It's easy to say that Palace's downturn in form is a sign of regression, but such a sweeping statement doesn't look at the whole picture, says Robert Sutherland. 

No one said the Premier League would be fun. It's the holy grail for fans, the pinnacle of domestic football, the rich league. But no one said it would be fun to be part of. If they did, they were lying.

In fact, for about 75% of the league's competitors, it's far from it. There are the fresh-faced entrants who, like first-time marathon runners, don't know the pain that experienced participants have tasted. It's the freshness of doing something new that clouds the mind -- you don't fear something you don't know. For the majority of the league, it's a struggle -- a ceaseless dogfight against relegation.

But after five seasons, sporadically entertaining but on the whole quite stressful, there's a yearning for something less tense. And with that yearning, there comes anger and frustration at the possibility that it could be different. Palace fans are feeling the fatigue, but to look at everything in a negative light does the progress the club has made a disservice.

Bad news travels faster than good, and so it's understandable that after a string of defeats, those negative voices sound the loudest. The club is regressing. The squad has no resale value. The recruitment is imbalanced. The stadium is a mess. The training ground is a disgrace. The youth setup is dysfunctional. Everything is terrible. 

Criticism is fair but with all of these complaints, there is a counterargument of balance. A lack of perspective from where the club was to where it wants to be.

READ MORE: If you can Blame Players, you can Blame Hodgson Too

Much of this criticism can be traced back to where the club was the season it got promoted. Palace were, for all intents and purposes, a side that had just been reborn. Out with administration, in with the new CPFC2010 owners.

The club were inexperienced. The owners were expected to learn on the job. There is no academy for football ownership -- you buy it, you run it. It is also unlikely that Steve Parish, Steve Browett and Co expected Palace to be challenging promotion just two seasons after they bought the club, but that was the scenario they found themselves in.

When Palace got promoted, they were a side with very little scouting infrastructure (further depleted when Dougie Freedman left and took his backroom staff with him to Bolton), and a squad that definitely didn't have the kind of depth needed to compete in the top division. The club were playing catch-up from the minute they got promoted, and didn't have the infrastructure to do that realistically. As a result, the owners found themselves in a scenario where they had to trust the managers they appointed. While stadium changes can be made with the advice of an architect, when you don't have a recruitment team, you rely on the manager to build the side.

A fair argument to level at Palace is that they went overboard with marquee signings. After the utilitarian recruitment shown under Tony Pulis and Neil Warnock (although we'll never forgive the swap of Glenn Murray for Kevin Doyle), the appointment of Alan Pardew saw money being spent left, right and centre -- there should have been a more balanced approach to how the club recruited players under his reign. The lesson wasn't learned soon enough though as the club then spent a significant fee and wages on Mamadou Sakho.

In hindsight (and with no consideration of foresight given his seemingly irretrievable downturn in form) the signing of Christian Benteke, for example, was a badly calculated one. Clubs at Palace's level, like Bournemouth and Burnley, have managed to perform well without spending that sum of money on one player.

It's fair to say then that the reset button needed to be hit, and bar the signing of Sakho, that has actually happened. Palace have been a little more sensible with their recruitment in the years that followed the profligacy of Pardew's reign. The majority of players signed in recent windows have featured regularly -- there have been some flaws, but even those haven't seen a major outlay. That reset button doesn't always provide decent outcomes though, and the argument of regression is linked to that.

The playing squad is just one of the arguments at a lack of forward movement by the club, though. The stadium and training ground are another. In an ideal world, that new stand would have been announced years ago, and been built by now. But that ignores the context of the situation a club like Palace find themselves in. Landlocked in the middle of London, the costliest area for property in the UK, Palace have to jump through a variety of hoops in order to build the new stand.&

The stadium plans are at the stage where they need to pass through the mayoral office for approval -- but to do that, they need to meet strict guidelines. Any hold-up is considered a failure by some fans, but this was never going to be easy or quick. Even Brighton, with the vastness of land outside the city, struggled to get approval for years.

