I may be wrong here, but the way I saw it Fleetwood did not aggressively press the back 3(4), they closely marked the midfield (and wing backs); this completely shut off any accurate outlet and resulted in seemingly endless,uncontested, passes between the back 3. Eventually, the only option was to hoof it. Aimson is beginning to live up to his "aimless" tag and seems incapable to hitting an argyle shirt. Watts is better but the control of our front 2(3) was terrible and our midfield was non-existant.

It was a simple yet clever tactic by Fleetwood that we couldn't counter.

I can see your point, it didn't seem to be so much the back 3 that were pressed, as much as the midfield outlet being so tightly marked there were no options for back 3 to pass to - other than each other, and keeper. Our long ball game suffers from both the shortcomings you've described - no long-pass accuracy and no ability to pick up or hold the ball once received.

I think was a bit of both. When the back 3 are not being pressed they should be able to bring it forward and have more time to pick passes.

Sorry to reiterate a point from another thread, but there is a BIG difference to playing in a back 4 to playing wing back in Lowe's system. You have to be better at marking, play narrower out of possession to stop underlapping runs, and therefore be at least reasonable in the air too - which Moore isn't. You also need to learn when to press and when to stay compact. Edwards MIGHT be ok at right back, but who plays there if he gets injured?!

Watts at left back absolutely screams Carl McHugh I'm afraid. Bradford fans told us in unity not to play him at left back, so of course Sheridan played him at left back, and surprise surprise, he was terrible. Watts would have the same issues imo. Just because he's a left footed centre back who is ok on the ball (as McHugh was), does not mean he can play left back.

In fact, the whole "let's go to a back 4" screams of Sheridan's spell as manager. No tactical insight at all, it was simply if things weren't working, switching between 4-4-2 and 3-5-2, which would bring a couple of results before we'd revert to type again.

We're past that stage now - I expect more tactical thought from Lowe. We need to play two DM's instead of one when we're under pressure, and we need to play more accurate long passes when we're struggling to pass out from the back.

Going to a back 4 would make us no better away from home than we are now.

One of the biggest issues with our current formation away from home is how isolated our CB's become when the wing-backs are pressed into our half and Fornah is closely marked. If you're an opposition manager watching Saturday's match, match those tactics and get someone on Danny Mayor, we're struggling. If teams start coming to Home Park and doing this, we're in for a very tough spell.
The move to 4 at the back, and 2 in front, is as much about options going forward as it is defensive solidity. The 3 attacking midfielders could all interchange at any point too, giving the opposition much more to think about.
As for Watts, I obviously disagree. He's much better running forward with the ball than McHugh, is an intelligent player who would know when to go forward and when to sit, and is good in the air. We do have Ryan Law as a more natural option there, granted, but very inexperienced.

Those are fair points and difficult to dispute. However, I just think that we need to try tweaking the 3-5-2 first before switching to a back 4 - as Graham Clark said, it'd be a very big ask to bring it in successfully off the back of just 1 or 2 training sessions. Watts... he might be slightly better at dribbling than McHugh was but I don't see him adapting to it - maybe we'll see.

As Balham suggests below, we need one of the back 3 to bring the ball out when the midfield are being so well marshalled. When we've been at our fluid best this season, we've seen the outside centre backs underlap well and contribute to the attack - such as Watts' goal against Leyton Orient. If we played 2 DM's ahead of a back 3, then one can drop back to cover when a centre back makes an attacking run.

Sorry to reiterate a point from another thread, but there is a BIG difference to playing in a back 4 to playing wing back in Lowe's system. You have to be better at marking, play narrower out of possession to stop underlapping runs, and therefore be at least reasonable in the air too - which Moore isn't. You also need to learn when to press and when to stay compact. Edwards MIGHT be ok at right back, but who plays there if he gets injured?!

Watts at left back absolutely screams Carl McHugh I'm afraid. Bradford fans told us in unity not to play him at left back, so of course Sheridan played him at left back, and surprise surprise, he was terrible. Watts would have the same issues imo. Just because he's a left footed centre back who is ok on the ball (as McHugh was), does not mean he can play left back.

In fact, the whole "let's go to a back 4" screams of Sheridan's spell as manager. No tactical insight at all, it was simply if things weren't working, switching between 4-4-2 and 3-5-2, which would bring a couple of results before we'd revert to type again.

We're past that stage now - I expect more tactical thought from Lowe. We need to play two DM's instead of one when we're under pressure, and we need to play more accurate long passes when we're struggling to pass out from the back.

Going to a back 4 would make us no better away from home than we are now.

