[cite]Posted By: mart77[/cite]Did Bailey 100% play on the right on Saturday?
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Apparently for the first half hour, according to others, including the OS - then Pards changed it to 4-5-1 with Varney on the right wing
So the tactic worked then. We were 1-0 up at that point!
Bailey got crocked again tackling after moving back inside and was quite ineffective after that. Holland beavered away but bizarrely only looked like adding anything telling after moving to right back where he did quite well. Despite getting caught a couple of times, I thought Jonjo did ok and at least tried to pass constructively to a red shirt. He might have benefitted from the extra man in the second half once we went 4-5-1. Wasn't the ideal scenario for Ambrose coming back from injury as we were gradually getting turned over. He looked off 1st team pace but did at least contribute to some of our surprisingly good crosses - which weren't converted!
Well, Youga come on and at first played RB in place of Moo2.
Then Holland played RB.
Before that Bailey played right wing. Then Varney moved from striker to right wing. And then Ambrose played right wing, centre mid and right wing again.
And Bouazza gave a decent impression of the invisible man.
""Pardew you freak, the reason we lost was all your fault not the players, you switched to 4 5 1 and Varney out wide right when he's a striker and brought on a left back in place of Yassin, idiot!!""
I would add you played bailey out of position as well.
Well, usually I'm happy to let a man get on with the job he's paid to do - after all, you wouldn't want somebody outside of your own profession telling you how to do your own job.
But I confess I'm a bit puzzled here.
Nick Bailey had been headhunted for some time and finally brought to The Valley to fill a void within the team - to provide that physical presence and bite in the centre of the park; roughly Pards' own words.
Against Reading the week before, Bailey more or less ran the show in centre mid and in many peoples eyes, was outstanding.
Why, oh why, did Pards in the Preston match start him out wide - to cover Moo2?- at the expense of removing that "....physical presence and bite in the centre of the park"?
With Sam unfit, and Ambrose not ready to start, then Shelvey should have played there; and if Pards didn't consider Jonjo could play in a wide midfield covering Moo2, then he shouldn't have picked him. Or Moo2.
Pards said in his post match conference report that we were over run in midfield. Any rocket scientists out there? - it certainly doesn't seem to be Pards.
The Americans have a great phrase: ".....if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Bringing on a clearly not match fit Ambrose at half time no doubt added to our creative play, but any supporter could have told you that would leave Moo2 defensively exposed.
We know what that could lead to. And it did.
Preston scored their equaliser.
And then to sub Moo2 and bring on wrong footed Youga in that position defied all logic - which inevitably contributed to the cross that lead to Preston's winner.
Surely Semedo was the ideal replacement for Moo2, and would not have required Ambrose to track back in the same way?
Oh right sorry Oggy well that does seem a bit crazy then. Just come back a very expensive weekend in Dublin didnt take much notice of the game at Preston sadly.
To me, the obvious thing to do was to play Semedo at RB and Moo2 in Sams position. That way, if he wanted to change things, he could have pushed Semedo into midfield and Moo2 back to RB in a 4-5-1. I'm afraid that we will just have to accept Pards will make some odd decisions, by all accounts he did this at West Ham as well.
Completely agree, Oggy and Bing - but you're right too, GH, which is what makes him so blooming frustrating as a manager. He's as inconsistent as Bouazza!
It's the players I worry for - if we're confused, god knows what they are!!
[cite]Posted By: Weegie Addick[/cite]It's the players I worry for - if we're confused, god knows what they are!!
That's my main worry. If we had a squad of players who were extremely technically gifted and bright, Pards could make his changes with a chance that the players have the nous and skill to adapt. Unfortunately we have in the main, a bunch of numpties who need to do the same things day in day out.
The only players that we have who can be more adaptable are ZZ, Varney, Moo2 and Semedo (plus Racon when he's fit). So Pards forget the rest, if you are going to tinker, then tinker with those players and tell the rest to keep to what they know.
I don't really go for this scapegoat ballcocks one bit.
At Preston, 10 of the side that played so well against Reading started.
