This is patent nonsense....We played literally 3 at the back because we were only against ten players. Key and Caprice were not any kind of backs in this set up (not wing or full), but were attacking wide players. This is a completely different set up from the normal "3 at the back" when the wing backs all too often become full backs.....
We weren't against 10 men until 44 minutes for one thing, so everything else after becomes moot.I am describing what I saw. Can you point out what I've got wrong?
I was talking about when we changed from four at the back to three at the back which was when Grounds came on for Daniel ( as was Sea Grecian whose comment I was replying to). By this time we'd be playing against 10 men for a whileWe weren't against 10 men until 44 minutes for one thing, so everything else after becomes moot.
4 at the back made us look poor, against a poor side, no creativity, and little cohesion, you clearly don't want to see that.
Totally agreeColey wasn't helped with the sort of service he was getting. Daniel's passing wasn't brilliant generally and some of the dross being fed to him Archie Collins...................................... Collins performance yesterday backed up why I'd prefer to have Taylor in the side once he is fit.