What IS Blackpool Football Club?
I don't mean, who are the fans? Where is the building that houses it? I don't mean who are the players and staff? I don't even mean, who are the ownership and board of directors?
All of that is easy enough to answer.
What I mean is, 'what are we?' - 'how (apart from the historical deeds such as the Ballon d'or winner, winning the most famous and influential game in the entire history of football, the play off record, the World Cup winners and being the Only Team in Football in Tangerine and White) are we to be distinguished from anyone else?
This season is kind of like a microcosm of all the possible Blackpool's there are. We're a meta Blackpool. We started out as a cautious possession based team. We morphed into a crazed all out attack machine characterised by a total disregard for defensive conventions. We evolved into a lean mean, 90s football tribute act, all hard running and wingers and then the wheel seem to turn once more, with us looking a bit like something you'd see on a video of a struggling Chester City side in about 1995, failing to string passes together and slamming it long towards players not particularly suited to receive the ball thus. Muddy kits, players doing double teapots and looking to the heavens.
Here's the thing. To win things historically, you have basically needed one (or preferably two) of the things below
a) loads of money so you can have the best players
and/or
b) to be better drilled and possessed of a stronger team spirit than anyone else
and/or
c) have a manager with an unusual amount of tactical nous and a great sense of timing/eye for a player
In the last 20 years, as football has become a more complex (and arguably vastly over-complicated) business, you also probably need
d) a sense of direction throughout the club that directs the decision making from top to bottom.
I suppose this isn't really 'new' - after all, Liverpool's boot room philosophy was broadly evolutionary right through their dominance of English football. Continuity bred success, each manager's work, the foundation for the next, each manager coming in and adding their own twist to the same basic recipe. Pass and move. The Liverpool groove, but Paisley brought young defenders who could play to ice Shankly's cake and Dalglish added width to pop a cherry on top.
 |
| Here's a random fact - Gordon Milne was Shankly's choice of successor - not Bob Paisley |
Of late though, it's hard to escape the fact that few clubs can simply buy their way to success. The option of just flinging a load of cash at it and hoping for the best is more and more impractical as the sums of money have risen from 'the kind of money it might need to build yourself a nice third home and put a Ferrari in the garage' to 'the kind of money it would take to wage a small scale war against a superpower'
Liverpool's genius was a plan. Peter Robinson in tune with the manager of the time. The manager of the time in tune with some seemingly inalienable sense of 'what the club is' - everything stemmed from that. Liverpool didn't actually spend outrageous sums very often (at least not until the late 80s as football began to show the impact of early TV deals and sponsorship) but the money they spent, they spent very, very well. Read any list of Liverpool's successful sides and you notice how humble the roots of some of their greats are and how intelligently their managers put together the jigsaw.
Now, everyone has a plan. Brighton are, in some ways, the Liverpool of their day (though, there's a coherent argument that Liverpool are proving to be the Liverpool of their day too) - what was initially credited to Graham Potter appears to run deeper within the club. It doesn't seem to matter when the manager leaves or when they sell players because they are always one step ahead. Just as Shankly and Paisley aged, just as Joe Fagan quit after Heysel and Liverpool just got better, Brighton seem to be moving forward, powered by some kind of voodoo.
 |
| Haven't got as many piers as us though have they? |
Here's another thing. It isn't voodoo. It's just hardwork and consistency. There's no doubt Brighton are helped by having money. Tony Bloom has invested in the club for sure, but it feels very much as if his money has gone much further than many other owner's money has because he's spent it very well.
The Brighton* model is more or less summed up below.
1: Have a vision (i.e. we will play fast passing football with young players)2: Recruit to that.3: f it goes wrong or well, the manager will leave.4: Recruit another manager who broadly fits that ethos.5: Continue moving between 3 and 4.6: Do not alter 1. Ever.
*Could also be the 'Swansea of 10/15 years ago' model, the 'Dortmund' model, even the 'Wimbledon 78 to about 1993' model and so on - it's basically any club that is good without having the most money that doesn't go to shit the instant the manager leaves.
Now, you may be wondering... 'what has this got to do with us? - it's all very nice talking about Danny Wellbeck, Steve Heighway, Ronnie Moran and the fact Brighton will probably unveil a 14 year old Peruvian kid who was really good on Football Manager to replace that lad who will obviously go to City to replace Pep unless City get fired into space for cheating... but this blog is the third best Blackpool related blog in the business and I'm reading it for the third most interesting take on Blackpool related things'
That's a fair point, so lets get to it.