Out of that 11, just one minor positional change was made.
If by moving one player 10 yards to the right has a major detrimental impact on everyone's game, stopping strikers from scoring and defenders from picking up markers, then we are in major trouble.
It wasn't so much 'blaming' the manager, AFKA ...... but querying the logic behind his changes.
Neither was it 'moving one player 10 yards to the right' that was an issue in itself - but asking that particular player to fulfill a different role when in the previous match, he'd been the midfield fulcrum and driving force.
We had Holland trying to fulfill that task instead.
Consequently we were lightweight and had no ballwinner in the centre of the park - the job that Bailey was specifically bought to do.
Then after the match, Pards said himself that the midfield had been over run. Aaaagh!
Every man and his dog knows that Moo2 musn't be left defensively exposed, so that's exactly what happened after tactical and player changes.
And when he subbed Moo2, he brought on a wrong sided player that left us exposed again.
Surely Semedo was the logical sub to bring on?
As GH and others have pointed out, Pards got it right against Reading - and credit where it's due.
But what was he thinking at Preston?
I'm not keen on Moo2. A defender should be able to defend, then attack. He's all about going forward and looks clumsy as hell. I'd play Semedo at RB all the time. Or Cranie now.
I think people give him a chance because he's French and somehow that makes him a prospect.
If he was a youth team player people would be screaming for him to go out on loan etc..
So far this season he's given away a penalty against Reading with a clumsy hack on Doyle, and sliced the ball into a Preston player's path to give them a winner. Not good.
[cite]Posted By: Valley11[/cite]I'm not keen on Moo2.
A defender should be able to defend, then attack.
He's all about going forward and looks clumsy as hell.
I'd play Semedo at RB all the time. Or Cranie now.
I think people give him a chance because he's French and somehow that makes him a prospect.
If he was a youth team player people would be screaming for him to go out on loan etc..
So far this season he's given away a penalty against Reading with a clumsy hack on Doyle, and sliced the ball into a Preston player's path to give them a winner. Not good.
I thought it was Bouazza that sliced the ball towards Weaver for what I think was Preston's second goal. Is this what you are talking about and was it Moo2 and not Bouazza?
My first vist to Deepdale, adn I ended up choosing consolation beer afterwards over a visit to the football museum (which pleasingly featured the CAFC crest amongst the 10 or so club badges on teh banner outside).
On paper until you realise Varney isn't a goalscorer at Championship level, Holland isn't good enough to get into our team now even at League One level, neither is Basey. Looking back Weaver was eventually replaced by Elliot and Moutaouakil isn't reliable enough. Perhaps a better manager would have got more out of that 11 though.
Well out of that team, the only ones I'd want to see currently in a Charlton shirt are Bailey, Shelvey and perhaps Fortune. So well done, Phil Parkinson, it must be said...he's done well clearing out and seems to have brought people in with some considerable astuteness in difficult circs.
Relegation last season already no longer looks like a catastrophe but something that had to happen to allow us to find our heart again...
Good players but not a team.
No leader at the back (Hudson IMO not captain material) and a chippy fullback.
Midfield of one. Matt Holland was a good player but had his day many seasons ago.
Attack (what attack)
Comments
So the tactic worked then. We were 1-0 up at that point!
Then Holland played RB.
Before that Bailey played right wing. Then Varney moved from striker to right wing. And then Ambrose played right wing, centre mid and right wing again.
And Bouazza gave a decent impression of the invisible man.
""Pardew you freak, the reason we lost was all your fault not the players, you switched to 4 5 1 and Varney out wide right when he's a striker and brought on a left back in place of Yassin, idiot!!""
I would add you played bailey out of position as well.
But I confess I'm a bit puzzled here.
Nick Bailey had been headhunted for some time and finally brought to The Valley to fill a void within the team - to provide that physical presence and bite in the centre of the park; roughly Pards' own words.
Against Reading the week before, Bailey more or less ran the show in centre mid and in many peoples eyes, was outstanding.
Why, oh why, did Pards in the Preston match start him out wide - to cover Moo2?- at the expense of removing that
"....physical presence and bite in the centre of the park"?
