If Pratley was part of the back 3 v Barnsley, I'm sure he would have stepped up and onto the oncoming midfielder (his natural game), meaning Lockyer could have stayed put and Pearce/Sarr choose to cover or stay wide (whichever their autopilot mode would take them).
Some posters have highlighted Cullen missing his tackle but there's always a chance that will happen. Credit to the Barnsley player.
We paid the price because both wing backs were caught up field at the same time, leaving both Barnsley wide runners not picked up. Matthews was haring back best he could but really, Alfie didn't read the situation quickly enough.
However, IMO the situation could have been better resolved by Lockyer not coming forward to challenge the Barnsley player in possession. We lost shape.
Lockyer should have stayed back able to cover inside the leftside Barnsley runner and with Matthews sprinting back to position, could still be in position to cover centrally, allowing Pearce to jockey the ballplayer, make the challenge or take one for the team. Naby should never have moved across centrally and left the goalscorer unchallenged.
My verdict: Lockyer should keep the defensive line. The shape was lost from that point.
Was it Bristol City where Lockyer cost us a goal with a crazy challenge near the half way line on the touchline, leaving the attacker free to run in on goal?
If Pratley was part of the back 3 v Barnsley, I'm sure he would have stepped up and onto the oncoming midfielder (his natural game), meaning Lockyer could have stayed put and Pearce/Sarr choose to cover or stay wide (whichever their autopilot mode would take them).
Some posters have highlighted Cullen missing his tackle but there's always a chance that will happen. Credit to the Barnsley player.
We paid the price because both wing backs were caught up field at the same time, leaving both Barnsley wide runners not picked up. Matthews was haring back best he could but really, Alfie didn't read the situation quickly enough.
However, IMO the situation could have been better resolved by Lockyer not coming forward to challenge the Barnsley player in possession. We lost shape.
Lockyer should have stayed back able to cover inside the leftside Barnsley runner and with Matthews sprinting back to position, could still be in position to cover centrally, allowing Pearce to jockey the ballplayer, make the challenge or take one for the team. Naby should never have moved across centrally and left the goalscorer unchallenged.
My verdict: Lockyer should keep the defensive line. The shape was lost from that point.
Was it Bristol City where Lockyer cost us a goal with a crazy challenge near the half way line on the touchline, leaving the attacker free to run in on goal?
Can't be sure, Killer ...... but he does sometimes have a rush of blood, with a reckless gung-ho approach. He has to keep the defensive shape otherwise his co-defenders are pulled apart - as we saw with Naby with the Barnsley goal.
IMO if the Barnsley player in possession rides a tackle outside the box in that situation, he needs bringing down. Our man needs to risk a card. That could never have been Lockyer, because he had been booked already ..... he can't risk another booking.
He was totally the wrong man to make that particular challenge. I would have expected Pearce to do that. And wipe the fella out if necessary. And in any case, with Matthews retrieving his position, Lockyer holding the line would have still been near enough to cover.
Interesting analysis. I wish we had more of this on CL rather than much of the crap shouted on here.
One extra thing I would like to throw in is our change of shape/personal in 2nd half. In the 1st half Pratley was always around and if Cullen couldn't deal with something he was there (and vice versa). In the 2nd half Pratley, presumably under instructions from Bowyer, played further forward and wasn't around to clear up
The other thing I would add is despite starting a good thread the use of the word tragic is ridiculous. Our defensive record is actually pretty good when compared when compared to most of our peers.
In terms of the final phase - the 3 on 3 - I'd agree with those who say the blame has to go to Lockyer, but it would be fascinating to know what the coaches at the club would say. I thought at the time if he'd stayed with the guy to his right, then they could have contained all three of them, but maybe that's not what they're told to do in that situation??
It can seem quite common that players (not just Charlton) seem to ball watch, leaving attackers in bags of space.
The finish was superb from Woodrow. But the subs on Saturday seemed to create a loss of energy, when the opposite was needed.
