I'm trying to be generous and respectful. If he doesn't then he's not fit for purpose. At least, he's struggling with the reality: results versus whatever BS data he's working with. Perhaps he should rely on his own eyes and forego the data. We don't have data but we can clearly see the same nonsense time and again.
He's admitted in post-match about the goals they concede from set pieces and player mistakes etc. So, internally I think / hope that he's recognized the key vulnerabilities. He should know how to address those although it can be argued that all of this is old news to any casual long time observer, it should be clearly portrayed in the data and by video, and so either he's ineffective as a coach, he hasn't tried (criminal negligence), or the players and system are fighting the correction ... i.e. there are intrinsic conflicts between the players, the system, and the vulnerabilities that fight the corrective process.
The Luton match is going to be yet another display of the truth. Nobody can hide tomorrow or for the remainder of the season. Every opponent is now fully equipped or as equipped as they can be to expose the vulnerabilities. As we have seen, it doesn't take coaching rocket science or a top team to do this.
I don't think youth and "inexperience" play into it. None of these players fell off the back of a turnip truck yesterday or were drafted into play from the local senior league. Every player as had the benefit of 10+ years of coaching and development. If they are not good enough, they shouldn't be on our books.
As for being on our books: regarding Darling, for example, I posted a link in another thread to the cup tie between us and Cambridge from a few seasons ago - see here:
. Darling played in defense for Cambridge. We won something like 6-0, with it being 4 or 5-0 at half-time. Watch Darling on each of the goals. Explain to me please why we paid good money for this player. He doesn't demonstrate the traits of a strong player in an out matched defense.