Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Post Match Thread: Charlton Athletic v Rochdale | Tues 12 January 2021
Comments
-
bloody typical of a new signing to get himself injured trying to go for a wayward last goal kick.meldrew66 said:
He went down hard chasing a ball on the side-line in the final act of the game. You could hear the impact and he looked in pain holding his back. Hope he’s ok.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Did i read correctly that Schwartz injured himself walking off the pitch?!
Also a bit concerned at what our defence is going to look like on Saturday. Although the way he's been playing Pearce is no great loss. I wouldn't mind seeing Barker back in there, keep hearing that he's still raw and not ready but he did well at the start of the season.
i don't know what the rules are but it was obvious that the ref was gonna blow his whistle. could he not of done it before the goal kick was taken? or does the ball have to be back in play.0 -
I wouldn't worry. To me it just looked like a painful fall onto the bum!Karim_myBagheri said:
bloody typical of a new signing to get himself injured trying to go for a wayward last goal kick.meldrew66 said:
He went down hard chasing a ball on the side-line in the final act of the game. You could hear the impact and he looked in pain holding his back. Hope he’s ok.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Did i read correctly that Schwartz injured himself walking off the pitch?!
Also a bit concerned at what our defence is going to look like on Saturday. Although the way he's been playing Pearce is no great loss. I wouldn't mind seeing Barker back in there, keep hearing that he's still raw and not ready but he did well at the start of the season.
i don't know what the rules are but it was obvious that the ref was gonna blow his whistle. could he not of done it before the goal kick was taken? or does the ball have to be back in play.0 -
hoof_it_up_to_benty said:We're in a mess and however exciting 4=4 home draws are against Rochdale I'm unclear every game as to what LB will try next. We've had a run of relatively easy fixtures and barely turned up for most of them.
The same old excuses are still being churned out and I'm not sure what the positives are at the moment.
The positives are in Aneke, Millar and when Match fit Ronnie Schwartz we have some fine attacking flair.
The negatives are when you lose your two 1st choice CB, our defence have more holes than a colander.5 -
It can be argued that he's had little choice but to play Gilbey. Laughable as it is Gilbey is one of our more physical and taller midfielders (yes it's a low bar that would defeat the most supple limbo dancer) so, in the absence of Pratley, whom has had to pay centre half most of the season anyway, and Watson a fit Gilbey has to play almost by default. Therefore has he really got anything to apologise for?Bangkokaddick said:Woke upthis monring, checked the phone and read the score as 0-0 with my tired eyes. Upon managing to focus better I saw it was 4-4. I checked the lineups. They must have the formation wrong, I though, seeing a back five including Paul Smyth. It wasn't until reading this thread that I realised they weren't wrong.Bowyer's not helping himself at the moment in continuing to unnecessarily use players in wrong, unfamiliar positions. It's not the time for experimentation, it's time for consolidation or back to basics as Curbs would call it. At least he admitted the error this time.But he hasn't admitted the error of playing Gilbey game after game when he's clearly off-form.0 -
I shared something the other day can't find the link but it's buried in CL somewhere.... Player heights is completely unproven to have an affect on clubs performances. Morgan is a harder worker and better passer than Gilbey on recent performances it's Morgan before Gilbey for me.LenGlover said:
It can be argued that he's had little choice but to play Gilbey. Laughable as it is Gilbey is one of our more physical and taller midfielders (yes it's a low bar that would defeat the most supple limbo dancer) so, in the absence of Pratley, whom has had to pay centre half most of the season anyway, and Watson a fit Gilbey has to play almost by default. Therefore has he really got anything to apologise for?Bangkokaddick said:Woke upthis monring, checked the phone and read the score as 0-0 with my tired eyes. Upon managing to focus better I saw it was 4-4. I checked the lineups. They must have the formation wrong, I though, seeing a back five including Paul Smyth. It wasn't until reading this thread that I realised they weren't wrong.Bowyer's not helping himself at the moment in continuing to unnecessarily use players in wrong, unfamiliar positions. It's not the time for experimentation, it's time for consolidation or back to basics as Curbs would call it. At least he admitted the error this time.But he hasn't admitted the error of playing Gilbey game after game when he's clearly off-form.1 -
Gilbey showed before his injury that he can be an asset to us. He is woefully out of form though and is being started when players have had good games they have been dropped. Figure that one out. Good luck with that!0
-
I am an Albie Morgan fan and he would be one of the first names on the team sheet for me by choice.Dazzler21 said:
I shared something the other day can't find the link but it's buried in CL somewhere.... Player heights is completely unproven to have an affect on clubs performances. Morgan is a harder worker and better passer than Gilbey on recent performances it's Morgan before Gilbey for me.LenGlover said:
It can be argued that he's had little choice but to play Gilbey. Laughable as it is Gilbey is one of our more physical and taller midfielders (yes it's a low bar that would defeat the most supple limbo dancer) so, in the absence of Pratley, whom has had to pay centre half most of the season anyway, and Watson a fit Gilbey has to play almost by default. Therefore has he really got anything to apologise for?Bangkokaddick said:Woke upthis monring, checked the phone and read the score as 0-0 with my tired eyes. Upon managing to focus better I saw it was 4-4. I checked the lineups. They must have the formation wrong, I though, seeing a back five including Paul Smyth. It wasn't until reading this thread that I realised they weren't wrong.Bowyer's not helping himself at the moment in continuing to unnecessarily use players in wrong, unfamiliar positions. It's not the time for experimentation, it's time for consolidation or back to basics as Curbs would call it. At least he admitted the error this time.But he hasn't admitted the error of playing Gilbey game after game when he's clearly off-form.
