12 players?

Neither do I, you are making out as if I am unhappy with a win. Absolutely nothing that I have said warrants you taking the moral high ground. I have merely said that our striker will need to contribute at least some goals in order for us to meet our objectives.

But you were implying that Gallagher cannot be questioned as he is part of a team that has hit some good form, so surely by the same token if we are judging individuals based solely on the teams results then he was only deserving of criticism during Coyles tenure as even though his goal tally was as impressive as it ever has been in his fledgling career, the team was losing? Ive not said that he isnt offering anything or that he doesnt have any attributes of any use, because of course he does. I also have read @Atko's Engine and whilst I slightly disagree that hes "mainly" played wide (against Charlton, Fulham, West Brom and Reading he played central, against Hull, Boro and Cardiff wide, as a sub v Millwall mainly central) and I totally appreciate that his game is different to Graham. I dont believe a striker yet to score's contribution can be described as excellent to be honest. I also think it is very fair to demand that at some point, our (£5m!) striker starts adding goals to his game as we can not be solely reliant on other positions scoring all season in absence of our seemingly now main striker, especially as we are far from free scoring anyway. I have not put specific demands on how many goals, I dont expect him to score 20 goals, or to be honest even match Grahams tally, but we must never lose sight of the main purpose of a striker regardless of what else he might offer, its not enough without goals.

Absolutely. Mentioned earlier that good strikers miss chances even when they arent scoring, by getting into the right positions.

So surely by that same token you were unhappy with his contribution when we were losing every week in his last spell? Even though he scored some goals, albeit 1 in 4 is very average. Its obviously true that he was in an inferior side last time but ultimately and factually, Coyles tactics seemed to suit Gallagher more than Mowbrays have done, in either spell. He was far more of a goal threat under Coyle in his 442, with Emnes or Graham with him, and wingers either side. To clarify, I am well aware that Coyles tactics and management as a whole were obviously terrible as a whole, and he is a terrible manager. He does have some attributes to his game that ae helpful but I think as our striker it is pretty obvious that he needs to start scoring goals to merit his place going forward.

Waggott said we were 10th to 16th last season but with Downing, Johnson, Gallagher and Holtby amongst our signings you would suspect that that figure has gone up considerably.

So should we not critique the team on anything but the result? Ie if we win but theres an area of potential improvement, we shouldnt mention it, and conversely, if we lose but someone plays well we shouldnt mention that either? A striker who has started 7 and come on in the 8th of our league games this season and is yet to score a goal (or rarely even threaten) is something to consider. We will need our striker to score goals over the course of the play offs in order to make the play offs.

I am not opta, how should I know. Not that many which ties into my earlier comments about good strikers always getting chances regardless of form, they get into the right positions.

He has plenty of tools especially physically but, as much as I appreciate the methodology behind phasing out a veteran striker for a young striker, if he continues to not score goals youd presume that Graham would have to come back in. Against Luton next week could be a perfect chance for Gallagher to get a goal mind.

Good strikers even when not in goalscoring form repeatedly get into goalscoring positions. The worry is always when them chances are not coming very often. Dack has 40 goals in 100 games and I struggle to remember one outside of the box. For all of his tricks and nutmegs he is brilliant at anticipating where the ball will fall in the penalty area. Much about goalscoring is about movement off the ball and anticipation. Im not convinced Gallagher has that strikers instinct to sniff out potential chances.

Would it?

Your examples are a little strange, and somewhat back up what many of us are saying, that the best bet is to stick to and master the one formation, and when you want to adjust dependant on the fixture, you do so via changing players within that set system, rather than constantly changing formation from game to game. Liverpool always play that 433, your example of Origi played wide forward is an example of what we could do, within the parameters of a fixed and consistent way of playing, being flexible more in terms of personnel rather than shape. But their players are clearly always aware of the roles within Klopps team. Again, City rarely move away from their 433, Pep's consistent way of playing tends to make his teams almost machine like, and more than anyone else can get away with bringing new players in, Fernandinho CB is very much alike to playing Mascherano, Yaya Toure and Javi Martinez in that position in the past. Wolves always play with 3 at the back. If they want to be a bit more attacking, they often change it up via their wing backs, picking Vinagre and in particular the converted wing back Adama Traore over Jonny Otto and Doherty. But again, the system stays the same, 3 centre backs, 2 wing backs, 2 central midfielders with a third slightly ahead and 2 up front. They have struggled with the increased rotation in personnel required compared to last season, Patricio, Doherty, Bennett, Coady, Boly, Jonny, Dendonker, Neves, Moutinho, Jiminez and Jota was their team almost every single week. Chelsea and Tottenham are more unclear examples. Both seem to be struggling for consistency both in terms of system and results at the moment.

