For what it's worth, with a month to go, I think our transfer window so far has been pretty impressive
really ??
lost 2 strikers that haven't been replaced lost a left footed left back that hasn't been replaced recruited 3 defenders, a defensive midfielder, a goalkeeper (that wasn't a priority) and 1 attacking midfielder.
In a team last year that didn't score enough goals to even get into the top half of the league. I understand you "build from the back" but goals win you games.
Currently I would give the "rebuild" 5 out of 10. The squad itself about a 7 (and that's being generous)
We start our first game tomorrow with just 1 fit striker. If Stockley gets injured or sent off tomorrow we have big problems.
But I'm just a doom monger & everything will be alright once the transfer window closes on Sept 1st.
This has been repeated a few times but it's a bit of a red herring. We played with two strikers last season so we needed 5 in the squad ideally. Garner only plays with 1, so we need 3. We don't actually have to replace both the strikers we lost as we're not playing the same way. One more will do it.
Remind me of that when all 3 are out either injured or suspended. Last season we had 5 strikers and in March that wasn't enough when Stockley, Washington & Aneke were all out injured.
Its funny, because in a World Cup squad you find Countries will almost invariably take 3 goalkeepers when they might only be playing 3 or 4 games, and will be lacking players upfront (Look at the 2006 WC when Bent didn't go). This is a 46 game season & currently we might have just 1 senior striker available tomorrow if Aneke isn't fit.
pfft.
Come off it. Aside from the fact the answer to all three being out is, obviously, Leaburn plays, how many strikers should we have competing for one spot just in case then? Should we have 5 first team strikers hanging around hoping that Stockley's legs explode? 10? What if we have 15 and then all get injured. WHY DIDN'T WE PLAN FOR IF WE HAD 15 STRIKERS INJURED?? Last season we had Stockley, Washington and Davison up to January and then Stockley, Washington and Aneke from there. Burstow was a youth player we catapulted up because we were short. It wasn't enough. This season we will, hopefully have Stockley, Aneke, another striker and Leaburn as part of the squad, with Kanu hopefully developing if real disaster strikes. Three proper first team options, Leaburn pushing to play and then some youth options if things are really desperate. We only need one more striker to meet that, not two.
The reason teams take 3 goalkeepers to the World Cup is because the rules say you have to. 'Three players must be goalkeepers, with the number 1 shirt reserved for one of them'.
If it’s same formation wide players up front Stockley isolated again we are fucked the 3 up front have to play inside and let the wing backs overlap.
Totally different but nearly always ends up 451 same as 352 ends up 532.
My only hope is garner sticks to it as his comments about the fan shouting forward forward suggest.
If he says 3 up front they’ve got to be up front but not wide.
For what it's worth I think it will be the case having watched every pre-season game. The key element for me is the way the full backs move central midfield when the ball is on the opposite flank, it allows the CDM/CMs to be involved on the ball without worrying about a quick switch of play and being outnumbered. Also on a number of occasions Sessegnon especially overlapped with CBT so I think it will comfortably be a 433.
For what it's worth, with a month to go, I think our transfer window so far has been pretty impressive
really ??
lost 2 strikers that haven't been replaced lost a left footed left back that hasn't been replaced recruited 3 defenders, a defensive midfielder, a goalkeeper (that wasn't a priority) and 1 attacking midfielder.
In a team last year that didn't score enough goals to even get into the top half of the league. I understand you "build from the back" but goals win you games.
Currently I would give the "rebuild" 5 out of 10. The squad itself about a 7 (and that's being generous)
We start our first game tomorrow with just 1 fit striker. If Stockley gets injured or sent off tomorrow we have big problems.
But I'm just a doom monger & everything will be alright once the transfer window closes on Sept 1st.
You were right last year and I agree with your summary of where we are right now. Season after season we go through the first half a dozen games with significant weaknesses in the squad and an expectation from many that this will be solved by the time the window closes. We lose too many points during that first phase. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen again.
Second half of last season our striker options (for two places) were: Stockley, Washington, Aneke, Burstow, Kanu
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn, Kanu
The fact that we have Aneke puts us in a difficult situation as theoretically the numbers we have (4) should cover us for the formation we want to play.
But the problem is that Chuks can't be relied stay fit and so, treating the real number as 3, we need someone with senior experience added to the group. I'd argue that we needed that additional senior presence last season too.
