I don't get this latest line of argument. You praised Martinez to the hilt for bringing us into the 21st century with beautiful free flowing football, even claiming that results didn't matter as much. I could half buy it at times in the first season, I could sort of see what he was trying to do with the team.
Now what you're essentially advocating in order to get results is: scrapping our best full back pairing in prem history (there'll be no shortage of takers for these btw) as well as one of the best out and out young footballers (Stones) I've ever seen. In their place you want to see two centrebacks (Galloway and Browning) play out of position and stay in a flat back 4 with some 'leader' centreback in Stones' place. You'd then have two holding mids in front of that so that we could play counterattacking football.
In the same breath though you'll slam Leicester for kick and rush football and say we're playing football touched by the gods. Got to say mate a back 4 of Galloway Jags Mori and Browning won't be playing much togger. Lennon McCarthy and Clev are hardly flair players either (I rate Lennon very highly but he's not a David Silva type).
To me it sounds as though you've realised that the total football which is plan A (Stones, Deulofeu, Kone, overlapping fullbacks, front foot possession football) was failing in terms of results. So you're now advocating moving to a pragmatic counterattacking game with 4 centrebacks and 2 holding mids in order to get results. No doubt you'll still peddle the myth though that the football was brilliant as Browning was again lining up another long diagonal to Lukaku's head. Frankly it's the sort of team line up that would not have been out of place under Smith and is a massive step back from the standard of football we had under Moyes (creative midfielders, attacking full backs, front foot football).