Agreed. A strange comment from someone who repeatedly dismissing managers he deems to be "boring" irrespective of results, but its a result business! That being said, a team with top 6 hopes should be capable of blowing away a very poor Luton side at home.

It is not enough for a striker to work hard, he needs to score goals. Like I said and you ignored, a good striker even during a bad patch will still find chances coming to him, showing hes getting into the right positions. Of course there is somewhat of a grace period considering hes new (sort of) but ultimately we cannot afford our striker to not contribute goals to our team. Successful teams do get goals from various places but your striker has to get goals, last season our striker got 15 goals, weve spent big money on Gallagher and he needs to score goals to merit his place. If you dont feel that employing a consistent way of playing is often the key to getting consistent results then we will just have to agree to disagree but the 3 promoted sides from last season back up my point. All teams with a set way of playing, with players knowing their roles, meaning that if they make a change in personnel, whether enforced or to give them a different attribute, they can slot in with minimum fuss and keep the momentum. My point was that Buckley is not a player Preston "couldnt dream" of having on their bench. He may be a decent prospect but as of yet he hasnt impacted upon the first team and looks quite a bit off being ready to me. With the competition in that area I suspect a loan spell may have been better for him in the lower leagues, to let him get kicked about, to see how he can handle it. Of course the timing of the Holtby deal meant that this wasnt the avenue we went down. I know, but it is common sense that a manager with bigger resources is at an advantage to one with lower resources. That sentence is not an opinion, it is objective.

Would personally suggest that either or both of him and Buckley should go out on loan in January and get some game time, get kicked about a bit and see how they cope.

What was your question, the one about the chances Gallagher had yesterday? I couldnt comment, I (presumably like yourself) didnt watch the game myself. I saw the chance he had which he blazed over when he should have scored. Have you heard the phrase when a striker is going through a dry spell and keeps missing chances, "at least hes getting into the right position." I would consider how rarely Gallagher looks even likely to score to be a concern too. All this said, my comment about 0 goals in 8 league appearances (7 starts) is perfectly valid, our striker really must offer a goal threat, and I am entitled to question his place in the team if he continues to fail to do so. We need our striker to score goals. I think our options in midfield are a reason to be optimistic, but your comments on Preston are a little strange. They definitely do have depth, especially in midfield like ourselves. Pearson, Gallagher, Johnson, Browne, Harrop, Bodin, Barkhuizen, Potts, Bayliss, Ledson. The main thing there though is the CONSISTENCY in the way that they play. They can mix it up in terms of personnel, but that system stays the same, the changed players slot straight in and as a result Neil is getting the very best from those players. Thats a further example of what regularity in way of playing can do. I think the likes of Holtby, Johnson and Downing would have potentially been unobtainable due to their wage demands, I suspect that Mowbray has got an advantage over Neil due to Prestons low wage cap. Preston have made a name for signing players for really low prices, Johnson for 50k, Barkhuizen dirt cheap from Morecambe, Browne (and Maguire) for peanuts from Ireland, and developed them into top Championship performers. If we could replicate that level of consistency and familiarity, then I would like to think that our quality of players could end up surpassing those at Preston. Do you really think that Preston "couldnt dream" of having someone like Buckley on the bench?! Baring in mind that he has struggled when he has played physically, and Preston have signed Bayliss, a player who has really impressed for Coventry, who cost 2m and cant get on the bench. Or Nyambe?