That said, for all the talk of nothing having changed since promotion, Selhurst Park is a much nicer ground to visit now than it was in the Championship. Undersoil heating means matches aren't called off because of cold or snow, while it's remarkable what a lick of paint can do for the facilities too.

Finding a plot of land for a training ground falls into a similar trap -- it's not an excuse to say that a large area of green space in the middle of London is difficult to find. Then add in the obstruction of building on the green belt or dealing with NIMBYs, and you can quickly see progress dwindle away.

Progress by its very nature is slow. There is no quick fix to stadium issues, squad building or preparedness for the Premier League. There is no short or even long-term solution to the management conundrum either, because the slightest downturn in form can often be seen as a reason to start afresh. And each time you do that, progress is slowed. So few clubs are capable of persisting with one manager for a prolonged spell, because of the cutthroat nature of the sport.

There's no question that things could be better at Palace. But this critical look at the club, without a consideration for circumstance or context, with flames fueled by a team that gets stuck in spells of poor form in a hugely competitive league (as tends to happen with Premier League clubs) can make everything we're going through seem like a return to darker times.

Palace aren't playing well, and that is ultimately the greatest frustration of all. It's worsened by the bread and butter of Palace supporter's entertainment, matches at Selhurst Park, being subject to some of the worst performances. However, Palace's poor form in the league doesn't automatically discount everything else the club has done. No matter how bad it feels right now.

Ben Mountain looks for the hope amid the understandable concern at current form. 

Every single one of us can recite the figure by now: seven games, seven losses, zero goals. That was how things looked for Crystal Palace almost exactly this time last year.

It was a point of utter desperation, a point with no hope and a point, ironically, without a single point. We then beat Chelsea, of all teams Chelsea. The euphoria after that game reminded the country what it meant to be a Palace fan: when we’re down and out, we fight back and we do so with roaring passion.

Later that season, we faced another steep uphill battle as a full starting 11 of players lined the Palace sick-bay, seasoned stalwarts all befallen by injury and unable to support the campaign but in spirit. Roy Hodgson himself said that, “[in this country] I’ve never experienced an injury crisis like this." It was truly a time when Palace looked defeated but, more like the phoenix than the eagle, rose from the ashes to fly, victoriously, ending the season at the lofty perch of 11th.

There’s been more, of course, and most Eagles won’t need us to lay out the times when all was seemingly lost but, as we do so well, we’ve come out fighting, refusing to be defeated by circumstance or the odds.

Anyone who remembers the Lloyds Bank demonstration in 2010 will surely understand best.

But the past isn’t what matters now and, on Saturday against Wolverhampton Wanderers, Selhurst Park was a limp, crestfallen theatre for a play nobody wanted to watch. Dramatic as it sounds, that’s not the Palace way.

When, for example, a rampaging Liverpool carried a three-goal lead over a comparatively weak Palace side back in 2013, Selhurst Park didn’t bemoan the squad or cheer off players. Fans didn’t hang their head or lambaste the score. Instead, we all bound together with an almost mordant shred of hope uniting fans to get behind the team.

It was an example of when the ‘twelfth man’ really did come into affect and the result yielded one of the greatest nights seen at Selhurst this millennium.

3 years ago today! That night! #Crystanbul ??#cpfc pic.twitter.com/x4fEtZUKfR

— Five Meyer Plan ? (@FYPFanzine) May 5, 2017

Because when all’s lost and there’s not one prayer left for Crystal Palace, we excel. With grit, determination and not a small shred of plucky modesty, we come out fighting just when most would give up.

Right now, things aren’t nearly as bad as they have been before. Our record this year isn’t pretty, but after seven games it made for far better reading than the aforementioned drought. As things stand, we currently have two wins and a draw from eight games, having netted five times. We’re not facing dissolution and we’ve got a squad and manager built for this kind of challenge.

Yes, the performances have been frustrating and every fan has the inalienable right to vent their vexations, but we’re Palace and dropping our heads isn’t what we do.

In the league, these are our next five games: Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United. Clearly, wringing out points from these five games will be like getting blood from a stone but when has that ever stopped us from trying?

