What's a nice post like you doing in a thread like this !
I like Glasner. He's a breath of fresh air compared to Roy ( who I always supported given the circumstances he was working under ). He's trying to play a different brand of football. A brand that he has had success with and has made his reputation by playing.
I recently engaged with a football journalist, discussing what criteria clubs use when appointing managers. Was it just their being successful ? Was it the style of play they employ ? Was it a mixture of both.
He had consulted with a few clubs when providing an answer. And it was, by a clear majority, the mixture.
So...when Glasner was appointed it would have been in the full knowledge of how he sets his teams up. Between Parish and Freedman they would have to evaluate Glasner's suitability in terms of the direction the club wanted to go in and how they were going to get there. That suitability match would also take into account the players currently at the club as well as future potential purchases.
Staying with the system then - I doubt that any manager / head coach would change their way of playing to accommodate one player, in this case, Eze. You can make a case for the system not suiting him, but I contend that doesn't extend to his carelessness in possession, sloppy passing and the recent trend of slowing the play down even when in space to carry the ball.
You don't like a back three, but it was successful at the end of last season together with the recent run of one defeat in eleven games. Moving to a four would certainly suit Mitchell - but what of Munoz on the other side ?
Glasner isn't perfect. And if he was a better manager than he is, he wouldn't be at our club. I will agree that a potential fault of his is his inflexibility in terms of set up. And I've tried to articulate above the reasons for that. It's not a question of blind acceptance, more a question of I trust Glasner's judgement in front of ANY poster on here including myself. He's the multi million pound professional who gets it right more often than he gets it wrong.
You sum up the various elements that make up the core of the debate just as I see them, just missing one thing and that is the way that the original poster presents himself in all of this.