Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Post-match Thread: Charlton Athletic v Plymouth Argyle | Tuesday 16th August 2022
Comments
-
I must say I’m loving Lavelle seemingly taking Kirk under his wing. Seems to be doing wonders for making him feel at home16
-
62 -
True but surely that's true of every single team in the division with the squad cap in place. Wednesday look like having good strength in depth right now but a few badly timed injuries or suspensions and those bench players are first and only choice and suddenly it's not so rosy.MuttleyCAFC said:You can still see how we could be vulnerable to a defensive or attacking crisis if we don't address now. I don't want to rain on the parade but it is quite possible as it currently stands. Yesterday showed we look resilient enough in midfield.
I totally get the point you are making but regardless of our owner and/or manager I don't think we'll see a truly, properly balanced squad in this league and not through any real fault of our own. Compromises and high hopes will have to be made.0 -
A bit of a contradiction there I suspect. He references a number of their games at the Valley and suggests we were bang average, then at the end suggests it looks like there were 3 divisions between us when they play us!0
-
To be fair... Dont think there are many Charlton fans who are overly confident of promotion just yet either.
Jacob needs to calm down and have a cracker.5 -
Christ I can taste them sour grapes from here.....
We were better than them with 11 players on the pitch....just take it on the chin nipper!6 -
Plymouth were poor, but they'll be top 8, as shown by their win over Posh. I have noticed comments from sensible Plymouth fans, that Schumacher needs to find a plan B for away games, as they're far too open away from home. They made it easy for us, even before the sending off.0
-
An OK side, harshly reduced to 10 men, was put to the sword and we witnessed a goal of the season contender, all good fun at the time.
But the silver lining of last night's outcome comes with its own big, dark cloud:
Goals came from across the team - Skintgaard will use that as justification for no backup for Stockers - Miles Leaburn is great to watch but he's 18 FFS and has 5 appearances total i.e. not shoulders onto which the burden of being lone striker at least until January should sensibly be put
Kirk's name appears in the stats as goal scorer and assist provider but his goal deflected in off a defender and nobody saw a goal coming from that pass to Clare, that worldy was all Sean's own work. Last night was Kirk's best showing but that is the feintest of feint praise, there are to date no other performances worthy of the name
Charles Clayden might be 21 but he has just 5 league appearances to date, is that realistically sufficient backup to Sessegnon as our only other leftback of any kind?
Sean Clare was excellent last night but he's all we've got at right back.
Jack Payne was a headless chicken and gave away the goal. McGrandles has been awful so far. O'Connell is the slowest CH I've seen play for Charlton. Fraser can't last 90 minutes. Chuks and Inniss are made of glass.
We're an injury and a suspension away from not having an adequate squad. Saturday's decline against Wednesday is a way more likely template than last night's one off.
The owner's illegally sacking valuable staff to penny pinch a few thousand in favour of stoopid free drink promos - he ain't gonna be coming up with the fees or salaries for adequate cover for the blatantly thin patches in this squad. It hangs on wishes and lots of luck...22 -
He seems to have forgotten about the 6-0 away win at there ground two seasons back.2
-
Ridiculous post. Play like we did against Wednesday and we'd win more than we'd lose, so using that as your template is ridiculous. You can't just say '10 men', as it was effectively 2-0 as he got sent off.Billy_Mix said:An OK side, harshly reduced to 10 men, was put to the sword and we witnessed a goal of the season contender, all good fun at the time.
But the silver lining of last night's outcome comes with its own big, dark cloud:
Goals came from across the team - Skintgaard will use that as justification for no backup for Stockers - Miles Leaburn is great to watch but he's 18 FFS and has 5 appearances total i.e. not shoulders onto which the burden of being lone striker at least until January should sensibly be put
Kirk's name appears in the stats as goal scorer and assist provider but his goal deflected in off a defender and nobody saw a goal coming from that pass to Clare, that worldy was all Sean's own work. Last night was Kirk's best showing but that is the feintest of feint praise, there are to date no other performances worthy of the name
Charles Clayden might be 21 but he has just 5 league appearances to date, is that realistically sufficient backup to Sessegnon as our only other leftback of any kind?
Sean Clare was excellent last night but he's all we've got at right back.
