or not, I never said it did or would but he undoubtedly introduced it because he believed it would make us more solid. If you can't see that, your evidently blinded by hatred.

Er, he said it would get more out of our attacking players, specifically naming Zaha.

Why he's implementing a system he said we're suited to, yet needed 3 players hired and selected and yet another 3 I have no idea. Keep with the Jones's, keep with trends? He chose it either without assessing the squad or assessing them very very badly.

He didn't. He said 'lacking courage.'

It means the same but is more polite and more likely to keep them on side. A bit like saying someone isn't ambitious rather than lacking ambition. The former is fair, the latter is highly critical and possibly going to lose loyalty or friendship or whatever.

But footballers aren't often bright so can be irrational like Eastenders characters. Not listening, hearing half, jumping to conclusions etc.