I think I've used a bit of artistic license about the beginning of the year for the effect of contrast - but I was concerned. It wasn't losing, it was that by and large we looked averse to attacking. Possession and attacking aren't the same thing.
I think in retrospect, the foundation was clearly being laid but I think the players struggled to both do what they told and also use their own instinct and thus going to a simpler way of playing freed them up a bit.
I remember really enjoying the first Burton game as even though it wasn't great, we actually took some risks.
What we've seen eventually is that it all came together but I think the truth is, Critch also needed to get the balance right and learn how to take risks which he did, very, very well.
I know you don't think Gaz Maz was that important but I think his attitude was massive in turning us round. Getting some nous on the pitch who can play a situation (as opposed to just follow a plan) transformed us up front (once we shifted to 442 as Gaz at the middle of a 3 was absurd) and again, it's credit to Critchley for recognizing that when he could easily have stuck to his apparent principles. I think now Gaz Maz is an impact/game holding sub but then, I think he was such a huge influence in getting the players to think for themselves. (As of course were the likes of Garbutt, Dougall etc)
I also reflected on how pragmatic and quietly ruthless Critch has been. He gambled on Notts then he was gone. Woodburn was obviously supposed to be a big deal but gone in Jan. Dan Kemp, gone.. Sarkic barely played and shipped out. Bez didn't cut it and gone. Robson couldn't get back in for love nor money and finally Sullay who whatever people think about his manner, had a very productive year, gone...