The season has not gone to plan so far. Granted we're only 10.86% of the way through the league fixtures - but we're were already at a point where, (were everyone in the fan base similarly inclined to calculate percentages on the google search bar calculator as I am,) they'd be darkly muttering 'the remaining 89.14% of games better fucking improve, or we're in the shit'
The question that is always relevant at this time of year is - 'Are we any good?' - the answer sadly this year, so far anyway, is a resounding 'are, you mad, obviously not'.
Let's look at the evidence:
Good things:
Niall Ennis has been excellent. George Honeyman had one sensational game and has given everything in others. Olly Casey hasn't left and hasn't really been individually at fault for much in the last couple of games and seemed to be more or less Olly Casey. See also Albie Morgan. Bailey Peacock Farrell can belt a goal kick a long way and hasn't thrown the ball in his own goal for a couple of games.
You can see, by the end of the list, there are distinct straws being clutched so tightly, that they leave lines on the palm of my hand.
If we look collectively at our qualities as a team, things get even worse. Ask yourself, have we seen much evidence of any of the following?
- Good at attacking set pieces?
- Good at defending set pieces?
- Dominating midfield?
- Breaking well (or 'quality in transition')
- Retaining the ball for periods effectively
- Winning the ball back regularly and quickly especially in central midfield
- Effective direct play
- Movement off the ball
- Patterns of play that suggest awareness of how we all fit in to a greater whole
- I'll stop now because it's getting very depressing.
You might be able to pick an individual moment or two which demonstrates quality in one or more of those areas. (we had one really nice break against Plymouth for example) What I would humbly suggest to you however, is, no one, not even the most relentlessly optimistic reader of games would be able to suggest that we've established any of the above as 'something we're good for long spells at game after game' - which is problematic, because to be a team that challenges for promotion (our stated goal), we've probably got to be good at most of those things in most games we play. There is, without doubt, latent potential - but football matches aren't won by 'vague signs' or 'hints' of quality.
Bad things:
Results are only results - performances are actually the most important thing in football. Results can sometimes mask things. Are they doing so for us? I'd say 'no' sadly.
On Saturday, we played the worst team in the league up till this point and only a shot from distance really tested their goalkeeper. We conceded a poor goal, but our keeper made more decent saves than their keeper and they missed more gilt edge chances than we did (their effort on the rebound was an easier chance than Taylor missed after CJ's cross) - We lost (again) and whilst, had we scraped a draw it wouldn't have been a spectacular injustice, there is no way to spin that we deserved to win the game. This, unfortunately holds true for previous defeats. Saturday was, I felt, marginally better than some games we've played this year - but it was still a long way from the kind of performance that would leave most saying 'we just need things to drop for us - we're playing well but...'
The most concerning thing of all is the general lack of bite and energy. On 93 minutes, we're losing. BPF has the ball in our box. He launches an excellent kick. We have quite a long time to get ourselves ready to challenge for it. The ball is in the air for a long time. As it drops, it becomes apparent that
a) we haven't loaded the box. It is the last minute of a game we're losing and we don't have any more players up front for a long kick than we would have done at the start.
b) No one (literally no one ) has tracked this kick properly and is going to challenge for it so it just fall harmlessly and the game ends. You rarely do score of a last minute long goal kick - but if you don't TRY to score from such a situation, baring their keeper inexplicably closing his eyes and letting it bounce over his and in (which happens even less) then you 100% ain't scoring
In the same game on about an hour, George Honeyman comes deep and picks up the ball. I scan his options and it becomes apparent to me that Morgan, Evans and Hamilton are all in a ruler straight line, level with Honeyman. What I've read as 'coming deep' is in fact, 'coming level with the majority of the other midfielders who are all as static as it is possible to be. The line exists long enough for me to almost (but not quite) screenshot it. It's only a couple of seconds, but it leaves you wondering what on earth we're supposed to do to get up the pitch if the players aren't going to move around for each other.
Hayden Coulson backs off. He shadows, but at a distance where it's more like stalking in the bushes with binoculars then harassing an opponent. He backs off some more. The player crosses the ball and has enough space to lift the ball over Coulson without needing to deviate from his initial intentions...
We could go on, those are just 3 random points from the most recent game, there's a litany of more serious mistakes that rendered on the page in flowery text would go on for a long time - but lets not. Lets move on to the next question.
Why are we rubbish?
This is the key question really. We have been rubbish. There's no way around it. What are the reasons?
It's tempting to start with blame and and damnation and calls for hirings and firings and for everyone to be sent to Siberia (or at least tied to the legs of one of the Piers whilst the tide comes in) but instead, lets start with some mitigations.
