Don't often post on here anymore, but the spirit has taken me and I've collated some of my thoughts on the result and what it means. Apologies if someone else usually starts the verdict, but I'm not that up to scratch with MM procedure anymore :embarassed: --- It's disappointed to be beaten so roundly by one of our immediate competitors. I think perhaps this has something to do with the Huddersfield result. It's very difficult to justify wholesale changes to a team that has just won 4-1 away. Yet, I expect for Jackett it was a matter of balancing this newly established team cohesion and impetus (seen in the impressive front 4), and the right team/formation for the opponents. In this respect, I wager that Jackett took the gamble that we could out-attack Norwich as we did against Huddersfield, but this didn't pay off because we seem to be struggling with possession in the final third. That would explain the move to more of a 4-2-3-1/4-5-1 formation with the introduction of Edwards quite early in the second half. Does that make this Jackett’s fault? Yeah, a little bit in the sense that he’s taken a calculated risk which hasn’t paid off, but you can see the logic in his thought process. It affirms that we have a clever manager who isn’t afraid of taking risks, which on balance I value higher than someone immovably stuck in their ways. It's true that the bench is weak and that this boils down to transfer activity. Someone rightly pointed out that the absence of impact subs is related to playing our 4 fastest/most powerful attacks at the same time, but there is still a worrying paucity. Perhaps this relates to the failure of the academy to bring through a good striker in the last year, as it has done successfully in most other areas of the pitch. I don't think, however, that this says very much about how this season will end up. This is one of few uncharacteristic examples of us getting beaten in midfield and up top by a team with better players. Our terrible form against Forest/Derby/Brentford boiled down to defensive frailties. This result doesn't fit into a clear category, and on its own isn't that instructive of our prospects. Therefore, talk of our season ending in mid-Feb – as much as I appreciate how loss ignites passions – is a dramatic overstatement. The inconsistency of our recent form suggests that the future is difficult to conclusively predict. There are 15 more games to go with the opportunity to double our existing points tally, as unlikely as that is. It’s important not let emotion cloud analysis and reason. Critics of the footballing establishment at Wolves might suggest that we’re happy enough to languish mid-table. I agree that we did not see enough investment in January, for reasons that neither I nor many posters can intelligibly speculate on. However I think this interpretation is running the risk of blurring into a dogmatic opposition of Moxey and Morgan, which perpetuates an unbelievably cynical and pretty counter-economic viewpoint. It’s all too easy to blame the silent higher echelons quite reductively for complicated problems in such a conspiratorial fashion, especially when those higher echelons’ success and profit is directly proportionate to the success of the team. I look forward to seeing how Jackett and the team react and learn from this experience against Rotherham, who arguably are cut from a similar cloth as Huddersfield. NB: I should clarify that I was not at the match, nor did I follow it on WM. My understanding of proceedings is informed by the Wolves live blog, but I've tried not to wade into individual performances or tactical nuance too much, owing to this ignorance.