It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
That’s a great reminder of where we are, and how we got here. 👍
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
Utter utter agree with this - well said
Be careful what you wish for those who are calling out Sandgaard on here, be careful what you wish for…….
Looking at JJ's first 10 league games in charge I wouldn't necessarily (apart from maybe the Plymouth at home game and second half against Rotherham) say I saw anything different in terms of overall performances and trends that we saw throughout the season.
Good away win against Sunderland (similar to our performance against Portsmouth and Rotherham). Turgid scrappy away win against Burton. A game of two halves against Rotherham. A game of two halves against Morecambe Turgid scrappy away loss to Shrewsbury
To be honest his first 10 games in charge for me, felt much like his last 10 games, just a very mixed bag.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
I think this is a fantastic summary and well deserving of a ‘promote’. Every Charlton fan should take a deep breath and read it.
People keep mentioning 8th place. It has no relevance as was not his "target", it was one of the multiple place increments listed to agree different amounts of compensation owed to JJ if TS wanted to fire him, he was contracted for next season regardless of where we finished. If we had ended 8th it would have cost TS more money to fire JJ than finishing 13th for example.
To me this does have me assuming that TS only saw Jackson has a caretaker until the end of the season, no matter where he finished.
Just had incentives for Jackson to 'perform' better for more pay at the end of the year.
Mmmmm……interesting take SELR but I’m not sure that would have been in TS’s mind, it’s a bit too complicated I think.
Looking at JJ's first 10 league games in charge I wouldn't necessarily (apart from maybe the Plymouth at home game and second half against Rotherham) say I saw anything different in terms of overall performances and trends that we saw throughout the season.
Good away win against Sunderland (similar to our performance against Portsmouth and Rotherham). Turgid scrappy away win against Burton. A game of two halves against Rotherham. A game of two halves against Morecambe Turgid scrappy away loss to Shrewsbury
To be honest his first 10 games in charge for me, felt much like his last 10 games, just a very mixed bag.
This all comes back to the fact JJ was adamant playing the 3 5 2 , I know it’s a tired argument but his inability to be flexible or counteract tactics from oppositions meant too many inconsistencies
Looking at JJ's first 10 league games in charge I wouldn't necessarily (apart from maybe the Plymouth at home game and second half against Rotherham) say I saw anything different in terms of overall performances and trends that we saw throughout the season.
Good away win against Sunderland (similar to our performance against Portsmouth and Rotherham). Turgid scrappy away win against Burton. A game of two halves against Rotherham. A game of two halves against Morecambe Turgid scrappy away loss to Shrewsbury
To be honest his first 10 games in charge for me, felt much like his last 10 games, just a very mixed bag.
First 10 games we were getting to all the 2nd balls, and most noticeably we were getting loads of players into the box, not just strikers. Purrington was scoring and getting into the box - that tells you all about our play back then.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
There are comparisons though. What that doesn't mean, or imply, is they are the same. There are comparisons between me and Brad Pitt as well.
Saying Thomas doing y is just similar to Roland doing x doesn't mean you would obviously rather have Roland, does it? Or make everything comparable?
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Surely that proves that new manager bounce is a thing! Not because the new manager is a managerial genius, but rather because it motivates the players to work harder for a few weeks, and perhaps more importantly when a team is struggling, can given the players a short term confidence boost to hear a new voice.
If you have terrible players, a new manager won't change anything, but if you have underperforming players and a manager maybe struggling with the pressure, it can work for a short period to "raise" the team back to its true level. I doubt Mike Jackson is a managerial genius, but he's clearly delivered a short term bounce at Burnley
Has he? Or were Burnley naturally underperforming and always going to run into a bit of form and it so happens to have coincided with the sacking of Dyche?
This is the point, all bad to average teams go through spells in their season where they put good runs of form together and bad runs of form together. We had two of both ourselves.
Let's assume the first was due to a magical new manager bounce, what explains the second?
Or is this just the natural ebb and flow of a 46 game football season and as humans with biases, we are geared towards trying to find relationships and explanations for the things we experience?
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Yeah you're probably right to be honest. We weren't playing that great football I suppose, just busting a gut to get up and down the pitch. I remember saying at the time it was unsustainable levels of effort.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
Slightly harsh on the Plymouth and Ipswich games. Perhaps the games atmosphere has affected my memory of the performance, but i thought we played really well in both, particularly the Plymouth game.
Slightly harsh on the Plymouth and Ipswich games. Perhaps the games atmosphere has affected my memory of the performance, but i thought we played really well in both, particularly the Plymouth game.
Best performance of an admittedly bad season and the only game we won all season that neither Stockley nor Aneke played in. I would say that and Ipswich were the only times we played really well, against half decent teams, the others were dug out.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
The rumour I heard was that new contracts are not being discussed as the new manager may not want you. Slightly different but indicates a decision had been made a while ago.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
The rumour I heard was that new contracts are not being discussed as the new manager may not want you. Slightly different but indicates a decision had been made a while ago.