To reiterate, we are playing a formation this year that requires one striker fewer than we did last season. Hence it makes sense to have one striker fewer in the squad than we did last season. Add to the fact that Davison wasn't here while Aneke came in and we are in my opinion, no better or worse in terms of bodies vs positions to fill than we were at the end of last year.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
For what it's worth, with a month to go, I think our transfer window so far has been pretty impressive
really ??
lost 2 strikers that haven't been replaced lost a left footed left back that hasn't been replaced recruited 3 defenders, a defensive midfielder, a goalkeeper (that wasn't a priority) and 1 attacking midfielder.
In a team last year that didn't score enough goals to even get into the top half of the league. I understand you "build from the back" but goals win you games.
Currently I would give the "rebuild" 5 out of 10. The squad itself about a 7 (and that's being generous)
We start our first game tomorrow with just 1 fit striker. If Stockley gets injured or sent off tomorrow we have big problems.
But I'm just a doom monger & everything will be alright once the transfer window closes on Sept 1st.
This has been repeated a few times but it's a bit of a red herring. We played with two strikers last season so we needed 5 in the squad ideally. Garner only plays with 1, so we need 3. We don't actually have to replace both the strikers we lost as we're not playing the same way. One more will do it.
Remind me of that when all 3 are out either injured or suspended. Last season we had 5 strikers and in March that wasn't enough when Stockley, Washington & Aneke were all out injured.
Its funny, because in a World Cup squad you find Countries will almost invariably take 3 goalkeepers when they might only be playing 3 or 4 games, and will be lacking players upfront (Look at the 2006 WC when Bent didn't go). This is a 46 game season & currently we might have just 1 senior striker available tomorrow if Aneke isn't fit.
pfft.
So negative you fail to even understand the rules.
Second half of last season our striker options (for two places) were: Stockley, Washington, Aneke, Burstow, Kanu
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn, Kanu
The fact that we have Aneke puts us in a difficult situation as theoretically the numbers we have (4) should cover us for the formation we want to play.
But the problem is that Chuks can't be relied stay fit and so, treating the real number as 3, we need someone with senior experience added to the group. I'd argue that we needed that additional senior presence last season too.
To reiterate, we are playing a formation this year that requires one striker fewer than we did last season. Hence it makes sense to have one striker fewer in the squad than we did last season. Add to the fact that Davison wasn't here while Aneke came in and we are in my opinion, no better or worse in terms of bodies vs positions to fill than we were at the end of last year.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
And, with the best will in the world, I would suggest we need more experience than Leaburn and Kanu to get us near to a top six position.
Second half of last season our striker options (for two places) were: Stockley, Washington, Aneke, Burstow, Kanu
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn & Kanu.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
Of those 4 you mention, 2 are raw and 1 is injury prone and cant play 90 mins.
We might only need 1 "striker" but the options are hardly awe inspiring. I bet you before too long Leaburn will the main striker (either due to injury or suspension) and he will follow in his father's footsteps of being asked to compete way before his time. Carlo was a force later in his career with us but the first 3 seasons he was ridiculed & I just hope it doesn't happen to his son.
For what it's worth, with a month to go, I think our transfer window so far has been pretty impressive
really ??
lost 2 strikers that haven't been replaced lost a left footed left back that hasn't been replaced recruited 3 defenders, a defensive midfielder, a goalkeeper (that wasn't a priority) and 1 attacking midfielder.
In a team last year that didn't score enough goals to even get into the top half of the league. I understand you "build from the back" but goals win you games.
Currently I would give the "rebuild" 5 out of 10. The squad itself about a 7 (and that's being generous)
We start our first game tomorrow with just 1 fit striker. If Stockley gets injured or sent off tomorrow we have big problems.
But I'm just a doom monger & everything will be alright once the transfer window closes on Sept 1st.
This has been repeated a few times but it's a bit of a red herring. We played with two strikers last season so we needed 5 in the squad ideally. Garner only plays with 1, so we need 3. We don't actually have to replace both the strikers we lost as we're not playing the same way. One more will do it.
Remind me of that when all 3 are out either injured or suspended. Last season we had 5 strikers and in March that wasn't enough when Stockley, Washington & Aneke were all out injured.
Its funny, because in a World Cup squad you find Countries will almost invariably take 3 goalkeepers when they might only be playing 3 or 4 games, and will be lacking players upfront (Look at the 2006 WC when Bent didn't go). This is a 46 game season & currently we might have just 1 senior striker available tomorrow if Aneke isn't fit.
pfft.
