With five substitutes allowed, it seems a good tactic to designate two players to come off at half-time.
So Bogle / Gilbey are instructed to use all their energy making it difficult for the opposing defenders - in particular force them run around as much as possible.
Then Chucks and Williams are the perfect pair of "finishers". Managers seem reluctant to embrace the idea of starters and finishers but maybe the game is going this way.
Of course, if Chuck is "out for a couple of months with a hamstring problem", I'll have to think again.
It could be argued that Famewo being injured actually helped us. Pratley playing centre half meant that we didn't have both him and Watson playing in midfield when we only need one.
Purrington was on long enough to out skill the defender in the box and then get on the end of the move after Jonny's flick.
Fans never miss Purrington's mistakes but don't seem to give him credit when he does good things.
Sage did TBF.
Of course. But we were 4-2 up and it's injury time against a deflated, defeated opponent. I missed that when reviewing the game and writing my post-match.
I've never once scapegoated a player. Ever. And I will not do so. I also don't think I'm even subconsciously unfair toward him. I actually don't think I'll ever be able to criticise Purrington too much, purely because he scored in the playoff final.
Purrington has his strengths and weaknesses. I think he doesn't do well against pace, but he is decent otherwise. He scores his fair share, and has chances too, for a full back. The squad is better for having him in it.
Ben Purrington has scored more goals for us than Solly did and in almost 7x less appearances. He has his flaws like anyone whose name isn’t Yann Kermorgant but he’s a good footballer and a good player for us to have in our squad.
I was thinking as the clock ticked past 60 minutes yesterday that we really needed a goal soon. We were playing well, but if it went beyond 70 Wimbledon would start to sniff victory and we would revert to the frantic, disjointed patterns we have seen when chasing games lately.
Step up two much criticised players...
As much as Aneke and Williams changed the overall dynamic game of the game (and I so want Jonny Williams to succeed at Charlton), it was Watson and Maddison who created the crucial second and third goals.
Their 1-2 to open up a packed and set defence (nine AFC players in the box as the ball fell to Watson) for the second was as beautiful as it was effective, and Maddison’s dinked ball to the also excellent Gunter for the third was incisive and perfectly weighted. Maddison had found more space this second time, having cushioned the ball coming across his body. He was picked out by Watson who had regained control following kick off and had two of the three Charlton touches before Gunter was played in.
Maddison had shown good signs against MK Dons and he played well yesterday in the early stages (although I worried he would tire and lose interest), but the most impressive thing for me was his central role in prising open a defence with the mentality to preserve a lead. Isn’t there a stat about how rarely we come from behind in the recent past? I can only think of Bristol City last December. We certainly haven’t looked like doing so this season.
It wasn’t the Hollywood balls that made Maddison effective yesterday, but a smart, calm football brain, quick simple balls and being in positions to impact the game and create actual goals at the time goals were most needed.
Purrington was on long enough to out skill the defender in the box and then get on the end of the move after Jonny's flick.
Fans never miss Purrington's mistakes but don't seem to give him credit when he does good things.
Sage did TBF.
Of course. But we were 4-2 up and it's injury time against a deflated, defeated opponent. I missed that when reviewing the game and writing my post-match.
I've never once scapegoated a player. Ever. And I will not do so. I also don't think I'm even subconsciously unfair toward him. I actually don't think I'll ever be able to criticise Purrington too much, purely because he scored in the playoff final.
Paddy, I enjoy your bullet points review and TBF it was only a cameo from Ben Purrington yesterday but it was amazing that he started and finished the move. Players off the shackles can relax and play. Being 4-2 up helps but I have seen him try that before but shot wide when by the post.
Pleased also that you are the same as me and never Scapegoat. I will support a player during a game and then highlight their good and bad points. Constructive criticism and praise where ever possible. Even Bogle and Gilbey who are struggling to establish any consistent good form in the team at present.
I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury.
For me it was not a major improvement, or at least not for as long as you mention. I won't compare it to the MK Dons game because they were just the better side.
But after the first 20 minutes the way we played in possession was no different to Burton or Shrewsbury. We didn't lose the ball at the back like we did against Burton, but that's because Wimbledon didn't press us like they did - and we didn't look as likely to concede as against Shrewsbury but Wimbledon didn't have any pace to hurt us.
However once Wimbledon changed it up in that first half and stopped us playing through JFC and Maddison we slipped back into the same predictable patterns of play - passing along the back line, and cutting back when we advanced up the pitch due to lack of options and movement.
However the moment the second half started, even before the subs, this all changed. I'm not sure what we did, though I feel it might be to do with the full backs being more attacking, but we played with alot more pace and purpose and there were so many more options.
Well, one of the joys of football is that relatively sane and intelligent people can watch exactly the same thing and reach quite different conclusions
I respect yours and @AFKAs views but I felt our passing was crisper, there was more movement around the pitch, some good balls into the channels etc. If Chuks had been on instead of Bogle I think things would have gone much better. I'd score the first half performance (excepting the mad 5/10 minutes) a 6/10 and the second half a 9/10, so definitely a huge step up.
I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury.
For me it was not a major improvement, or at least not for as long as you mention. I won't compare it to the MK Dons game because they were just the better side.
But after the first 20 minutes the way we played in possession was no different to Burton or Shrewsbury. We didn't lose the ball at the back like we did against Burton, but that's because Wimbledon didn't press us like they did - and we didn't look as likely to concede as against Shrewsbury but Wimbledon didn't have any pace to hurt us.
However once Wimbledon changed it up in that first half and stopped us playing through JFC and Maddison we slipped back into the same predictable patterns of play - passing along the back line, and cutting back when we advanced up the pitch due to lack of options and movement.
However the moment the second half started, even before the subs, this all changed. I'm not sure what we did, though I feel it might be to do with the full backs being more attacking, but we played with alot more pace and purpose and there were so many more options.
