You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
I agree, Lavelle and Inniss' injuries problems have obviously left us very light. I also agree that Clare at CB in a back 4 wasn't an option, not a sensible one anyway.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
I agree, Lavelle and Inniss' injuries problems have obviously left us very light. I also agree that Clare at CB in a back 4 wasn't an option, not a sensible one anyway.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
I'll rephrase that a bit. We haven't had a good back four fit for enough of the season and the back 3 covered a lot of the weaknesses of the individual players that a 4 wouldn't.
If you had Inniss or Lavelle and last seasons Famewo you might have seen it. We didn't so it's less of a reason to change it.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
I agree, Lavelle and Inniss' injuries problems have obviously left us very light. I also agree that Clare at CB in a back 4 wasn't an option, not a sensible one anyway.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
I'll rephrase that a bit. We haven't had a good back four fit for enough of the season and the back 3 covered a lot of the weaknesses of the individual players that a 4 wouldn't.
If you had Inniss or Lavelle and last seasons Famewo you might have seen it. We didn't so it's less of a reason to change it.
As opposed to the great midfield 3 or premier league quality wing backs?
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
I agree, Lavelle and Inniss' injuries problems have obviously left us very light. I also agree that Clare at CB in a back 4 wasn't an option, not a sensible one anyway.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
I'll rephrase that a bit. We haven't had a good back four fit for enough of the season and the back 3 covered a lot of the weaknesses of the individual players that a 4 wouldn't.
If you had Inniss or Lavelle and last seasons Famewo you might have seen it. We didn't so it's less of a reason to change it.
As opposed to the great midfield 3 or premier league quality wing backs?
Well yeah but a back four of Matthews Clare Pearce and Famewo is probably a lot worse than all 4 playing in a back 3 and one as a wing back, IMO.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
I agree, Lavelle and Inniss' injuries problems have obviously left us very light. I also agree that Clare at CB in a back 4 wasn't an option, not a sensible one anyway.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
I'll rephrase that a bit. We haven't had a good back four fit for enough of the season and the back 3 covered a lot of the weaknesses of the individual players that a 4 wouldn't.
If you had Inniss or Lavelle and last seasons Famewo you might have seen it. We didn't so it's less of a reason to change it.
As opposed to the great midfield 3 or premier league quality wing backs?
Well yeah but a back four of Matthews Clare Pearce and Famewo is probably a lot worse than all 4 playing in a back 3 and one as a wing back, IMO.
Agreed, but let’s not pretend that was the only option, not for more than a handful of matches anyway. Jackson’s persistence in playing it can only be explained one way. If he’s the manager come August we’ll see that.
Agreed, this thread has veered into sheer fantasy.
Back to reality, who we we want as next manager, Howe or Wilder? Dyche is also now an option.
I recall young Don Howe did quite well in the 80’s, albeit more as a coach than manager, but doesn’t his lack of grip on the mortal coil make his eligibility questionable?
Jackson league record with the poorest quality and most unmotivated squad I’ve ever seen:
W15 D5 L13
He deserves a crack, just needs to work with an alternative formation over the summer IMO. (And goes without saying better players)
Nowhere near the poorest quality squad we've had in recent years. Absolutely the worst performers, worst attitude/motivation, but definitely better players than some of the shite we've had in league one before.
It's noticeable that the people who want Jackson to stay all do so based on intangibles like him being a club legend, nice guy, Powell's turnaround.
Whereas those that want him gone point to the more tangible taxtical inflexibility, turgid style of play, backwards progress, lack of improvement by coaching, and the poor PPG especially since he was made permanent.
It's moot anyway as he's clearly here to stay, until the inevitable sacking around the same time as Adkins, when another season will be consigned to dust.
You can't play a flat 442 unless your players are ridiculously better than the opposition. Simply because almost everyone plays 433 or 352 or versions of and your 2 central midfielders will just get totally over run by the 3. Your extra man is most likely to be a center half or a full back.