Injuries and suspensions have no doubt had an impact. Having one striker doesn't suit us and that one striker is short of match fitness. (that said, not registering the one striker was also a tragi-comic self imposed blow) Having one central defender way out of form and the only possible back ups to him injured is also a blow. Having the club captain and probably our most vocal leader defensively speaking out isn't ideal. Having the new right back injured is similarly problematic and starting the season without Albie Morgan who is the most energetic and dynamic player we had last season again, not ideal. Neither, for that matter was losing the player who seemed the biggest positive (Ennis) to a red card at almost the precise moment where it looked as if, for the only time this season, we might be starting to come together and be capable of some coherent and purposeful attacking football.
Have we seen 'the best XI' - probably not. In fact, almost certainly not. In fact, I really hope not - because if one of the teams we've seen is 'the best XI' then we've got a problem as baring 20 mins against Huddersfield, we've not looked very good at all (the 60 mins defensive effort in that game was heroic, but you couldn't really draw any conclusions about how we might normally play from it)
We could leave it there and conclude 'It's just bad luck' - but I don't think that's the full story. Whilst yes, the circumstance have denied us the opportunity to put the absolute first choice team out, the situation where everyone is fully fit and firing is a very rare one anyway. You HAVE to have a best XI and then a backup XI who are capable of deputising competently and/or adding variety so you can play in different ways if you need to. Yes, the squad depth is tested - but if we're a promotion side, that's something we should be able to cope with because our back ups should be able to do a job.
We've consistently looked worryingly prone to people running through our midfield - which is strange, because we signed Jordan Brown who is well established in League 1 as very good at stopping that happening - but we played him at right back because the back up right back (Lyons) isn't trusted to play right back. Similarly, we look weak at left back (no Husband) but we don't play the available back up left back (Ashworth) so that weakness remains. Coulson isn't a bad footballer, he's just not a defensive left back and that's what we clearly need right now, especially because neither Hamilton nor Hansson are going to provide lots of cover for him and allow him to get forward as he needs to do to play to his potential. As I've already pointed out, BPF's kicking is a clear strength - but we don't have a striker who can win the ball in the air and hold it up. Fletcher isn't a convincing target man and Ennis and Taylor aren't big enough, whilst Bloxham makes Josh Bowler look like Gary Madine. At the same time, we've let Kouassi (the one really physical unit we've got) go and had to resort to putting Bondo on the bench (but not bringing him on when we're a goal down and desperately needing an extra forward with some presence - we've basically weakened the option we don't use anyway)
If we throw back a few years to Stephen Dobbie's brief tenure as contrast - we played nice football and in every game we left with a sense of 'we did our best there' - two players who featured were Alex Lankshear and Brad Holmes. They played their parts in some decent performances - something, I think, shows that whilst neither player was a long term answer (Holmes has since played for Marine, Hyde United and is now at Curzon Ashton whilst Lankshear left this summer and signed for Boston United) sometimes, you should pick the best available attributes for the job and if the team is well coached and clear on their role, you can make it work.
To me, it seems weird that Lyons and Ashworth and for that matter, Kouassi have the best available attributes for particular jobs in the squad (and are by some distance more established, experienced players than Lankshear and Holmes) and we don't trust them to do the roles that we (succesfully) trusted two kids now in non-league to do at a higher level.
There's a point where the overall broad football aptitude of the players is less important than their ability to do the particular role - a better player out of position can be worse than a worse player in position so to speak. To take it to extreme, Messi at centre back would be shite, but he's the best player ever. There's also a point where the invisible attributes of a player (form, attitude, aggression etc) are more important than the technical ones and the energy brought to a team by a younger player trying to prove a point might more than compensate for the loss of a more experienced player who is lacking confidence in their own form.
This brings me to a further point - it's not true to say we've been tactically rigid. We've used 532, 433, 451 and 442 this year so far. The problem has been, we've not looked very good at anything other than the preferred 442 (the 20 mins against Huddersfield) - this begs the question - why can't we do anything other than that? We have the most experienced, biggest and (I would assume) most expensive coaching staff in our football club's history and it seems odd that we can't set up effectively in anything other than roughly the way Manchester United played in 1992.
If we genuinely can't play any other way, then it makes a lot more sense to use the squad to fit the players to the system and not change the system and shoehorn the same 12 or 13 players in, because by putting in a back up or youth player, you get the benefit of the other 10 players being in the right place and the experience on the pitch of playing to the plan and forming patterns of play. You may or may not find the back up is up to the job longer term - but you do get the relationships and positional play of the rest of the team more nailed down in a way you don't if you keep moving people around to plug gaps.
