Bromley 1-1 Dagenham & Redbridge
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
It’s one defeat in the last nine now for Bromley. While five of those games have been draws, this run is a clear sign that Andy Woodman’s Ravens are hard to beat.
However, against Dagenham and Redbridge, with two minutes to go, it looked like Bromley were going to succumb to a frustrating defeat against fellow playoff contenders.
The Daggers had maintained a great defensive shape for the majority of the match, but they paid the price for their lack of ambition. You have to be an elite National League side to defend a one goal lead for 45 minutes.
To their credit, Bromley kept probing, and arguably got their reward for believing they could get something from a game where little had gone right in the final third.
Whether they make the playoffs or not this season, Bromley are undoubtedly a side that keeps going until the final whistle. That’s an admirable trait to have.
As ever, I reflect on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly from Bromley’s 1-1 draw at home to Dagenham and Redbridge.
Have a read and let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
The Line-up vs Dagenham & Redbridge
The Good
Not a lot went right on the night but Bromley never gave up on an equaliser. A lot of their attacking play stalled in the face of Dagenham’s densely packed defence, and Bromley were frustrated by their inability to find the perfect through ball. But they kept playing.
Woodman made three brave substitutions in the second half (Marriott for Whitely, Bergkamp for Bingham, Krauhaus for Forster) and it paid off.
If we’re honest, Bromley perhaps could have gone on to win the game as they really came to life after the equaliser. In the closing minutes, Krauhaus had a goalbound effort charged down and Marriott had a goal disallowed that looked marginal at worst.
I make that six league games that Bromley have rescued a point from the jaws of defeat. Will those rescued points add up to a playoff place at the end of the season, or are they more a reflection of the journey this side is on?
To me, as it stands, they show great resilience but aren’t doing quite enough to turn more 1s into 3s. Will that change in the coming games?
Narrowing the focus to individual performances, a lot has been written about young Kellen Fisher in the last few weeks. But now it’s time for young Ben Krauhaus to get his flowers.
Over the last few weeks, in fact the last six games to be precise, Krauhaus has increasingly been trusted to come on and make an impact.
Tuesday was the biggest show of faith so far. On at half time for Harry Forster, it took a while for Ben to get into the game, but once he did, he took it by the scruff of the neck and got a goal for his troubles.
Andy Woodman spoke at full time about how difficult it is for a young player to feel like they truly belong in the senior group. Tuesday felt like the moment that changed for Ben. I think we witnessed his transition from promising youngster to genuine squad player.
In truth, I'm yet to fully work out Ben’s best position. Andy uses him as a wide right player, but Ben’s ability to link play and run from deep suggests he may become a #10 as his career progresses.
I don’t think it is any secret that Andy is looking for reinforcements across the front line, but he and the team will be buoyed by the fact that Ben Krauhaus has shown that he can be trusted if called upon.
A final mention goes to Mitchel Bergkamp. We had a 15-minute cameo from him on Tuesday as Andy Woodman continues to slowly blood him into the first team set-up.
What should excite fans about Bergkamp is his willingness to play forward. There can be way too much sideways and backwards movement in Bromley’s transitions. In his brief appearances, Bergkamp has shown a willingness to look up and play forward with intent.
It won't always come off, and we’ve yet to see what this looks like from a place in the starting line-up, but we’ve seen enough to know that he brings something different to our offering in the attacking third.
The Bad
As I mentioned in my preamble, Tuesday was a frustrating evening for the most part. Dagenham defended well, but we do have to ask questions about Bromley’s attacking transitions.
The build-up was too deliberate and predictable and it essentially encouraged Dagenham to camp on the edge of their box.
At half time I tweeted the following:
Until the last 10 minutes, arguably little changed. If we're nitpicking, we could say that the equaliser only came about following the clash of heads between Omar Sownumi and Josh Walker. From my perspective, Dagenham switched off and failed to reset properly, allowing Bromley to profit from the first ball into the box following the restart.
But, and there is a but, this is part of the learning curve. And it’s also why many have been arguing in favour of our new system. That said, it will always be more than just playing a different formation. Inevitably, teams will cotton on to our revised tactics and Bromley will have to find new ways and means all over again.
Dagenham were the first side to really restrict us since the switch, although they created little of note themselves in order to do so.
By now, you’ve probably seen the video doing the rounds on social media. If not, it essentially highlights that we were treated to the usual National League officiating spectacle on Tuesday night.