Jack Payne was a headless chicken and gave away the goal. McGrandles has been awful so far. O'Connell is the slowest CH I've seen play for Charlton. Fraser can't last 90 minutes. Chuks and Inniss are made of glass.
We're an injury and a suspension away from not having an adequate squad. Saturday's decline against Wednesday is a way more likely template than last night's one off.
The owner's illegally sacking valuable staff to penny pinch a few thousand in favour of stoopid free drink promos - he ain't gonna be coming up with the fees or salaries for adequate cover for the blatantly thin patches in this squad. It hangs on wishes and lots of luck...
Kirk put the ball on Stockley's head 5 yards out and should've had an assist then. The guy was fantastic 2nd half. Also we had CBT on the bench.
Payne wasn't a headless chicken, and gave the ball away on the halfway line with his DM and defenders behind him.
McG wasn't awful last night, albeit he hadn't impressed to that point. Fraser faded, I'll grant you that. We could do with another striker and ideal world another LB, but the on field position is so much better with Garner in charge and this line up.
Judge the striker position on 2nd September.
I'm not defending the Olly decision, that's a shocker in my book, but how can you be so negative after that performance?11 - Sponsored links:
-
Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?0 -
Have you met Thunderc...Billy Mix before?Jonniesta said:
Ridiculous post. Play like we did against Wednesday and we'd win more than we'd lose, so using that as your template is ridiculous. You can't just say '10 men', as it was effectively 2-0 as he got sent off.Billy_Mix said:An OK side, harshly reduced to 10 men, was put to the sword and we witnessed a goal of the season contender, all good fun at the time.
But the silver lining of last night's outcome comes with its own big, dark cloud:
Goals came from across the team - Skintgaard will use that as justification for no backup for Stockers - Miles Leaburn is great to watch but he's 18 FFS and has 5 appearances total i.e. not shoulders onto which the burden of being lone striker at least until January should sensibly be put
Kirk's name appears in the stats as goal scorer and assist provider but his goal deflected in off a defender and nobody saw a goal coming from that pass to Clare, that worldy was all Sean's own work. Last night was Kirk's best showing but that is the feintest of feint praise, there are to date no other performances worthy of the name
Charles Clayden might be 21 but he has just 5 league appearances to date, is that realistically sufficient backup to Sessegnon as our only other leftback of any kind?
Sean Clare was excellent last night but he's all we've got at right back.
Jack Payne was a headless chicken and gave away the goal. McGrandles has been awful so far. O'Connell is the slowest CH I've seen play for Charlton. Fraser can't last 90 minutes. Chuks and Inniss are made of glass.
We're an injury and a suspension away from not having an adequate squad. Saturday's decline against Wednesday is a way more likely template than last night's one off.
The owner's illegally sacking valuable staff to penny pinch a few thousand in favour of stoopid free drink promos - he ain't gonna be coming up with the fees or salaries for adequate cover for the blatantly thin patches in this squad. It hangs on wishes and lots of luck...
Kirk put the ball on Stockley's head 5 yards out and should've had an assist then. The guy was fantastic 2nd half. Also we had CBT on the bench.
Payne wasn't a headless chicken, and gave the ball away on the halfway line with his DM and defenders behind him.
McG wasn't awful last night, albeit he hadn't impressed to that point. Fraser faded, I'll grant you that. We could do with another striker and ideal world another LB, but the on field position is so much better with Garner in charge and this line up.
Judge the striker position on 2nd September.
I'm not defending the Olly decision, that's a shocker in my book, but how can you be so negative after that performance?3 -
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?0 -
Very delusional fan base, love beating them... Easy game COYR.Callumcafc said:1 -
Football was great, result was great but do you know what pleased me most? The response to their goal.
I know they only had ten men but Charlton teams of years gone by would have crumbled and conceded at least one more for a nervy end, some Charlton teams would even have drawn 3-3.
There was no panic, from kick off we played the exact same way and dominated the game again immediately.
It may seem silly but genuinely that is what pleased me most, it shows that not only has the football improved but there has been a huge mentality shift.30 -
A misplaced pass by Payne, then Dobson diving in and missing. Maybe the centre backs could have done more, but ultimately it wasn't down to them.Leuth said:
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?2 -
Are you related to Golfie?Billy_Mix said:An OK side, harshly reduced to 10 men, was put to the sword and we witnessed a goal of the season contender, all good fun at the time.
