Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Rumours Rumours - Summer 2021 edition (Deadline Day from p814)
Comments
-
That player meant to have been signed yesterday is dragging on abit👀....4
-
That's fair but you'd expect him to be better this season. I'd certainly look at options but we need a LB and I'd definitely welcome him back.J BLOCK said:
And? He was brought in to play, the opposition didn’t care if he was 18 or not.Oggy Red said:
Maatsen was an 18 year old kid with no experience of men's football.nelsonsleftfoot said:Maatsen was a disappointment.
I wouldn’t have him back personally.0 -
Not fussed either way about Maatsen. Last season he was probably a 6/10 on average, i (maybe ambitiously) think we can do better.0
-
One in soon
You choose definition of soon5 -
You asked has the game changed since x happened. And I said no but x isn't an example that proved what you said it did.addick1956 said:
I also said Gomez and Konsa. Stop splitting hairs to try to prove a point Djiksteel was the last one in in the 16-20 range who I could remember. Stop looking for confirmation bias .Cafc43v3r said:
I chose Dijksteel because that's who you said. Yes 20 when he made his debut. Not 20 when he became our first choice right back. Which is what I said!!!!!!!!!!!addick1956 said:
In his 20's. That I a sweeping statement. He has been gone 2 years and he is only 24. He was 20 at the time of his debut. 22 when he left.Cafc43v3r said:
No but he was in his 20s and his 3rd year of men's football before he actually became our first choice right back. Bloode.addick1956 said:
Why are you asking such a stupid question. For a start it is extremely disingenuous and designed to try to pick on me. Nobody critisised others for the same view but because I extrapolated back to what you consider pre history it is irrelevant.ValleyGary said:
So you don’t think the games changed in the last 50-60 years?addick1956 said:
I included modern players and past players are relevant. Why do u think nothing counts unless you were around at the time.Oggy Red said:
That's because quoting footballers back to the 1950s is not relevant to today's game.addick1956 said:
I said that self same thing recently. I quoted ' If you are good enough, you are old enough '. I then listed a lot of players back to the 1950's to show how many were really successful.CafcSCP said:Gomes, konsa, Shelvey, lookman we’re all unknowns when we blooded them. Look where they are now.
if they’re good enough then get our youngsters in the team.
Theyre going to make some mistakes but perhaps Adkins is already seeing the promise.
All I got was mocking nonsense telling me I always talk rubbish.
Let us see if you get the same criticism.
Only a fool would think that.
The phrase was , "If you are good enough you are old enough.
Firmani in ' 51, Campbell and Reeves in '65, Paul Elliot and Paul Walsh in '81, Konchesky in '97 and Gomez plus Konsa and others in the last 5 years.
So what are you asking me. Has the game changed since Djiksteel was bloode in place of Solly.
Yes is the answer as the rules often change . But the phrase stands the test of time , a bit like your stupidity in this case
Strange you ignore Gomez and others bu choose Djiksteel to make a weak point. In his 20's. He was 20.
Why the fuck would I talk about Gomez when we used Dijksteel ousting Solly as an example.
Strange you ignored Bob Bolder to make no point what so ever. As usual.
Lots of people make their DEBUTS as teenagers. Very, very few people establish them selves as first team regulars as teenagers, even rarer in their first year as a pro. Players like Gomez and Bowyer, who not only establish themselves but are stand out players in their first season are like rocking horse shit. In the last generation they are probably the only 2 who have done it at Charlton. You could also make a case for Lookman.
1 -
Hi Stu, can you remind me of the bet in question?Stu_of_Kunming said:
So is our bet on?ValleyOfTears said:Washington is v average. Stockley - yes he will make double figures this season (that is .. no more than ten goals) and all the excitement over DJ is really OTT .... had a moderate effect penetrating ....Dartford ... last week! Once! None 9f these players would have made the Peterborough front line last season. I'd be ok if these were players we had in reserve but spearheading our attack? I think most defences will be very happy playing us next season.0 -
Have an update:
0 -
Hi Chunes,Chunes said:@ValleyOfTears Still interested to hear your points for why we should've kept Shinnie and Pratley
I take the point that perhaps Shinnie wasn't the greatest defensive midfielder but, in the absence of JFC, he struck me as the only Midfielder that could penetrate defences regularly and had a very good shot on him too. (I don't see many other players scoring from distance) Obv NA saw that he wasn't that much of a benefit to the team and let him go.
