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

PrincessFiona said:

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.

Who else could have covered at CB though?

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.

Cafc43v3r said:

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.

My problem with it was have a comedian, trying to to be funny, doing our game.  It seemed to trivialise it for me.  Its a serious business. 

That would have been my issue if they were male, female, gay, straight, animal, vegetable or mineral. 

ValleyGary said:

I would happily have Tom Allen on Valley Pass. His commentary on Sky Sports for our game was superb. “He’s bald and he looks like me”😂

killerandflash said:

grumpyaddick said:

Wish I understood those pass maps.

Just looks like randomly scattered uncooked spaghetti to me.

And why is some red and some yellow? And what is that puffy yellow blurr at the end? 

Bewildering.

Yellow successful, red unsuccessful. The arrow shows the direction the ball went in. The heatmap shows where the players were during the match

ross1 said:

Bogle had 9 passes, only one successful and that was the only one that went forward, all the rest went back. But from peoples match comments, he was running everywhere and had a good game.............confused 

ross1 said:

Bogle had 9 passes, only one successful and that was the only one that went forward, all the rest went back. But from peoples match comments, he was running everywhere and had a good game.............confused 

golfaddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

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. 

I agree with your general point, but your lumping all the fruit bowl together and calling them apples.

Take the draws out, because a draw after going behind is more often than not a good point.  Obvious exceptions apply. 

Then take out the games we were never in, because they are irrelevant to your point.  Do you think we would have won at Elland Road if we scored first?

If you look at our points per game when we concede 0,1 and 1+ goals probably actually makes more of a point. 

I hear what you say but as I'm not a stats man I really can't be arsed to trawl back over the past 12 months to find out. However, my memory says that in most of the games that we conceeded first we only lost by the odd goal. I grant you that there were the 4-0 defeats at Leeds & Huddersfield........but my point is, we rarely lose once going ahead & lots of the 20 games since last Boxing Day that we lost by conceding first we may well have won if we had scored first. 

golfaddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

golfaddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

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. 

I agree with your general point, but your lumping all the fruit bowl together and calling them apples.

Take the draws out, because a draw after going behind is more often than not a good point.  Obvious exceptions apply. 

Then take out the games we were never in, because they are irrelevant to your point.  Do you think we would have won at Elland Road if we scored first?

If you look at our points per game when we concede 0,1 and 1+ goals probably actually makes more of a point. 

I hear what you say but as I'm not a stats man I really can't be arsed to trawl back over the past 12 months to find out. However, my memory says that in most of the games that we conceeded first we only lost by the odd goal. I grant you that there were the 4-0 defeats at Leeds & Huddersfield........but my point is, we rarely lose once going ahead & lots of the 20 games since last Boxing Day that we lost by conceding first we may well have won if we had scored first. 

On Saturday there was a full league 1 program. Of the 12 games there were 2 draws. 1 nil nil and 1 1 all.

Of the other 10 the team that scored first won 9 of the them.  We were the only team that scored 1st, then went behind, then won.

In our games this season (16) we have scored 1st in 11 and won 10 of them and drew at shewsbury.  Had 1 nil nil.  Conceded 1st in 4, of which we drew 1 and lost 3.  So in 15 games where either team has scored 13 of them were won by the team that scored 1st. And the other 2 were draws. 

I don't think it's as common as you think either it is or as it should be. 

Thank you & very enlightening. I had it mind this afternoon to go back to the start of last season to work out similar stats from then to now, as the Play-off Final is the last time I can recall us coming back to win after going 1-0 down.....62 games ago. You say it is not that common, but week in & week out I watch Soccer Saturday & see teams doing  just that. I know Pompey have done it this season & I think Ipswich have too......and I'm pretty certain they've also lost this season after going 1-0 up. Pretty much every team in our league have do far this season so its not that rare.

The thing I take from it all is that your stats are pretty compelling so Bowyer (or any other manager for that matter) should be looking to score first - so no sitting back & being patient but taking the game to the opposition. That also means starting with our best 11 & not resting players or using "super subs".

Redrobo said:

Covered End 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.

The pass maps you have just quoted clearly show all the passes along the back, together with the backward passes. Although I grant you it wasn't as many as the recent games.

Just one pass backwards from Pratley in the whole match. I did NOT quote the stats as I was writing when they came out, it was my perception. I think they are very good stats for a CH.
Three backward passes from Pearce. I would love to see better stats from any team.