It's because you're either blind or haven't any idea what's going on in the match, mate.

We struggle to break teams down at home so you're saying we're playing 3 at the back because Frank wants us to become more defensive. Have a recap on your understanding of football and come back when you have.

The players don't suit 3 at the back and we don't have the money to acquire them. That brings Frank under heavy scrutiny.

Again, your missing my point. I'm not defending his system. Im not saying his tactics shouldn't be under heavy scrutiny. I'm questioning people who believe the decision to 3 at the back was his idea of a more attacking move despite the fact he's always played with 4 at teams who can actually afford to be free flowing.

If you actually bothered to read my replies, you'd see the bit where I said "I'm not a fan of 3 at the back" and I never have been. So I really don't see what your getting at in response to my initial point.

Edited by Mstrobez (28 Aug 2017 2.53pm)

I don't disagree with that at all. But doesn't that make you question what on earth Parish and him discussed prior to the appointment?

I personally believe Frank would've been so confident (rightly or wrongly) in his own abilities that he would've probably been the least inclined to demand a radical turnover of players at Palace. I suspect the real reason for Sam leaving was the fact that he made it clear after the 5-0 loss to City and the dire performance against United kids towards the end of the season that we'd still be in a lot of trouble this year without investment. Pellegrino and maybe even Silva probably said this as well and I think the fact Frank was probably the most laid back about it in his interview was the reason Parish wanted him.

It's always surprised me how relaxed Frank has seemed in interviews at the lack of transfer activity and the seeming confidence he's had in a squad which is quite clearly not of Premier League standard beyond the first 11.

Edited by Mstrobez (28 Aug 2017 3.09pm)

If you look on the BBS you'll see line ups like this:

Mensah. Dann. Tomkins. PVA

Milivojevic

Zaha. Cabaye. Cheek. Townsend

Benteke

2 quality additions (by Frank and his big name), a new CB to come in, possibly a new keeper, cheap back up striker like Shane Long and players played in position. The bench wouldn't be that bad either, and with Wickham and Souare back at X as then even better.

This can be tweaked to 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3, 4-5-1, and once you have your full strength team available, do what West Ham did, work on 3 at the back in training and their only knowledge of it being 1,hour before kick off, not 2 months before with plenty of pre season pedestrian footage to pick apart.

It has been done very amateurishly, putting the club at risk.

If you look on the BBS you'll see line ups like this:

Mensah. Dann. Tomkins. PVA

Milivojevic

Zaha. Cabaye. Cheek. Townsend

Benteke

2 quality additions (by Frank and his big name), a new CB to come in, possibly a new keeper, cheap back up striker like Shane Long and players played in position. The bench wouldn't be that bad either, and with Wickham and Souare back at X as then even better.

This can be tweaked to 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3, 4-5-1, and once you have your full strength team available, do what West Ham did, work on 3 at the back in training and their only knowledge of it being 1,hour before kick off, not 2 months before with plenty of pre season pedestrian footage to pick apart.

It has been done very amateurishly, putting the club at risk.

That sound a good team. Shows that with a couple of additions on the bench/injury back-ups we have the resources to be better than fight relegation.

Parish needs to tell FdB that Palace is not his pet project and has to put the club's interest first. So SP has either implied to FdB that he can do what he likes or FdB has assumed he can.