Post-match thread: Charlton v AFC Wimbledon | Sat 12 Dec 2020

AFKABartram said:

Davo55 said:

charltonnick said:

I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.

Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 

.... Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players.
Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  

Crusty54 said:

The difference yesterday that the crosses were kept low. Much better for the players we've got.

Crusty54 said:

The difference yesterday that the crosses were kept low. Much better for the players we've got.

Todds_right_hook said:

jimmymelrose said:

AFKABartram said:

Davo55 said:

charltonnick said:

I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.

Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 

I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.

Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.

So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.

We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.  

Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally. 

Just my take. 

Heavily deflected goal?
What!?

Their number 22 stuck out his leg. It looked like it clipped him but I didn’t think it changed the trajectory of the ball! My Eyes are bad so I might not be the best person to comment!

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

KentishAddick said:

Off_it said:

ricky_otto said:

Off_it said:

killerandflash said:

I saw a reference to Tom Allen on Sky, and I assumed it was a sports reporter with the same name as the ubiquitous comedian, but no!

https://twitter.com/footballdaily/status/1337796444313563139

He went to school in Chislehurst - Coopers - so maybe he's a fan?

He is my mates mate (one of them turn outs!). Safe to say he isn’t a Charlton fan. 

So what was he doing there? Odd.

Sky got him there to raise awareness for their rainbow laces events. Safe to say it worked as it's been trending on twitter all evening.

I might be calling this entirely wrong so please don't give me pelters but I thought it was a bit odd given the cause it is promoting.

Tom Allen is a comedian and admittedly has no interest or knowledge in football.  

Would it not have been a better strategy to have a gay commentator who was a genuine football fan/ knowledgeable on the game?

Admittedly I am only going on the twitter clip and comments on here but it seems to me it was a bit of a caricature camp bloke which hails back to the stereotype that many homosexual men probably want to move away from being perceived as based on years of stereotyping and clichés...i.e. a camp bloke being a hoot and knowing nothing about the game...seems quite counterproductive to the message of rainbow laces and the hackneyed cliches that have probably led to the need for such campaigns over the years.

Maybe I am calling this massively wrong and/ or looking into it far too much but it just seems weird why you would get a comedian who knows zilch about the game to turn up on that day of all days to commentate because he happens to be a gay man....it sort of trivialises the serious issue of homophobia in the game maybe and would have perhaps been more in line with the aim by getting a gay celebrity football fan who was into football knew their stuff and wasn't camp.


Not a dig at Tom either as he is quite funny at times on some of the stuff I've seen him on but it just felt a bit weird yesterday and sort of  similar to having a female fan commenting on players' legs or other tired cliche/ stereotypes 

Happy to be educated if I am being ignorant/ missed the point but that was just my initial instinct.

MattF said:

Redrobo said:

AFKABartram said:

Davo55 said:

charltonnick said:

I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.

Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 

I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.

Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.

So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.

We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.  

Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally. 

Just my take. 

I can’t understand this view that we played along the back 4 in the first half. I can’t remember a backward pass by Pratley and almost every pass was forward by all the defenders. And I am talking first half. Can’t wait for the passing stats. I sat there amazed at the change of play from previous games. Everything was forward and positive.
The movement front those in front of the back line is something I have criticised, but this was not the case in this game. I thought we were positive throughout.

mendonca said:

For me, Gunter's performance at RB shows we made the wrong decision playing him CB for 2/3 games too many. Penalties conceded aside.

golfaddick said:

Oggy Red said:

AFKABartram said:

Davo55 said:

charltonnick said:

I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.

Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 

.... Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players.
Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  

 
I've always thought this ........ surely it's Bowyer's preferred modus operandi? We never seem to kick off a match with all guns blazing.
Invariably we start with the intention of being a compact defensive unit, don't give anything away and nick a goal on the counter. If we do, we cling on to that lead, rinse and repeat.

If we haven't made a breakthrough or chasing the game then last 30 mins, bring on the cavalry to snatch a result.
You could say it's because Williams and Aneke don't appear to have 90 mins in them - so use them to best advantage when opponents are tiring and the game opens up.

I guess it's Bowyer's way of getting the best out of a limited squad lacking pace, especially those with a need to be managed carefully.

The only problem with this (if it has been LB's tactics) is that it has not worked 20 times that we have fallen behind. Once, twice or even half a dozen times I can understand but TWENTY. Starting off with your "weaker" players with the knowledge that the last 20 times you have conceded first you haven't managed to turn it around (and I think in those 20 games only managed a couple of draws) means that the plan clearly needs a rethink. It worked yesterday, but that was once in 21 times since Boxing Day last year. Hardly a ringing endorsement. 

For context, away at Ipswich just 2 weeks ago we started with Aneke & won 2-0.