Pratley, yes his disciplinary side let him down last season but along with that fire came robust breaking down of the opponents play and he could thread a pass and moreover would be good for the youngsters to have his experience around the place for at least one more year.0 -
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
4
-
How is my “Schwartz out. New Dane in” incorrect? Plenty of time yet for something to happen.Dazzler21 said:Have an update:2 -
Shinnie could pick a nice pass but lacked athleticism and combative skills. He's not the kind of player to fight for the ball and play a pressing game, which Dobson and Clare both are, suggesting that Adkins considers this more valuable at this level. He's a good player but doesn't fit the team as a whole.ValleyOfTears said:
Hi Chunes,Chunes said:@ValleyOfTears Still interested to hear your points for why we should've kept Shinnie and Pratley
I take the point that perhaps Shinnie wasn't the greatest defensive midfielder but, in the absence of JFC, he struck me as the only Midfielder that could penetrate defences regularly and had a very good shot on him too. (I don't see many other players scoring from distance) Obv NA saw that he wasn't that much of a benefit to the team and let him go.
Pratley, yes his disciplinary side let him down last season but along with that fire came robust breaking down of the opponents play and he could thread a pass and moreover would be good for the youngsters to have his experience around the place for at least one more year.
Pratley is also redundant given the two midfield signings who are both younger, fitter and records suggest have superior discipline. All he would bring is his experience, but Watson provides that and had a clause to guarantee another year.
In a world where money was no issue then both could probably be kept as "squad players" to make up numbers but that's not a luxury we can afford.0 -
Whilst I agree but as a minimum I would accept 4. LB, RCB, CAM and a winger like Sims who can play both left and right. At this stage would give Schwartz a go but if it doesn't work 1 in and 1 out. Think one of the youngsters could cover JFC. Then see where we are in January.JoshAddick said:I would say we need to have 2 players able to cover each position in the squad. Assuming it’s a more defensive 433 (cos that’s what Adkins played mostly last season).
GK: Macgillivray, AMB
RB: Mathews, Gunter
RCB: Inniss, signing needed
LCB: Famewo, Pearce
LB: signing needed, Purrington
CDM: Dobson, Watson
CM: Clare, Morgan
CM: Gilbey, JFC (return unknown so signing needed)
RW: signing need, Washington
ST: Stockley, signing needed
LW: Jaiyesimi, signing needed
I’ve put Washington as a RW purely because he can cover there and we need a new striker regardless.
I also think we need an attacking midfielder incase we want to switch things up so that’s another signing needed
In which case, that leaves us needing 6 signings before the window closes if we want the best possible depth. RCB, CM, CAM, RW, ST, LW.1 -
My mistake, forgot to put it in bold, will edit now.Hornchurch said:
And a left back?JoshAddick said:I would say we need to have 2 players able to cover each position in the squad. Assuming it’s a more defensive 433 (cos that’s what Adkins played mostly last season).
GK: Macgillivray, AMB
RB: Mathews, Gunter
RCB: Inniss, signing needed
LCB: Famewo, Pearce
LB: signing needed, Purrington
CDM: Dobson, Watson
CM: Clare, Morgan
CM: Gilbey, JFC (return unknown so signing needed)
RW: signing need, Washington
ST: Stockley, signing needed
LW: Jaiyesimi, signing needed
I’ve put Washington as a RW purely because he can cover there and we need a new striker regardless.