In terms of the final phase - the 3 on 3 - I'd agree with those who say the blame has to go to Lockyer, but it would be fascinating to know what the coaches at the club would say. I thought at the time if he'd stayed with the guy to his right, then they could have contained all three of them, but maybe that's not what they're told to do in that situation??
It can seem quite common that players (not just Charlton) seem to ball watch, leaving attackers in bags of space.
The finish was superb from Woodrow. But the subs on Saturday seemed to create a loss of energy, when the opposite was needed.
Good points.
I certainly wouldn't "blame" Lockyer (I don't look to blame anyone) ...... but I thought his action caused the defensive shape to be lost. And the other CBs to unravel.
The other thing I would add is despite starting a good thread the use of the word tragic is ridiculous. Our defensive record is actually pretty good when compared when compared to most of our peers.
That's the way I see it. Seems like some don't agree but had this been before the Fulham game I'm not so sure the reaction would be the same.
We've had one clean sheet since 20th October.
We are fifth from bottom on clean sheets. (Not a coincidence).
Our goalkeeper has the highest amount of saves per match in the league.
We've kept scoring throughout our injury crisis but could never outscore the leaks, which were nearly always schoolboy errors. In my opinion our defensive record is why we find ourselves down here. The one thing you could say for it, is that we have never shipped 4-5 goals and so our GD is deceptively fine. We have great fighting spirit and character which means we never fold and give up.
Again, I am not a Sarr hater. I would have him as my main CB with Lockyer given the choice.
I think he’d spotted the offside. Which btw it was. Had the shot gone in rather than hitting the post it would been ruled out. Source: Charlton Live.
Josh Parker was the ‘spectator’. Check the photos of Bauer’s Wembley winner. Parker was rooted to the spot, not looking for a rebound. There were a couple of other goals during the season where he did the same thing. Not a natural goal scorer, although I still think he did a decent job when thrown into the fray.
Interesting analysis. I wish we had more of this on CL rather than much of the crap shouted on here.
One extra thing I would like to throw in is our change of shape/personal in 2nd half. In the 1st half Pratley was always around and if Cullen couldn't deal with something he was there (and vice versa). In the 2nd half Pratley, presumably under instructions from Bowyer, played further forward and wasn't around to clear up
The other thing I would add is despite starting a good thread the use of the word tragic is ridiculous. Our defensive record is actually pretty good when compared when compared to most of our peers.
If Pratley was part of the back 3 v Barnsley, I'm sure he would have stepped up and onto the oncoming midfielder (his natural game), meaning Lockyer could have stayed put and Pearce/Sarr choose to cover or stay wide (whichever their autopilot mode would take them).
We paid the price because both wing backs were caught up field at the same time, leaving both Barnsley wide runners not picked up. Matthews was haring back best he could but really, Alfie didn't read the situation quickly enough.
I think this is one of the situations that make us seem defensively suspect. We too often push both wing backs quite far up field, which is great every now and then in order to play a switched ball over the 18 yard box and then play the cross through a re-adjusting defence.
We don't do that though, instead it's like we try to have the extra man pull people out of position and that ends up with our own players out of position on counters.
A centre back will always struggle against a mobile, pacey forward or winger.
One full/wing back should always be ready to make it back to support the defence.
In my opinion our defensive record is why we find ourselves down here. The one thing you could say for it, is that we have never shipped 4-5 goals and so our GD is deceptively fine. We have great fighting spirit and character which means we never fold and give up.
I just looked at the League table ...... of the 12 lower half table teams, only 3 have a better defensive record than Charlton. Surely it would have been even better without 3 months of injury crisis?
We conceded on Saturday because we got caught on the turnover. That happens to all teams.
Barnsley came at us afterwards because the defensive line was too deep and the midfield over-run. Now there's something for Bowyer & Jacko to analyse.
@Oggy Red No you said we had a better defensive record than others and I was just wondering how you defined defensive record. Goal difference? Goals conceeded?