Explains Washington's diplomatic answers he gave recently to @LouisMend on the subject
Apologies to all the posters on pages 18-27, I’m sure there are some things I’ve missed but hey ho.
Im going to put on my summary hat.
1) Sandgaard never wanted JJ 2) Sandgaard has seen some decent higher level football and is told that minimal investment but playing in that style will get us promoted 3) Sandgaard and Sandgaard junior are keen to find the new budget Pep Guardiola 4) Sandgaard is a businessman with an interest in football that he may not have the funds to realise in the UK but he’s in it now and needs to make a decent fist of it 5) we were mostly shit this season under admins, briefly less shit under a rigid 3-5-2 and then very shit again. Part of this is due to the talent of the players to play in a flexible manner but also a large component is due to the lack of ability of either manager to change their tactics, player mentality or squad belief. Many of the excuses ‘ooh he didn’t have the budget’ ‘’ooh they weren’t his players’ ‘ooh he’s trying to play a structure with the wrong personnel’ ‘ooh we have been so unlucky with injuries’ deserve their own Charlton Manager bingo cards. 6) until the basics are improved at the club, this will always be a hiding to nothing. There are few things that I agree with @Airman Brown about more. Can do a whole extra post on what we think the basics are. Clearly we have lost a few more long standing servants of the club this year and the institutional knowledge of how the fan base has been built before is important: getting is playing decent football and challenging for promotion is number one but not going to do it on its own. Yes we need a new manager and new players but we also need to retain our club history and weed out the blockers. No secret I think that when Tony Keohane leaves the club it will be a better day than the day before:
So when Gareth Southgate unexpectedly quits his England role prior to the world cup to focus on receiving USD 1bn in zynex stock in 5 years time, don’t be too surprised 😮.
Be even less surprised if the email is sent to the wrong Gareth and Gareth Bale rocks up as non-player player managers and we rename the Valley to the Gareth Balley.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
The rumour I heard was that new contracts are not being discussed as the new manager may not want you. Slightly different but indicates a decision had been made a while ago.
Explains Washington's diplomatic answers he gave recently to @LouisMend on the subject
But it wouldn’t explain why someone new is not in place already.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
Comments
Be careful what you wish for those who are calling out Sandgaard on here, be careful what you wish for…….
Good away win against Sunderland (similar to our performance against Portsmouth and Rotherham).
Turgid scrappy away win against Burton.
A game of two halves against Rotherham.
A game of two halves against Morecambe
Turgid scrappy away loss to Shrewsbury
To be honest his first 10 games in charge for me, felt much like his last 10 games, just a very mixed bag.
Saying Thomas doing y is just similar to Roland doing x doesn't mean you would obviously rather have Roland, does it? Or make everything comparable?
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end
Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were
Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot
Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net
Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute
Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter
Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides
Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win
Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Oops, just seen @FishCostaFortune make the same point above.
This is the point, all bad to average teams go through spells in their season where they put good runs of form together and bad runs of form together. We had two of both ourselves.
Let's assume the first was due to a magical new manager bounce, what explains the second?
Or is this just the natural ebb and flow of a 46 game football season and as humans with biases, we are geared towards trying to find relationships and explanations for the things we experience?
Cawley said he was interested before.
Add Robinson's 4-2-3-1 to the above and you have bingo.
Im going to put on my summary hat.
1) Sandgaard never wanted JJ
2) Sandgaard has seen some decent higher level football and is told that minimal investment but playing in that style will get us promoted
3) Sandgaard and Sandgaard junior are keen to find the new budget Pep Guardiola
4) Sandgaard is a businessman with an interest in football that he may not have the funds to realise in the UK but he’s in it now and needs to make a decent fist of it
5) we were mostly shit this season under admins, briefly less shit under a rigid 3-5-2 and then very shit again. Part of this is due to the talent of the players to play in a flexible manner but also a large component is due to the lack of ability of either manager to change their tactics, player mentality or squad belief. Many of the excuses ‘ooh he didn’t have the budget’ ‘’ooh they weren’t his players’ ‘ooh he’s trying to play a structure with the wrong personnel’ ‘ooh we have been so unlucky with injuries’ deserve their own Charlton Manager bingo cards.
6) until the basics are improved at the club, this will always be a hiding to nothing. There are few things that I agree with @Airman Brown about more. Can do a whole extra post on what we think the basics are. Clearly we have lost a few more long standing servants of the club this year and the institutional knowledge of how the fan base has been built before is important: getting is playing decent football and challenging for promotion is number one but not going to do it on its own. Yes we need a new manager and new players but we also need to retain our club history and weed out the blockers. No secret I think that when Tony Keohane leaves the club it will be a better day than the day before:
So when Gareth Southgate unexpectedly quits his England role prior to the world cup to focus on receiving USD 1bn in zynex stock in 5 years time, don’t be too surprised 😮.
Be even less surprised if the email is sent to the wrong Gareth and Gareth Bale rocks up as non-player player managers and we rename the Valley to the Gareth Balley.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.