The starting point is the 3 midfielders and what roles you want them to do. Not just chuck 3 in there who are notionally midfielders. That's what we have done for the last two seasons and it doesn't work, at all. Gilbey has had about 5 different roles in 5 different formations. League 1 players aren't good enough to do that.
After doing that there is no right or wrong way to go as long as you have the players to play the roles you need and provide the other qualities all good teams have.
There really is a load of twaddle spoken about formations nowadays. This logic says you play 2-3-5 and you will outscore the opposition every week. How do your four defenders in a 4-4-2 get over-run by three midfielders? You just play them closer together and it's 4 v 3 using your logic. You could also argue that your four man midfield will out-run their three. What's far more important is playing to your players strengths and ours is very clearly not 3-5-2.
You mean the diamond? Or even a box. It's not a flat 442 is it?
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
I think that's nonsense. As an example, in Jacko's first game we played Matthews at RCB alongside Lavelle and Famewo with Purrington at LWB. That's a flat back 4 right there. We've played 3 at the back because that's what Jackson wants to play, not because of injuries.
We did and Lavelle went off injured after about 10 minutes. Most of the season Pearce and Famewo have been our only fit center backs. Purrington must be close to missing 20 games due to injury.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
I agree, Lavelle and Inniss' injuries problems have obviously left us very light. I also agree that Clare at CB in a back 4 wasn't an option, not a sensible one anyway.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
I really don't get this view at all. Clare's been a revelation in that position and probably our best and most consistent centre half this season. A number of the players had him as their poty.
We seem to have a very selective memory on here. The first 13 games with a flat back 4 we conceded 25 goals, including the same goal - cutting in from the left, given time and space to slot past our keeper from 20 yards - time and time again. After the switch from a flat back four under Jacko we stopped conceding and started winning clean sheets, 4 in his first 5 games.
We don't have the pace at the back to handle a flat back 4. Neither full back is quick, and Clare apart there is no pace at all. This is one of the biggest problems with the squad in my view, and especially in defence.
We had 6 points with a quarter of the season gone. Very few of us imagined promotion was a possibility at that time, so the suggestion we've underperformed with Jacko is misplaced imo. We were woeful.under Adkins, the recruitment was poor, and Jacko's made probably as much as could have been made from this team, especially given injuries wiped out our entire defence and entire attack at times.
It's noticeable that the people who want Jackson to stay all do so based on intangibles like him being a club legend, nice guy, Powell's turnaround.
Whereas those that want him gone point to the more tangible taxtical inflexibility, turgid style of play, backwards progress, lack of improvement by coaching, and the poor PPG especially since he was made permanent.
It's moot anyway as he's clearly here to stay, until the inevitable sacking around the same time as Adkins, when another season will be consigned to dust.
I think a number of the pro-Jackson camp feel that we need stability as well though - We'll go no where if we keep changing Manager every six months
It's noticeable that the people who want Jackson to stay all do so based on intangibles like him being a club legend, nice guy, Powell's turnaround.
Whereas those that want him gone point to the more tangible taxtical inflexibility, turgid style of play, backwards progress, lack of improvement by coaching, and the poor PPG especially since he was made permanent.
It's moot anyway as he's clearly here to stay, until the inevitable sacking around the same time as Adkins, when another season will be consigned to dust.
For what it's worth, I think all managers deserve a chance with the system and players of their choosing.
Personally i believe Jacko's largely been a success so far. Mistakes? Yes. Learning curve? Yes. But he turned the season around when the same squad was in the bottom 4.
The reason we look to Powell's turnaround is not because any of us think 101 points next year etc but because he showed that with backing and the squad of his choosing he could achieve something. Jacko has earned that chance, although I suspect he won't be backed in the same way.
It's noticeable that the people who want Jackson to stay all do so based on intangibles like him being a club legend, nice guy, Powell's turnaround.
