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.
Have we improved or stayed the same in the last few months?
Every game we seem to pick a different XI which again does not help.
Really want him to do well but I think he needs someone with him to learn from
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.
Clare isn't a CB though, asking him to play in a flat 4 would have been a mistake. He has been a revelation in a back 3, doubt he'd be as effective in a flat 4. You say some have a selective memory but that's just not the case is it. A switch from a back 4 to a back 5 should mean we concede less goals, that's obvious. If we start next season playing a 9-1 formation, I expect we'll concede even less. We all know we had the new manager bounce but that stopped once he was appointed permanently. Whether you want to blame Jackson, the players or a bit of both, let's not pretend we were particularly good from Christmas onwards.
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.
Clare isn't a CB though, asking him to play in a flat 4 would have been a mistake. He has been a revelation in a back 3, doubt he'd be as effective in a flat 4. You say some have a selective memory but that's just not the case is it. A switch from a back 4 to a back 5 should mean we concede less goals, that's obvious. If we start next season playing a 9-1 formation, I expect we'll concede even less. We all know we had the new manager bounce but that stopped once he was appointed permanently. Whether you want to blame Jackson, the players or a bit of both, let's not pretend we were particularly good from Christmas onwards.
Only if our defenders pick up the opposing strikers, not like we did at Ipswich, and many other games this season
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.
Clare isn't a CB though, asking him to play in a flat 4 would have been a mistake. He has been a revelation in a back 3, doubt he'd be as effective in a flat 4. You say some have a selective memory but that's just not the case is it. A switch from a back 4 to a back 5 should mean we concede less goals, that's obvious. If we start next season playing a 9-1 formation, I expect we'll concede even less. We all know we had the new manager bounce but that stopped once he was appointed permanently. Whether you want to blame Jackson, the players or a bit of both, let's not pretend we were particularly good from Christmas onwards.
Only if our defenders pick up the opposing strikers, not like we did at Ipswich, and many other games this season
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.
Clare isn't a CB though, asking him to play in a flat 4 would have been a mistake. He has been a revelation in a back 3, doubt he'd be as effective in a flat 4. You say some have a selective memory but that's just not the case is it. A switch from a back 4 to a back 5 should mean we concede less goals, that's obvious. If we start next season playing a 9-1 formation, I expect we'll concede even less. We all know we had the new manager bounce but that stopped once he was appointed permanently. Whether you want to blame Jackson, the players or a bit of both, let's not pretend we were particularly good from Christmas onwards.
Only if our defenders pick up the opposing strikers, not like we did at Ipswich, and many other games this season
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.
There was always the feeling Ipswich had good players and were underachieving.
We all agree we can’t say that’s the case for us don’t we?
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.
There was always the feeling Ipswich had good players and were underachieving.
We all agree we can’t say that’s the case for us don’t we?
Results wise certainly.
All other things being equal we would never have finished above Ipswich and below Fleetwood. The criticism would potentially be that some of the performances have reverted back to last winter and Adkins level of awfulness, even in games we have won. That though is probably the mean.
Comments
Every game we seem to pick a different XI which again does not help.
Really want him to do well but I think he needs someone with him to learn from
We all agree we can’t say that’s the case for us don’t we?
All other things being equal we would never have finished above Ipswich and below Fleetwood. The criticism would potentially be that some of the performances have reverted back to last winter and Adkins level of awfulness, even in games we have won. That though is probably the mean.
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/62712708a9d7b/johnnie-jackson-departs-as-clubs-manager