It’s time to do what we do best. We’re Crystal Palace, an unashamedly plucky club who never let things happen easily. We’re all used to toil and used to sh*t hitting the proverbial fan. But it’s been far worse.

There’s nothing to lose for the next few weeks and so, of course, we’re going to go out for everything to win. It’s the Palace way and we’ve all been there for every step of it.

Let’s help the club to do what it does best and get behind the boys. Time and again they might let us down, but it’s our job not to do likewise. After the international break, we’ll be facing yet another impossibly steep uphill battle. But how else would we want it?

Editors Note: Ben is moving on from writing for FYP to take up a very exciting opportunity. We'd like to thank him for his excellent contributions over the past few months and wish him all the luck in the world in his next venture! 

Carl Mortimer has a few harsh words about the situation Palace are finding themselves in currently. 

There is a bit of a trend among fans that seems to be that we can't blame Roy Hodgson.

Why not? If you think Luka Milivojevic, Wilfried Zaha, Patrick Van Aanholt and Jeffrey Schlupp have had poor starts to the season, then the same can be laid at Roy Hodgson's door.

Fulham aside, where we looked bang up for this season, our football hasn’t been great. And you can’t say it has. A lack of goals in general and no goals at home tells you the story. Hodgson's first game in charge of Crystal Palace against Southampton at home, a fixture we lost 1-0, was the exact same performance as this seasons game against the Saints, we came full circle. 

Recruitment has been poor. Those complaining are often told that our squad is better than Burnley’s, arguing that we should be happy. I’d be happy with a starting XI like Burnley’s playing as a team and knowing what they’re doing because it seems to me that know one knows what direction we should be heading, in recruitment and on the pitch.

LISTEN: FYP Podcast 269 - Palace lose at Everton as Luka misses penalty

Hodgson hasn’t picked our best XI once this season and he’s had more than enough time to do so, but instead of trying to play expansive football like we did towards the end of last season, he seems to want to play like he did in his latter days as England boss.

Is it harsh to call him out? Maybe, however, Hodgson isn’t changing anything mid-game and doesn’t seem to know how to do anything else other than stick with what he’s started with. This is odd behaviour from a very experienced coach.

And substitutions don’t seem to be in Roy’s playbook, or not utilised as and when they should be. Where we’ve recently seen Eddie Howe and Marco Silva change tactics, players and/or shape (to win the game) Hodgson hasn't reacted until we’ve conceded that decisive goal. Which, with a few minutes left, is pointless. 

I remember the manager saying after Watford (where we lost 2-1) after going 2-0 down that, once he’d changed it up we could’ve got a point if the game had gone on a little while longer. Why wait until you’re 2-0 down to change this? I’m genuinely confused.

Subs aren’t just a way to try and win a game, they can be used to kill a game, help tired legs at the back and in midfield, send it long if need be to keep the ball out of your half and to run down the clock. Why not sub off Schlupp and let him take 45 seconds to walk off the pitch to disrupt some of that momentum.

Am I way off the mark? Stephen Reid leaving was a blow just as Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Cabaye's departures were a blow. Where is our identity? When you know Loftus-Cheek isn’t even our player why isn’t there a back up lined up that we can sign?

Bournemouth got David Brooks from Sheffield Utd and Watford got Will Hughes from Derby, Brighton got Pascal Gross from Ingolstadt, Burnley got Lennon from Spurs for £1million. So don’t tell me you can’t find gems if you actually look properly. You don’t always have to spend 20 plus million to compete in the Premier League.

Should Hodgson go? The argument is that there isn't anyone available. But we are Crystal Palace, a Premier League football club, even if we wanted a manager at the top end of the Championship playing decent football (Wilder, Dean Smith etc) we could get them. 

I’m pretty sure we won’t go down and hopefully Hodgson can turn this around quickly, but it’s scary to see that season on season we don’t seem to progress and, after five seasons of Premier League football, at the moment, we seem to be going backwards. And yet again finishing fourth from bottom is the aim. Not, as has been mooted, breaking into the top ten.

Palace fell to another frustrating defeat. Robert picks over the bones left by Wolves with four ponderings. 

Hodgson's old school ways make for inflexibility -- and there's not much use asking for it.