So negative you fail to even understand the rules.
Fine. So I didnt know it was a FiFA rule that you must take 3 goalkeepers. My bad.
Second half of last season our striker options (for two places) were: Stockley, Washington, Aneke, Burstow, Kanu
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn, Kanu
The fact that we have Aneke puts us in a difficult situation as theoretically the numbers we have (4) should cover us for the formation we want to play.
But the problem is that Chuks can't be relied stay fit and so, treating the real number as 3, we need someone with senior experience added to the group. I'd argue that we needed that additional senior presence last season too.
To reiterate, we are playing a formation this year that requires one striker fewer than we did last season. Hence it makes sense to have one striker fewer in the squad than we did last season. Add to the fact that Davison wasn't here while Aneke came in and we are in my opinion, no better or worse in terms of bodies vs positions to fill than we were at the end of last year.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
And, with the best will in the world, I would suggest we need more experience than Leaburn and Kanu to get us near to a top six position.
I don't disagree. I want us to sign another striker.
Asking for two is too much and will stunt the development of those same players.
Second half of last season our striker options (for two places) were: Stockley, Washington, Aneke, Burstow, Kanu
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn, Kanu
The fact that we have Aneke puts us in a difficult situation as theoretically the numbers we have (4) should cover us for the formation we want to play.
But the problem is that Chuks can't be relied stay fit and so, treating the real number as 3, we need someone with senior experience added to the group. I'd argue that we needed that additional senior presence last season too.
To reiterate, we are playing a formation this year that requires one striker fewer than we did last season. Hence it makes sense to have one striker fewer in the squad than we did last season. Add to the fact that Davison wasn't here while Aneke came in and we are in my opinion, no better or worse in terms of bodies vs positions to fill than we were at the end of last year.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
And, with the best will in the world, I would suggest we need more experience than Leaburn and Kanu to get us near to a top six position.
I don't disagree. I want us to sign another striker.
Asking for two is too much and will stunt the development of those same players.
In all honesty Kanu is two years away from first team football. It won't stunt his growth.
Second half of last season our striker options (for two places) were: Stockley, Washington, Aneke, Burstow, Kanu
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn, Kanu
The fact that we have Aneke puts us in a difficult situation as theoretically the numbers we have (4) should cover us for the formation we want to play.
But the problem is that Chuks can't be relied stay fit and so, treating the real number as 3, we need someone with senior experience added to the group. I'd argue that we needed that additional senior presence last season too.
To reiterate, we are playing a formation this year that requires one striker fewer than we did last season. Hence it makes sense to have one striker fewer in the squad than we did last season. Add to the fact that Davison wasn't here while Aneke came in and we are in my opinion, no better or worse in terms of bodies vs positions to fill than we were at the end of last year.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
And, with the best will in the world, I would suggest we need more experience than Leaburn and Kanu to get us near to a top six position.
I don't disagree. I want us to sign another striker.
Asking for two is too much and will stunt the development of those same players.
In all honesty Kanu is two years away from first team football. It won't stunt his growth.
So say we did buy two strikers... how do you fit Stockley, plus two more, and Aneke, into one position? Injuries do happen but it'd be overkill.
Leaburn will start a lot of games this season through ability rather than necessity
You appear to be ITK but on this I have my doubts. Just ask his mum and dad if this is agood thing.
He will remain a charlton player and in two years expect him to be the main man up front.
He will start tomorrow
You know that for certain?
That was the plan. Things change etc etc
Aneke was going to start and Garner wants more hight in the team, for obvious reasons.
Surely there was no way Aneke was going to start?
Firstly I don’t think Stockley would be made captain if the plan is not to start him, and secondly it’s established that he is much better coming off the bench, and considering he wouldn’t be able to play the full 90, it would make sense to use him that way.
Leaburn will start a lot of games this season through ability rather than necessity
You appear to be ITK but on this I have my doubts. Just ask his mum and dad if this is agood thing.
He will remain a charlton player and in two years expect him to be the main man up front.
He will start tomorrow
You know that for certain?
That was the plan. Things change etc etc
Aneke was going to start and Garner wants more hight in the team, for obvious reasons.
Surely there was no way Aneke was going to start?