One of the biggest issues with our current formation away from home is how isolated our CB's become when the wing-backs are pressed into our half and Fornah is closely marked. If you're an opposition manager watching Saturday's match, match those tactics and get someone on Danny Mayor, we're struggling. If teams start coming to Home Park and doing this, we're in for a very tough spell.
The move to 4 at the back, and 2 in front, is as much about options going forward as it is defensive solidity. The 3 attacking midfielders could all interchange at any point too, giving the opposition much more to think about.
As for Watts, I obviously disagree. He's much better running forward with the ball than McHugh, is an intelligent player who would know when to go forward and when to sit, and is good in the air. We do have Ryan Law as a more natural option there, granted, but very inexperienced.

Those are fair points and difficult to dispute. However, I just think that we need to try tweaking the 3-5-2 first before switching to a back 4 - as Graham Clark said, it'd be a very big ask to bring it in successfully off the back of just 1 or 2 training sessions. Watts... he might be slightly better at dribbling than McHugh was but I don't see him adapting to it - maybe we'll see.

As Balham suggests below, we need one of the back 3 to bring the ball out when the midfield are being so well marshalled. When we've been at our fluid best this season, we've seen the outside centre backs underlap well and contribute to the attack - such as Watts' goal against Leyton Orient. If we played 2 DM's ahead of a back 3, then one can drop back to cover when a centre back makes an attacking run.

I definitely cannot argue that it would be very difficult to adapt quickly to a back 4, nor do I even for one second expect us to start a match with a back 4 at any point in Lowe's tenure. But when the wheels have come off at Northampton, Exeter, Colchester and Fleetwood, it was as clear as day what needed to change, before the game was out of sight, and each time it didn't happen. I guess I refer back to the fact that there is no Plan B, the point of the OP. It's a very enjoyable debate, mind.

"If we played 2 DM's ahead of a back 3, then one can drop back to cover when a centre back makes an attacking run."

Maybe this is the simple tweak away from home. 3-2-3-2, rather than 3-1-4-2. Grant and Fornah to sit, and despite Camara's debacle on Saturday, he could play there too.
I fondly remember our League 2 (Division 3 at the time) title-winning tactics under Paul Sturrock. 4-4-2 at home, with Stonebridge or Keith up front with Trigger. 4-5-1 away from home, with Trigger on his own up top, and Adams or Wills making an extra man in midfield. Fondly remembered not for the formations, but the fact that Luggy sussed out early what the issue was away from home, and we adapted things quickly.

Make no mistake Saturday was horrible, but if you throw away your ideals and principlas after any setback, well then they arent really ideals or principals are they?

Some things appear self evident.

Possession across the back three is pointless if all that happens is a long punt which then comes back....

Slow build up allows the opposition to organise and mark more tightly

Better players at this level mean we have to be more clinical in executing. Mulgrew absolutely dominated the back line for them, and found time to score a goal from a. set piece....

TBH I think two quick goals meant we had such a slim chance to get back, especially as Camara was withdrawn and was the only midfielder we had who might run the ball upfield...Fornah doesn't , Grant doesn't and in his quietest game so far Mayor didn't. Unfortunately his best moment was the shot which could d and possibly should have made it 2-1 and which might have turned the game.

Fleetwood also negated our wing backs totally....hardly recall them getting on the ball.....

Nouble and Telford is not as effective as Hardie and Jephcott, and I would say Nouble is an impact sub based on this seasons performances....Telford is just a sub so far....

We don't have a centre half who can run the ball out to change the picture for the opposition midfield....well actually we do but he isn't in the team that often as Scott Wooton can do it....

I also think Reeves for Camara would have been a better switch as d from the limited time we have seen him he likes to move the ball forward....and keeps possession.

For Tuesday I would bring in Reeves for Camara, Cooper for Moore ( probably if only because off the law of the ex) and swap out the forwards returning to Hardie and Jephcott. On the whole I like Opoku and Watts Anas defenders ( although Watts is not. left back by any stretch) and I am indifferent between Wooton and Aimson which disappoints me because I thought Aimson was going to be a major upgrade now fit.

The press play on iFollow and hide behind the sofa

Make no mistake Saturday was horrible, but if you throw away your ideals and principlas after any setback, well then they arent really ideals or principals are they?

Some things appear self evident.

Possession across the back three is pointless if all that happens is a long punt which then comes back....

Slow build up allows the opposition to organise and mark more tightly

Better players at this level mean we have to be more clinical in executing. Mulgrew absolutely dominated the back line for them, and found time to score a goal from a. set piece....

