look what league we're in , most of our players have found their level ....[/quote]
In all honesty though, Elliot and a lot of our players could play at a very good championship standard, Elliot would be a very good keeper in the league above, Randolph may struggle to be first choice at most League 1 clubs
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]look what league we're in , most of our players have found their level ....
In all honesty though, Elliot and a lot of our players could play at a very good championship standard, Elliot would be a very good keeper in the league above, Randolph may struggle to be first choice at most League 1 clubs
Some of these players that "could play at a very good Championship standard" have never actually done so though, so I'm more inclined to agree with oohaah. If they were Championship standard, why were we relegated last season?!
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I can only imagine Randolph's attitude is not to Parky's liking. We saw it last year at Hereford, and if anyone saw his warm up at Carlisle, he looked so disinterested and like he didn't want to be there.....
Fair point re Hereford. I have a certain amount of sympathy for him though if he had the hump at Carlisle. Bit of a boot to the nether regions a loanee coming in.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I can only imagine Randolph's attitude is not to Parky's liking. We saw it last year at Hereford, and if anyone saw his warm up at Carlisle, he looked so disinterested and like he didn't want to be there.....
Fair point re Hereford. I have a certain amount of sympathy for him though if he had the hump at Carlisle. Bit of a boot to the nether regions a loanee coming in.
Would you have preferred Randolph to play had we got Iker Casillas on loan? Why is Ikeme being a loanee relevant? I appreciate Ikeme isn't in the same league as Casillas, but if Parky thinks Ikeme is better, it was the right decision to play him.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I can only imagine Randolph's attitude is not to Parky's liking. We saw it last year at Hereford, and if anyone saw his warm up at Carlisle, he looked so disinterested and like he didn't want to be there.....
Fair point re Hereford. I have a certain amount of sympathy for him though if he had the hump at Carlisle. Bit of a boot to the nether regions a loanee coming in.
Would you have preferred Randolph to play had we got Iker Casillas on loan? Why is Ikeme being a loanee relevant? I appreciate Ikeme isn't in the same league as Casillas, but if Parky thinks Ikeme is better, it was the right decision to play him.
You misunderstand me. The football decision is Parky's to make and fair enough.
However if you were Randolph how would you feel having been told effectively that you were crap yet still having to have your nose rubbed in it by helping your replacement warm up? That is why I have a certain amount of sympathy for him.
I completely understand why Randolph would be annoyed on Saturday and personally I would have to question parky's management because we are now going to have a negative influence in the dressing room until we sell him in January. Also he has to play on Saturday for we have no other eligible senior keeper, do you think he'll have the right attitude then? Parky obviously has no faith in the guy for whatever reason, but I think he's managed this situation very badly. Ikeme may be a better keeper, just like lita, cook etc were probably better players than we had ourselves in years gone by but should we have played them? No. parky is there to manage his resources as well as possible and create a winning team out of them and IMO he has managed this awfully. We now have to play a keeper who knows his manager has no faith in him, hardly the best way to get the best performance out of the lad is it? Meanwhile ikeme will go back to wolves in 3 months, whilst we're looking for a backup keeper to replace Randolph.
you can apply what allez les addicks says to Moo2 in my opinion. Moo2 only became disruptive after all the loanees came in, out and shook it all about and he became disillusioned. That too was bad man mangement in my opinion and it's ok to label Moots and maybe soon Randolph as bad eggs but they wern't to start with.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]you can apply what allez les addicks says to Moo2 in my opinion. Moo2 only became disruptive after all the loanees came in, out and shook it all about and he became disillusioned. That too was bad man mangement in my opinion and it's ok to label Moots and maybe soon Randolph as bad eggs but they wern't to start with.
Not too sure about that. Why did we get the right back loanees in in the first place if there wasn't already a problem with Moo2, be it a technical or personal issue?
isn't the real question as whether this is the best use of our wages budget? If we'd saved the wages on Ikme and Mooney we could actually add them together to get a decent striker on loan! We could have taken the small risk on Randolph who has always appeared pretty confident to me. WE could either have younster on bench or not had a goalkeeper on bench - bigger clubs than us have taken that miniscule risk!
[cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]isn't the real question as whether this is the best use of our wages budget? If we'd saved the wages on Ikme and Mooney we could actually add them together to get a decent striker on loan!
We could have taken the small risk on Randolph who has always appeared pretty confident to me. WE could either have younster on bench or not had a goalkeeper on bench - bigger clubs than us have taken that miniscule risk!
No way could we go with Randolph as the only senior fit keeper at the club. Binks is not anywhere near ready for the reserves let alone the first team.