I'm loathe to complain about tactical flexibility - but it feels as if we need to 'pick an idea' and stick to it for a while instead of looking as if anything we do that isn't 442 is leaving a sour taste and binning it after 45 minutes because we're not forming any habits by doing that. A new system might take a little while to get used to so to speak.
We've also got the fact we've signed some players and we're not playing them. I really don't want to write about Sonny Carey and Rob Apter - but tactically speaking, we have to address this. Both of them had limitations - but both of them had the ideal strengths for Bruceball 24/25. We miss them like a middle aged man misses his metabolism and I think we've made some extremely odd tactical choices in trying to replace them.
Let me explain. Our wingers sit quite deep - 442 is not 433 or 424 - It is characterised by the wingers having a starting position next to the central midfield. Sony and Rob are both extremely good at receiving a pass and then carrying the ball from that deeper point. Sonny was a ninja at being in space to take it and turn into the space he'd found and drive (under Bruce anyway.) Rob was as good at getting out of a tight space as anyone I've seen and leaving the man on him floundering - again, space in front to run int. This meant we could break effectively from the deeper position. Similarly, both of them were capable of taking the break to it's culmination. Sonny scored goals, Apter scored goals. They both were decisive and could take the ball deeper and be shooting a matter of seconds later.
Tom Bloxham has some of those attributes but CJ has literally none of them. This isn't me slagging off CJ he is what he is - but he's a 433 winger - He needs the ball ahead of him and to be playing against the offside trap. I actually can't remember the last shot CJ had when playing in a deeper 442 role - whereas Carey had our most shots per game over the season. CJ isn't able to take a pass with the ease of Apter or Carey and he's not able to turn and use close control and he's not very adept at 'finding pockets of space' - because he was signed initially on the basis that he's be excellent at what he is excellent at - running fast, pushing it past the last defender and beating them. If we recall the dim and distant past when we played 433 - CJ was scoring and probably our most impactful player. He's never, ever nailed down a consistent run when playing 442. He always plays better when further forward.
Expecting CJ to turn into Sonny Carey or Rob Apter is madness. It's like expecting Niall Ennis to be David Linighan or vice versa. What we're seeing is the classic collapse of CJ's confidence - because he knows what we know - he can't do this job effectively on a regular basis. Everyone gets fucked off with him and it's a recurring circle of misery and frustration for all (ole!)
The really strange thing is - we've got Emil Hansson who is so gifted it hurts and Malcolm Ebiowei who look similar. Hansson has a kind of part Carey part Paul Simpson vibe - a bit prone to being peripheral perhaps, but full of evident skill and desire to shoot, run, cut inside or go outside. Ebiowei has a little bit of the Apter about him - he'll frustrate because he might not do his more boring duties, but then he'll glide through three players and you can't stay angry at him because, yes tackling is a thing but no one else can do that.
I don't understand why we've signed players who (in terms of their basic football character at least) look like reasonable facsimiles of the players we lost who provided our creative spark and midfield threat and then don't play them. You could argue neither have yet impacted, but both of them seem to be reduced to coming on when we're already losing - a role that is simply not fair in terms of evaluating their potential impact when the game is more open - because, when ahead, other teams defend more - therefore a creative winger has a harder job and there's less chances to break, and the opposing full back is more likely to just sit - something that I think nullifies Hannson in particular.
I'd argue that it's difficult to tell how effective some of the recruitment has been when we're not using it effectively because we're choosing players to play out of position or in a role within a system that doesn't suit them.
Do we throw it all in the bin and start again?
I don't know. Literally. Football is a game of opinions and all of that, but fuck me, it gets tiring listening to people talk with absolute certainty about things that haven't happened yet.
I am definitely worried by what I've seen. The lack of effort, I'd put down (this is a guess, cos I ain't in the players heads) more to a lack of collective belief than the fact we've accidently signed 10 utter wastes of space who don't give a fuck about football. We've largely signed players with some pedigree and some recent success (relative to us) and football is unforgiving. You don't achieve things if you can't be fundamentally bothered to try. One or two intensely gifted player might waft around at a lower level than their talents really should propel them too - but very, very, very few players can simply 'not try' and forge a football career and our signings have all done that. They're not just blokes we found milling around in Coral Island and said 'do you fancy trying to be footballers?'