Ah, beg your pardon, Chunes ........ goals conceded.
Also, by looking at goals scored and goals conceded together, it can indicate how a team is set up.
Wigan, for example, have conceded 44 (similar to our 42) but scored only 28 ..... I can conclude they are set up defensively but at cost to creating scoring chances.
On the other hand, QPR in 16th place have conceded 54 (12 more than us), but scored 47; so more emphasis on attack than defence?
When you desperately need to stop the rot and get a win on the board the only analysis that is needed after the game is Charlton got 2 goals, Barnsley got 1 goal. How and why and who did or did not do something doesn’t matter, we didn’t lose and we didn’t draw. It wasn’t a day for perfection. Build on that win with another win...and repeat.
Oh right close the thread then we won so no one have a opinion
I had really hoped we could have signed a superior centre half during the window. I may have mentioned that before it shut? ;-)
Hopefully' it wont affect us too much in the run in but it is something we are going to need to look at moving forward.
I love Sarr. I love Pearce. I love Lockyer. But play any two or three of them together and you are asking for trouble. This goal clearly shows that. In certain situations they need constant telling what to do. They are not leaders, but able sidekicks to a central General. Think along the lines of Costa or maybe even Youds.
Ah, beg your pardon, Chunes ........ goals conceded.
Also, by looking at goals scored and goals conceded together, it can indicate how a team is set up.
Wigan, for example, have conceded 44 (similar to our 42) but scored only 28 ..... I can conclude they are set up defensively but at cost to creating scoring chances.
On the other hand, QPR in 16th place have conceded 54 (12 more than us), but scored 47; so more emphasis on attack than defence?
Ah right. I was looking at those stats the other day. It does make quite confusing reading. For instance Derby have a worse goal difference yet are up in 13th. Not quite sure what to make of that.
Ah, beg your pardon, Chunes ........ goals conceded.
Also, by looking at goals scored and goals conceded together, it can indicate how a team is set up.
Wigan, for example, have conceded 44 (similar to our 42) but scored only 28 ..... I can conclude they are set up defensively but at cost to creating scoring chances.
On the other hand, QPR in 16th place have conceded 54 (12 more than us), but scored 47; so more emphasis on attack than defence?
Ah right. I was looking at those stats the other day. It does make quite confusing reading. For instance Derby have a worse goal difference yet are up in 13th. Not quite sure what to make of that.
I've said elsewhere that our goals are inefficiently distributed!
Too many narrow defeats (2-1, 1-0) when we've always been in the game but lost, when it would be better for the points total if we lost those games 3-0 and 4-0, but converted a couple of our 2-2 draws into a 2-1 or 3-2 win!
The other thing I would add is despite starting a good thread the use of the word tragic is ridiculous. Our defensive record is actually pretty good when compared when compared to most of our peers.
That's the way I see it. Seems like some don't agree but had this been before the Fulham game I'm not so sure the reaction would be the same.
We've had one clean sheet since 20th October.
We are fifth from bottom on clean sheets. (Not a coincidence).
Our goalkeeper has the highest amount of saves per match in the league.
We've kept scoring throughout our injury crisis but could never outscore the leaks, which were nearly always schoolboy errors. In my opinion our defensive record is why we find ourselves down here. The one thing you could say for it, is that we have never shipped 4-5 goals and so our GD is deceptively fine. We have great fighting spirit and character which means we never fold and give up.
Ah, beg your pardon, Chunes ........ goals conceded.
Also, by looking at goals scored and goals conceded together, it can indicate how a team is set up.
Wigan, for example, have conceded 44 (similar to our 42) but scored only 28 ..... I can conclude they are set up defensively but at cost to creating scoring chances.
On the other hand, QPR in 16th place have conceded 54 (12 more than us), but scored 47; so more emphasis on attack than defence?
Ah right. I was looking at those stats the other day. It does make quite confusing reading. For instance Derby have a worse goal difference yet are up in 13th. Not quite sure what to make of that.
