Nuno, Lage, Lopetegui, O'Neil, Pereira. They all tried it. They all failed.
Yeah, you guessed it, four at the back.
In Wolves' Premier League era, the back four has kept tempting managers because of what it can offer. It should mean one more attacker on the pitch, higher pressing, and more presence in the final third. For a side lacking goals at times, you can see why every coach has wanted it to work.
That is why it was no shock, in theory, that Rob Edwards tried it against Chelsea. What surprised me was the timing. Chelsea have pace and power in wide areas, so changing your defensive structure against them always felt like a big risk.
The scoreline was shaped by individual mistakes. The penalties conceded by Matt Doherty and Yerson Mosquera were reckless and needless, and Edwards was right not to hide behind tactics. But the system did not help. A back four asks different questions of the players within it, and it can expose weaknesses more quickly.
Doherty, at 34, does not have the speed you need in a Premier League full-back any more. His best role now is on the right of a back three, where his positioning and experience show and he has cover.
Mosquera is similar in a different way. He is aggressive and unpredictable, and that can be an asset, but it becomes a bigger gamble when he is one of only two centre-backs.
On the left, Hugo Bueno's attacking strengths were also limited. He looks far more effective with the freedom of a wing-back role.
When Hwang Hee-chan's injury forced a change and Ladislav Krejci came on, Wolves returned to a back three and immediately looked steadier. It did not erase the damage, but it restored a bit of control.
At this point, Wolves are playing for pride, and I understand the need to experiment and try new things to get more from the squad.
But, right now, Wolves look built to be more solid with three centre-backs, and any shift away from that needs the right opposition and the right personnel to make it work.
Find more from Dazzling Dave at Always Wolves