Firstly I don’t think Stockley would be made captain if the plan is not to start him, and secondly it’s established that he is much better coming off the bench, and considering he wouldn’t be able to play the full 90, it would make sense to use him that way.
If true I assume he’d have started in midfield as he did in preseason.
Leaburn will start a lot of games this season through ability rather than necessity
You appear to be ITK but on this I have my doubts. Just ask his mum and dad if this is agood thing.
He will remain a charlton player and in two years expect him to be the main man up front.
He will start tomorrow
You know that for certain?
That was the plan. Things change etc etc
Aneke was going to start and Garner wants more hight in the team, for obvious reasons.
Surely there was no way Aneke was going to start?
Firstly I don’t think Stockley would be made captain if the plan is not to start him, and secondly it’s established that he is much better coming off the bench, and considering he wouldn’t be able to play the full 90, it would make sense to use him that way.
Why would Leaburn definitely start over CBT and Kirk? Sure he had a good preseason, but he's not the second coming. And isn't Inniss, O'Connell, Stockley, Clare adequate height in the side already? Hell, Fraser is 6ft, Dobson too, so is Gilbey, and McGrandles, and the 2 aforementioned wingers as well. In fact only Payne and Sessegnon are well under 6ft of the first team, so I don't get that
Leaburn will start a lot of games this season through ability rather than necessity
You appear to be ITK but on this I have my doubts. Just ask his mum and dad if this is agood thing.
He will remain a charlton player and in two years expect him to be the main man up front.
He will start tomorrow
You know that for certain?
That was the plan. Things change etc etc
Aneke was going to start and Garner wants more hight in the team, for obvious reasons.
I don't think Leaburn has to be wrapped in wool. He's from a football family. He's grown up with a career's worth of knowledge and experience sat every night at his kitchen table, not to mention his mum coming home talking about what's happening at the club. I'm sure the boy knows he belongs on the pitch. He's not some first timer with his family's dreams resting on his shoulders.
Why would Leaburn definitely start over CBT and Kirk? Sure he had a good preseason, but he's not the second coming. And isn't Inniss, O'Connell, Stockley, Clare adequate height in the side already? Hell, Fraser is 6ft, Dobson too, so is Gilbey, and McGrandles, and the 2 aforementioned wingers as well. In fact only Payne and Sessegnon are well under 6ft of the first team, so I don't get that
Maybe hight was the wrong word, maybe physicality was a better choice. I am specifically talking about tomorrow as well, not more hight/physicality generally.
I would have thought the idea was the front six to look something like
X X X X X X
Where now I see it being more like
X X X X X X
Once Aneke was injured the team that started last Saturday will start this one. Obviously things change.
Comments
433 is 451 with the wide players further up...
same as 352 ends up 532.
Going into tomorrow, our striker options (for one place) are: Stockley, Aneke, Leaburn, Kanu
The fact that we have Aneke puts us in a difficult situation as theoretically the numbers we have (4) should cover us for the formation we want to play.
But the problem is that Chuks can't be relied stay fit and so, treating the real number as 3, we need someone with senior experience added to the group. I'd argue that we needed that additional senior presence last season too.
To reiterate, we are playing a formation this year that requires one striker fewer than we did last season. Hence it makes sense to have one striker fewer in the squad than we did last season. Add to the fact that Davison wasn't here while Aneke came in and we are in my opinion, no better or worse in terms of bodies vs positions to fill than we were at the end of last year.
The problem is that we were one short then and we remain one short now.
Expecting Rak-Sakyi will be coming in early next week. That gives us 3-4 weeks to find a striker and a left sided defender.
We might only need 1 "striker" but the options are hardly awe inspiring. I bet you before too long Leaburn will the main striker (either due to injury or suspension) and he will follow in his father's footsteps of being asked to compete way before his time. Carlo was a force later in his career with us but the first 3 seasons he was ridiculed & I just hope it doesn't happen to his son.
Asking for two is too much and will stunt the development of those same players.
Garner today in the SLP
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-boss-coy-on-transfer-interest-in-crystal-palace-winger-but-talks-about-three-positions-that-need-strengthening/
It won't stunt his growth.
He will remain a charlton player and in two years expect him to be the main man up front.
Aneke was going to start and Garner wants more hight in the team, for obvious reasons.
I would have thought the idea was the front six to look something like
X
X
X X
X X
Where now I see it being more like
X
X X
X X X
Once Aneke was injured the team that started last Saturday will start this one. Obviously things change.