However, we have to defend corners and free kicks (or not on recent form) and with Pearce suspended now, alongside Pratley, there are not too many six foot plus outfield players available. Chuks, Bogle and then I'm struggling.
We were physically dominated by Accrington in particular so, in my view, need physical presence or as much as we can muster. I would start with Albie and bring Williams on as a sub on Saturday. By his standards he has played a lot of minutes recently so there is a danger a leg or arm will fall off if he plays too many more.
I hope to God that we don't lose Chuks for a month or more as a result of his playing 90 minutes last night.1 -
I don't recall Gilbey winning loads of headers.3
-
Not playing people out of position unless absolutely forced to by the always-huge injury list and always having at least one player suspended would be an improvement.2
-
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread:
Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease?
Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Amos: culpable for the fee kick goal - he hid behind the wall and left a huge gap - poor
Gunter: decent
Pearce: glacially slow and clumsy, the first yellow card was idiotic, he was in place in time to challenge fairly for the ball but took the bloke out with his 'wrong' foot - he's fortunate that the risible blight Kettle was in charge, studding the goalie in the chest, completely out of control and clearly late on the challenge is a red card all day long - Kettle is a cowardly halfwit and hid behind the 2nd yellow - yes we know Pearce wasn't trying to 'do' the goalie, it was a genuine attempt for the ball but he was very late, foot up and totally out of control, these challenges are quite rightly subject to the firmest sanction in the game
Oshilaja: his best showing for us in ages, which is the acme of feint praise, he only looked sort of alright cos he played next to Pearce last night
Smyth: given a hopeless task first half and then hooked for the manager's idiocy, shouldn't be judged on last night at all
Gilbey: lazy twonk hid for most of his 'appearance', made an encouraging looking challenge early on and then disappeared
Forster-Caskey: worked like a trojan, we'd be utterly sunk without him at the moment, he's probably at his right level currently
Maatsen: typically decent with his usual crop of youthful inexperienced rough edges, better than Purrington
Williams: boisterously ineffective for the most part, played a role in a goal but barely worth a place on the bench lately
Aneke: an enigma wrapped up in a nap hand of inconsistencies: with ball at feet and close attention from multiple opponents he usually emerges with the ball in defiance of the odds, with Millar bombing up the wing with the ball Chuks aimlessly dawdles towards the winger away from the acres of undefended green grass in the box, never once did he attack the near post or back off a centre half into space, given a split second to shoot from close in he'll usually do that but the outcome is unpredictable. The more space and time there is the less anticipation and nouse he demonstrates. He should have had at least a hattrick last night: the header way over the bar was because he didn't begin to jump until the cross was well on its way, the impending cross was obvious, Chuks was on his way into the right place but only jumped as he crossed the 6 yard line; the very young 'Dale goalie is getting props for fingering the ball around the post but he only got anything on the ball cos Chuks barely got a waft on the ball with his little toe, any meaningful drive toward goal and Bazunu had no chance. 75 minutes in, after one or more blunders in front of goal and Chuks wilted terribly, really didn't look like he fancied it, what chance he's available Saturday or even Tuesday? - fingers crossed he's uncovered hitherto unseen ability to recover and remain whole
Millar: a few youthful rough edges but he's the class of the squad at the mo, an essential and genuine threat going forwards
Morgan: Has to replace Gilbey regardless of how much Bowyer hates Albie
Schwartz: He's not worried about how fit he might be is he? He got stuck right in, at both ends of the pitch and he got right in Kettle's ear as soon as he saw what an inconsistent twat he is. He can't be properly fit for Saturday can he? His actual striker's instinct is badly needed.
