THERE's an old saying in journalism that some may feel applies to the red-top nationals: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

That seems to be the case with some of the fans who have typed out their rants against the manager this week following the defeat at Ipswich on Saturday.

The fact one goalkeeper contrived to set the Hornets back with one amazing error and then subsequently stalled the potential revival by another, is apparently down to the formation the "tactically naive" Lewington deployed.

Of course it was the same formation that was heralded as being inspired when the Hornets all but pipped Chelsea in the FA Cup tie at Vicarage Road. The difference was, against Chelsea, Lenny Pidgeley did not drop two clangers of the calibre he is hopefully unlikely to match in any one game during the course of his future career, so presumably Lewington got away with it in the cup tie.

Watford have travelled away this season and deployed 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 and not pulled up any trees appears to have been overlooked by all but the Vicarage Road coaching staff.

They travelled to Stoke on the back of an unbeaten four-game run and were taken apart. They travelled to Reading with a three-game unbeaten run behind them, so presumably they were feeling pretty confident, but they still lost.

Clearly it was time to try something different for, with time running out, there is a need to grind out a result or two away from home.

The chances of coming off best trading punches with the best goalscorers in the division were at best slim, given the fragile nature of some of Watford's defending. The fact is Watford have one defender who, despite the previous clamour of fans claiming his omission was ridiculous, has demonstrated just why the manager has been reluctant to deploy him until the player could be surrounded by senior colleagues.

Unfortunately the senior defenders are injured so Watford have shown themselves even more vulnerable at the heart of the defence.

A measure of protection was needed against free-scoring Town and the deployment of a five-man midfield was, to my mind, overdue. Unfortunately, with Helguson out for so long, there was no one to undertake the lone-striker role.

The tactic was torpedoed by the first goal. Instead of it being a case of contain and destroy, Watford were unhinged.

As for Lee Cook losing out to Scott Fitzgerald in the final line-up, the manager felt, quite rightly, that Fitzgerald, while always likely to score, is far more consistent at chasing back. Cook is a very promising player and has moved further down the road of becoming a team player than, for instance, Anthony McNamee. Yet he still as some way to travel and the consistency of his work rate-has always been in doubt.

He worked really well at home to Derby but would he have sustained it at Ipswich? We will never know but his omission from the starting line up has caused such a retrospective furore, that I am surprised that the player did not make an immediate (or any) impact when he came on as substitute.

It is very unfortunate that such bad individual errors were perpetrated at Ipswich because the 4-5-1 formation was never really tested as a means to containing and then destroying the opposition.

As I have said before, players win matches, not formations, for it is players who make formations work. On Saturday, players lost that match and no amount of changes could turn the tide.

In fact, at Ipswich, Watford switched to 4-4-2 for the second half and did not look half as potent going forward as they had in the first half with 4-5-1.

But don't let that fact get in the way of a good rant.