So we spend all of our wages budget on this elusive "decent" striker, Randolph gets injured or suspended and we don't have the funds to replace him.
I think you are doing Mooney a disservice, there are plenty on here who have been impressed with his cameo appearances, surely we should take a proper look at him before writing him off to be replaced with a.n.other?.
Would you still be saying it was a miniscule risk if Randolph got sent off or injured in a match and we a) replaced him with a kid who ends up getting 5-6 goals smacked past him? b) replaced him with an outfield player who suffers the same fate?.
In the days of 7 seven subs going without a keeper is not an option.
People need to wise up and look where we are and what our budget is. Ikeme & Mooney are around our level budget wise and in terms of the sort of player we can expect to attract.
[cite]Posted By: Clem_Snide[/cite]Would you still be saying it was a miniscule risk if Randolph got sent off or injured in a match and we a) replaced him with a kid who ends up getting 5-6 goals smacked past him? b) replaced him with an outfield player who suffers the same fate?.
People would say parky is crap at planning and why are we going into a game with only one senior keeper...
[cite]Posted By: Clem_Snide[/cite]Would you still be saying it was a miniscule risk if Randolph got sent off or injured in a match and we a) replaced him with a kid who ends up getting 5-6 goals smacked past him? b) replaced him with an outfield player who suffers the same fate?.
People would say parky is crap at planning and why are we going into a game with only one senior keeper...
Wouldn't have been an issue in Steve Brown's day......
Reading Parky's comments about Randolph, he's more or less told him he doesn't have a future at the club. How can Randolph get a chance to push Elliot out of the starting XI when he's not given a chance when Rob does get injured? I wouldn't be surpised to see Randolph go on-loan or get a transfer in January and if so that means we'll have to sign a replacement and that means using money we don't have on a replacement keeper when our team might need strengthening elsewhere. The alternative is that Randolph is told he's staying until the summer and that means risking having to play a disaffected keeper.
I think we've gone away from the issue here. I've got no issue bringing in another keeper on loan to cover whilst Elliot is out, for as has been said, we can't have a 17 year old on the bench everyweek. What I do have an issue with is not playing our reserve keeper when our first keeper is out. We've spent money on Randolph all season on a new 1 year contract, but when we need him he's deemed not to be good enough. Tbh we might as well have just put a kid on the bench on about a third of Randolph's wages if the manager's going to treat him like he has. If we're not going to play Randolph now what's the point in him being at the club? The fact that Ikeme can't play in the cup makes Parky's management seem worse to me. Imo Parky should have said to Randolph he's got two games and then we'll see how he goes. As it is, Randolph and us know he's only playing on Saturday at Northwich because in Parky's mind we've not got anyone else......
For the record I've actually been quite impressed by Mooney. He looks like he wants to be on the pitch, makes decent runs and imo should be started over an obviously injured Burton. He's a good loan, obviously got a point to prove and wants to do well. Omosuzi on the other hand, is a pointless loan and very shortsighted. Richardson will be back by McDons, and we had to play Youga at right back for half hour on Saturday anyway, when I thought the reason we'd got him in was to avoid Youga playing out of position. I actually like Parky but his decision to loan Omosuzi and play Ikeme have worried me......
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I think we've gone away from the issue here. I've got no issue bringing in another keeper on loan to cover whilst Elliot is out, for as has been said, we can't have a 17 year old on the bench everyweek. What I do have an issue with is not playing our reserve keeper when our first keeper is out. We've spent money on Randolph all season on a new 1 year contract, but when we need him he's deemed not to be good enough. Tbh we might as well have just put a kid on the bench on about a third of Randolph's wages if the manager's going to treat him like he has. If we're not going to play Randolph now what's the point in him being at the club? The fact that Ikeme can't play in the cup makes Parky's management seem worse to me. Imo Parky should have said to Randolph he's got two games and then we'll see how he goes. As it is, Randolph and us know he's only playing on Saturday at Northwich because in Parky's mind we've not got anyone else......
1. If Randolph had got injured or sent off before the cup games - who would've gone in goal for the Cup games? Binks is barely ready for reserve team football.
2. If the opportunity arises to get a keeper who the manager thinks is better, why not use him instead? It's not like we signed Sasa Ilic on loan - Ikeme played well in the Championship last season.
3. You always need a backup keeper. That's what Randolph is.
Mooney...I've not seen enough of him to make any comment but as loan signings go it looks a good one. Plus notably Parky didn't throw him into the first team ahead of McLeod.
