The changing of formation isn't the problem with Woody. I can understand why he has played both 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 for various circumstances. However the players constantly look totally lost and there is zero cohesion in what we are seemingly trying to do on the pitch. There is just no improvement at all like the players don't know what is expected of them. It looks like he's just sending them out to play 10 individual games. And it's everything from pressing, marking and attacking play. It's just completely random and it's very evident that he hasn't got the tools to put his points across - or simply doesn't have a clue at all. I'm leaning towards the latter.
If you've read the full article, and I'm sure you have, it feels more like he's just giving the answers people want to here tbh. He talks about us needing a change in mentality and that you need to know how to fight. Then later on he says that Barnsley didn't want it more than us but that we lacked quality and decision making. He's contradicting himself although I don't think he meant to, he's just not a public speaker, he's a footballer being hit with questions after a disappointing defeat and he's trying to say the right things.
Inspiree by the red bull conversation and I'll admit looking at Wolves with envious eyes the thought that if we had allowed Mendes more involvement that we could be doing it instead of them upsets me.
Time and again when I bring this up I get the arguement of the soul of the club, heritage and identity.
So what are they?
I have been boro fan for 40 years in that time we have had 2 stadiums, been team of local boys, the Spanish ramada, spl lite, home of mercenaries. Had countless managers played every formation and style under the sun and an ever changing kit.
So what it is about boro what is our identity?
You didn't though, I wrote 2 paragraphs on how the changes unfolded and how people commonly discussed how he needed to make changes early on whilst some are now saying he shouldn't have changed. You said his changes recently are up for discussion because they are of his choice and we aren't improving and I literally never denied that. I'm saying it's doublespeak to both criticise him for doing and not doing something referencing the same points in time and you've changed that into a discussion about how we can criticise his changes like I've said nobody can... I can only conclude you simply want to have an argument with a fence post at the moment.