Referee: His best showing in a Charlton game but that just means this time he didn't change the outcome or leave someone unpunished for breaking anybody's leg. Awful.
As for Bowyer "taking the blame for the first half" he's not really got how badly wrong his whole plan was tho has he? Saturday's lineup will be informative indeed. His insistence that they're not looking for centre halves 'cos we'll then have too many and that's not good, they get unhappy not playing' is just witless guff.
1) Innis and Famewo are weeks away and come back with no guarantees
2) The next tranche of CH's (when) available are Pearce and Oshilaja, both of whom have proved themselves way short of the necessary standard at this level,
3) The likes of Barker were thrown in before the takeover and the reluctance to use them again is understandable
4) CH's get booked and sent off as occupational hazards, we are going to need cover
5) Pratley is better than Pearce and Oshilaja, but that's not saying much and physically he must have been right at the limit before his current hiatus
6) Gunter and even Watson can do a turn in extremis but we've seen how well that's gone
7) We haven't currently got a Keith Jones, Mark Kinsella or Matt Holland type to keep the pressure off the back 4
8) Currently allowed up to 5 subs ups the chances of everybody getting some game time when required, square pegs in round holes are completely unnecessary and a clear sign of muddled or inadequate thinking
Scoring not many might mean we don't always win when praps we should but leaking plenty ensures we'll lose far more than necessary. We have all sorts of attacking players and some are finding their range - defenders for the middle of the park we do not have and that needs to be remedied. Lee you're way wrong on this one.1 -
One thing I discovered when managing at grass roots level was something I referred to as the weak link in the chain. It is something I believed only applied to that level as whilst professional players are better than others, there is usually a basic level of competence. Basically it means if you have weak defensive attributes such as a very slow player or a player who is too easy to beat or a player who is both, it doesn’t matter how strong the rest of your defence is, that is where it gets breached by half decent teams who play to that weak point. It doesn’t matter if you are playing 4 at the back, 5 at the back or even 7 at the back, that is where opponents get through you. An intelligent striker will actually mark the weak player rather than the other way round, or indeed try to find space.
Yesterday, we saw a forward with no defensive pedigree whatsoever being played in a defensive position which created the weak link in the chain. Had he been picked to play as a winger, Gunter would have been positioned differently and whilst he may still have been beaten, he is a full back with 99 caps so we could reasonably expect better defending. Bowyer created a weak link in the chain and it is mystifying. Somebody like Marshall who actually showed some defensive qualities when he was with us, fair enough. But Smyth has not displayed any firm evidence he could play in that position. That isn’t being critical of Smyth btw. He is what he is. But playing him there was plain stupid. No other word for it.
7 -
Exactly, also look at there 17 year old winger last night. Actually why not make a bid for him, not going to affect the wage cap either!cashncarry said:Will he play Barker next game,it could be the answer to out CB problems.But it could leave him with egg on his face.
Don't get being too young Lee was playing at 170 -
Dazzler21 said:
I shared something the other day can't find the link but it's buried in CL somewhere.... Player heights is completely unproven to have an affect on clubs performances. Morgan is a harder worker and better passer than Gilbey on recent performances it's Morgan before Gilbey for me.LenGlover said:
It can be argued that he's had little choice but to play Gilbey. Laughable as it is Gilbey is one of our more physical and taller midfielders (yes it's a low bar that would defeat the most supple limbo dancer) so, in the absence of Pratley, whom has had to pay centre half most of the season anyway, and Watson a fit Gilbey has to play almost by default. Therefore has he really got anything to apologise for?Bangkokaddick said:Woke upthis monring, checked the phone and read the score as 0-0 with my tired eyes. Upon managing to focus better I saw it was 4-4. I checked the lineups. They must have the formation wrong, I though, seeing a back five including Paul Smyth. It wasn't until reading this thread that I realised they weren't wrong.Bowyer's not helping himself at the moment in continuing to unnecessarily use players in wrong, unfamiliar positions. It's not the time for experimentation, it's time for consolidation or back to basics as Curbs would call it. At least he admitted the error this time.But he hasn't admitted the error of playing Gilbey game after game when he's clearly off-form.
For Cafc, one player's height has been very important.
When Inniss was fit and in the team, we were so much more dangerous from attacking set pieces and defending set pieces.