Whereas those that want him gone point to the more tangible taxtical inflexibility, turgid style of play, backwards progress, lack of improvement by coaching, and the poor PPG especially since he was made permanent.
It's moot anyway as he's clearly here to stay, until the inevitable sacking around the same time as Adkins, when another season will be consigned to dust.
Not true for everyone backing Jackson.
We won’t be successful if we keep changing manager 2/3 times a season. Those that want him to stay want stability.
Our two worst runs came under Adkins and when we had no senior strikers. Any manager would struggle in the latter scenario, especially with a lack of goalscorers elsewhere in the team. It left us with nothing up front - no one who could hold up the ball, was a threat running in behind or could win a header.
If this was a playoff squad I’d agree, but it’s been clear for months the quality isn’t there. We’re not good enough defensively and don’t have enough goalscorers, no manager will take us up until recruitment is much improved.
If it was poor management and coaching then we should see some of this squad move on to better things. How many from this squad has a realistic chance of getting a Championship move? I can only see CBT and Dobson attracting interest.
If the squad is top 6 quality then we need to replace Jackson and get them all signed up. However we’ve already had confirmation 4 are on their way out and it appears most on here don’t want to see any of the 6 loanees sign permanently. That’s 10 already, and many of us are hoping we release a few more.
Jackson league record with the poorest quality and most unmotivated squad I’ve ever seen:
W15 D5 L13
He deserves a crack, just needs to work with an alternative formation over the summer IMO. (And goes without saying better players)
Nowhere near the poorest quality squad we've had in recent years. Absolutely the worst performers, worst attitude/motivation, but definitely better players than some of the shite we've had in league one before.
The point you make about quality is fair and debatable, although if I had a £1 for every time I’ve seen “worst team ever” on here I could buy the freehold myself.
That considered, I still think the task Jackson had was mammoth. It’s not like at Sunderland for example when they sacked Johnson, Neil took over with a side in the promotion hunt, not hard to motivate in that case.
We are quick to forget Jackson will learn many harsh lessons from this shit storm of a season. If he is given the boot it would be very harsh, but I admit I could stomach it.
At first i thounght the 3-5-2 formation was wrong and its to rigid but the more I have looked at highlights i think the formation is right but the shape is to rigid.
Look at the second goal against Ipswich for example. We have five defenders vs 2 strikers, yet none of our defenders were anywhere near their strikers - instead they were all in a rigid line spread across the back. Thats down to coaching and style of play.
That type of goal has not been an isolated type of goal against us either.
I think even with the right players we would struggle.
- Terrible squad of players that no one on this planet could've got to gel, but JJ and his management team showed what they could be capable of, given the right support.
- Terrible squad of players that no one on this planet could've got to gel and, except for the initial "bounce", JJ and his management team never really showed any glimpse of anything too exciting either.
As someone who outside of Charlton does not have a terrible amount of knowledge of the football league, I find the subject of managerial stability an interesting one to explore.
What as fans do we define as a period of stability for a manager to be effective, and is there examples of that time frame being effective - particularly for teams who have ambitions of promotion? My general uneducated view is that there is a manager ‘merry go around’ that exists where managers get around a year or so before being moved on if not meeting the clubs ambitions.
If TS wants a new manager, he needs to be sorting it now (or should have been doing it prior to coming over). If he is going to sack JJ, every day that goes by that he doesn't from this point forward is one that is lost that could be better spent on with whoever is in charge, in preparation for next season.
Given that none of the players who are out of contract in the summer have new deals (including some who we would wager would stay), it suggests to me the priority is sorting those in the short term and finding the additional players to build the squad. He could turn round and sack JJ today (which, even as a believer in JJ, I'd rather have happen now than within the next few weeks), but I suspect the priority is players, not management right now.
