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
I was sitting right in front of it, I could see and hear the deflection. Still a great strike, but it probably wouldn’t have gone in without the extra elevation caused by that slight touch.
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.
.... 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.
I've always thought this ........ surely it's Bowyer's preferred modus operandi? We never seem to kick off a match with all guns blazing. Invariably we start with the intention of being a compact defensive unit, don't give anything away and nick a goal on the counter. If we do, we cling on to that lead, rinse and repeat.
If we haven't made a breakthrough or chasing the game then last 30 mins, bring on the cavalry to snatch a result. You could say it's because Williams and Aneke don't appear to have 90 mins in them - so use them to best advantage when opponents are tiring and the game opens up.
I guess it's Bowyer's way of getting the best out of a limited squad lacking pace, especially those with a need to be managed carefully.
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.
.... 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.
I've always thought this ........ surely it's Bowyer's preferred modus operandi? We never seem to kick off a match with all guns blazing. Invariably we start with the intention of being a compact defensive unit, don't give anything away and nick a goal on the counter. If we do, we cling on to that lead, rinse and repeat.
If we haven't made a breakthrough or chasing the game then last 30 mins, bring on the cavalry to snatch a result. You could say it's because Williams and Aneke don't appear to have 90 mins in them - so use them to best advantage when opponents are tiring and the game opens up.
I guess it's Bowyer's way of getting the best out of a limited squad lacking pace, especially those with a need to be managed carefully.
The only problem with this (if it has been LB's tactics) is that it has not worked 20 times that we have fallen behind. Once, twice or even half a dozen times I can understand but TWENTY. Starting off with your "weaker" players with the knowledge that the last 20 times you have conceded first you haven't managed to turn it around (and I think in those 20 games only managed a couple of draws) means that the plan clearly needs a rethink. It worked yesterday, but that was once in 21 times since Boxing Day last year. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
For context, away at Ipswich just 2 weeks ago we started with Aneke & won 2-0.
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!
They certainly are.......you’ve just posted on Tesco’s Home Delivery link???
He went to school in Chislehurst - Coopers - so maybe he's a fan?
He is my mates mate (one of them turn outs!). Safe to say he isn’t a Charlton fan.
So what was he doing there? Odd.
Sky got him there to raise awareness for their rainbow laces events. Safe to say it worked as it's been trending on twitter all evening.
I might be calling this entirely wrong so please don't give me pelters but I thought it was a bit odd given the cause it is promoting.
Tom Allen is a comedian and admittedly has no interest or knowledge in football.
Would it not have been a better strategy to have a gay commentator who was a genuine football fan/ knowledgeable on the game?
Admittedly I am only going on the twitter clip and comments on here but it seems to me it was a bit of a caricature camp bloke which hails back to the stereotype that many homosexual men probably want to move away from being perceived as based on years of stereotyping and clichés...i.e. a camp bloke being a hoot and knowing nothing about the game...seems quite counterproductive to the message of rainbow laces and the hackneyed cliches that have probably led to the need for such campaigns over the years.
Maybe I am calling this massively wrong and/ or looking into it far too much but it just seems weird why you would get a comedian who knows zilch about the game to turn up on that day of all days to commentate because he happens to be a gay man....it sort of trivialises the serious issue of homophobia in the game maybe and would have perhaps been more in line with the aim by getting a gay celebrity football fan who was into football knew their stuff and wasn't camp.
Not a dig at Tom either as he is quite funny at times on some of the stuff I've seen him on but it just felt a bit weird yesterday and sort of similar to having a female fan commenting on players' legs or other tired cliche/ stereotypes
Happy to be educated if I am being ignorant/ missed the point but that was just my initial instinct.
I have watched some of the commentary online as I watched the game on Valley Pass. It was a bit different, but mainly because Allen is a comedian rather than him being gay. I thought his commentary for Williams was funny enough, which is his job.
He went to school in Chislehurst - Coopers - so maybe he's a fan?
He is my mates mate (one of them turn outs!). Safe to say he isn’t a Charlton fan.
So what was he doing there? Odd.
Sky got him there to raise awareness for their rainbow laces events. Safe to say it worked as it's been trending on twitter all evening.
I might be calling this entirely wrong so please don't give me pelters but I thought it was a bit odd given the cause it is promoting.
Tom Allen is a comedian and admittedly has no interest or knowledge in football.
Would it not have been a better strategy to have a gay commentator who was a genuine football fan/ knowledgeable on the game?
Admittedly I am only going on the twitter clip and comments on here but it seems to me it was a bit of a caricature camp bloke which hails back to the stereotype that many homosexual men probably want to move away from being perceived as based on years of stereotyping and clichés...i.e. a camp bloke being a hoot and knowing nothing about the game...seems quite counterproductive to the message of rainbow laces and the hackneyed cliches that have probably led to the need for such campaigns over the years.
Maybe I am calling this massively wrong and/ or looking into it far too much but it just seems weird why you would get a comedian who knows zilch about the game to turn up on that day of all days to commentate because he happens to be a gay man....it sort of trivialises the serious issue of homophobia in the game maybe and would have perhaps been more in line with the aim by getting a gay celebrity football fan who was into football knew their stuff and wasn't camp.
