The jury is still out on Moore i believe.
The unavailabilty of Bartley and Brunt forced his hand v Leeds and we had a much more mobile / fluid team. We should be one of the leading lights in this division. I don't understand the horses for courses statement, we should be imposing our will on teams not the other way around.
Do we teally want to back to a slow dsyfunctional midfield which resulted in recent disjointed performances. Theres a lot to be said for finding your best 11 and standing by it. Yes there will be 15min cameos by the support cast but poor performances should not be tolerated.
I'm with you. The "horses for courses" thing is slightly concerning. Yes, for sure, at times we will need to tinker with things during a game to cope with different situations but any good team should do that that should be a given. I hope that's what Darren means by "horses for courses", or maybe it's a polite and diplomatic way of deflecting the fact that he changed the system against the primary wishes of Graeme Jones. What I hope "horses for courses" doesn't mean is that he is going to keep chopping and changing the system, I don't want to see that at all.
We've found the system that suits us now in the 4-3-3, the Leeds performance was better than any of the sixteen or so games that we've played another way. We've found our default system now I expect us to stick with it. Not only does it suit the players we have but it's also advantageous in the modern game and that system should enable us to deal with almost anything the opposition do.
You can vary the way you play the 4-3-3, you can pull the wide men inside and slightly deeper for certain situations which then becomes more a 4-3-2-1. You can also play with a direct "number 9" than looks to run in behind rather than the J Rod type who will drop in and receive the ball to feet facing goal, almost like a false number 9 at times. Instead of using Robson-Kanu wide who you can hit directly, you can employ another option either a Gayle type who will need the ball played along the ground or a Burke type with blistering pace that you can use in behind. You can even play two through the middle and give the third forward a freer role. In the middle of the park you can do away with the attacking component (Phillips vs Leeds) and use a more pragmatic option (Barry, Harper, Field depending on how you play him) if you feel the need. At the back you can alter you full backs. You can use a more pragmatic left back rather than the marauding Gibbs or a more attacking option rather than the stay back option of Adarabioyo (not that we're blessed with other options).
All of the above are options in a 4-3-3 but what stays the same is the 4-3, the shape of the defence and midfield. This gives you stability and a strong platform every game and should result in a more consistent level of performance and a far better defensive record even when coping with the loss of first choice personnel.
In short, I don't want to see us deviate from the 4-3. Every good team has a default system and a way of playing that the players are a) comfortable with and b) familiar with. If we keep changing things we will lose that familiarity and consistency.
Jury is out on Darren Moore for me but the jury would be out with anyone they are judged on what they do at the time and how we are progressing.