Under Adkins, we were at real risk of falling into the relegation fight. We were playing some horrific football. League positions are not decided by squads on paper - this squad felt good-ish at the start, but holes were not properly resolved via. underperforming loans. JJ steadied a sinking ship and I feel he has earned a crack at a transfer window and a pre-season. There's going to be a big shuffle of players, but probably not as big as people want. Armchair managers will continue criticise the system. With some fresh faces, I still think it will work and I honestly believe that our young manager could still prove a lot of people wrong.
If anything, JJ needs more help on the training ground, particularly on the defensive side. There were a shocking amount of times I saw these players (including ones we will retain) not pressure opposing players in the final third to prevent crosses/edge of box shots that ended up going in. Dobson was generally the only one that did this, hence his inflated tackle numbers. Additionally, they all need to improve on their resilience when they go a goal down - 0-1 regularly turned into 0-2+ because they gave up.
If TS wants a new manager, he needs to be sorting it now (or should have been doing it prior to coming over). If he is going to sack JJ, every day that goes by that he doesn't from this point forward is one that is lost that could be better spent on with whoever is in charge, in preparation for next season.
Given that none of the players who are out of contract in the summer have new deals (including some who we would wager would stay), it suggests to me the priority is sorting those in the short term and finding the additional players to build the squad. He could turn round and sack JJ today (which, even as a believer in JJ, I'd rather have happen now than within the next few weeks), but I suspect the priority is players, not management right now.
Under Adkins, we were at real risk of falling into the relegation fight. We were playing some horrific football. League positions are not decided by squads on paper - this squad felt good-ish at the start, but holes were not properly resolved via. underperforming loans. JJ steadied a sinking ship and I feel he has earned a crack at a transfer window and a pre-season. There's going to be a big shuffle of players, but probably not as big as people want. Armchair managers will continue criticise the system. With some fresh faces, I still think it will work and I honestly believe that our young manager could still prove a lot of people wrong.
If anything, JJ needs more help on the training ground, particularly on the defensive side. There were a shocking amount of times I saw these players (including ones we will retain) not pressure opposing players in the final third to prevent crosses/edge of box shots that ended up going in. Dobson was generally the only one that did this, hence his inflated tackle numbers. Additionally, they all need to improve on their resilience when they go a goal down - 0-1 regularly turned into 0-2+ because they gave up.
This has been going on for months and another sign of style of play. It's as though the players all have to hold position and shape at all costs
- Terrible squad of players that no one on this planet could've got to gel, but JJ and his management team showed what they could be capable of, given the right support.
- Terrible squad of players that no one on this planet could've got to gel and, except for the initial "bounce", JJ and his management team never really showed any glimpse of anything too exciting either.
There are a few logic defying views in this but appreciate we’ve all got the needle.
I’m finding it difficult to simultaneously wish for a squad overhaul because they’re all crap and at the same time want Jackson gone, if the squad is so bad it needs an overhaul then Jackson, logically, can’t have done too bad at all with his record.
As someone who outside of Charlton does not have a terrible amount of knowledge of the football league, I find the subject of managerial stability an interesting one to explore.
What as fans do we define as a period of stability for a manager to be effective, and is there examples of that time frame being effective - particularly for teams who have ambitions of promotion? My general uneducated view is that there is a manager ‘merry go around’ that exists where managers get around a year or so before being moved on if not meeting the clubs ambitions.
If you look at the top half of league 1, which is a good sample size you have got everything from a few months to donkeys ages. I have no idea how long Coleman and Ainsworth have been in role but it seems like forever.
They are also the two clubs that are "over achieving". Cause or effect?
As someone who outside of Charlton does not have a terrible amount of knowledge of the football league, I find the subject of managerial stability an interesting one to explore.
What as fans do we define as a period of stability for a manager to be effective, and is there examples of that time frame being effective - particularly for teams who have ambitions of promotion? My general uneducated view is that there is a manager ‘merry go around’ that exists where managers get around a year or so before being moved on if not meeting the clubs ambitions.