With Sam unfit, and Ambrose not ready to start, then Shelvey should have played there; and if Pards didn't consider Jonjo could play in a wide midfield covering Moo2, then he shouldn't have picked him. Or Moo2.
Pards said in his post match conference report that we were over run in midfield. Any rocket scientists out there? - it certainly doesn't seem to be Pards.
The Americans have a great phrase: ".....if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Bringing on a clearly not match fit Ambrose at half time no doubt added to our creative play, but any supporter could have told you that would leave Moo2 defensively exposed.
We know what that could lead to. And it did.
Preston scored their equaliser.
And then to sub Moo2 and bring on wrong footed Youga in that position defied all logic - which inevitably contributed to the cross that lead to Preston's winner.
Surely Semedo was the ideal replacement for Moo2, and would not have required Ambrose to track back in the same way?
Oh, I don't know. I'm not a football manager.
If he was carrying a knock before the match and was unfit to play properly, then it surely begs the question whether he should have started at all?
It still does nothing to suggest that initial team selection and subsequent substitutions played out of position, carried much nous?
It's the players I worry for - if we're confused, god knows what they are!!
That's my main worry. If we had a squad of players who were extremely technically gifted and bright, Pards could make his changes with a chance that the players have the nous and skill to adapt. Unfortunately we have in the main, a bunch of numpties who need to do the same things day in day out.
The only players that we have who can be more adaptable are ZZ, Varney, Moo2 and Semedo (plus Racon when he's fit). So Pards forget the rest, if you are going to tinker, then tinker with those players and tell the rest to keep to what they know.
At Preston, 10 of the side that played so well against Reading started.
Out of that 11, just one minor positional change was made.
If by moving one player 10 yards to the right has a major detrimental impact on everyone's game, stopping strikers from scoring and defenders from picking up markers, then we are in major trouble.
Blaming the manager is all too easy.
Neither was it 'moving one player 10 yards to the right' that was an issue in itself - but asking that particular player to fulfill a different role when in the previous match, he'd been the midfield fulcrum and driving force.
We had Holland trying to fulfill that task instead.
Consequently we were lightweight and had no ballwinner in the centre of the park - the job that Bailey was specifically bought to do.
Then after the match, Pards said himself that the midfield had been over run. Aaaagh!
Every man and his dog knows that Moo2 musn't be left defensively exposed, so that's exactly what happened after tactical and player changes.
And when he subbed Moo2, he brought on a wrong sided player that left us exposed again.
Surely Semedo was the logical sub to bring on?
As GH and others have pointed out, Pards got it right against Reading - and credit where it's due.
But what was he thinking at Preston?
A defender should be able to defend, then attack.
He's all about going forward and looks clumsy as hell.
I'd play Semedo at RB all the time. Or Cranie now.
I think people give him a chance because he's French and somehow that makes him a prospect.
If he was a youth team player people would be screaming for him to go out on loan etc..
So far this season he's given away a penalty against Reading with a clumsy hack on Doyle, and sliced the ball into a Preston player's path to give them a winner. Not good.
I thought it was Bouazza that sliced the ball towards Weaver for what I think was Preston's second goal. Is this what you are talking about and was it Moo2 and not Bouazza?
Did anyone go in? Is it any good?
Weaver - Dundee Utd
Moutaouakil - Motherwelll
Basey - Our bench
Fortune - Unattached
Hudson - Cardiff
Shelvey - Our first 11
Holland - Unattached
Bailey - Our first 11
Bouazza - Blackpool
Gray - Barnsley
Varney - Sheff Wed (on loan from Derby)
Team then really doesn't have a feeling of being solid, reliable or balanced like our current first 11.
God "oi adam... 2 words.... pardew and alan..."
Adam "cheers dude"
Relegation last season already no longer looks like a catastrophe but something that had to happen to allow us to find our heart again...
No leader at the back (Hudson IMO not captain material) and a chippy fullback.
Midfield of one. Matt Holland was a good player but had his day many seasons ago.
Attack (what attack)