Omosuzi...that to me seems a sensible loan signing, Richardson is injured and may be out for a few games. Solly I don't think is up to being a regular starter as yet and while you might take a punt on a one-off start I wouldn't want to see him start two/three games in succession. The alternative is to switch Youga and bring in Basey at LB, again ok for a one-off match but not something I'd like to see in a stretch of games. Besides I'm sure Parky would have wanted a more experienced player but sometimes you have to take what you're offered.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Omosuzi...that to me seems a sensible loan signing, Richardson is injured and may be out for a few games. Solly I don't think is up to being a regular starter as yet and while you might take a punt on a one-off start I wouldn't want to see him start two/three games in succession. The alternative is to switch Youga and bring in Basey at LB, again ok for a one-off match but not something I'd like to see in a stretch of games. Besides I'm sure Parky would have wanted a more experienced player but sometimes you have to take what you're offered.
Solly most likely would have got a chance, but he's now injured for 3 months. That along with Richardson's injury was the reason for loaning Omozusi.
you make fair points but on point 1, by that logic we shouldn't play any of our big players ever. If an injury happens, like it has with Robbie, you deal with it when it occurs. We've got a contingency plan atm in Randolph and we're not using him. Therefore I would like to know what the point of having that contingency plan is. Surely the idea of having more than 11 players in a squad is that you can deal with at the very least 1 injury in each position?
On point 2, Ikeme may be better but the fact remains he can't play on Saturday, and now the guy who is has pretty much zero confidence and no reason to try and play well because he knows he'll be out of the team the week after whatever he does.
And on point 3, what's the point in this backup if it's never used even when needed? it's not going to be a long term solution but it should be fine to tide us over...
Black Forest Reds ->
on Omosuzi, we had to take him off after an hour. The fact we had to waste a substitution on a defender to get him off when chasing the game was imo bad. I agree that Solly isn't good enough for a sustained run in the team but Richardson supposedly only has a minor injury, and so we should be able to cover a short absence quite easily I would think.
It is as if isdecision to play the loanees was based on Carlisle, with no thought given to the wider picture.
(I'm won't repeat here what I have already posted about this on the "Parky Out?" thread).
[cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]Very very poor man management by Parky.
It is as if isdecision to play the loanees was based on Carlisle, with no thought given to the wider picture.
(I'm won't repeat here what I have already posted about this on the "Parky Out?" thread).
Disagree, if Parky thought Randolph was good enough for the first team, then he'd be playing in the first team. He doesn't so therefore logic dictates he gets in someone who he considers good enough. Ikeme also was MOM as voted by Charlton life.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]dabos ->
you make fair points but on point 1, by that logic we shouldn't play any of our big players ever. If an injury happens, like it has with Robbie, you deal with it when it occurs. We've got a contingency plan atm in Randolph and we're not using him. Therefore I would like to know what the point of having that contingency plan is. Surely the idea of having more than 11 players in a squad is that you can deal with at the very least 1 injury in each position?
The keeping position is obviously the most specialised position, so it requires a special consideration in terms of backup. You can't start with an outfield player in goal if your keeper is injured. I do see that my reasoning is a bit far fetched, Parky probably didn't use this as a reason for picking Ikeme. However, I still feel it's a relevant point.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]
On point 2, Ikeme may be better but the fact remains he can't play on Saturday, and now the guy who is has pretty much zero confidence and no reason to try and play well because he knows he'll be out of the team the week after whatever he does.
How do you know he has zero confidence? Why will he be out whatever he does? I think Parky would have no qualms using him in the league if he kept 2 clean sheets in the cup.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]
And on point 3, what's the point in this backup if it's never used even when needed? it's not going to be a long term solution but it should be fine to tide us over...
Like I said in point 2, if the opportunity arises to get someone better you use them instead. If we'd have only managed to get a poor keeper in on loan, Randolph would've played. So it's not that Randolph will never be used, Parky just took advantage of the loan situation.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Reading Parky's comments about Randolph, he's more or less told him he doesn't have a future at the club. How can Randolph get a chance to push Elliot out of the starting XI when he's not given a chance when Rob does get injured? .
obviously Randolph is not impressing in the ressies or training!
As I've said on another thread the other person that should really be worried is Robbie.
To my mind, in bringing in Ikeme and playing him, Parky has already made up his mind that he doesn't think Randolph is good enough. However, that is not to say that he hasn't already struck a gentleman's agreement with Wolves that Ikeme stays 'til the end of the season (subject to Wolves not having an outbreak of injured keepers) in which case the Wolves keeper will stay in goal and Robbie will be warming the bench.