If you look at the top half of league 1, which is a good sample size you have got everything from a few months to donkeys ages. I have no idea how long Coleman and Ainsworth have been in role but it seems like forever.
They are also the two clubs that are "over achieving". Cause or effect?
Look at the style of football those teams play compared to us
As someone who outside of Charlton does not have a terrible amount of knowledge of the football league, I find the subject of managerial stability an interesting one to explore.
What as fans do we define as a period of stability for a manager to be effective, and is there examples of that time frame being effective - particularly for teams who have ambitions of promotion? My general uneducated view is that there is a manager ‘merry go around’ that exists where managers get around a year or so before being moved on if not meeting the clubs ambitions.
If you look at the top half of league 1, which is a good sample size you have got everything from a few months to donkeys ages. I have no idea how long Coleman and Ainsworth have been in role but it seems like forever.
They are also the two clubs that are "over achieving". Cause or effect?
Look at the style of football those teams play compared to us
As someone who outside of Charlton does not have a terrible amount of knowledge of the football league, I find the subject of managerial stability an interesting one to explore.
What as fans do we define as a period of stability for a manager to be effective, and is there examples of that time frame being effective - particularly for teams who have ambitions of promotion? My general uneducated view is that there is a manager ‘merry go around’ that exists where managers get around a year or so before being moved on if not meeting the clubs ambitions.
If you look at the top half of league 1, which is a good sample size you have got everything from a few months to donkeys ages. I have no idea how long Coleman and Ainsworth have been in role but it seems like forever.
They are also the two clubs that are "over achieving". Cause or effect?
Look at the style of football those teams play compared to us
Rarely happens in a matter of months.
Look at the difference in Ipswich to last we met.....
Some times it does some times it doesn't. Quite often with no logical explanation either way. Some times it reverts back to the mean, some times it doesn't.
Comments
We have had to play 3 at the back because for half the season, probably more we haven't had a fit back 4.
A back 3 is probably Jackson's preference but he hasn't had the option every week of a back 4, which has made the flexibility people are asking for harder.
Clare in a two is back to Pratley and Gunter levels of last season. If we had used a back 3 last season more often we might not have missed out on the play offs.
However, Jackson didn't revert to a back 4 even when we had the options and were in dire form. The fact we've stuck to the same formation every single week makes it clear it's about his preference, and not because of injuries.
If you had Inniss or Lavelle and last seasons Famewo you might have seen it. We didn't so it's less of a reason to change it.
W15 D5 L13
He deserves a crack, just needs to work with an alternative formation over the summer IMO. (And goes without saying better players)
Intelligent young chap who will improve with a full summer and proper pre-season.
Whereas those that want him gone point to the more tangible taxtical inflexibility, turgid style of play, backwards progress, lack of improvement by coaching, and the poor PPG especially since he was made permanent.
It's moot anyway as he's clearly here to stay, until the inevitable sacking around the same time as Adkins, when another season will be consigned to dust.
We seem to have a very selective memory on here. The first 13 games with a flat back 4 we conceded 25 goals, including the same goal - cutting in from the left, given time and space to slot past our keeper from 20 yards - time and time again. After the switch from a flat back four under Jacko we stopped conceding and started winning clean sheets, 4 in his first 5 games.
We don't have the pace at the back to handle a flat back 4. Neither full back is quick, and Clare apart there is no pace at all. This is one of the biggest problems with the squad in my view, and especially in defence.
We had 6 points with a quarter of the season gone. Very few of us imagined promotion was a possibility at that time, so the suggestion we've underperformed with Jacko is misplaced imo. We were woeful.under Adkins, the recruitment was poor, and Jacko's made probably as much as could have been made from this team, especially given injuries wiped out our entire defence and entire attack at times.
On paper this was probably only a couple of players away from a top 6 squad.
But I agree this was the most unmotivated squad I have seen for a long time.
Why was that?
The answer is probably, because Jackson was unable to motivate them.
And either they didn’t trust, or they didn’t respect the coaching.