I also think we need an attacking midfielder incase we want to switch things up so that’s another signing needed
In which case, that leaves us needing 6 signings before the window closes if we want the best possible depth. RCB, CM, CAM, RW, ST, LW.0 -
addick1956 said:
There are more. Lookman is another. I have never seen rocking horse shit and neither has anyone else.Cafc43v3r said:
You asked has the game changed since x happened. And I said no but x isn't an example that proved what you said it did.addick1956 said:
I also said Gomez and Konsa. Stop splitting hairs to try to prove a point Djiksteel was the last one in in the 16-20 range who I could remember. Stop looking for confirmation bias .Cafc43v3r said:
I chose Dijksteel because that's who you said. Yes 20 when he made his debut. Not 20 when he became our first choice right back. Which is what I said!!!!!!!!!!!addick1956 said:
In his 20's. That I a sweeping statement. He has been gone 2 years and he is only 24. He was 20 at the time of his debut. 22 when he left.Cafc43v3r said:
No but he was in his 20s and his 3rd year of men's football before he actually became our first choice right back. Bloode.addick1956 said:
Why are you asking such a stupid question. For a start it is extremely disingenuous and designed to try to pick on me. Nobody critisised others for the same view but because I extrapolated back to what you consider pre history it is irrelevant.ValleyGary said:
So you don’t think the games changed in the last 50-60 years?addick1956 said:
I included modern players and past players are relevant. Why do u think nothing counts unless you were around at the time.Oggy Red said:
That's because quoting footballers back to the 1950s is not relevant to today's game.addick1956 said:
I said that self same thing recently. I quoted ' If you are good enough, you are old enough '. I then listed a lot of players back to the 1950's to show how many were really successful.CafcSCP said:Gomes, konsa, Shelvey, lookman we’re all unknowns when we blooded them. Look where they are now.
if they’re good enough then get our youngsters in the team.
Theyre going to make some mistakes but perhaps Adkins is already seeing the promise.
All I got was mocking nonsense telling me I always talk rubbish.
Let us see if you get the same criticism.
Only a fool would think that.
The phrase was , "If you are good enough you are old enough.
Firmani in ' 51, Campbell and Reeves in '65, Paul Elliot and Paul Walsh in '81, Konchesky in '97 and Gomez plus Konsa and others in the last 5 years.
So what are you asking me. Has the game changed since Djiksteel was bloode in place of Solly.
Yes is the answer as the rules often change . But the phrase stands the test of time , a bit like your stupidity in this case
Strange you ignore Gomez and others bu choose Djiksteel to make a weak point. In his 20's. He was 20.
Why the fuck would I talk about Gomez when we used Dijksteel ousting Solly as an example.
Strange you ignored Bob Bolder to make no point what so ever. As usual.
Lots of people make their DEBUTS as teenagers. Very, very few people establish them selves as first team regulars as teenagers, even rarer in their first year as a pro. Players like Gomez and Bowyer, who not only establish themselves but are stand out players in their first season are like rocking horse shit. In the last generation they are probably the only 2 who have done it at Charlton. You could also make a case for Lookman.
The maxim is correct. If they are good enough they are old enough. That is true no matter how you try to ignore it.
Certainly beats our maxim from last year. If they're old enough they're good enough.2 -
Only because I don’t feel he’s good enough to be back up striker this season, and personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable if when the window closes we only have Stockley, Washington and Schwartz.barstool said:JoshAddict you have missed Rocket Ronnie...1 -
No one is arguing that!!!addick1956 said:
There are more. Lookman is another. I have never seen rocking horse shit and neither has anyone else.Cafc43v3r said:
You asked has the game changed since x happened. And I said no but x isn't an example that proved what you said it did.addick1956 said:
I also said Gomez and Konsa. Stop splitting hairs to try to prove a point Djiksteel was the last one in in the 16-20 range who I could remember. Stop looking for confirmation bias .Cafc43v3r said:
I chose Dijksteel because that's who you said. Yes 20 when he made his debut. Not 20 when he became our first choice right back. Which is what I said!!!!!!!!!!!addick1956 said:
In his 20's. That I a sweeping statement. He has been gone 2 years and he is only 24. He was 20 at the time of his debut. 22 when he left.Cafc43v3r said:
No but he was in his 20s and his 3rd year of men's football before he actually became our first choice right back. Bloode.addick1956 said:
Why are you asking such a stupid question. For a start it is extremely disingenuous and designed to try to pick on me. Nobody critisised others for the same view but because I extrapolated back to what you consider pre history it is irrelevant.ValleyGary said:
So you don’t think the games changed in the last 50-60 years?addick1956 said:
I included modern players and past players are relevant. Why do u think nothing counts unless you were around at the time.Oggy Red said:
That's because quoting footballers back to the 1950s is not relevant to today's game.addick1956 said:
I said that self same thing recently. I quoted ' If you are good enough, you are old enough '. I then listed a lot of players back to the 1950's to show how many were really successful.CafcSCP said:Gomes, konsa, Shelvey, lookman we’re all unknowns when we blooded them. Look where they are now.