Effort is collective - it comes from the group you are in, the atmosphere around you. What we call 'effort' often equates to instinct. If you are playing in a well drilled team, where everyone knows their role and everyone is running as hard as they can, you don't hesitate to throw yourself into the tackle or make the run - because a) you see everyone else doing it and b) you know someone has your back, there's cover
I don't see this belief. Ennis can run like a nutter, because he's the highest man on the pitch - but behind him, they need to know where they fit in and it really doesn't look like it. We seem hesitant and doubtful. That's not a lack of effort per se - it's the fact that football is a team game with individuals playing roles - and when the trust isn't there then it's harder to play your role. Hesitancy (inevitable if you're not sure about the collective situation) gets the ball robbed, so you regress to doing the simplest thing you can and therefore the play becomes sterile and the crowd get restless and the other team press harder and so on and so on.
This brings us back to the above points (we've not actually shown any tactical consistency (partly through bad luck and partly through bad design and we have some players who will never be comfortable in their current roles.) We also have a very big and expensive coaching staff. It is troubling that we don't seem to have formed any partnerships to speak of yet (barring perhaps Ennis and Fletcher who already had one) and the spine of the team, the full backs and the wingers are all a bit questionable in their effectiveness so far. The defence and the keeper haven't looked a unit, there's been very little quality interplay in midfield and we're not really playing many good through balls to the wide players/strikers.
Apart from that it's great!
This sounds like 'throw it in the bin to me'
It does to me too - but let's give the counter point - We've ditched Critch after two games last season after signing a 532 squad to play 442. Ultimately, I enjoyed last year, but we ended up quite a way off. We gave Michael Appleton the backing in January and on February 2nd we got Mad Mick to put Morgan Rodgers on the bench whilst we lumped it at Ian Poveda and we were utter shit (QPR aside) thereafter till Dobbie came in and kind of did what Appleton was doing just better but it was too late. Critch walked out the season before and gifted Appleton a squad missing key players we never bought till we sacked him. Even Larry had a squad where he got some random players he'd apparently never asked for right at the beginning of all this. The seasons we've not had disruption (Critch post covid, Critch l1 to championship and even Critch 2.0 season 1) were our three best league finishes since the boycott.
The point is - to have invested a lot in a new style and then but it in the bin will have its own dangers. If we assume Bruce DID want these players (and why wouldn't he have done so? If he didn't, then something has gone very wrong...) then is he the right person to work out the best blend? - The alternative is someone who might not want them at all but is stuck with them and is spending half their time planning for another rebuild which might never come?
I don't know. I do know that constantly changing direction is not how Brighton or Brentford would do it. Endless abortive rebuilds are not possible, even with all the money in the world. Arsenal are streets ahead of Manchester United because they don't shit the bed every season and rip everything up - but then, that's kind of predicated on the fact Arteta is young and dynamic and a long term option and bless his increasingly worried and craggy face, Steve Bruce is not the long term future of the club in the way that, had history played out differently, Neil Critchley, Michael Appleton, Stephen Dobbie or Richard Keogh might have been.
The past provides more certainty than the future It's already happened after all.
- Simon Grayson, Neil Critchley and Steve Mcmahon presided over promotions that started out like a shitshow. All of those seasons saw a lot of signings and a lot of initial doubt.
- Equally, of course, Lee Clarke, Neil Mcdonald presided over seasons that started like a shitshow and ended like a shitshow. Those seasons saw a lot of signings and a lot of initial doubt.
- Billy Ayre took us to Wembley after taking over from Graham Carr in a season that started like shitshow and (almost) ended in glory barring a less than optimal approach to penalties from one Dave Bamber.
- Lest we forget, Micheal Appleton and Paul Ince had seasons that ended like a shitshow and started well.
- Gary Megson had a season that was sort of in between at the beginning and end but had a shitshow bit in the middle.
We could go on...
Perhaps the past doesn't provide more certainty after all. It just shows that all outcomes are possible and you could do anything and not know what might happen as a result.
Conclusions:
The core problem is the players don't seem to have any belief. That is manifesting itself in a kind of languid apathy. Coulson is a great example. He oscillates between wild uncontrolled actions and looking like he's given up. He doesn't seem to know what he's doing in other words. Throw back to last year and he was playing pretty well, because, I assume he knew what he was doing.
In game decisions are reactive instead of proactive and even then, not truly reactive (i.e. why not throw everyone up front when we're losing by a goal - even Mick did that!) This is amplified by the fact a few of them aren't suited to their role, which in turn lowers the collective confidence and feeds that apathy. Only the really dynamic players with natural self belief rise above it but most players aren't like that in any squad.
