Firstly I would like to say that I haven't watched Bolton as much as previous seasons but have been keeping a keen eye on recent games with the new man in charge, having seen all his games in one way or another. So these observations of recent games may not be your perception of the season as a whole.

It seems painfully obvious to me that the current formation simply isn't working. We don't have the correct personnel to play within this shape. Playing with two central midfielders leaves us really exposed to the counter attack, one pass bypasses the midfield and the opposition is at our weak defence. Muamba does a job but is distribution is awful and I'm not entirely convinced by Gardner in the middle of the park. I have the feeling he'll be more effective from wide positions(whether that is from left back or midfield).

I'll say this from the start Taylor's legs have gone. He seems incapable of beating his man but on the ball he's without doubt one of our better players. For that reason alone he has to start but not out wide. I propose he plays in midfield, be the distribution that Muamba isn't. From the middle of the park he can find our wingers sharply and start our counters quickly.

I've heard Elmo getting a lot of stick. I don't understand it. His link up play between Lee and Taylor is far superior to Davies. Yes he's a terrible finisher but as an all round contributer the the team, he has more input than Davies in recent games(again your perception might be different having watched more games than me).

Finally there is Robinson. He is no more than a Championship clogger. A pacy winger exposes him defensively and he adds nothing to the team attacking wise(which is vitally important in either a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1) and perhaps why Taylor has looked poor- the guy has no support.

Some people might say 4-5-1 is intrinsically more negative than a 4-4-2. I disagree. Its they way you use it. The system has more flexibility and can quickly change into a 4-3-3. It also allows the wingers to cut inside, with the extra man in midfield able to defensively cover. If we had better players I wouldn't argue with the 4-4-2 but we don't so I propose:

Jussi

Steinsson Knight Ricketts/O'Brien Gardner/Samuel

Muamba

Lee Wilshere/Cohen Taylor Wilshere/Gardner

Elmander

OK I know this will never happen in a million years but I would like to know other posters thoughts on this. Is the 4-4-2 going to take us down?

Both have their place, and Coyle seems to pick the wrong one quite regularly. 4-5-1 at home to Fulham = terrible idea. 4-4-2 away to City, Rovers and home to Arsenal = even worse.

Good points you make, and some have been covered in other threads. Basically 4-5-1 is probably best as we don't have the perfect pairing in midfield. Having 3 in there would mean we could cover most of the attributes needed in a midfield.

Why can't we play the system Blackburn do with 3 up top, and men in the box, but 5 in midfield when under pressure?

A front three of Davies up the middle, Elmo down the left and LCY down the right with the players actually given licence to get in and around Davies and IN THE BOX along with a couple of the three midfield players getting in the box as well.

We need to go "back to basics" and scrap all this "trying to play nice football" we're NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

We weren't good enough playing sh*t football either.

Well we were getting a point per game or thereabouts.

We can only dream of such heady heights now!

Also remember us doing something else

Can't remember what they call it but is begins with sc

But we've kept clean sheets against Burnley, Fulham and Wigan, won't play our 2 saviours but it's all good

We've only played three teams in the relegtion mix since Coyle arrived. We got four points. Before he arrived, we'd played 9 and garnered 9 points. Heady days indeed.

I thought 4-4-2 was "basics" BWFCi. Someone ought to send the press numpties like Stan Collymore who bang on week in week out that teams who play only 1 up front should be ashamed and go back to League 2 if that's the level of their ambition.

We also got 9 points from 9 games against teams in the top ten too (we're 1 point from 5 currently). DSB didn't dub him 'Average Gary Megson' for nothing. Still, not that bad for the worst manager we've ever had.

Anyway, all that's a bit irrelevent.....

It's not the single reason why we're shit, but I don't think it helps. We can't keep the ball in midfield and thus whoever ends up front has to become midfielders themselves, giving us nothing up front.

It's all about finding a balance, which is what we've struggled to do all season. We seem to range from being overly cautious with 4-5-1's at home in winnable games, and ridiculously open 4-4-2s away from home.