But the silver lining of last night's outcome comes with its own big, dark cloud:
Goals came from across the team - Skintgaard will use that as justification for no backup for Stockers - Miles Leaburn is great to watch but he's 18 FFS and has 5 appearances total i.e. not shoulders onto which the burden of being lone striker at least until January should sensibly be put
Kirk's name appears in the stats as goal scorer and assist provider but his goal deflected in off a defender and nobody saw a goal coming from that pass to Clare, that worldy was all Sean's own work. Last night was Kirk's best showing but that is the feintest of feint praise, there are to date no other performances worthy of the name
Charles Clayden might be 21 but he has just 5 league appearances to date, is that realistically sufficient backup to Sessegnon as our only other leftback of any kind?
Sean Clare was excellent last night but he's all we've got at right back.
Jack Payne was a headless chicken and gave away the goal. McGrandles has been awful so far. O'Connell is the slowest CH I've seen play for Charlton. Fraser can't last 90 minutes. Chuks and Inniss are made of glass.
We're an injury and a suspension away from not having an adequate squad. Saturday's decline against Wednesday is a way more likely template than last night's one off.
The owner's illegally sacking valuable staff to penny pinch a few thousand in favour of stoopid free drink promos - he ain't gonna be coming up with the fees or salaries for adequate cover for the blatantly thin patches in this squad. It hangs on wishes and lots of luck...6 -
Thanks but doesn't really answer the question. Allowing the player to come on to the box and giving the forward a better opportunity to score, why not tackle when further out?Leuth said:
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?0 -
Guess the thought process is if you commit and the forward takes the ball past you he's clear on goal.sillav nitram said:
Thanks but doesn't really answer the question. Allowing the player to come on to the box and giving the forward a better opportunity to score, why not tackle when further out?Leuth said:
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?
Backing off gives you more time for support or for the forward to take a bad touch or mess it up himself.4 -
Plus, he had players either side he could have passed to. Lavelle played it about as well as he couldBelv said:
Guess the thought process is if you commit and the forward takes the ball past you he's clear on goal.sillav nitram said:
Thanks but doesn't really answer the question. Allowing the player to come on to the box and giving the forward a better opportunity to score, why not tackle when further out?Leuth said:
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?
Backing off gives you more time for support or for the forward to take a bad touch or mess it up himself.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Because all the time you are between the forward and your own goal you have a chance to knick/block/intercept the ball, albeit a small one. If you try a tackle and miss (like Dobson did) then he's away and you can't tackle him without risking a card.sillav nitram said:
Thanks but doesn't really answer the question. Allowing the player to come on to the box and giving the forward a better opportunity to score, why not tackle when further out?Leuth said:
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?3 -
The goals have come in a flood, let's hope the drought stays well away
Good win even against ten for much of the game, Plymouth are probably one of the better L1 teams
Garner has got them playing for him, I can't see any new arrivals before the 'window' shuts once again
Great morale boost for players and fans, bring on the Cambs chapppies before two tricky away trips0 -
Almost bound to get smashed nowDOUCHER said:Brilliant performance - what a difference a manager makes - looking very promising - the composure and movement is so much better from everybody - the new fellas all look great, Morgan looks transformed and Clare has gone up several gears - a really good player - looking forward to Saturday. If you weren't down there last night, get there Saturday - this team and manager are well worth watching1 -
Same as his reaction to Henry's goal. I'm warming to 'Kirky'.LargeAddick said:just love the reaction from Kirk to Clare's goal, hands on head as if to say WTF?1 -
Seems Curbs has decided on his name for JRS this season. He's calling him "Razaki."12
-
Or good old Stig?charente addick said:
Are you related to Golfie?Billy_Mix said:An OK side, harshly reduced to 10 men, was put to the sword and we witnessed a goal of the season contender, all good fun at the time.