I want you to have a look again at the list above and consider us:
a) We don't have the most money.
b) We don't currently look particularly well drilled. In fact, in some games of late, we look a bit like some crumbly plaster that's been drilled and then collapsed into dust. (I've clearly mixed up the meaning of 'drill' there, but the blog is a bit metaphor light at the moment and crap imagery is my brand identity)
c) Not since the golden days of Critch 1.0's group think inspired tactical masterclasses has it felt as if any of our managers have regularly out thought the other manager.
d) Hmmm. Where to begin.
Let's leave the current situation for a moment. Granted, it's tempting to unleash a few thousand words on the fact we seem to be playing in lead boots, players look to have lost the ability to pass 5 yards to each other and our tactics amount to 'Kyle, run about lad, there's a good boy' but there's a deeper question I think we need to ask because once again, we find ourselves in a position where 'what the manager wants to do' isn't really matched to 'what the manager has in the squad'
Brighton's wunderkind plays that 'Brightony' football where they're all really good technically and run like mad that they always play. Had he arrived at Brighton and found a squad full of Gary Madines, Gary Brabins and Gary Briggs then he'd probably have had a stark choice - hipster football wouldn't cut it. He'd have to have a go at Garyball and the idea of some pure data science post Pep megamind manager playing Garyball because his squad dictated that would be a bit weird.
The point is simple enough. Brighton have made simple decisions seem like masterstrokes because they've had conviction in one basic idea. They have a way of playing. They recruit players and managers alike to fit that way of playing. Therefore, they haven't yet had their 'Ten Haag' moment, when a manager arrives expecting to do a thing only to find the players are absolutely shite at that thing and therefore everything is a bit flawed from the outset.
When you break down our recruitment of managers, it suggests very clearly that we don't have any kind of template. One manager inherits a squad from the next manager but that squad isn't particularly attuned to their needs. It has *some footballers* but not really of the type they need.
1: Grayson - old school. Get it forward, pick up the pieces. Feendog to big Armand.
2: Critch - new school. Retain possession.
3: Appleton 433 all the way
4: Mad Mick - Makes Larry look like a woke warrior he's so old school. Get Curtis Nelson up front.
5: Critch 2.0 - new new school. So wedded to possession that shots are banned unless you are one yard out.
6: Steve Bruce - Forever trying to recreate Man Utd 1993-94 but without Ince, Keane, Robson, Cantona, Sharpe, Giggs etc etc.
I would argue the only appointment that really made sense from an 'evolutionary' perspective was the much criticised transition from Critchley to Appleton as they shared a certain amount of coaching DNA and I think there's an argument to say, as much as that era was a 'little bit tetchy' at times we were a strong defensive midfielder away from being a perfectly acceptable side capable of Championship survival. In fact, when we didn't have midfield made of tissue paper, we actually played some genuinely outstanding football from time to time. Who knows, had Bridcutt or Stewart or Fiorini managed 10 more games between them before January, we might not have been where we are now. I'm not trying to rewrite Micky Sad Eyes as the unheralded king of football management because a lot of his decisions and some of his relationships left a lot to be desired - I just don't think his appointment was the one single factor that 'led to where we are' (worse off than when we began the journey at this point in time) - I think it's a pattern of things.
Every other appointment seems to make zero sense in relation to the last. Mad Mick's long ball midgets. Critch 2.0 coming back to take over the squad he'd mostly signed and then doing something really totally different to what he'd done before. Steve Bruce may or may not turn out to be a masterstroke, mediocre or Mad Mick 2 but he seems wedded to 442 and we've got no wingers and only really one nailed on 'battling midfielder so we seem well short of the basic requisites to roll back the years and play Barclay's football.
If we come back to today, we're on a really poor run. There are circumstances, there are emotive and very real mitigating factors. There are strong, human reasons why we shouldn't be lining up to give Steve Bruce a load of shit (even aside from all of that, he's only been here for about 2 months anyway)
If we accept 442 is the default formation and if we accept the performance of our players has been subpar and we need to make a change to better service the set up/send a message/freshen it up/take players out the firing line/give someone else a chance then we have a bit of a problem.
Going forward, the only realistic option I can see is to pick Rhodes (looks as blunt as a butter knife) or Fletcher (looks as blunt as butter) instead of Ballard (not very big so not very good at getting on the end of long balls belted forward) We can't change the wingers as we don't have any others. We can't change the midfield very much. (Finnegan?)
Defensively, changing the fullbacks isn't really an option either. We can swap the goalie from the lad who got relegated from league football to the lad who conceded loads of goals in a row. We can bring Baggott in and that's about it.
