I understand the focus on Glasner's inflexibility. Its hard to remember this whilst sitting though an hour of three centre backs passing it to each other but, actually, wider circumstances matter far more than tactics.
We were always going to have a heavy hangover this year. All the tactics in the world don't change the fact that after the FA Cup the key players had achieved all they could at Palace and their moment to move on had come. That was always going to spread, and this was always going to be a transition year. That rarely involves free flowing football and great success.
Even if we focus on tactical approach alone, blaming Glasner's rigidity for our predictable, pedestrian performances, especially against lesser sides, misses the wider point: What type of manager should Palace have, and what way should he work?
Oversimplifying drastically, I'd say managers come in three models:
A. Man-managers/Scouts. Its about recruitment, then dealing with people. They may have little truck with tactics.
B. Tacticians. This week we 352, next week a 433, then a 541. Will also switch systems in-game. All depends who we are playing.
C. Systems Men. I have my method. It rarely changes. I am knowledgeable and experienced in its application. Players must adapt to it, not the other way around.
Ferguson, Zidane, Redknapp et al are in category A. Perfect, if you've got more money than everyone else. We don't.
Emery and Guardiola are in cat B. Hard to imagine either persevering with 343 at Palace this long, but there is a fine line between tweaking to good effect with a deep, strong squad that is doing well, and flailing desperately from one idea to another at a shallow, average squad that is struggling. Which type of squad are we most likely to possess?
Conte would be in cat C. Plainly, Glasner is. Hodgson and Pulis, too: The three key managers in our longest ever stay at the top and only major trophy. Its not like it isn't proven to work for us.
Attacking play requires inspiration from key individuals, defending requires cooperation as a unit. We will always need more of the latter. That will not change. Even when we have four or five cracking players we will always have average ones alongside them, and embedding a system is the best way to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, if at least half the parts are average.
Glasner was, and remains, the right type for Palace. He is doing what his type do. This is how it looks when we not only have lesser players, but ones who less suit the system. That doesn't mean Glasner should be criticised for a rigid tactical approach - that is the right way to work at Palace, overall.
It is to be hoped that the new man brings a system that better suits the players we have spent big on, but not necessarily that he is far more flexible. Glasner was totally out of order around Xmas time, has soiled his reputation, and could have been sacked for it. I'm not sure his rigidity is a fair stick to beat him with, though. They are separate things.
England