But the silver lining of last night's outcome comes with its own big, dark cloud:
Goals came from across the team - Skintgaard will use that as justification for no backup for Stockers - Miles Leaburn is great to watch but he's 18 FFS and has 5 appearances total i.e. not shoulders onto which the burden of being lone striker at least until January should sensibly be put
Kirk's name appears in the stats as goal scorer and assist provider but his goal deflected in off a defender and nobody saw a goal coming from that pass to Clare, that worldy was all Sean's own work. Last night was Kirk's best showing but that is the feintest of feint praise, there are to date no other performances worthy of the name
Charles Clayden might be 21 but he has just 5 league appearances to date, is that realistically sufficient backup to Sessegnon as our only other leftback of any kind?
Sean Clare was excellent last night but he's all we've got at right back.
Jack Payne was a headless chicken and gave away the goal. McGrandles has been awful so far. O'Connell is the slowest CH I've seen play for Charlton. Fraser can't last 90 minutes. Chuks and Inniss are made of glass.
We're an injury and a suspension away from not having an adequate squad. Saturday's decline against Wednesday is a way more likely template than last night's one off.
The owner's illegally sacking valuable staff to penny pinch a few thousand in favour of stoopid free drink promos - he ain't gonna be coming up with the fees or salaries for adequate cover for the blatantly thin patches in this squad. It hangs on wishes and lots of luck...0 -
Razaki on the right & Corey Blackett on the left.Chunes said:Seems Curbs has decided on his name for JRS this season. He's calling him "Razaki."5 -
Of course we shouldn’t be overconfident or cocky but Wycombe haven’t had a good start to the season. Seem very beatable at the moment so good time to play them surely?seth plum said:It might be worth inserting an ‘eyes on the prize’ post here.
A glorious win like yesterday is still only worth the three points of a scrappy 1-0 (goal difference notwithstanding).
So my target of winning every home game and drawing every away game has slipped, and we are one point short at the moment.
That makes Cambridge a must win, and even following that with a draw at Wycombe still leaves us one point short of the target.
Even winning against Cambridge and Wycombe only provides us with a one point cushion.0 -
I suppose if it had been only 1-0, then a player would have taken a card for the teamthenewbie said:
Because all the time you are between the forward and your own goal you have a chance to knick/block/intercept the ball, albeit a small one. If you try a tackle and miss (like Dobson did) then he's away and you can't tackle him without risking a card.sillav nitram said:
Thanks but doesn't really answer the question. Allowing the player to come on to the box and giving the forward a better opportunity to score, why not tackle when further out?Leuth said:
Dobson being nutmegged put them all in trouble. Lavelle's best bet was to do what he did - force the 20-yard shot. It went in.sillav nitram said:Just a question.
Watching Plymouths goal, saw our defenders backing off and allowing him the space to move towards our box and ultimately score. This seems a familiar trait and not just with us.
Why do defenders do that, back off, rather than go to the marauding forward, fear of a mistimed challenge or what?1 -
What would you be like if we had lost last night?Billy_Mix said:An OK side, harshly reduced to 10 men, was put to the sword and we witnessed a goal of the season contender, all good fun at the time.
But the silver lining of last night's outcome comes with its own big, dark cloud:
Goals came from across the team - Skintgaard will use that as justification for no backup for Stockers - Miles Leaburn is great to watch but he's 18 FFS and has 5 appearances total i.e. not shoulders onto which the burden of being lone striker at least until January should sensibly be put
Kirk's name appears in the stats as goal scorer and assist provider but his goal deflected in off a defender and nobody saw a goal coming from that pass to Clare, that worldy was all Sean's own work. Last night was Kirk's best showing but that is the feintest of feint praise, there are to date no other performances worthy of the name
Charles Clayden might be 21 but he has just 5 league appearances to date, is that realistically sufficient backup to Sessegnon as our only other leftback of any kind?
Sean Clare was excellent last night but he's all we've got at right back.
Jack Payne was a headless chicken and gave away the goal. McGrandles has been awful so far. O'Connell is the slowest CH I've seen play for Charlton. Fraser can't last 90 minutes. Chuks and Inniss are made of glass.
We're an injury and a suspension away from not having an adequate squad. Saturday's decline against Wednesday is a way more likely template than last night's one off.
The owner's illegally sacking valuable staff to penny pinch a few thousand in favour of stoopid free drink promos - he ain't gonna be coming up with the fees or salaries for adequate cover for the blatantly thin patches in this squad. It hangs on wishes and lots of luck...9
