Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Why did Powell sub Razak?

Greenie
Greenie Posts: 9,174
edited October 2012 in General Charlton
Cant find an answer to this, has Powell said why he subbed Razak?

Comments

  • Marriott110
    Marriott110 Posts: 1,529
    I'll put it down to the fact he didn't drop in to cm enough and the fact he travelled to africa and back mid week
  • cafcfan
    cafcfan Posts: 11,235
    I can only assume it was down to the riot at the Senegal vs Ivory Coast game which sounded very nasty indeed and cannot have been a very pleasant thing to have to put up with.
  • 000__Jaaaaay__000
    000__Jaaaaay__000 Posts: 2,350
    I think he wanted two up top, him playing behind the striker didn't really work and isolated ricardo fuller
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,479
    000__Jaaaaay__000 said:

    I think he wanted two up top, him playing behind the striker didn't really work and isolated ricardo fuller

    I'm guessing that was the idea, though BWP after he came on hardly touched the ball and had minimal impact
  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,359
    TJ told him too
  • roseandcrown
    roseandcrown Posts: 7,593
    killerandflash said:

    000__Jaaaaay__000 said:

    I think he wanted two up top, him playing behind the striker didn't really work and isolated ricardo fuller

    I'm guessing that was the idea, though BWP after he came on hardly touched the ball and had minimal impact
    Its hard for a player like BPW to get much of the ball when it was just getting pumped long for most of the second half. Fuller aint gonna win them balls for BWP.
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,212
    IF it was a tactical decision I'd rather Hollands had come off instead.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,823
    Yes, he wanted to affect the game with two strikers - Stephens was playing ok - he took Hollands off for JJ remember.
  • Mendonca In Asdas
    Mendonca In Asdas Posts: 22,718
    He wanted to get home in time for strictly?

    I'm glad someone asked this question , i thought he was one of our best players , it was a gamble that didn't pay off unfortunately , maybe he was thinking of Tuesday nights game as well?
  • BigRedEvil
    BigRedEvil Posts: 11,129
    Next home game I'd start Razak and Stephens in the middle at least there's a bit of creativity in those two to create some chances

  • Sponsored links:



  • Swisdom
    Swisdom Posts: 14,980
    MuttleyCAFC said:

    Yes, he wanted to affect the game with two strikers - Stephens was playing ok - he took Hollands off for JJ remember.

    And JJ chased shadows for 45 mins

  • Bedsaddick
    Bedsaddick Posts: 24,996
    Because he was lazy. He may have had a couple of good moments but most of the time he looked uninterested and a typical " cant be bothered" loanee.
  • Nicholas
    Nicholas Posts: 7,678
    What I dont understand is why is he playing Rasak behind Fuller in the first place, Has to be Stephens position in a 5 man midfield surely.
  • lolwray
    lolwray Posts: 4,932
    Bedsaddick said:

    Because he was lazy. He may have had a couple of good moments but most of the time he looked uninterested and a typical " cant be bothered" loanee.

    Razak put in a good cross and hit a good free kick ...he lost the ball numerous times and didnt make space and close down his player when he didnt have the ball ..i agree with above


  • Athletico Charlton
    Athletico Charlton Posts: 14,430
    thought he looked a very good prospect but with a real attitude and waived his hands in the air a couple of times which is hugely dissapointing from a kid. Tactically may have been a bad move to sub him but if it teaches him a lesson it could be a good move in the longer term. Hopefully he will do less moaning and more playing tomorrow night.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,514
    lolwray said:

    Bedsaddick said:

    Because he was lazy. He may have had a couple of good moments but most of the time he looked uninterested and a typical " cant be bothered" loanee.

    Razak put in a good cross and hit a good free kick ...he lost the ball numerous times and didnt make space and close down his player when he didnt have the ball ..i agree with above


    He wasn't lazy. He was man marking Perkins (their blonde midfielder) all through the 1st half and just sat on him.

    This stopped Perkins having much influence first half but also meant that Razek did little and allowed the rest of their midfield to pass the ball around without him closing down.

    I assume he was playing to orders rather than just fancied a rest.

    And as others have said he had travelled to Africa midweek so might have been a bit knackered.

  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,632
    Bedsaddick said:

    Because he was tired. He may have had a couple of good moments but most of the time he looked knackered and a typical "over-travelled" teenager.

  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 51,571
    killerandflash said:

    000__Jaaaaay__000 said:

    I think he wanted two up top, him playing behind the striker didn't really work and isolated ricardo fuller

    I'm guessing that was the idea, though BWP after he came on hardly touched the ball and had minimal impact
    I believe this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.



  • redman
    redman Posts: 5,318
    He was having a bad game, simple. Henry - yes he did start off marking perkins and for the first 10 minutes it worked. This looked a deliberate tactical ploy. After that it became sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't which is why they got on top.
    Unfortunately the subs didn't work but at least powell tried something. I must admit thinking at half time defeat was ineviatble unless we changed something.
  • ISawLeaburnScore
    ISawLeaburnScore Posts: 9,780
    I must be alone in thinking that out of the 7 midfielders we saw on Saturday one way or another he was probably the best performer (not saying much perhaps)

  • Sponsored links:



  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,292
    ISawLeaburnScore said:

    I must be alone in thinking that out of the 7 midfielders we saw on Saturday one way or another he was probably the best performer (not saying much perhaps)



    I thought the Barnsley albino was good. Always available, never lost possession, kept things going for them.

  • roseandcrown
    roseandcrown Posts: 7,593
    A little bit off topic but i think it is the third time i have seen Perkins play and each time i have thought he looks good, Was he that good or do you just notice him because of his hair?
  • ISawLeaburnScore
    ISawLeaburnScore Posts: 9,780
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:

    ISawLeaburnScore said:

    I must be alone in thinking that out of the 7 midfielders we saw on Saturday one way or another he was probably the best performer (not saying much perhaps)



    I thought the Barnsley albino was good. Always available, never lost possession, kept things going for them.

    Sorry... 7 of our midfielders who played either from the start or the bench
  • eldavide
    eldavide Posts: 384
    Really can't see how some people thought he did a good job on Perkins. The little fella ran the show. If any of our midfielders (Stephens) wants a lesson on how to dictate a game, watch Perkins, the Watford player, and Shelvey V San Marino, always want the ball, always do something with it.
  • Mortimerician
    Mortimerician Posts: 5,222
    Agree with Henry's take on it. He quietened down their most effective player and had a decent game IMO. I think Powell felt that Jacko could have turned the game around, but with hindsight it may have been better to only switch to 442 (Hollands for BWP)

Categories

“Marketplace”