TBH I think two quick goals meant we had such a slim chance to get back, especially as Camara was withdrawn and was the only midfielder we had who might run the ball upfield...Fornah doesn't , Grant doesn't and in his quietest game so far Mayor didn't. Unfortunately his best moment was the shot which could d and possibly should have made it 2-1 and which might have turned the game.

Fleetwood also negated our wing backs totally....hardly recall them getting on the ball.....

Nouble and Telford is not as effective as Hardie and Jephcott, and I would say Nouble is an impact sub based on this seasons performances....Telford is just a sub so far....

We don't have a centre half who can run the ball out to change the picture for the opposition midfield....well actually we do but he isn't in the team that often as Scott Wooton can do it....

I also think Reeves for Camara would have been a better switch as d from the limited time we have seen him he likes to move the ball forward....and keeps possession.

For Tuesday I would bring in Reeves for Camara, Cooper for Moore ( probably if only because off the law of the ex) and swap out the forwards returning to Hardie and Jephcott. On the whole I like Opoku and Watts Anas defenders ( although Watts is not. left back by any stretch) and I am indifferent between Wooton and Aimson which disappoints me because I thought Aimson was going to be a major upgrade now fit.

The press play on iFollow and hide behind the sofa

Good ideas here, and it seems to me from his selections that RL does really consider his starting choices, so look forward to seeing Tuesday’s team, formation and subs.

Make no mistake Saturday was horrible, but if you throw away your ideals and principlas after any setback, well then they arent really ideals or principals are they?

Some things appear self evident.

Possession across the back three is pointless if all that happens is a long punt which then comes back....

Slow build up allows the opposition to organise and mark more tightly

Better players at this level mean we have to be more clinical in executing. Mulgrew absolutely dominated the back line for them, and found time to score a goal from a. set piece....

TBH I think two quick goals meant we had such a slim chance to get back, especially as Camara was withdrawn and was the only midfielder we had who might run the ball upfield...Fornah doesn't , Grant doesn't and in his quietest game so far Mayor didn't. Unfortunately his best moment was the shot which could d and possibly should have made it 2-1 and which might have turned the game.

Fleetwood also negated our wing backs totally....hardly recall them getting on the ball.....

Nouble and Telford is not as effective as Hardie and Jephcott, and I would say Nouble is an impact sub based on this seasons performances....Telford is just a sub so far....

We don't have a centre half who can run the ball out to change the picture for the opposition midfield....well actually we do but he isn't in the team that often as Scott Wooton can do it....

I also think Reeves for Camara would have been a better switch as d from the limited time we have seen him he likes to move the ball forward....and keeps possession.

For Tuesday I would bring in Reeves for Camara, Cooper for Moore ( probably if only because off the law of the ex) and swap out the forwards returning to Hardie and Jephcott. On the whole I like Opoku and Watts Anas defenders ( although Watts is not. left back by any stretch) and I am indifferent between Wooton and Aimson which disappoints me because I thought Aimson was going to be a major upgrade now fit.

The press play on iFollow and hide behind the sofa

Mr Watts is actually a converted midfielder.

So how does Lowe change things when Plan A isn't working? We do try the longer ball sometimes but we don't have players up front who can make it stick. Ryan Taylor leaving was a big mistake. We also don't appear to have too many Midfielders who can win a tackle and drive us forward. They can play a nice pass occasionally but then go missing e.g. Grant, Reeves. So we can't play it through Midfield either. Mayor is the only outlet. Seems to me that Lowe has backed himself in to a corner. Bought players to suit his system and can't change it even if he wanted to.

ryan taylor was very often injured.luke jephcott makes it stick up front as he did today.he and hardie will start on tuesday.

Jephcott and Nouble for me.

When George Cooper plays I think Jephcott and Hardie benefit from the quicker cross/pass that Cooper delivers because those front 2 are always moving.

If we had 2 commanding, able and competent centre backs then maybe we wouldn’t need 3 average CB’s and 2 poor wingbacks.

Aimson, Wootton and Canavan are L2 standard.

Plan B has to include a flat back 4 to get us control in midfield

I don’t think our wing backs are poor. Bit harsh I feel.

If we had 2 commanding, able and competent centre backs then maybe we wouldn’t need 3 average CB’s and 2 poor wingbacks.

Aimson, Wootton and Canavan are L2 standard.

Plan B has to include a flat back 4 to get us control in midfield

I don’t think our wing backs are poor. Bit harsh I feel.

I think we’ll see Edwards and George Cooper as wingbacks tonight. Cooper is getting better at defending, Mayor also covers back for him, and we know how devastating they can be attacking, so I think they make a good combo.
Someone just said that Jephcott and Hardie thrive off Cooper’s crossing because they are always on the move looking to get on the end - think this is spot on.