if they’re good enough then get our youngsters in the team.
Theyre going to make some mistakes but perhaps Adkins is already seeing the promise.
All I got was mocking nonsense telling me I always talk rubbish.
Let us see if you get the same criticism.
Only a fool would think that.
The phrase was , "If you are good enough you are old enough.
Firmani in ' 51, Campbell and Reeves in '65, Paul Elliot and Paul Walsh in '81, Konchesky in '97 and Gomez plus Konsa and others in the last 5 years.
So what are you asking me. Has the game changed since Djiksteel was bloode in place of Solly.
Yes is the answer as the rules often change . But the phrase stands the test of time , a bit like your stupidity in this case
Strange you ignore Gomez and others bu choose Djiksteel to make a weak point. In his 20's. He was 20.
Why the fuck would I talk about Gomez when we used Dijksteel ousting Solly as an example.
Strange you ignored Bob Bolder to make no point what so ever. As usual.
Lots of people make their DEBUTS as teenagers. Very, very few people establish them selves as first team regulars as teenagers, even rarer in their first year as a pro. Players like Gomez and Bowyer, who not only establish themselves but are stand out players in their first season are like rocking horse shit. In the last generation they are probably the only 2 who have done it at Charlton. You could also make a case for Lookman.
The maxim is correct. If they are good enough they are old enough. That is true no matter how you try to ignore it.
Everyone agrees if your good enough you old enough. You have spouted so much nonsense you forgot what you even arguing.
3 -
DFTT1
-
Agreed - but WUTT can be fun!Henry Irving said:DFTT2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Agreed but as two of the older and wiser statesmen of this site I think we should rise above such temptation and let the youngsters have some fun 😉bobmunro said:
Agreed - but WUTT can be fun!Henry Irving said:DFTT1 -
well we should loan him to the Gills then for a few monthsJoshAddick said:
Only because I don’t feel he’s good enough to be back up striker this season, and personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable if when the window closes we only have Stockley, Washington and Schwartz.barstool said:JoshAddict you have missed Rocket Ronnie...0 -
I suppose you're right.Henry Irving said:
Agreed but as two of the older and wiser statesmen of this site I think we should rise above such temptation and let the youngsters have some fun 😉bobmunro said:
Agreed - but WUTT can be fun!Henry Irving said:DFTT
Spoilsport!
1 -
Don't f*cking talk transfers?Henry Irving said:DFTT2 -
I thought you'd meant it'd already happened, I'll move it back to green if it does occur, but it seems to me like it's unlikely.flyingkiwiDK said:
How is my “Schwartz out. New Dane in” incorrect? Plenty of time yet for something to happen.Dazzler21 said:Have an update:0 -
Macronate said:Will you lot stop bickering.
Herr Bartram has already issued a warning letter to your parents and you’d be sensible to heed its content.
You won’t be able to blame anyone but yourselves if you end up with a detention.
He started it0 -
Henry Irving said:DFTT
Whenever fast scrolling and skim reading I see this as DTF
Awkward when reading it back after liking it.1 -
Saturdays PSF against Reading can be watched for free on Charlton TV.2
-
We get to see Edwards in action for freeDansk_Red said:Saturdays PSF against Reading can be watched for free on Charlton TV.14 -
Will he be playing for both sides switching over at half time?Todds_right_hook said:
We get to see Edwards in action for freeDansk_Red said:Saturdays PSF against Reading can be watched for free on Charlton TV.7
This discussion has been closed.