In short, there's not very many options. Yes, we have injuries but so does everyone else in football but we have several players for who it's more or less impossible to imagine regularly playing in a physical and direct 442 and thriving and hence that reduces our options still further. It is not a squad tuned to the needs of the manager and none of our managers have really benefited from that for quite some time.
To sum up - I very much hope Bruce shows himself capable of some tactical flexibility and does more than just putting the same thing out week in and week out regardless of the resources available - but more than that, I dream of a day when I can understand the club's wider decision making in the context of a coherent football strategy.
To quote the great and the good, if football is a 'product' that would suggest some element of design. From what I can see, we resemble a factory that keeps changing what the assembly line is set up to produce with the obvious confusions to the process. Change, is of course, part of football as it is any other business, but the change seems wild and haphazard. We don't seem to really stick to anything.
Blackpool is Blackpool. Not since the maximum wage was lifted in 1961 have we remotely been able to imagine attracting 'the very best' on a regular basis. That means we need to have some some combination of nous, hard work and a plan. I'm really not sure we have the latter and whilst the manager and players get shit thrown at them and abuse pouring from the stands if their effort drops and the tactics are poor, I'd really, really like to know what the vision from above is for the club because I genuinely can't see one at the moment. I can see us appointing staff, I can see staff on the club employee list, but I can't see any particular plan that unites them in a purpose beyond 'get to next week'
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I genuinely don't have a clue what Blackpool Football Club actually is at the moment and given as I spend an unhealthy amount of time watching, thinking about and writing shite about it, then it feels as if I don't, then I can't imagine too many other people do either.
After writing all this, we'll no doubt beat Northampton 27-0
Onward.
It's very unlikely you are thinking 'hey, I really wish I could give some spare money to a football blog that relies mostly on padding itself out with extended metaphors and made up stuff in return for literally nothing I wouldn't get for free anyway' - but if you are, you can do so here
That's a fair point, so lets get to it.
I want you to have a look again at the list above and consider us:
a) We don't have the most money.
b) We don't currently look particularly well drilled. In fact, in some games of late, we look a bit like some crumbly plaster that's been drilled and then collapsed into dust. (I've clearly mixed up the meaning of 'drill' there, but the blog is a bit metaphor light at the moment and crap imagery is my brand identity)
c) Not since the golden days of Critch 1.0's group think inspired tactical masterclasses has it felt as if any of our managers have regularly out thought the other manager.
d) Hmmm. Where to begin.
Let's leave the current situation for a moment. Granted, it's tempting to unleash a few thousand words on the fact we seem to be playing in lead boots, players look to have lost the ability to pass 5 yards to each other and our tactics amount to 'Kyle, run about lad, there's a good boy' but there's a deeper question I think we need to ask because once again, we find ourselves in a position where 'what the manager wants to do' isn't really matched to 'what the manager has in the squad'
 |
| Who can forget the tactical triumph of using this lad as a target man? Double thunbs up all round. |
Brighton's wunderkind plays that 'Brightony' football where they're all really good technically and run like mad that they always play. Had he arrived at Brighton and found a squad full of Gary Madines, Gary Brabins and Gary Briggs then he'd probably have had a stark choice - hipster football wouldn't cut it. He'd have to have a go at Garyball and the idea of some pure data science post Pep megamind manager playing Garyball because his squad dictated that would be a bit weird.
The point is simple enough. Brighton have made simple decisions seem like masterstrokes because they've had conviction in one basic idea. They have a way of playing. They recruit players and managers alike to fit that way of playing. Therefore, they haven't yet had their 'Ten Haag' moment, when a manager arrives expecting to do a thing only to find the players are absolutely shite at that thing and therefore everything is a bit flawed from the outset.
 |
| Having thought a bit more about Garyball, I think it's got legs. Maybe it's the identity we need? |
When you break down our recruitment of managers, it suggests very clearly that we don't have any kind of template. One manager inherits a squad from the next manager but that squad isn't particularly attuned to their needs. It has *some footballers* but not really of the type they need.
1: Grayson - old school. Get it forward, pick up the pieces. Feendog to big Armand.
2: Critch - new school. Retain possession.
3: Appleton 433 all the way
4: Mad Mick - Makes Larry look like a woke warrior he's so old school. Get Curtis Nelson up front.
5: Critch 2.0 - new new school. So wedded to possession that shots are banned unless you are one yard out.
6: Steve Bruce - Forever trying to recreate Man Utd 1993-94 but without Ince, Keane, Robson, Cantona, Sharpe, Giggs etc etc.