I’ll admit, from my vantage point I couldn’t see if it was handball or not, but I do know that every single Bromley player in and around it instantly went up in arms. Gamesmanship exists, of course, but there are certain moments where players’ body language will tell you that it’s definitely a handball. This was one of those occasions.
The Daggers’ player immediately looked guilty and the Bromley players were 100% convinced. What bears explanation is how the referee’s assistant was unable to tell when he had a side-on view. Perhaps the best view in the stadium?
The referee had no idea, which is why he spent so long looking in the direction of his assistant. That assistant, for whatever reason, said "no".
I’ll admit that some decisions are difficult to make, but this one was a certified howler.
One bad one you can take. But the same assistant was inexplicably able to judge Adam Marriott’s potentially game-winning injury-time goal as being clearly offside. That call was much harder to make, yet the flag went up immediately. Make it make sense.
Sometimes, with National League officiating, you just have to throw up your hands and accept it’s a lottery.
The Ugly
The free-kick goal Bromley conceded was almost a carbon copy of the one we conceded against Aldershot Town on Saturday.
On an angle parallel with the 18-yard box, Josh Hare’s delivery had pace and whip and nestled into the bottom corner via a sea of moving bodies and static legs.
It looked soft, and Woodman said as much at full-time. What I’d like to know, however, is who is to blame for goals like that?
Is it the keeper getting down too slow? Are the defenders positioning themselves incorrectly? Should a defender have cleared the ball? Is that possible given the amount of pace on the delivery? Can those types of free kicks really be stopped if they are struck correctly?
I’ve watched it back again and again and I’m still not certain where to cast the blame. In the absence of an explanation, I have to say it’s Cookie’s error, but I’m willing to be corrected.
Get at me in the comments below.
Match ratings
Reice Charles-Cook (6)
Kellen Fisher (7)
Byron Webster (7)
Omar Sowunmi (7)
Besart Topalloj (7)
Billy Bingham (7)
James Vennings (7)
Harry Forster (6)
Corey Whitely (6)
Louis Dennis (6)
Michael Cheek (7)
Subs:
Mitchel Bergkamp for Billy Bingham 75 (7)
Ben Krauhaus for Harry Forster 46 (7)
Adam Marriott for Corey Whitely 67 (7)
I spoke with Andy post match to get his reflections on the game - have a listen to the recording below before you move on
Editor’s Footnote (sorry, it’s a big foot this week)
The thing that has consistently caught my eye in the last couple of games is that, in possession of the ball, our right and left backs carry the ball deep into the centre of the park. It’s so consistent that it’s clearly coached, but this is an interesting tactical call.
It bamboozles the opposition’s wide players and leaves them chasing inland. Better still, in order to nullify the threat, an opposing central midfielder is forced to step in, drawing them away from the Bromley central midfielder they’re matched up with. This creates space for that central midfielder, who is often the recipient of the pass.
So far, so good. But carrying the ball into the centre of the pitch like this causes the opposition to tighten up. Machel alludes to the Daggers camping in a tight pack on the edge of their box and this tactic exacerbates that. In fact, it encourages it.
Bromley’s wide players should be doing more with the lateral space, but I’ll come back to that.
For now, put yourself in the size 9s of the Bromley central midfielder who’s just received the ball from an inward-travelling wide-back. As the opposition closes in, you have three choices. 1) Thread a pin-point through-ball to anyone making a central run through the tight pack (difficulty: high). 2) Thread an angled pass if a wide player is making a run in behind (difficulty: high). 3: Pass the buck and play it backwards or sideways (difficulty: low).
Option 3 is the safe ‘possession-first’ call, but it creates a lot of negative and passive play. Machel called this out, too.
To alleviate this, Bromley’s wide players need to be more daring off the ball; darting for the byline or creating channels by pulling opposition defenders into very wide areas. But, in the last two games, they’ve been sitting in wide-central areas and waiting for the safe pass to come their way. Then, if they elected to cross the ball, it was either blocked by the first man or drifted into a very congested and static space.
In summary, it’s an interesting tactic, and I like it, but our wide players need to do more with the space or there will be a lot more stalemates to come.
Sorry, I rambled on a bit there. I’m not done, either.
In answer to Machel’s quandary about the free kick goal: As a former member of the Goalkeepers’ Union, it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.
From that position, a decent free kick taker will whip a ball towards the far corner with pace. As a goalkeeper, if you commit to the original flight path and it deviates, you’re stuffed. If you wait to react from said deviation and it doesn’t get a touch, you’re stuffed.