Not a dig at Tom either as he is quite funny at times on some of the stuff I've seen him on but it just felt a bit weird yesterday and sort of similar to having a female fan commenting on players' legs or other tired cliche/ stereotypes
Happy to be educated if I am being ignorant/ missed the point but that was just my initial instinct.
He went to school in Chislehurst - Coopers - so maybe he's a fan?
He is my mates mate (one of them turn outs!). Safe to say he isn’t a Charlton fan.
So what was he doing there? Odd.
Sky got him there to raise awareness for their rainbow laces events. Safe to say it worked as it's been trending on twitter all evening.
I might be calling this entirely wrong so please don't give me pelters but I thought it was a bit odd given the cause it is promoting.
Tom Allen is a comedian and admittedly has no interest or knowledge in football.
Would it not have been a better strategy to have a gay commentator who was a genuine football fan/ knowledgeable on the game?
Admittedly I am only going on the twitter clip and comments on here but it seems to me it was a bit of a caricature camp bloke which hails back to the stereotype that many homosexual men probably want to move away from being perceived as based on years of stereotyping and clichés...i.e. a camp bloke being a hoot and knowing nothing about the game...seems quite counterproductive to the message of rainbow laces and the hackneyed cliches that have probably led to the need for such campaigns over the years.
Maybe I am calling this massively wrong and/ or looking into it far too much but it just seems weird why you would get a comedian who knows zilch about the game to turn up on that day of all days to commentate because he happens to be a gay man....it sort of trivialises the serious issue of homophobia in the game maybe and would have perhaps been more in line with the aim by getting a gay celebrity football fan who was into football knew their stuff and wasn't camp.
Not a dig at Tom either as he is quite funny at times on some of the stuff I've seen him on but it just felt a bit weird yesterday and sort of similar to having a female fan commenting on players' legs or other tired cliche/ stereotypes
Happy to be educated if I am being ignorant/ missed the point but that was just my initial instinct.
Spot on. I like Tom Allen, but having him there yesterday for this particular campaign was like having a Black and White Minstrels band do a turn in the centre circle at half time of red white and black day.
Can't believe people thought we were that poor in the first half. We we decent (and the better side) except for 10 minute spell just before half time. However we certainly stepped it up second half and then withe subs stepped it up again. Having said that best player on the pitch first half was Pigot. Superb exhibition of how to play as CF even ignoring his goal. Impressive the way he didn't celebrate when he scored. How some of the crowd were slagging him off I don't know. Would love to have him back in January. Only real downside of today was seeing Chucks limp off after the warm down holding his hamstring. Don't expect to see him Tuesday chaps!
Don't tell Covered end that Bogle's got to play 90 minutes against Bristol Rovers as CE said he's the worse striker he's seen in 50 years at the valley !
Not sure that's true as we've had some poor strikers over the years (as well as some crackers)
I wouldn't even say Bogle is our worst striker in the last 5yrs😉
I am not sure Bogle is even the worst striker of 2020.
He went to school in Chislehurst - Coopers - so maybe he's a fan?
He is my mates mate (one of them turn outs!). Safe to say he isn’t a Charlton fan.
So what was he doing there? Odd.
Sky got him there to raise awareness for their rainbow laces events. Safe to say it worked as it's been trending on twitter all evening.
I might be calling this entirely wrong so please don't give me pelters but I thought it was a bit odd given the cause it is promoting.
Tom Allen is a comedian and admittedly has no interest or knowledge in football.
Would it not have been a better strategy to have a gay commentator who was a genuine football fan/ knowledgeable on the game?
Admittedly I am only going on the twitter clip and comments on here but it seems to me it was a bit of a caricature camp bloke which hails back to the stereotype that many homosexual men probably want to move away from being perceived as based on years of stereotyping and clichés...i.e. a camp bloke being a hoot and knowing nothing about the game...seems quite counterproductive to the message of rainbow laces and the hackneyed cliches that have probably led to the need for such campaigns over the years.
Maybe I am calling this massively wrong and/ or looking into it far too much but it just seems weird why you would get a comedian who knows zilch about the game to turn up on that day of all days to commentate because he happens to be a gay man....it sort of trivialises the serious issue of homophobia in the game maybe and would have perhaps been more in line with the aim by getting a gay celebrity football fan who was into football knew their stuff and wasn't camp.
Not a dig at Tom either as he is quite funny at times on some of the stuff I've seen him on but it just felt a bit weird yesterday and sort of similar to having a female fan commenting on players' legs or other tired cliche/ stereotypes
Happy to be educated if I am being ignorant/ missed the point but that was just my initial instinct.
The "proper" football reporter at The Valley with Tom Allen, Mark McAdam, is also gay. The pair teamed up last year for a trip to a West Ham match for Sky Sports.
It's all been said on here. I just wanted to highlight what a really good game Maddison had. He has vision and can unlock defences. That pass to Gunter for the Johnny Williams goal was sublime. Playing him in that 'free' role made a big difference yesterday. Well done Lee Bowyer. Our use of the width, especially with Gunter playing in his preferred position, also made all the difference.