I will be amazed if even the contrary CL posters disagree with this ?2 -
Assume the reason our players don't really celebrate together is because we're following the Covid protocols and not because of disharmony?0
-
This is very true. It helped us defensively and offensively and indeed in the middle where he attacked high balls.soapboxsam said:Dazzler21 said:
I shared something the other day can't find the link but it's buried in CL somewhere.... Player heights is completely unproven to have an affect on clubs performances. Morgan is a harder worker and better passer than Gilbey on recent performances it's Morgan before Gilbey for me.LenGlover said:
It can be argued that he's had little choice but to play Gilbey. Laughable as it is Gilbey is one of our more physical and taller midfielders (yes it's a low bar that would defeat the most supple limbo dancer) so, in the absence of Pratley, whom has had to pay centre half most of the season anyway, and Watson a fit Gilbey has to play almost by default. Therefore has he really got anything to apologise for?Bangkokaddick said:Woke upthis monring, checked the phone and read the score as 0-0 with my tired eyes. Upon managing to focus better I saw it was 4-4. I checked the lineups. They must have the formation wrong, I though, seeing a back five including Paul Smyth. It wasn't until reading this thread that I realised they weren't wrong.Bowyer's not helping himself at the moment in continuing to unnecessarily use players in wrong, unfamiliar positions. It's not the time for experimentation, it's time for consolidation or back to basics as Curbs would call it. At least he admitted the error this time.But he hasn't admitted the error of playing Gilbey game after game when he's clearly off-form.
For Cafc, one player's height has been very important.
When Inniss was fit and in the team, we were so much more dangerous from attacking set pieces and defending set pieces.
I will be amazed if even the contrary CL posters disagree with this ?2 -
Not looking very far then. Here, twitter, FB all got them.stoneroses19 said:
Don’t think I’ve read one post of anyone “creaming” themselves. The positive comments are of relief we earned a point after twice being two goals down.Croydon said:Rochdale had us under the cosh at the death, and could have easily nicked a 5th if they had some quality.
I'm a bit staggered by how many fans seem to be creaming themselves over a 4-4 draw with Rochdale. It simply isn't good enough.0 -
So he is moaned at for not being ambitious enough, he tries to make us attacking as possible and it doesn't pay off, he changes it up and gets a result, that doesn't deserve credit?addick1956 said:
No he doesn't get credit for two reasons.Braziliance said:
Of course you can, even I have, so has Lee. What I am saying is he surely deserves credit for rectifying his mistakes and salvaging a draw when we were 3-1 down. You could tell we had a bit about us tonight.addick1956 said:
Only one person in the country would have played Smyth at wing back. Of course we can blame Bowyer for the tactics. Or perhaps Smyth just decided he fancied it once on the pitchBraziliance said:I'll try and keep this short.
I'll start by saying Bowyer got it wrong with starting Smyth at RWB, but he will know that better than anyone. Once we went to basics we looked a lot better and played some great football imo, JFC who I usually accuse of being average was making things really tick, like a charity shop Toni Kroos. Aneke was terrific, could have scored 4 or more genuinely, Williams energetic. I could go on but we all saw the same game. Special mention for Oshi, solid game and has earned the right to start. Pearce and Gilbey only negatives, Pearce is alarmingly panicked for such an experienced player, late challenges, typical hoofs and on a rewatch it was a yellow, can't fault his effort but it was one. Gilbey seems really poor, I won't write him off yet cause he put in some good tackles and showed some good awareness but he just doesn't offer enough for me.
Personally I am happy with the result as it's shut down a few comments on here. Clearly the dressing room is not lost, there is fight in this team, now you can say 'The players don't wanna lose!' but that's nonsense as some of you are willing to blame Lee for his tactics, he also needs credit where it's due, he has the respect of these players. We also showed we can play attractive football with the right players on the pitch, it's just our defense that is absolutely shoddy atm.
Finally I'll wrap it up with this & I'm not bothered how it comes across, to anyone messaging Sandgaard on twitter or any other social media platform trying to push Lee out, you are pathetic and I am embarrassed to be associated with you by the team I support.
We are well in this, 100% behind Bowyer and the lads, on to the next one
I am fairly confident had we lost tonight this thread would be a bit more active
1) It was a simply stupid idea.
2) It was clear after 12 minutes Smyth was lacking everything needed to defend wide right constantly. Why wait until half bloody time to correct it.
Maybe cause it wasn't entirely Smyth's fault, other people were in the wrong as well, maybe it was something that looked good in training
It's become clear that people are just going to be negative now no matter what and be critical of Bowyer.
Last night definitely had more positives than negatives in our circumstance, if people can't appreciate that then I am truly baffled that they decided to pick Charlton to support in the first place4 -
That Baah kid is one to keep an eye on, seems he has a knack for scoring a wonder goal with his right foot
Only 17 as well, imagine he will have plenty of interest4 -
Thank God our new owner is not as bloodyCovered End said:Bowyer out
Bowyer in
Bowyer out
Bowyer in
Stupid as Some of our so called fans.