If you're going to lose, lose big. If you're going to win, win small.
And here in the picture below, we can see in training how Charlton practice defensive situations.
You will note all our defenders are standing ball watching, with no attempt at marking an opponent. For example, Naby Sarr has completely lost his man; just the one midfielder has sprinted 10 yards to make a challenge - while the other CM has switched off completely.
You will all be pleased to see how the training ground routines are perfectly executed on match days.
Comments
Really good thread BTW.
He has to keep the defensive shape otherwise his co-defenders are pulled apart - as we saw with Naby with the Barnsley goal.
IMO if the Barnsley player in possession rides a tackle outside the box in that situation, he needs bringing down. Our man needs to risk a card.
That could never have been Lockyer, because he had been booked already ..... he can't risk another booking.
He was totally the wrong man to make that particular challenge. I would have expected Pearce to do that. And wipe the fella out if necessary.
And in any case, with Matthews retrieving his position, Lockyer holding the line would have still been near enough to cover.
One extra thing I would like to throw in is our change of shape/personal in 2nd half. In the 1st half Pratley was always around and if Cullen couldn't deal with something he was there (and vice versa). In the 2nd half Pratley, presumably under instructions from Bowyer, played further forward and wasn't around to clear up
It can seem quite common that players (not just Charlton) seem to ball watch, leaving attackers in bags of space.
The finish was superb from Woodrow. But the subs on Saturday seemed to create a loss of energy, when the opposite was needed.
I certainly wouldn't "blame" Lockyer (I don't look to blame anyone) ...... but I thought his action caused the defensive shape to be lost.
And the other CBs to unravel.
We've had one clean sheet since 20th October.
We are fifth from bottom on clean sheets. (Not a coincidence).
Our goalkeeper has the highest amount of saves per match in the league.
We've kept scoring throughout our injury crisis but could never outscore the leaks, which were nearly always schoolboy errors. In my opinion our defensive record is why we find ourselves down here. The one thing you could say for it, is that we have never shipped 4-5 goals and so our GD is deceptively fine. We have great fighting spirit and character which means we never fold and give up.
Excellent.
We don't do that though, instead it's like we try to have the extra man pull people out of position and that ends up with our own players out of position on counters.
A centre back will always struggle against a mobile, pacey forward or winger.
One full/wing back should always be ready to make it back to support the defence.
I just looked at the League table ...... of the 12 lower half table teams, only 3 have a better defensive record than Charlton.
Surely it would have been even better without 3 months of injury crisis?
We conceded on Saturday because we got caught on the turnover.
That happens to all teams.
Barnsley came at us afterwards because the defensive line was too deep and the midfield over-run.
Now there's something for Bowyer & Jacko to analyse.
Also, by looking at goals scored and goals conceded together, it can indicate how a team is set up.
Wigan, for example, have conceded 44 (similar to our 42) but scored only 28 ..... I can conclude they are set up defensively but at cost to creating scoring chances.
On the other hand, QPR in 16th place have conceded 54 (12 more than us), but scored 47; so more emphasis on attack than defence?
I may have mentioned that before it shut? ;-)
Hopefully' it wont affect us too much in the run in but it is something we are going to need to look at moving forward.
I love Sarr. I love Pearce. I love Lockyer. But play any two or three of them together and you are asking for trouble.
This goal clearly shows that.
In certain situations they need constant telling what to do.
They are not leaders, but able sidekicks to a central General.
Think along the lines of Costa or maybe even Youds.
Too many narrow defeats (2-1, 1-0) when we've always been in the game but lost, when it would be better for the points total if we lost those games 3-0 and 4-0, but converted a couple of our 2-2 draws into a 2-1 or 3-2 win!
You will note all our defenders are standing ball watching, with no attempt at marking an opponent.
For example, Naby Sarr has completely lost his man; just the one midfielder has sprinted 10 yards to make a challenge - while the other CM has switched off completely.
You will all be pleased to see how the training ground routines are perfectly executed on match days.