In either formation, you need to get as much support as possible to forwards, and we just can't seem to do that.

Basics as in loading the box and putting the ball in there and winning second balls.

We seem more worried about getting it wide and running at folk. Which is all well and good but we're not hurting people, and we don't have anywhere near enough players up near the front two or getting in the box!

Top ten? You're trying to be serious aren't you? We've just played Arsenal twice and Liverpool. What was our record against the top ten before christmas? Nowt. So lets move on. Fulham, direct comparison. Draw. Spurs? Draw.

If we go down its because our record against teams we should have taken more points from was poor. You keep telling us how sh*t Brown is as a managr, pray tell how the ginger genius handed him 4 points?

Regardless, the squad is rediculousy one dimensional,and its not even good at that dimension. Our record signing couldn't hit Canary Wharf with a nuclear bomb. Our two most likely scorers are out injured, one with a freak of the century injury. Under those circumstances, we were still robbed of two points by Clattenburg, and we're still no worse off than when the new man came in.

Megson was a terrible manager, thats precisely why we are in the position we are in. If we go down and go bust, look no further than signings like Elmander as to why that happened. I realise you want to blame Coyle, it softens the blow of being wrong. But you were.

The amount of that that is completely unrelated to anything I posted is almost laughable, and feck knows what it's got to do with playing 4-4-2. Do I keep telling you how shit Brown is as a manager?

Anyway, you never actually answered this first time round....



....actually the ppg thing was a bit over the top. Coyle just equalling the 1ppg would be more than enough to keep us up.

I'm sorry, whats there to answer? Our record under Coyle is no worse than Megson. The chairman saw fit to give Megson the bullet. Probably because he felt he was going to take us down. He was certainly dividing the fanbase like no individual I've ever seen in the time I've been watching. Which is no surprise, he has form. Thats why we changed. You can be good and unpopular, but he was neither.

After all the money that was spent, I have serious doubts as to whether Coyle was offered any budget. I think we might escape relegation, but to think we were going to shoot up the table is dreamland. What has been achieved so far has been an improvement on what went before this season. We'll know after the next couple of games as to whether survival is on the cards, but we're fortunate in that there are 3 clubs around us who seem hellbent on losing loads. Its hardly an aspiration, but if we can limp past them and get to summer I have more faith in us being better next year than I would with the ex in charge.

If we go down Coyle has failed, he said so himself when he joined. He had the chance in January to do more than sign three players he clearly doesn't rate as better than the ones we already had.

End of the day IF he can't match Megsons point per game over half a season then there is little else to conclude other than we'd have been better off sticking with GM and his decidedly average points haul.

We don't know how Coyle will cope under this pressure as he's never been under this before in his managerial career!

If we'd actually had any money to spend maybe he would have signed other players.

Coyle said several times he had money to spend. He chose not to as he felt the squad was strong enough and "you don't get good value in January".

Might have been an idea to loan some players over 5ft with some experience though eh?

I'd have changed it today, I'd have gone 4-1-4-1 with Wilshere or Davies for Elmander which looked like it could work quite well.

I don't think the formation, and obsession with it if you like, is the problem. Under Megson we could've played 8-1-1 and not kept a clean sheet. I get the impression we could go 4-1-5 with this team and still not score.

The issues remain at not being able to keep possession, there's no plan of action to create chances, we're not winning enough set pieces in dangerous areas and there's zero movement.

My worry with the loan signings all along was that they'd struggle until we were clear of the relegation zone and could play with some freedom. They'd have been better off at a Birmingham, Fulham or dare I say...Blackburn

You believe that then fine.

Personally I don't believe a word of it and in my opinion we had no funds available to spend.

What date did he join us? How long did he have? He didn't join us until the 8th, so he had no chance to both assess the squad and spend money appropriately, if we even had any to give him. Gartside should have made the decision after the Blackburn home game and given him time. I also have serious doubts that we had any money anyway.