[cite]Posted By: Addick Addict[/cite]To my mind, in bringing in Ikeme and playing him, Parky has already made up his mind that he doesn't think Randolph is good enough. However, that is not to say that he hasn't already struck a gentleman's agreement with Wolves that Ikeme stays 'til the end of the season (subject to Wolves not having an outbreak of injured keepers) in which case the Wolves keeper will stay in goal and Robbie will be warming the bench.
Does it not mean that Parky has made his mind up that Ikeme is better than Randolph, rather than that Randolph isn't good enough. Given we had to get a keeper in on loan, are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have got the best keeper available?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Reading Parky's comments about Randolph, he's more or less told him he doesn't have a future at the club. How can Randolph get a chance to push Elliot out of the starting XI when he's not given a chance when Rob does get injured? .
obviously Randolph is not impressing in the ressies or training!
When Parky took over he reckoned there was very little difference between our two young keepers. If one of them has now become unplayable then it's not a great reflection on the coaching.
I've backed Parky through tougher times than this but i have to say, I think he's got this one badly wrong. The Omusuzi deal made more sense, although I'd have preferred him to try and be a bit more creative with the resources already at his disposal first and I've no issue with the Wolves lad being loaned in as cover but Randolph had to have first dibs imo - Ikeme looks a solid enough keeper but it's not like we've signed Casillas or Buffon and for what it's worth I think dazzler has good potential.
We must hope this brings out a 'I'll bloddy well show em' spirit in Randolph rather than a 'F*ck it' attitude.
[cite]Posted By: Addick Addict[/cite]To my mind, in bringing in Ikeme and playing him, Parky has already made up his mind that he doesn't think Randolph is good enough. However, that is not to say that he hasn't already struck a gentleman's agreement with Wolves that Ikeme stays 'til the end of the season (subject to Wolves not having an outbreak of injured keepers) in which case the Wolves keeper will stay in goal and Robbie will be warming the bench.
Does it not mean that Parky has made his mind up that Ikeme is better than Randolph, rather than that Randolph isn't good enough. Given we had to get a keeper in on loan, are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have got the best keeper available?
I am suggesting that Randolph should have been given his chance. As a "Charlton" keeper who has waited for his chance he should have been given that opportunity rather than had his nose put out of joint. What exactly has the lad done wrong?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Reading Parky's comments about Randolph, he's more or less told him he doesn't have a future at the club. How can Randolph get a chance to push Elliot out of the starting XI when he's not given a chance when Rob does get injured? .
obviously Randolph is not impressing in the ressies or training!
When Parky took over he reckoned there was very little difference between our two young keepers. If one of them has now become unplayable then it's not a great reflection on the coaching.
Not really maybe one of the two knuckled down in training!
Comments
In all honesty though, Elliot and a lot of our players could play at a very good championship standard, Elliot would be a very good keeper in the league above, Randolph may struggle to be first choice at most League 1 clubs
Some of these players that "could play at a very good Championship standard" have never actually done so though, so I'm more inclined to agree with oohaah. If they were Championship standard, why were we relegated last season?!
Fair point re Hereford. I have a certain amount of sympathy for him though if he had the hump at Carlisle. Bit of a boot to the nether regions a loanee coming in.
Would you have preferred Randolph to play had we got Iker Casillas on loan? Why is Ikeme being a loanee relevant? I appreciate Ikeme isn't in the same league as Casillas, but if Parky thinks Ikeme is better, it was the right decision to play him.
You misunderstand me. The football decision is Parky's to make and fair enough.
However if you were Randolph how would you feel having been told effectively that you were crap yet still having to have your nose rubbed in it by helping your replacement warm up? That is why I have a certain amount of sympathy for him.
Not too sure about that. Why did we get the right back loanees in in the first place if there wasn't already a problem with Moo2, be it a technical or personal issue?
We could have taken the small risk on Randolph who has always appeared pretty confident to me. WE could either have younster on bench or not had a goalkeeper on bench - bigger clubs than us have taken that miniscule risk!
No way could we go with Randolph as the only senior fit keeper at the club. Binks is not anywhere near ready for the reserves let alone the first team.
So we spend all of our wages budget on this elusive "decent" striker, Randolph gets injured or suspended and we don't have the funds to replace him.
I think you are doing Mooney a disservice, there are plenty on here who have been impressed with his cameo appearances, surely we should take a proper look at him before writing him off to be replaced with a.n.other?.
Would you still be saying it was a miniscule risk if Randolph got sent off or injured in a match and we a) replaced him with a kid who ends up getting 5-6 goals smacked past him? b) replaced him with an outfield player who suffers the same fate?.
In the days of 7 seven subs going without a keeper is not an option.