Well, one of the joys of football is that relatively sane and intelligent people can watch exactly the same thing and reach quite different conclusions
I respect yours and @AFKAs views but I felt our passing was crisper, there was more movement around the pitch, some good balls into the channels etc. If Chuks had been on instead of Bogle I think things would have gone much better. I'd score the first half performance (excepting the mad 5/10 minutes) a 6/10 and the second half a 9/10, so definitely a huge step up.
Exactly. And it's nice to be able to discuss opposing views in a positive and productive way without people thinking you've insulted their family honour because you don't necessarily agree.
I don't think Bogle had a terrible half. He is quiet skilful and strong, and he does not try to hide - but I do agree that in that first half if we had Chuks movement we certainly would have been stronger.
That was good big performance from the boys in a big game. Great to play in front of the supporters focus is on Tuesday now. Buzzing for my roomie @jwills93too
Great team result, just what they deserved. Pleased as punch. Coverage on valley live was excellent. Well worth a tenner. The emotion of Thomas towards Charlton during half time chat was plain to see. Onwards and upwards.
Is this available on video anywhere or can someone give details of what was said. Many thanks.
I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury.
I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.
Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.
So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.
We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.
Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds. But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally.
I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury.
I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.
Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.
So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.
We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.
Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds. But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally.
Just my take.
Heavily deflected goal? What!?
Their number 22 stuck out his leg. It looked like it clipped him but I didn’t think it changed the trajectory of the ball! My Eyes are bad so I might not be the best person to comment!
I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury.
I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.
Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.
So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.
We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.
Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds. But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally.
Just my take.
Heavily deflected goal? What!?
Watch the goal again, it does look on replay as though it takes a heavy nick off the defender when Washington shoots
Surprised you haven't heard of him. he comes from Kent but has a Welsh grandad and spent his whole career at Palace. Lovely little player on his day who get fouled as much as Jack Grealish. Nicest man in football.
I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury.
I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.
Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.
So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.
We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.
Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds. But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally.
Just my take.
It's been the plan all season. Keep it tight try and stay level (if you haven't nicked a goal) and then take off Bogle and another under performer and bring on Chucks and another to win the game in the last 30+stoppage time.
And yes Washington's shot was deflected. I think the goalie may well have saved it, if it hadn't looped up and over him. Still a great effort from Washington.
Comments
So Bogle / Gilbey are instructed to use all their energy making it difficult for the opposing defenders - in particular force them run around as much as possible.
Then Chucks and Williams are the perfect pair of "finishers". Managers seem reluctant to embrace the idea of starters and finishers but maybe the game is going this way.
Of course, if Chuck is "out for a couple of months with a hamstring problem", I'll have to think again.
I've never once scapegoated a player. Ever. And I will not do so. I also don't think I'm even subconsciously unfair toward him. I actually don't think I'll ever be able to criticise Purrington too much, purely because he scored in the playoff final.
I was thinking as the clock ticked past 60 minutes yesterday that we really needed a goal soon. We were playing well, but if it went beyond 70 Wimbledon would start to sniff victory and we would revert to the frantic, disjointed patterns we have seen when chasing games lately.
Step up two much criticised players...
As much as Aneke and Williams changed the overall dynamic game of the game (and I so want Jonny Williams to succeed at Charlton), it was Watson and Maddison who created the crucial second and third goals.
Their 1-2 to open up a packed and set defence (nine AFC players in the box as the ball fell to Watson) for the second was as beautiful as it was effective, and Maddison’s dinked ball to the also excellent Gunter for the third was incisive and perfectly weighted. Maddison had found more space this second time, having cushioned the ball coming across his body. He was picked out by Watson who had regained control following kick off and had two of the three Charlton touches before Gunter was played in.
Maddison had shown good signs against MK Dons and he played well yesterday in the early stages (although I worried he would tire and lose interest), but the most impressive thing for me was his central role in prising open a defence with the mentality to preserve a lead. Isn’t there a stat about how rarely we come from behind in the recent past? I can only think of Bristol City last December. We certainly haven’t looked like doing so this season.
It wasn’t the Hollywood balls that made Maddison effective yesterday, but a smart, calm football brain, quick simple balls and being in positions to impact the game and create actual goals at the time goals were most needed.
Paddy, I enjoy your bullet points review and TBF it was only a cameo from Ben Purrington yesterday but it was amazing that he started and finished the move.
Players off the shackles can relax and play.
Being 4-2 up helps but I have seen him try that before but shot wide when by the post.
Pleased also that you are the same as me and never Scapegoat. I will support a player during a game and then highlight their good and bad points. Constructive criticism and praise where ever possible.
Even Bogle and Gilbey who are struggling to establish any consistent good form in the team at present.
I respect yours and @AFKAs views but I felt our passing was crisper, there was more movement around the pitch, some good balls into the channels etc. If Chuks had been on instead of Bogle I think things would have gone much better. I'd score the first half performance (excepting the mad 5/10 minutes) a 6/10 and the second half a 9/10, so definitely a huge step up.
I don't think Bogle had a terrible half. He is quiet skilful and strong, and he does not try to hide - but I do agree that in that first half if we had Chuks movement we certainly would have been stronger.
Many thanks.
What!?
Surprised you haven't heard of him.
he comes from Kent but has a Welsh grandad and spent his whole career at Palace. Lovely little player on his day who get fouled as much as Jack Grealish.
Nicest man in football.
Keep it tight try and stay level (if you haven't nicked a goal) and then take off Bogle and another under performer and bring on Chucks and another to win the game in the last 30+stoppage time.
And yes Washington's shot was deflected. I think the goalie may well have saved it, if it hadn't looped up and over him.
Still a great effort from Washington.