Obviously we don't know the full story and day to day goings on, but i don't really see how Sandgaard can look at the situation and decide that a squad of around 20 players (many of whom have played entire careers at a higher level), including some who are internationals, are collectively the problem and one man, the manager is in the right.
It's got to be a pretty unique (not that word again) situation whereby a club owner decides to back one man over 20, especially when it's pretty common knowledge that in football it's generally the players who have the power.
Sandgaard is basically saying 'Bowyer is right, i stand by him, you're all shit and most of you will be out of the door before him'. An extremely dangerous thing to do when there's a third of the season remaining and on the face of it the squad have given up playing for him and we still need more points to avoid relegation.
Your first paragraph is somewhat strange, what makes you think there are 20 players that see Bowyer as being to blame for the current situation.........I’ll bet you there aren’t.
BUT that does seem to be how Bowyer views it/is framing it. He's said, expressly, that he thinks he's a good manager and he's telling everyone all the right things. In this case, then by definition all of those players collectively ignoring him or not understanding him ARE the problem.
Which, yes, is pretty damn strange. But again... What Bowyer does seem to (seriously?) be implying.
Think you are seeing things that aren’t there. I’m not suggesting there aren’t some players disappointed in him but there will be others that are not. One thing is for certain though.....the team that runs out on the first day of next season will have virtually no resemblance whatsoever to the one we have now.......whether Bowyer is still with us or not.
Obviously we don't know the full story and day to day goings on, but i don't really see how Sandgaard can look at the situation and decide that a squad of around 20 players (many of whom have played entire careers at a higher level), including some who are internationals, are collectively the problem and one man, the manager is in the right.
It's got to be a pretty unique (not that word again) situation whereby a club owner decides to back one man over 20, especially when it's pretty common knowledge that in football it's generally the players who have the power.
Sandgaard is basically saying 'Bowyer is right, i stand by him, you're all shit and most of you will be out of the door before him'. An extremely dangerous thing to do when there's a third of the season remaining and on the face of it the squad have given up playing for him and we still need more points to avoid relegation.
Your first paragraph is somewhat strange, what makes you think there are 20 players that see Bowyer as being to blame for the current situation.........I’ll bet you there aren’t.
I think you've misread my post.
I'm not saying 20 players blame Bowyer. I'm saying that by sticking with Bowyer, Sandgaard is effectively saying the squad are the problem, and the manager is not.
For me that's unprecedented. I can't remember a situation where following a string of dreadful results, with a team plummeting down the league, and a squad who look like the majority are disinterested and not playing for the manager...........that club's owner backed the manager over an entire squad of players.
Obviously we don't know the full story and day to day goings on, but i don't really see how Sandgaard can look at the situation and decide that a squad of around 20 players (many of whom have played entire careers at a higher level), including some who are internationals, are collectively the problem and one man, the manager is in the right.
It's got to be a pretty unique (not that word again) situation whereby a club owner decides to back one man over 20, especially when it's pretty common knowledge that in football it's generally the players who have the power.
Sandgaard is basically saying 'Bowyer is right, i stand by him, you're all shit and most of you will be out of the door before him'. An extremely dangerous thing to do when there's a third of the season remaining and on the face of it the squad have given up playing for him and we still need more points to avoid relegation.
Your first paragraph is somewhat strange, what makes you think there are 20 players that see Bowyer as being to blame for the current situation.........I’ll bet you there aren’t.
I think you've misread my post.
I'm not saying 20 players blame Bowyer. I'm saying that by sticking with Bowyer, Sandgaard is effectively saying the squad are the problem, and the manager is not.
For me that's unprecedented. I can't remember a situation where following a string of dreadful results, with a team plummeting down the league, and a squad who look like the majority are disinterested and not playing for the manager...........that club's owner backed the manager over an entire squad of players.
I was just about to write the same thing. Sometimes people don't read what is written as it doesn't fit there agenda.
Obviously we don't know the full story and day to day goings on, but i don't really see how Sandgaard can look at the situation and decide that a squad of around 20 players (many of whom have played entire careers at a higher level), including some who are internationals, are collectively the problem and one man, the manager is in the right.
It's got to be a pretty unique (not that word again) situation whereby a club owner decides to back one man over 20, especially when it's pretty common knowledge that in football it's generally the players who have the power.
