I have a suspicion that once Keogh went things improved and that wasn’t just a coincidence. It always seemed ponderous and too much passing back to Keogh for ineffective distribution to ever work that well.
Keogh as the old pro getting ready to move into management perhaps had too much influence on that system both on and off the pitch.
I’m not saying he created a toxic culture or anything like that, more he may just have been able to persuade a young manager to incorporate elements of his style for a period of time.
In fairness to MB and the way he wanted to play (3 at the back), there was a good analysis on, I think MOTD in ref to either Man Utd or Southampton.
Essentially the thinking was that 3 at the back works effectively in teams that have sufficient possession and ability but all too easily becomes 5 at the back when teams are under pressure and/or have little possession or they lack confidence in the ability of the back 3.
It then becomes a vicious cycle as the midfield becomes stretched once the wingbacks retreat, so they drop back to close the space and the strikers then become isolated.
To me this all sounds very like what was happening to us in the first half of last season, especially at the end of games.
I'll leave it to others to have an opinion on why we couldn't make 3 at the back work, but it would be wrong to blame MB for trying to implement the system.
Blooms knew what he wanted to achieve out of the 3 at the back (supposedly have the one in the centre with good passing range and vision), and then looked at how he could achieve it with just two centre backs (push Josh forward, put Morley at the back of midfield as the visionary) - stroke of genius if you ask me.
Ditto. And what a bright bunch of players we have currently. They have clearly bought into the philosophy.
One of the most remarkable (and cheeky) aspects of our approach is the use of wingbacks in a back four. I’m no expert but I thought you had to have three central defenders to allow the fullbacks (especially the brilliant Dan Harvie) to rampage forward as often as they do.
Comments
I have a suspicion that once Keogh went things improved and that wasn’t just a coincidence. It always seemed ponderous and too much passing back to Keogh for ineffective distribution to ever work that well.
Keogh as the old pro getting ready to move into management perhaps had too much influence on that system both on and off the pitch.
I’m not saying he created a toxic culture or anything like that, more he may just have been able to persuade a young manager to incorporate elements of his style for a period of time.
I wonder how much of an impact Scott Mitchell had on that transfer.
In fairness to MB and the way he wanted to play (3 at the back), there was a good analysis on, I think MOTD in ref to either Man Utd or Southampton.
Essentially the thinking was that 3 at the back works effectively in teams that have sufficient possession and ability but all too easily becomes 5 at the back when teams are under pressure and/or have little possession or they lack confidence in the ability of the back 3.
It then becomes a vicious cycle as the midfield becomes stretched once the wingbacks retreat, so they drop back to close the space and the strikers then become isolated.
To me this all sounds very like what was happening to us in the first half of last season, especially at the end of games.
I'll leave it to others to have an opinion on why we couldn't make 3 at the back work, but it would be wrong to blame MB for trying to implement the system.
Personnel matters, too - I bet 3ATB would have worked better with Lonwijk involved than Keogh, for instance!
Either way, it will always tickle me that Blooms' UEFA Pro License was paid for by Colchester.
Blooms knew what he wanted to achieve out of the 3 at the back (supposedly have the one in the centre with good passing range and vision), and then looked at how he could achieve it with just two centre backs (push Josh forward, put Morley at the back of midfield as the visionary) - stroke of genius if you ask me.
The most interesting thing I found (in an article full of interesting things) was the “philosophy pamphlet.”
In a world where we are playing extraordinarily well I am nodding along sagely (and ignorantly).
But must admit I am intrigued when and where that originated. (I am assuming not Bob Dylan)
I saw Philosophy Pamphlet on one of the smaller stages at Glastonbury a few years ago, unusual sound
Ditto. And what a bright bunch of players we have currently. They have clearly bought into the philosophy.
One of the most remarkable (and cheeky) aspects of our approach is the use of wingbacks in a back four. I’m no expert but I thought you had to have three central defenders to allow the fullbacks (especially the brilliant Dan Harvie) to rampage forward as often as they do.
Extraordinary.
Only one goes at a time though, and it's usually Harvie. It's been a brilliant tactic that's worked a treat this season.
Will be interesting to see what happens if an opposition side decides the way to stop Wycombe is to set up to prevent Harvie bombing on.