My solution was to position a defender just inside the centre of the six-yard box, slightly toward the front post. This sacrificed the offside trap, but gave a little extra protection in the flight path toward the back post, freeing me to wait for “said deviation”. It didn’t always work, and its success often hinged on how hung-over my blocking defender was, but it felt proactive.
Ultimately, defending a free kick from that area is a horrible undertaking. So, on behalf of the Goalkeepers’ Union, I blame whoever gave the free kick away in the first place.
Case closed?
Thanks for taking the time to read the match synopsis above.
Please note all photographs in this article are by Martin Greig - please follow him on Twitter here
All articles are edited by Peter Etherington you can link to him here
If you havent as yet make sure you read the other articles in the archive.
If you’d like to show an appreciation for the work that goes into this newsletter you can buy me a coffee through the link below.
You can also find Machel St Patrick Hewitt on Twitter - here
Most importantly of all subscribe to the newsletter to ensure you get these updates direct to your inbox.
Thanks for reading From Bromley with love! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
In regards to Daggers Goal. I blame the wall as they don't jump. Once that wall is set as the Keeper ideally you want the shot to go to your Near Post as you will have it covered. The wall is set to force the Free-Kick taker to Cookie's left. Any keeper will tell you how hard saving a shot when it bounces in front of you is. What doesn't help is the wall not jumping, players coming across you, so your view is partially blocked. The only nit-pick I have about Cookie’s is he's a little flat footed to react but that's most likely because he didn't see the shot until it was too late. (Let's be honest he's kept us in so many games). After the goal was scored you could see he was frustrated and it was most likely to do with the wall not jumping. To conclude the wall jumps Bromley win 1-0.
ICYMI:
Editor’s Footnote (sorry, it’s a big foot this week)
The thing that has consistently caught my eye in the last couple of games is that, in possession of the ball, our right and left backs carry the ball deep into the centre of the park. It’s so consistent that it’s clearly coached, but this is an interesting tactical call.
It bamboozles the opposition’s wide players and leaves them chasing inland. Better still, in order to nullify the threat, an opposing central midfielder is forced to step in, drawing them away from the Bromley central midfielder they’re matched up with. This creates space for that central midfielder, who is often the recipient of the pass.
So far, so good. But carrying the ball into the centre of the pitch like this causes the opposition to tighten up. Machel alludes to the Daggers camping in a tight pack on the edge of their box and this tactic exacerbates that. In fact, it encourages it.
Bromley’s wide players should be doing more with the lateral space, but I’ll come back to that.
For now, put yourself in the size 9s of the Bromley central midfielder who’s just received the ball from an inward-travelling wide-back. As the opposition closes in, you have three choices. 1) Thread a pin-point through-ball to anyone making a central run through the tight pack (difficulty: high). 2) Thread an angled pass if a wide player is making a run in behind (difficulty: high). 3: Pass the buck and play it backwards or sideways (difficulty: low).
We've seen a lot of Option 3. It's the safe ‘possession-first’ call, but it creates a lot of negative and passive play. Machel called this out, too.
To alleviate this, Bromley’s wide players need to be more daring off the ball; darting for the byline or creating channels by pulling opposition defenders into very wide areas. But, in the last two games, they’ve been sitting in wide-central areas and waiting for the safe pass to come their way. Then, if they elected to cross the ball, it was either blocked by the first man or drifted into a very congested and static space.
In summary, it’s an interesting tactic, and I like it, but our wide players need to do more with the space or there will be a lot more stalemates to come.
Sorry, I rambled on a bit there. I’m not done, either.
In answer to Machel’s quandary about the free kick goal: As a former member of the Goalkeepers’ Union, it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.
From that position, a decent free kick taker will whip a ball towards the far corner with pace. As a goalkeeper, if you commit to the original flight path and it deviates, you’re stuffed. If you wait to react from said deviation and it doesn’t get a touch, you’re stuffed.
My solution was to position a defender just inside the centre of the six-yard box, slightly toward the front post. This sacrificed the offside trap, but gave a little extra protection in the flight path toward the back post, freeing me to wait for “said deviation”. It didn’t always work, and its success often hinged on how hung-over my blocking defender was, but it felt proactive.
Ultimately, defending a free kick from that area is a horrible undertaking. So, on behalf of the Goalkeepers’ Union, I blame whoever gave the free kick away in the first place.
Case closed?