Sandgaard is basically saying 'Bowyer is right, i stand by him, you're all shit and most of you will be out of the door before him'. An extremely dangerous thing to do when there's a third of the season remaining and on the face of it the squad have given up playing for him and we still need more points to avoid relegation.
Your first paragraph is somewhat strange, what makes you think there are 20 players that see Bowyer as being to blame for the current situation.........I’ll bet you there aren’t.
I think you've misread my post.
I'm not saying 20 players blame Bowyer. I'm saying that by sticking with Bowyer, Sandgaard is effectively saying the squad are the problem, and the manager is not.
For me that's unprecedented. I can't remember a situation where following a string of dreadful results, with a team plummeting down the league, and a squad who look like the majority are disinterested and not playing for the manager...........that club's owner backed the manager over an entire squad of players.
I was just about to write the same thing. Sometimes people don't read what is written as it doesn't fit there agenda.
So he's quite wasteful and greedy in front of goal? 61 shots for 12 goals! = 5.08 shots per goal. 105 minutes per goal
Compared to the player everyone seems to believe is useless and unthreatening up front. Washington 30 shots for 7 goals.= 4.28 shots per goal. 253 minutes per goal
Now we know Chuks is a better player, but hopefully if we can get Washington shooting more, he'll break the 10-12 goal tally this season.
With Stockley also scoring 4 goals from 13 shots around 3.25 shots per goal 154 minutes per goal
(Schwartz has 1 goal from just two or three shots so let's say 2.5 shots per goal. ) 364 minutes per goal
We have four strikers good enough to get out of this league. Problems are elsewhere
100% - IMO any combination of 2 of our current strikers are good enough to score enough if the rest of the team could cut the mustard.
What are you guys basing the certainty that Schwartz is good enough on? I’m not saying he isn’t, I’ve just seen very little proof in his (albeit limited) opportunities so far.
We have four strikers good enough to get out of this league. Problems are elsewhere
100% - IMO any combination of 2 of our current strikers are good enough to score enough if the rest of the team could cut the mustard.
What are you guys basing the certainty that Schwartz is good enough on? I’m not saying he isn’t, I’ve just seen very little proof in his (albeit limited) opportunities so far.
We need to create the right opportunities, but I think (having watched tons of highlights, which obviously paint the whole picture) that Schwartz is a good instinctive finisher with the right service, he doesn't like to drop deep for the ball, he prefers to play off the shoulder. With the right service he'll toe poke quite a few and slap some decently hard shots in the back of the net too.
He doesn't rely on pace or trickery. He is a finisher.
These are his goals from last season with a europop tune to dance along to.
We have four strikers good enough to get out of this league. Problems are elsewhere
100% - IMO any combination of 2 of our current strikers are good enough to score enough if the rest of the team could cut the mustard.
What are you guys basing the certainty that Schwartz is good enough on? I’m not saying he isn’t, I’ve just seen very little proof in his (albeit limited) opportunities so far.
Frankly - instinct, gut feeling, hope? Watching too many highlight videos, getting hyped and not wanting to be disappointed?
Not much Charlton evidence ofc currently as almost everytime he's been on the pitch he's barely touched the ball, but as Dazzler said his ability to finish is unquestionable given the highlights and the goal against Rochdale (plus his wrongfully disallowed goal) but whenever he's on currently we're not getting the ball to his feet anywhere near the box (or at all).
We have four strikers good enough to get out of this league. Problems are elsewhere
100% - IMO any combination of 2 of our current strikers are good enough to score enough if the rest of the team could cut the mustard.
What are you guys basing the certainty that Schwartz is good enough on? I’m not saying he isn’t, I’ve just seen very little proof in his (albeit limited) opportunities so far.
We need to create the right opportunities, but I think (having watched tons of highlights, which obviously paint the whole picture) that Schwartz is a good instinctive finisher with the right service, he doesn't like to drop deep for the ball, he prefers to play off the shoulder. With the right service he'll toe poke quite a few and slap some decently hard shots in the back of the net too.
He doesn't rely on pace or trickery. He is a finisher.
These are his goals from last season with a europop tune to dance along to.
