Is 3-4-2-1 a long-term solution or a failing experiment for Forest?
After the return from the international break, a lot of Forest fans were hopeful of three points at Crystal Palace - after all, the Reds have been much better in away matches than at home, the opponents also had a less than smooth start to the season, and Oliver Glasner was able to take a couple of weeks to work on his tactical approach.
For the first 40 minutes, it felt like things were working out. By half-time, they were pretty much falling apart. Not for the first time in the first few weeks of the season, Forest had no real answers after going behind, and fans were questioning both Glasner's substitutions and his adherence to a 3-4-2-1 formation.
Subscribers to 1865 may well be aware of my mantra that 'formations ≠ tactics'; the order in which players line up may well be influenced by the Head Coach's tactical approach, but in reality this is just a tool.
Sensible Forest supporters were very aware that Glasner's approach would take a good while to embed; this is borne out by the lack of pressure on the gaffer's head, despite a less than impressive start to the campaign. I would also add that this season has more potential than most to be a slow burner - with nine Premier League clubs under new management, and half of the division competing in Europe, there are a lot of variables and plenty of time for things to chance.
However, take aside Sunday's inevitable feeling that the missed chances would cost us (as good as Dan Ndoye was, he really should have done better with that header, and Liam Delap simply has to learn from his failed effort); another question is whether Glasner's favoured 3-4-2-1 is costing us, and if so, what is the solution?
Personally, I think it is glaringly obvious that a lot of players are struggling to adapt to not only the formation, but also the tactical approach. In the first few matches, there were wide open spaces in defensive movements, as players were holding positions that were more akin to a 4-2-3-1. That problem has eased slightly, but was still exposed in the way that we conceded to Jay De Silva, Daichi Kamada and Yeremy Pino in recent games.
As much of an issue is in attacking positions - Ndoye has looked more comfortable playing in the channels than he ever did as an out and out winger, but our most important player, and our most natural number 10 seems a bit lost; Gibbs-White always works hard and looks impressive, but as the Dyche period showed, he can do all that and still not be as effective as he should if he is being asked to do the wrong things. I was hopeful that the formation change would not affect Morgan too much - after all, he played as an inside forward during our good run under Vítor Pereira, and the position is the same, even the formation around him is different.
To end, what is the solution to this problem? Professional football is notably an impatient world, so there will be a few fans wondering if we should switch to a 4-2-3-1, allowing the players to adopt their more 'natural' positions. On the other hand, Rome was not built in a day, and Forest have had some very nice spells against Villa and Palace in the new formation, suggesting that there is a future for three at the back. Although we have let Bakwa and Hutchinson move on, there is still an argument that Ndoye, Hudson-Odoi and perhaps Gibbs-White can play in the wide roles.
Glasner has shown throughout his managerial career that he favours three at the back, although he publicly insists that the formation does not matter so much as the way in which his teams play. Forest fans, would you stick with 3-4-2-1, or would you revert to four at the back? Sign up to comment below, or join the conversation on social media.