Thomas must have loved that as he's said he likes free flowing, attacking football. What a great game for him to see.
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.
I can’t understand this view that we played along the back 4 in the first half. I can’t remember a backward pass by Pratley and almost every pass was forward by all the defenders. And I am talking first half. Can’t wait for the passing stats. I sat there amazed at the change of play from previous games. Everything was forward and positive. The movement front those in front of the back line is something I have criticised, but this was not the case in this game. I thought we were positive throughout.
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.
I can’t understand this view that we played along the back 4 in the first half. I can’t remember a backward pass by Pratley and almost every pass was forward by all the defenders. And I am talking first half. Can’t wait for the passing stats. I sat there amazed at the change of play from previous games. Everything was forward and positive. The movement front those in front of the back line is something I have criticised, but this was not the case in this game. I thought we were positive throughout.
The pass maps you have just quoted clearly show all the passes along the back, together with the backward passes. Although I grant you it wasn't as many as the recent games.
Brilliant result but like some thought the first half performance was same as the recent levels of nothingness , thankfully Wimbledon were appallingly negative and tried to sit back and we started firing again in the second half . Gunter will be player of the year, he’s different gravy in his rightful (back) position . I always think we’ve got a better performance in us and that we are nowhere near our max but results are what matters and that gave us a good injection of life in the arm and the league is pony so we can afford not to be on it and still win . Would love to see a decent performance and follow up on Tuesday against another team in the bottom half . The fans were ten times more improved from the walking dead of the other night and got behind the team well ,even when there wasn’t a following wind , so FairPlay to em all . Love the support TS got he is our special one .
I’ve said since near the beginning of the season we will lose in the play offs this season and nothing so far has changed my mind, be prepared .
Brilliant performance JFC man of match for me. I was disappointed to see Gunter starting instead of Matthew’s but what a performance so more positive think he got down wing more in this game than all season.
I would love to see one of those average touch maps they do, especially of Watson's first and second half comparisons. I think he is wasted at the base for 90 minutes although it's probably the only way he can get through the number of games.
Comments
I've always thought this ........ surely it's Bowyer's preferred modus operandi? We never seem to kick off a match with all guns blazing.
Invariably we start with the intention of being a compact defensive unit, don't give anything away and nick a goal on the counter. If we do, we cling on to that lead, rinse and repeat.
If we haven't made a breakthrough or chasing the game then last 30 mins, bring on the cavalry to snatch a result.
You could say it's because Williams and Aneke don't appear to have 90 mins in them - so use them to best advantage when opponents are tiring and the game opens up.
I guess it's Bowyer's way of getting the best out of a limited squad lacking pace, especially those with a need to be managed carefully.
For context, away at Ipswich just 2 weeks ago we started with Aneke & won 2-0.
I might be calling this entirely wrong so please don't give me pelters but I thought it was a bit odd given the cause it is promoting.
Tom Allen is a comedian and admittedly has no interest or knowledge in football.
Would it not have been a better strategy to have a gay commentator who was a genuine football fan/ knowledgeable on the game?
Admittedly I am only going on the twitter clip and comments on here but it seems to me it was a bit of a caricature camp bloke which hails back to the stereotype that many homosexual men probably want to move away from being perceived as based on years of stereotyping and clichés...i.e. a camp bloke being a hoot and knowing nothing about the game...seems quite counterproductive to the message of rainbow laces and the hackneyed cliches that have probably led to the need for such campaigns over the years.
Maybe I am calling this massively wrong and/ or looking into it far too much but it just seems weird why you would get a comedian who knows zilch about the game to turn up on that day of all days to commentate because he happens to be a gay man....it sort of trivialises the serious issue of homophobia in the game maybe and would have perhaps been more in line with the aim by getting a gay celebrity football fan who was into football knew their stuff and wasn't camp.
Not a dig at Tom either as he is quite funny at times on some of the stuff I've seen him on but it just felt a bit weird yesterday and sort of similar to having a female fan commenting on players' legs or other tired cliche/ stereotypes
Happy to be educated if I am being ignorant/ missed the point but that was just my initial instinct.
The movement front those in front of the back line is something I have criticised, but this was not the case in this game. I thought we were positive throughout.
Gunter will be player of the year, he’s different gravy in his rightful (back) position .
I always think we’ve got a better performance in us and that we are nowhere near our max but results are what matters and that gave us a good injection of life in the arm and the league is pony so we can afford not to be on it and still win .
Would love to see a decent performance and follow up on Tuesday against another team in the bottom half .
The fans were ten times more improved from the walking dead of the other night and got behind the team well ,even when there wasn’t a following wind , so FairPlay to em all .
Love the support TS got he is our special one .
I’ve said since near the beginning of the season we will lose in the play offs this season and nothing so far has changed my mind, be prepared .
I would love to see one of those average touch maps they do, especially of Watson's first and second half comparisons. I think he is wasted at the base for 90 minutes although it's probably the only way he can get through the number of games.