Certainly feeds off decent crosses across the box, if we can improve that side of our game while he’s on the pitch, then he should score a lot more goals for us.
If you haven't found the time to listen to this, do it.
It's bloody brilliant listening, Benjy asks good questions and Brown gives so much insight, it feels like you understand so many decisions the manager has made and how players SHOULD react.
Sure there's every chance he'll struggle in the championship, but he is good enough at this level. I am sure people expected Bamford to fail in the Championship and then the PL.
Watch him adjust to allow the keeper to palm it out to him, should the shot be saved:
"Conor does an awful amount of work that supporters don't see.
When Charlton are out of position, he takes the opposing sides deepest midfielder, effectively taking them out of the game.
When they are in possession, he makes probably 10 runs in the channel, he might only be played in twice, but he never stops making those runs.
He then might miss a shot and that's what is remembered."
He said loads more than that about Conor, but it was really nice to hear a pro making the points some of us have.
Difficult when we can't see the whole pitch.
I have been living abroad for 9 years now and when I watch games online and all of you lot are going to games, my opinion on a player's performance is often so different. Now we're all watching on a screen, we're not that far apart. Does make such a difference.
I think some fans only look at what a player does with the ball at his feet which perhaps explains the OTT love of Sarr and OTT hate of Pratley from a few.
Washington is another prime example of that and also why just using shots/mins/xg doesn't give a full story.
I like the way Benjy says "Charlton" with lots of emphasis on the r, and almost another syllable after it - chaRRRRulton. Unique.
Good podcast, much enjoyed it - the insight Brownie gives is fascinating to a football ignoramus like me. Another I found surprisingly insightful when doing co-commentary was Jason Pearce, who talked a lot of sense and can clearly read a game very well.
Comments
I’m not suggesting there aren’t some players disappointed in him but there will be others that are not.
One thing is for certain though.....the team that runs out on the first day of next season will have virtually no resemblance whatsoever to the one we have now.......whether Bowyer is still with us or not.
I'm not saying 20 players blame Bowyer. I'm saying that by sticking with Bowyer, Sandgaard is effectively saying the squad are the problem, and the manager is not.
For me that's unprecedented. I can't remember a situation where following a string of dreadful results, with a team plummeting down the league, and a squad who look like the majority are disinterested and not playing for the manager...........that club's owner backed the manager over an entire squad of players.
Sometimes people don't read what is written as it doesn't fit there agenda.
Compared to the player everyone seems to believe is useless and unthreatening up front. Washington 30 shots for 7 goals.= 4.28 shots per goal. 253 minutes per goal
Now we know Chuks is a better player, but hopefully if we can get Washington shooting more, he'll break the 10-12 goal tally this season.
With Stockley also scoring 4 goals from 13 shots around 3.25 shots per goal 154 minutes per goal
(Schwartz has 1 goal from just two or three shots so let's say 2.5 shots per goal. ) 364 minutes per goal
He doesn't rely on pace or trickery. He is a finisher.
These are his goals from last season with a europop tune to dance along to.
Not much Charlton evidence ofc currently as almost everytime he's been on the pitch he's barely touched the ball, but as Dazzler said his ability to finish is unquestionable given the highlights and the goal against Rochdale (plus his wrongfully disallowed goal) but whenever he's on currently we're not getting the ball to his feet anywhere near the box (or at all).
Feed the Shwartz and he will score.
It's bloody brilliant listening, Benjy asks good questions and Brown gives so much insight, it feels like you understand so many decisions the manager has made and how players SHOULD react.
When Charlton are out of position, he takes the opposing sides deepest midfielder, effectively taking them out of the game.
When they are in possession, he makes probably 10 runs in the channel, he might only be played in twice, but he never stops making those runs.
He then might miss a shot and that's what is remembered."
He said loads more than that about Conor, but it was really nice to hear a pro making the points some of us have.
I have been living abroad for 9 years now and when I watch games online and all of you lot are going to games, my opinion on a player's performance is often so different. Now we're all watching on a screen, we're not that far apart. Does make such a difference.
Met him a few times and he's a nice chap. Even got him signed up to Bromley Addicks.
Looking forward to his article about the museum.
Washington is another prime example of that and also why just using shots/mins/xg doesn't give a full story.