That system is the same system that they have played for the last 2 years though. The point that @Tyrone Shoelaces makes is bang on, its not specific to our title winning team, it is about how having a settled system and what that can bring cannot be underestimated. There are other examples, Norwich played 4231, Sheff United mastered the 3 at the back and wing backs, with overlapping centre backs, Villa went 433 with Grealish and McGinn in front of a screen of Whelan or Hourihane. All 3 went up playing different formations but all with consistency. I would totally disagree with what @Paul Mani said about Prestons squad too in terms of its depth. At the moment Alan Browne is often left on the bench due to the form of Johnson as 10 in front of Pearson and Gallagher. They similarly to us have plenty of midfield options, Potts, Bodin, Harrop, Barkhuizen, Ledson, and when needed/chosen, they slot in and it doesnt cause any confusion, or any inconsistency, everyone knows their shape. They can also go with the movement of Maguire or more direct with Stockley up top. Playing a consistent, regular formation and system doesnt mean that you dont have flexibility, that comes through the personnel. As Paul Mani said, our midfield choices tend to have different skillsets, we have technical ones, we have physical ones who can get the ball back for us, we have ones who can run at players.

I dont think he gets into goalscoring positions often enough which is not a great sign. He needs to add goals to keep his place IMO.

He does need to start offering a goal threat soon though. 7 starts and 1 sub appearance in the league and no goals, and thats the main thing we are lacking at the moment.

How is that relevant? You pointed to todays game as proof of your argument, ie needing 3 systems, when we won using the formation we have used for the last couple of years. How we might have played if other players had been available is irrelevant! (albeit one central defensive injury meant that we couldnt play 3 CBs, proving one of my main pitfalls of that formation) If we had played with 3 at the back or with "split strikers" then we dont know how we would have even got on. Do you not attach any importance to consistency then, to understanding your roles, developing partnerships and familiarity? Do you not realise that all of these qualities were ones belonging to recently promoted sides? And would you not agree that you can be adaptable and flexible within the parameters of a consistent formation? I gave examples of personnel changes that will allow different tactical approaches. Do you not think it is an incredibly big ask of the players to master 3 formations all at the same time?

How does today prove your point? We won playing the formation we have played today for a couple of years. You also mention Millwall but we kept 2 clean sheets against them last season playing 4231 didnt we? Like I said, consistency is seemingly underrated in your world but its so important. Players need to know their roles, something that was certainly true of all 3 teams last season. You can adjust tactics based on personnel within the parameters of an existing formation. For example, weve got a striker in Graham who we can play off, maybe more so at home, whereas away we have faster strikers to counter attack. You can do either of them things within a 4231. (Or whatever formation we choose to use) Alternatively, we may feel like we can play a Holtby or a Downing in a midfield 2 in a home game that we see as fairly winnable, ie next week, whereas away from home it may be wiser to include them in the 3 in front and have Johnson and Travis screening the midfield. All I am saying is I think we should make sure we master one formation first rather than trying to master 3 at once. And that one main formation does not mean you cannot amend your team and tactical approach dependant on the game,

Well done Armstrong.

Dont understand why he plays them 2 wide men on the wrong side.

I personally think it does suit us in terms of it allows us to name 5 of our midfielders, an area which id say is our strongest now. Last season it was done conservatively, plodders like Evans, Smallwood and Bennett involved, ultimately we knew we couldnt dominate that area and had to bypass it. Now weve got Holtby, Johnson and Downing added to the equation, Travis and Rothwell hopefully playing regularly, Dack obviously in his favoured position, then beneath that, Armstrong, Chapman, Evans etc to add depth. Plenty of scope for technical midfielders dominating the ball. I dont think for 3 at the back, we have the defensive depth especially at CB (would need to change if any of them got injured), but what I think we would agree on is whatever system he wants to play, give it a chance rather than constantly changing it!

I wouldnt even say thats limited to clubs with limited resources. By far the top 2 clubs in the country also play the same way every week. 433, everyone knows their role. Even when City get a couple of injuries, Fernandinho slipped back into CB in midweek effortlessly. You look at Liverpool, theyve got Henderson, Milner and Fabinho for tougher games, and the likes of Chamberlain and Wijnaldum for games they expect to dominate.