Whatever it was,
Jackson was unable to get the squad playing as a cohesive team.
The results do not lie!
Personally i believe Jacko's largely been a success so far. Mistakes? Yes. Learning curve? Yes. But he turned the season around when the same squad was in the bottom 4.
The reason we look to Powell's turnaround is not because any of us think 101 points next year etc but because he showed that with backing and the squad of his choosing he could achieve something. Jacko has earned that chance, although I suspect he won't be backed in the same way.
We won’t be successful if we keep changing manager 2/3 times a season. Those that want him to stay want stability.
Our two worst runs came under Adkins and when we had no senior strikers. Any manager would struggle in the latter scenario, especially with a lack of goalscorers elsewhere in the team. It left us with nothing up front - no one who could hold up the ball, was a threat running in behind or could win a header.
If this was a playoff squad I’d agree, but it’s been clear for months the quality isn’t there. We’re not good enough defensively and don’t have enough goalscorers, no manager will take us up until recruitment is much improved.
If it was poor management and coaching then we should see some of this squad move on to better things. How many from this squad has a realistic chance of getting a Championship move? I can only see CBT and Dobson attracting interest.
If the squad is top 6 quality then we need to replace Jackson and get them all signed up. However we’ve already had confirmation 4 are on their way out and it appears most on here don’t want to see any of the 6 loanees sign permanently. That’s 10 already, and many of us are hoping we release a few more.
That considered, I still think the task Jackson had was mammoth. It’s not like at Sunderland for example when they sacked Johnson, Neil took over with a side in the promotion hunt, not hard to motivate in that case.
We are quick to forget Jackson will learn many harsh lessons from this shit storm of a season. If he is given the boot it would be very harsh, but I admit I could stomach it.
Look at the second goal against Ipswich for example. We have five defenders vs 2 strikers, yet none of our defenders were anywhere near their strikers - instead they were all in a rigid line spread across the back. Thats down to coaching and style of play.
That type of goal has not been an isolated type of goal against us either.
I think even with the right players we would struggle.
- Terrible squad of players that no one on this planet could've got to gel, but JJ and his management team showed what they could be capable of, given the right support.
- Terrible squad of players that no one on this planet could've got to gel and, except for the initial "bounce", JJ and his management team never really showed any glimpse of anything too exciting either.
Given that none of the players who are out of contract in the summer have new deals (including some who we would wager would stay), it suggests to me the priority is sorting those in the short term and finding the additional players to build the squad. He could turn round and sack JJ today (which, even as a believer in JJ, I'd rather have happen now than within the next few weeks), but I suspect the priority is players, not management right now.
Under Adkins, we were at real risk of falling into the relegation fight. We were playing some horrific football. League positions are not decided by squads on paper - this squad felt good-ish at the start, but holes were not properly resolved via. underperforming loans. JJ steadied a sinking ship and I feel he has earned a crack at a transfer window and a pre-season. There's going to be a big shuffle of players, but probably not as big as people want. Armchair managers will continue criticise the system. With some fresh faces, I still think it will work and I honestly believe that our young manager could still prove a lot of people wrong.
If anything, JJ needs more help on the training ground, particularly on the defensive side. There were a shocking amount of times I saw these players (including ones we will retain) not pressure opposing players in the final third to prevent crosses/edge of box shots that ended up going in. Dobson was generally the only one that did this, hence his inflated tackle numbers. Additionally, they all need to improve on their resilience when they go a goal down - 0-1 regularly turned into 0-2+ because they gave up.
I’m finding it difficult to simultaneously wish for a squad overhaul because they’re all crap and at the same time want Jackson gone, if the squad is so bad it needs an overhaul then Jackson, logically, can’t have done too bad at all with his record.
They are also the two clubs that are "over achieving". Cause or effect?
Some times it does some times it doesn't. Quite often with no logical explanation either way. Some times it reverts back to the mean, some times it doesn't.