I would argue the only appointment that really made sense from an 'evolutionary' perspective was the much criticised transition from Critchley to Appleton as they shared a certain amount of coaching DNA and I think there's an argument to say, as much as that era was a 'little bit tetchy' at times we were a strong defensive midfielder away from being a perfectly acceptable side capable of Championship survival. In fact, when we didn't have midfield made of tissue paper, we actually played some genuinely outstanding football from time to time. Who knows, had Bridcutt or Stewart or Fiorini managed 10 more games between them before January, we might not have been where we are now. I'm not trying to rewrite Micky Sad Eyes as the unheralded king of football management because a lot of his decisions and some of his relationships left a lot to be desired - I just don't think his appointment was the one single factor that 'led to where we are' (worse off than when we began the journey at this point in time) - I think it's a pattern of things.
Every other appointment seems to make zero sense in relation to the last. Mad Mick's long ball midgets. Critch 2.0 coming back to take over the squad he'd mostly signed and then doing something really totally different to what he'd done before. Steve Bruce may or may not turn out to be a masterstroke, mediocre or Mad Mick 2 but he seems wedded to 442 and we've got no wingers and only really one nailed on 'battling midfielder so we seem well short of the basic requisites to roll back the years and play Barclay's football.
If we come back to today, we're on a really poor run. There are circumstances, there are emotive and very real mitigating factors. There are strong, human reasons why we shouldn't be lining up to give Steve Bruce a load of shit (even aside from all of that, he's only been here for about 2 months anyway)
If we accept 442 is the default formation and if we accept the performance of our players has been subpar and we need to make a change to better service the set up/send a message/freshen it up/take players out the firing line/give someone else a chance then we have a bit of a problem.
Going forward, the only realistic option I can see is to pick Rhodes (looks as blunt as a butter knife) or Fletcher (looks as blunt as butter) instead of Ballard (not very big so not very good at getting on the end of long balls belted forward) We can't change the wingers as we don't have any others. We can't change the midfield very much. (Finnegan?)
Defensively, changing the fullbacks isn't really an option either. We can swap the goalie from the lad who got relegated from league football to the lad who conceded loads of goals in a row. We can bring Baggott in and that's about it.
In short, there's not very many options. Yes, we have injuries but so does everyone else in football but we have several players for who it's more or less impossible to imagine regularly playing in a physical and direct 442 and thriving and hence that reduces our options still further. It is not a squad tuned to the needs of the manager and none of our managers have really benefited from that for quite some time.
.jpeg) |
| Sorry to come back to the Garyball thing again, but actually, there's a fine line up building now I've thought even further. |
To sum up - I very much hope Bruce shows himself capable of some tactical flexibility and does more than just putting the same thing out week in and week out regardless of the resources available - but more than that, I dream of a day when I can understand the club's wider decision making in the context of a coherent football strategy.
To quote the great and the good, if football is a 'product' that would suggest some element of design. From what I can see, we resemble a factory that keeps changing what the assembly line is set up to produce with the obvious confusions to the process. Change, is of course, part of football as it is any other business, but the change seems wild and haphazard. We don't seem to really stick to anything.
Blackpool is Blackpool. Not since the maximum wage was lifted in 1961 have we remotely been able to imagine attracting 'the very best' on a regular basis. That means we need to have some some combination of nous, hard work and a plan. I'm really not sure we have the latter and whilst the manager and players get shit thrown at them and abuse pouring from the stands if their effort drops and the tactics are poor, I'd really, really like to know what the vision from above is for the club because I genuinely can't see one at the moment. I can see us appointing staff, I can see staff on the club employee list, but I can't see any particular plan that unites them in a purpose beyond 'get to next week'
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I genuinely don't have a clue what Blackpool Football Club actually is at the moment and given as I spend an unhealthy amount of time watching, thinking about and writing shite about it, then it feels as if I don't, then I can't imagine too many other people do either.
After writing all this, we'll no doubt beat Northampton 27-0
Onward.
It's very unlikely you are thinking 'hey, I really wish I could give some spare money to a football blog that relies mostly on padding itself out with extended metaphors and made up stuff in return for literally nothing I wouldn't get for free anyway' - but if you are, you can do so here
Tweet
You can follow MCLF on facebook or Twitter or use Follow.it to get posts sent to your email
If you appreciate the blog and judge it worth 1p or more, then a donation to one of the causes below which help kids and families in Blackpool would be grand.
Home-Start
Blackpool Food Bank