People need to wise up and look where we are and what our budget is. Ikeme & Mooney are around our level budget wise and in terms of the sort of player we can expect to attract.
Wouldn't have been an issue in Steve Brown's day......
For the record I've actually been quite impressed by Mooney. He looks like he wants to be on the pitch, makes decent runs and imo should be started over an obviously injured Burton. He's a good loan, obviously got a point to prove and wants to do well. Omosuzi on the other hand, is a pointless loan and very shortsighted. Richardson will be back by McDons, and we had to play Youga at right back for half hour on Saturday anyway, when I thought the reason we'd got him in was to avoid Youga playing out of position. I actually like Parky but his decision to loan Omosuzi and play Ikeme have worried me......
1. If Randolph had got injured or sent off before the cup games - who would've gone in goal for the Cup games? Binks is barely ready for reserve team football.
2. If the opportunity arises to get a keeper who the manager thinks is better, why not use him instead? It's not like we signed Sasa Ilic on loan - Ikeme played well in the Championship last season.
3. You always need a backup keeper. That's what Randolph is.
Mooney...I've not seen enough of him to make any comment but as loan signings go it looks a good one. Plus notably Parky didn't throw him into the first team ahead of McLeod.
Omosuzi...that to me seems a sensible loan signing, Richardson is injured and may be out for a few games. Solly I don't think is up to being a regular starter as yet and while you might take a punt on a one-off start I wouldn't want to see him start two/three games in succession. The alternative is to switch Youga and bring in Basey at LB, again ok for a one-off match but not something I'd like to see in a stretch of games. Besides I'm sure Parky would have wanted a more experienced player but sometimes you have to take what you're offered.
you make fair points but on point 1, by that logic we shouldn't play any of our big players ever. If an injury happens, like it has with Robbie, you deal with it when it occurs. We've got a contingency plan atm in Randolph and we're not using him. Therefore I would like to know what the point of having that contingency plan is. Surely the idea of having more than 11 players in a squad is that you can deal with at the very least 1 injury in each position?
On point 2, Ikeme may be better but the fact remains he can't play on Saturday, and now the guy who is has pretty much zero confidence and no reason to try and play well because he knows he'll be out of the team the week after whatever he does.
And on point 3, what's the point in this backup if it's never used even when needed? it's not going to be a long term solution but it should be fine to tide us over...
Black Forest Reds ->
on Omosuzi, we had to take him off after an hour. The fact we had to waste a substitution on a defender to get him off when chasing the game was imo bad. I agree that Solly isn't good enough for a sustained run in the team but Richardson supposedly only has a minor injury, and so we should be able to cover a short absence quite easily I would think.
It is as if isdecision to play the loanees was based on Carlisle, with no thought given to the wider picture.
(I'm won't repeat here what I have already posted about this on the "Parky Out?" thread).
Disagree, if Parky thought Randolph was good enough for the first team, then he'd be playing in the first team. He doesn't so therefore logic dictates he gets in someone who he considers good enough. Ikeme also was MOM as voted by Charlton life.
The keeping position is obviously the most specialised position, so it requires a special consideration in terms of backup. You can't start with an outfield player in goal if your keeper is injured. I do see that my reasoning is a bit far fetched, Parky probably didn't use this as a reason for picking Ikeme. However, I still feel it's a relevant point.
How do you know he has zero confidence? Why will he be out whatever he does? I think Parky would have no qualms using him in the league if he kept 2 clean sheets in the cup.
Like I said in point 2, if the opportunity arises to get someone better you use them instead. If we'd have only managed to get a poor keeper in on loan, Randolph would've played. So it's not that Randolph will never be used, Parky just took advantage of the loan situation.
Exactly what I posted on here last week.
To my mind, in bringing in Ikeme and playing him, Parky has already made up his mind that he doesn't think Randolph is good enough. However, that is not to say that he hasn't already struck a gentleman's agreement with Wolves that Ikeme stays 'til the end of the season (subject to Wolves not having an outbreak of injured keepers) in which case the Wolves keeper will stay in goal and Robbie will be warming the bench.
Would Robbie deserve that?
Does it not mean that Parky has made his mind up that Ikeme is better than Randolph, rather than that Randolph isn't good enough. Given we had to get a keeper in on loan, are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have got the best keeper available?
We must hope this brings out a 'I'll bloddy well show em' spirit in Randolph rather than a 'F*ck it' attitude.
I am suggesting that Randolph should have been given his chance. As a "Charlton" keeper who has waited for his chance he should have been given that opportunity rather than had his nose put out of joint. What exactly has the lad done wrong?