Club legend Garry Birtles wants to see Nottingham Forest mix up their formation to spark a turnaround in fortunes on the pitch.
Chris Hughton has generally favoured a 4-2-3-1 system during his time in charge of the Reds.
But starting the new season with successive defeats in the Championship has led to a debate about the merits of playing two defensive-minded midfielders in the starting XI.
Jack Colback and Ryan Yates were the preferred pairing against Coventry City and Bournemouth, which both ended with Forest beaten 2-1.
It is an area Hughton is keen to strengthen, with Manchester United youngster James Garner still on the radar after a successful loan spell last term.
But Birtles says there are times when his old team should go with a more attacking line-up, after a lack of goals saw them struggle at the bottom end of the table in 2020/21.
“I’m not a fan at all. Never have been, never will be,” he said on NottinghamshireLive’s Garibaldi Red podcast, of the 4-2-3-1 formation
“I can understand it in some games. But the Coventry game, with all due respect to them, they are an average team, and playing Yates and Colback as defensive midfielders would have given them a massive lift.
“They have the players to be able to play around that.
“If you’re playing against someone like Bournemouth, I can understand it more.
“But you’ve got to be flexible with it. You can’t just play it all the time.
“You’ve got to look at your opposition and say, ‘right, this is how they play, maybe we don’t need two defensive midfield players’.
“Last season, we were in the bottom two or three of most stats in the final third of the pitch. That’s because we’ve got no creativity, we isolate one man up front and we’ve got two defensive midfield players.
“So what would you rather have this season after those horrendous stats last season? You’d like improvement. You’d like something different.
“So far, we’re not seeing that. It’s exactly the same as it was last season.
“If it carries on like that, what’s going to happen? We’re all going to be doom and gloom.
“You’ve got to change things now and again if they’re not working.
“If you’re playing the better teams - the West Broms or the Bournemouths - stabilise things, even at home a bit.
“Always respect your opposition, but don’t bow down to them. I think you bow down to opposition by playing two defensive midfielders.”
Birtles’ comments sparked a debate among Reds supporters ahead of Wednesday night’s clash with Blackburn Rovers.
Here is a selection of what’s been said on social media...
@DavidSt170: Agreed. Balance of team is wrong 6 defenders and not enough creativity. Need to take more risk and go with 1 defensive midfielder and 2 strikers.
@MPatchitt: Remember one god saying ‘Let’s not worry about the opposition, let them worry about us’. That may be fine when we were a worry to others but we are not at the moment. Agree with Garry and if we get JG where does he fit in? Only place I see is in place of Colback so same formation.
@dazmuss80: Totally agree spot on.
@TheTexican4: I just want Forest to win. They could play a 5-5-0 for all I care.
@RedDogGary: There's nothing wrong with 4231, it allows us to get our 3 creative players in behind the striker, Norwich won the league last season playing that way. It's the two midfielders that are the biggest problem…
@RobertSwiftLD: Absolutely right. 4-2-3-1 is not working if we are conceding two goals per game! The problem is that we lack two quality forwards.
Do you agree with Birtles? Have your say in the comments below
@Ady_T22: Couldn’t agree more, we shouldn’t be scared of Blackburn on Wednesday, either 2 up top or 2 attacking centre mids
@rjmnffc: Central mids available - Yates, Colback, Cafu, Fornah (all defensive) Arter (bomb squad) Carvalho (number 10) doesn't look comfortable that deep. Zinckernagel and Johnson both (10/wing) do we have much of alternative? It shows how badly we need Garner back or a similar player.
@Sellors10: If one of the holding midfielders gets the ball forward quicker like Ben Watson or Garner did the formation works far better.
@SuperJRJ: I like the 4-2-3-1 formation but not the way we currently employ it. Ideally, you'd have one of the two central midfielders as a holding/defensive mid and alongside him either a deep-lying playmaker or someone who can go box to box.
@Emmerson4: Nothing wrong with 4231 just means your full backs have to bomb on and play as wing backs to get the right numbers in the box. All formations can be attacking if played correctly.
@TheFamousCIub: There’s nothing wrong with 4-2-3-1. There’s nothing wrong with playing two holding midfielders. The problem is getting that double-pivot right; one of them needs the passing range of Watson or Garner. And until Hughton can get somebody in, his options are limited.
@NFFCJRM: 100% spot on. 4-2-3-1 formation means without a ball being kicked, the majority of the team is set up to play in our own half, and completely isolates the lone striker unless you have players able to transition quickly enough (which we don’t).
