Post Match Thread: Charlton Athletic v Rochdale | Tues 12 January 2021

Simonsen said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Gunter has been decent when played as a conventional left back. I think Matthews gets forward well but his final ball is not as good as Gunter's.

As for Amos, I had the discussion with my son, who is more than a decent keeper. He thought I was being harsh on him for the goals.

Matthews is a good player but hasn't offered much at all in the final third this season or last. A lot of his crosses seem a bit weak and get cut out. Gunter just seems to have a bit of extra quality IF he gets forward (which he didn't v Stanley). Matthews is a decent defender and when on form, he's a neat footballer. 

I agree with this but if we had a fairly attacking 442 or 443 line up we wouldn't need him to offer something in the final third. We need a solid defence because we're leaking goals and for me Gunter has played a large role in that. I'm not writing Gunter off but I don't see the point in having two players for every position if you are not going to allow for competition. Matthews deserves a chance and he'll get it Saturday. If he plays well then for me he gets a run in the team. 

Chunes said:

stoneroses19 said:

Chunes said:

stoneroses19 said:

Chunes said:

Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.

On the other hand, he won the ball back for Schwartz’s goal and I think was the assist for one of the other goals. 

Doesn't make up for continual errors

Okay, he also scored in the Plymouth game. 

You can’t just pick up on continual errors without mentioning the continual positives too. They both count towards the way he’s performing.  

We're the top scorers in the league - our biggest problem is a leaky defense. I'd rather have a right-back who contributed less going forward but didn't play a continual part in us conceeding soft goals.

Wow, we actually are! We're the new Peterborough. 

MuttleyCAFC said:

Gunter has been decent when played as a conventional left back. I think Matthews gets forward well but his final ball is not as good as Gunter's.

As for Amos, I had the discussion with my son, who is more than a decent keeper. He thought I was being harsh on him for the goals.

So Gunter RM, Matthews RB

MuttleyCAFC said:

Gunter has been decent when played as a conventional left back. I think Matthews gets forward well but his final ball is not as good as Gunter's.

As for Amos, I had the discussion with my son, who is more than a decent keeper. He thought I was being harsh on him for the goals.

except he always plays on the right

Chunes said:

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.

The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness. 

I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.

Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.

If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?

Dazzler21 said:

Chunes said:

stoneroses19 said:

Chunes said:

stoneroses19 said:

Chunes said:

Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.

On the other hand, he won the ball back for Schwartz’s goal and I think was the assist for one of the other goals. 

Doesn't make up for continual errors

Okay, he also scored in the Plymouth game. 

You can’t just pick up on continual errors without mentioning the continual positives too. They both count towards the way he’s performing.  

We're the top scorers in the league - our biggest problem is a leaky defense. I'd rather have a right-back who contributed less going forward but didn't play a continual part in us conceeding soft goals.

Wow, we actually are! We're the new Peterborough. 

That's exactly what I joked to myself when I read that.

jimmymelrose said:

Chunes said:

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.

The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness. 

I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.

Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.

If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?

Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player

Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options

If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR

So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"

MuttleyCAFC said:

ForeverAddickted said:

jimmymelrose said:

Chunes said:

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.

The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness. 

I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.

Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.

If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?

Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player

Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options

If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR

So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"

It is a bit strange though because when he does play he often looks unplayable and there are no visible signs of him struggling. That is not saying there isn't an issue but it is a strange one.

I think the only signs are like what Golfie was saying on Tuesday night, realistically he maybe should have been taken off himself with about 10-15mins to play as he was clearly showing signs of tiredness and was certainly less effective

Thats down to fitness though and surely cant be linked with his historic muscular problems

Apart from Tuesday the last time he played 90mins was against Reading at the Valley, so its probably understandable he was starting to get to hit fitness limit with that regard, you have to go back to February 2019 for MK Dons when he last played back to back 90-minute games and to be fair, thats League Two!!

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

ForeverAddickted said:

jimmymelrose said:

Chunes said:

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.

The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness. 

I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.

Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.

If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?

Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player

Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options

If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR

So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"

It is a bit strange though because when he does play he often looks unplayable and there are no visible signs of him struggling. That is not saying there isn't an issue but it is a strange one.

I think the only signs are like what Golfie was saying on Tuesday night, realistically he maybe should have been taken off himself with about 10-15mins to play as he was clearly showing signs of tiredness and was certainly less effective

Thats down to fitness though and surely cant be linked with his historic muscular problems

Apart from Tuesday the last time he played 90mins was against Reading at the Valley, so its probably understandable he was starting to get to hit fitness limit with that regard, you have to go back to February 2019 for MK Dons when he last played back to back 90-minute games and to be fair, thats League Two!!

I wouldn't mind knowing why he isn't doing more to improve his stamina to last full games. I can only assume that it is linked to his muscular problems. Maybe he can't manage regular sustained bouts of intensity. 

Since I tore my quad in 2019, I haven't been able to run consistently, despite not losing too much pace I am unable to maintain the stamina as the right quad stops giving me any power. I know when it happens that I risk injury pushing it further and so I end up having to rest and recover it for up to two weeks until I start having power in it again and the slow build up begins again... If he's got anything like that it can be devastating to your overall endurance. 

stoneroses19 said:

killerandflash said:

It's interesting how some players get rotated all the time, whereas the likes of Pratley, Gunter, Watson and Maatsen  never seem be deliberately rested. The 30 somethings and the 18 year old play all the time, it's the 20 somethings who apparently need protecting!

I’ve always presumed it’s Bowyer wanting the experience of Pratley, Gunter and Watson on the pitch as much as possible, and Chelsea having asked for Mattsen to start when fit. Could be wrong, just my opinion. 

With regards to Pratley | Gunter | Watson I admire their experience but often wonder if their legs demand the need to be rested

Pratley I can imagine as he's been around so long now but those three must really look after themselves away from the matchday to be in contention every week - Always remember Ryan Giggs talking about doing Yoga to help the longevity in his career, although now I say it I wonder if it was a code word for something else

Once all are fit and not suspended... We certainly should be rotating Watson and Pratley OR figuring out how we build a side without players approaching retirement in the core of our side. 

Chunes said:

jimmymelrose said:

Chunes said:

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.

The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness. 

I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.

Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.

If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?

You're annoyed that the actual scientific or medical term for Chuks' problem hasn't been shared, is that it?

I think it's called twentyminutesandfuckeditis

RedChaser said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I always thought Yoga was boring!

Depends what her personality is like I guess

Damn! I thought you said Yoda 😁

We all have a type mate... You shouldnt be ashamed by what you like

Chunes said:

Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.

Mostly when he's played at CB.

It's too easy just to blame the player though, we need to look at the context.
He looked very solid after he first signed, especially during our 6 wins-on-the-spin run when Inniss and Famewo were impenetrable.

What does that tell you?

Oggy Red said:

Chunes said:

Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.

Mostly when he's played at CB.

It's too easy just to blame the player though, we need to look at the context.
He looked very solid after he first signed, especially during our 6 wins-on-the-spin run when Inniss and Famewo were impenetrable.

What does that tell you?

Same with Maatsen , they don’t look half the players they were before our coaching team got in to them