It looks, for all the world, like we're not really giving a detailed game plan. As above, players on form (Ennis) and players with a really strong sense of self (Honeyman) will cope - but a professional footballer has it drilled into them that they do the job that is asked of them. It's fine as a fan saying 'for the money they get, the cunts should know what they're fucking doing' - but in any role in life, you are paid to follow instructions and if you don't get enough detail or clarity in those instructions, then it will make you hesitant. Last season, the squad had a plan - but Bruce liberated them from it to an extent and that worked. You can't liberate a new squad from a plan that doesn't seemingly exist.
It needs fixing with some hard work - sit down with the players and take their ideas - we've got a squad with experience here.
It has to be a clean slate for all because picking 'favourites' isn't yielding results. Go back to what we have (all of them) and pick the players that best fit a system and drill it. Work on their movement, work on their interplay and (in my humble opinion) get the most technically able players on the pitch going forward and the most energetic and physically able players on the pitch defensively and emphasise attack because we're not tight enough to play 'keep them out and pick them off' football and I can't see us being that with any permutation. That doesn't mean we can't be effective, it just means it might be an idea to work on the attacking, where I do see us being potentially very effective if we get the blend right and don't try and play in a way that relies on players we don't have (i.e. recourse to direct balls at little lads)
Who is best to do that...? I honestly don't know but whoever it is, it needs doing and it needs doing properly, seriously and quickly. When Bruce walked in, he got a tune out of us quickly so logic says, he should be able to step back, identify the issues and address them - that's literally the point of having such an experienced manager - a calm head to draw up on their past and address the issue. They've 'seen it all before' so to speak
A nagging question in my mind though is, 'was that initial 'Bruce Bounce' because Keogh had done the real hard work (turning a sterile and joyless team into a team with, yes, a tendency towards chaos, but nonetheless, dizzying attacking potential)?' and did Bruce simply provide a bit of structure and wisdom to a situation which was already resolving itself (i.e. we played brilliantly in Keogh's last game in the tinpot cup so the fact we played well in the next league game wasn't necessarily all down to the change)
That question will never be answered. It doesn't stop me wondering it though.
Only Steve Bruce can answer the question 'what next?' - but the answer has to be a variation of 'improvement - that's for sure' otherwise the knives will be sharpened... If he is able to draw on his huge past and apply it thoughtfully and effectively, then that's fantastic. The 90s football funhouse will rise again. If he can't, then sadly it will be a very flat and disappointing end to what looked like a lovely little unexpected football romance between a true football man and a proper football club.
I've spent the entire blog questioning Bruce and to be honest, I'm struggling to reconcile this season with last. Bruce has OBVIOUSLY got qualities. He had a profound effect on numerous players. Kyle Joseph and Sonny Carey have literally been made financially and football wise because of him. Rob Apter thrived in his trust and playing a kid like Apter every week, come hell or high water, was brave. Albie is a much better player, He pretty much saved Ash Fletcher's career turning him from laughing stock to a kind of cult hero (in a way!). This is not a man who is without the ability to motivate. The evidence of our own eyes would tell us that.
Motivation only gets us so far though - we need the underlying structure, the plan. In a way, it feels almost like the opposite of the end of the Critchley reign - but with strangely similar results - in that period, the players had all the plan but none of the motivation and freedom.
It feels like this is the polar opposite. To put it crudely 'Go and enjoy it lads, I trust you' is having the same effect as 'here's your 200 page dossier on why Crawley Town are Real Madrid in disguise and don't whatever you do, shoot outside the agreed parameters of inside the 6 yard box and then, only if the keeper is lying down off the pitch. Sonny, don't forget the boxes I drew in training and none of that dribbling nonsense - Have fun lads! '
The answer has to be part way between the two. Some of Bruce's humanity and obvious ability to get the best out of individuals by freeing them. Some of Critchley's obsessive attention to detail and ability to harness players to systems to get the best out of limited players.
Only one thing therefore can save us.
We therefore need:
Steve Critchley.
FFS POOL. HOW ARE WE HERE MENTALLY ALREADY? THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD!
SORT IT OUT!
CAN'T HACK THIS MUCH LONGER... IT'S FUCKING BOLTON NEXT WEEK!
Onward
You can follow MCLF on facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, Threads and Instagram 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.
Writing about football is possibly a bit pointless in an era when there's the telly and youtube and videos all over the shop. It's not my living this and it's just something I do because I do so there's no problem with reading it and then getting on with your life - If you do want to chuck some money at the cause of some random fella writing shit no one ever asked him too, then Patreon. is a thing.