LB needs at least 10 more games and our injuriesBack on the pitch before anyone should even
Think about sacking him.
It’s not Rocket science to see why we are leaking
Goals, as we have our best two defenders
Bloody Missing 😂😂😂😂1 - Sponsored links:
-
I thought he looked better last night than he has done recently, at least there were some good forward passes. But as has been said defensively he was pretty bad and yes it is strange that he continues to be picked during this bad run. I still think there is a player somewhere in there I'm just not sure what his best position or role is and I don't think Bowyer does either.MuttleyCAFC said:Gilbey showed before his injury that he can be an asset to us. He is woefully out of form though and is being started when players have had good games they have been dropped. Figure that one out. Good luck with that!2 -
Gilbey was just as poor before his injury.MuttleyCAFC said:Gilbey showed before his injury that he can be an asset to us. He is woefully out of form though and is being started when players have had good games they have been dropped. Figure that one out. Good luck with that!1 -
crap poem1968CAFC said:
Thank God our new owner is not as bloodyCovered End said:Bowyer out
Bowyer in
Bowyer out
Bowyer in
Stupid as Some of our so called fans.
LB needs at least 10 more games and our injuriesBack on the pitch before anyone should even
Think about sacking him.
It’s not Rocket science to see why we are leaking
Goals, as we have our best two defenders
Bloody Missing 😂😂😂😂9 -
Nice try.jimmymelrose said:For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread:
Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease?
Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
Because he's injury prone and body prone to breaking down. Read his profile and you'll see he had a period of 12 months on the sidelines at MK. Some players can come back fine, and others not (Dean Ashton, Owen Hargreaves. etc), where Chuks is somewhere in the middle. That's why you will hear the phrase "he needs to be managed" used in reference to him.
3 -
But he played near enough a full season for MK Dons the season before we bought him!0
-
Proverbial game of two halves. Not even going to mention the first half because it was shite.
Second half is what I expect. Lots of hard work, winning the 2nd ball and pacy attacking. Chuks was unplayable and is so skilful - looks like he might have a decent strike partner up there now in Rocket Ronnie who scored a peach.
Results like that one can go a long way to defning a season. We could have bottled it at 2-4 and today would be a much gloomier prospect however we fought back and should have won. Now they need to use this as a wake-up call and sort their shit out for the 2nd half of the season.4 -
One thing I have observed with Gunter is that when he is played in his correct position he is decent. Despite being experienced he is not good when asked to take up other roles. I fear us doing so on Saturday!3
-
Just watched the game back and you have to say that you won't see many teams shoot like Rochdale did and everything just goes in!
LB was right about that and it does seem he's a different bloke to the nutter from last week!
Still not sure that he is right for us but the next couple of games will show if the second half last night can ignite a resurgence... Certainly Ronnie looks like a possible gem if given the service.
0 -
Loads of positives there to see from last night imo. Sure 4-4 vrs Rochdale might seem like a poor result however there is not a chance in hell that they will have another game where they smack 4 fantastic goals in like they did last night. It was a great game to watch and I think our display once the changes were made shows that we can be optimistic moving forwards. If Ronnie and Chuks can stay fit I'm sure the " Where are the goals coming thread " will be redundant. I was really impressed with the sharpness of Schwartz considering how long he has been off, lots more goals to come from him I'm sure. I'm still confident of automatic promotion2
-
This all day long. I said it on the match thread just after kick off when I heard it was 5 at the back with Smyth playing right wing back. Nooooo. I'm.all for playing 5 at the back & think it might be our best option......but that's with Maatsen on the left and either Gunter or Matthews on the right. The wing backs need to be defenders first & foremost. Or at least have a defensive mindset. Smyth is a striker-cum-winger & probably has never played in defense EVER. We have seen previously that both Matthews & Gunter can deliver good crosses - their crossing might actually be better than Smyth's...!MuttleyCAFC saidYesterday, we saw a forward with no defensive pedigree whatsoever being played in a defensive position which created the weak link in the chain. Had he been picked to play as a winger, Gunter would have been positioned differently and whilst he may still have been beaten, he is a full back with 99 caps so we could reasonably expect better defending. Bowyer created a weak link in the chain and it is mystifying. Somebody like Marshall who actually showed some defensive qualities when he was with us, fair enough. But Smyth has not displayed any firm evidence he could play in that position. That isn’t being critical of Smyth btw. He is what he is. But playing him there was plain stupid. No other word for it.
1