The nature of his management is that, by drilling the first team, they all know their roles to a point where their tactics become second nature. But what happens when opponents change their approach mid-game? It happened against Bournemouth last week and in Wolves's case, they spotted an obvious weakness down our left side and exploited it in the second half. Meanwhile, Palace stuck with the same approach and struggled to make inroads towards Wolves' box. 

 

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and Hodgson is one of the most experienced of old dogs. But even old dogs learn to avoid danger. The hope is that the next two weeks give the management team time to rethink tactics. Failure to do so will push the club closer to that cliff-edge of relegation scraps again. 

 

Palace can take (a tiny bit of) hope from results, even in defeat.

Of all the defeats Palace have suffered, only two have come by more than a solitary goal. In both cases (Liverpool and Southampton) the second goals have come from counter-attacks as Palace pushed for equalisers. 

 

That defensive resoluteness is still there, despite the player's lack of cutting edge in attack. It doesn't make the defeats any easier to take, but there is a case to be made that with a little more experimentation in attack and a healthy slice of luck, results can change. 

 

But for that to materialise, there has to be a change in how the players are selected and the roles they are given. The pressure of not scoring ultimately weighs heavily not just on Palace's attackers but also on the club's defensive unit -- the longer players fail to score, the more risky the opponent's threat becomes. When Wolves took a bite out of the Eagles with their goal, that blunt attack looked even less threatening. You can't just rely on a team's defence to dig the team out of trouble. 

 

 

 

Midfield is still a problem and won't be fixed until tough calls are made.

A lot of focus at the moment is on how Luka Milivojevic isn't looking like the player he has been in the past season and a half. There have been questions about his international omission having an effect, and whether the World Cup has tired him out. 

 

The answer seems to be a little more simple than that. He doesn't look as effective because he doesn't have a player like Yohan Cabaye next to him. And the only player Palace currently have that can play that role, Meyer, isn't getting regular games. 

 

Milivojevic's problems stem from needing players around him to make themselves available. Ask him to thread a pass between opponents and it negates the things he's good at, because passing is not his strong point. In Cabaye, he always had a player looking to take the ball from him. With Jeffrey Schlupp and James McArthur alongside him, that constant option was missing. 

 

It points at a slightly confused approach to how the midfield operates at the moment. There's a lack of cohesion in the side, as each midfielder tries to do what their teammate does, while also struggling to do their own job properly. 

 

The result of picking Jeffrey Schlupp and McArthur alongside Milivojevic was a disjointed midfield whose only out option was to pass the ball wide. The introduction of Meyer (and to a lesser extent Cheikh Kouyate) changed that approach somewhat, with Palace looking more competent in possession. 

 

The midfield conundrum is one that Hodgson has so far failed to address. This two-week break offers an opportunity for that to happen. Palace's results depend on it. 

 

PaLace's listless transfer policy strikes again

For all the talk of Hodgson's tactics, Palace are ultimately hamstrung by a lack of striker options to call upon. This isn't a criticism of Alexander Sørloth, because the untested striker really shouldn't have been the back-up option to an already misfiring attacking line. He should have been a long-term option with a season of Championship football under his belt. The Norwegian also doesn't have a prolific record. It puts pressure on a player that really doesn't deserve it. 

 

A season of Christian Benteke misfiring (or missing from the team entirely due to injury) should have sounded alarms in Palace's recruitment team during the summer. The Belgian striker maybe coulda-woulda-shoulda returned to form after the break offered to him by not being in the Belgian World Cup squad, but that belied the fact that this wasn't just a case of a poor spell of form -- it was an entire season of difficulty. 

 

Instead, Palace stuck with what they had, opting to sign Jordan Ayew on loan as the only attacking recruit. The winger has now been put in a position where he's tasked with playing as a makeshift striker and is predictably looking like one who hasn't ever played in that role.

 

It begs the question -- when should Palace look to sign another first team forward if not after their leading one fails to score for most of the previous season? And will that position be a priority in January?

 

Why has a position so important to Palace's fortunes been ignored for so long, and who is ultimately responsible for that?