Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ronnie Schwartz (Page 73 - contract cancelled)
Comments
-
Schwartz role is as the 2nd striker in 4-4-2 or 3-5-2. Bowyer invariably played those formations - always preferring strikers in pairs.Addick Addict said:paulfox said:
Yes agreed, I was undecided whether he was worth the risk on Saturday. I do feel for him though, I’m still hoping he turns out to be a good signing.the timing has been wrong right from the start. But he needs to be given a fair crack, which he hasn’t yet.kentaddick said:
i was talking about naby sarr, but agreed, he needs a run in the team, but we just cant really afford to give it to him at the moment.paulfox said:
Have we seen enough of him to declare he’s been shocking? Was his finish when he first played shocking? Nobody has seen enough of him to have a valid opinion as to whether he’s good or not. I think we need to wait and see if he gets a chance in a side that plays to his strengths and then if he’s shocking...... well he’d be shocking. Half the players we ever had wouldn’t get a look in if it was down to some of the experts on this forum.kentaddick said:hoping he'll be a little like naby sarr, shocking in his first season, goes away in the second and comes back and becomes a bit of a cult hero. But yeah, smacks of an owner thinking they know better than the manager or volunteering a signing on the manager.
Schwartz was the wrong signing at the wrong time. That's not to say that he can't make an impact in a future season but Atkins probably doesn't have time to change a system to accommodate him when Plan A isn't broken. And Plan B clearly doesn't include him.
In his gameplans, he also liked to play a '10' and had players like Williams, Shinnie, Maddison briefly; and others who could play that role.
Bowyer has gone now - and in comes Adkins, who has changed formation to a lone striker/target man with 2 supporting wingers.
It's obvious that Ronnie doesn't fit into that.
And all the while Adkins' system is working, why would he change it?
2 -
Spot on - the big question really is if the system will stay the same next season and how Shwartz will fit in then, we'll be losing Millar so might see a change of formation if we can't get a decent replacement wingerOggy Red said:
Schwartz role is as the 2nd striker in 4-4-2 or 3-5-2. Bowyer invariably played those formations - always preferring strikers in pairs.Addick Addict said:paulfox said:
Yes agreed, I was undecided whether he was worth the risk on Saturday. I do feel for him though, I’m still hoping he turns out to be a good signing.the timing has been wrong right from the start. But he needs to be given a fair crack, which he hasn’t yet.kentaddick said:
i was talking about naby sarr, but agreed, he needs a run in the team, but we just cant really afford to give it to him at the moment.paulfox said:
Have we seen enough of him to declare he’s been shocking? Was his finish when he first played shocking? Nobody has seen enough of him to have a valid opinion as to whether he’s good or not. I think we need to wait and see if he gets a chance in a side that plays to his strengths and then if he’s shocking...... well he’d be shocking. Half the players we ever had wouldn’t get a look in if it was down to some of the experts on this forum.kentaddick said:hoping he'll be a little like naby sarr, shocking in his first season, goes away in the second and comes back and becomes a bit of a cult hero. But yeah, smacks of an owner thinking they know better than the manager or volunteering a signing on the manager.
Schwartz was the wrong signing at the wrong time. That's not to say that he can't make an impact in a future season but Atkins probably doesn't have time to change a system to accommodate him when Plan A isn't broken. And Plan B clearly doesn't include him.
In his gameplans, he also liked to play a '10' and had players like Williams, Shinnie, Maddison briefly; and others who could play that role.
Bowyer has gone now - and in comes Adkins, who has changed formation to a lone striker/target man with 2 supporting wingers.
It's obvious that Ronnie doesn't fit into that.
And all the while Adkins' system is working, why would he change it?2 -
Does anybody know if he's still with us or back in Denmark? For some reason that would not surprise me with how it's currently worked out.
Our pre-match twitter shows the players who are doing runs before a game to conclude they've not made the matchday 16, but no sight of Ronnie. So that's just my guess.0 -
I bet he would of scored one of the low crosses into the box last night..2
-
Impossible to say.
For some reason Adkins doesn't fancy him in our 4-3-3
Would have done nicely in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2. I'd like to see him given some time if we lose any chance of promotion in our next game, it becomes the ideal time for us to experiment in those final two against decent sides.3 -
Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
1 -
Miller for schwartz, as long as he isn't going backwardsDazzler21 said:
I mean I'd prefer a 3-3-3-1 ofmendonca said:Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
Amos
Inniss - Pearce - Famewo
Shinnie - F.Caskey - Gilbey
Washington - Stockley - Aneke
Schwartz
1 -
"For some reason"Dazzler21 said:Impossible to say.
For some reason Adkins doesn't fancy him in our 4-3-3
Would have done nicely in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2. I'd like to see him given some time if we lose any chance of promotion in our next game, it becomes the ideal time for us to experiment in those final two against decent sides.
Yeah cos he's done fuck all in his time at Charlton in nearly 5 months1 -
Wasn’t gilbey written off as a dud and a waste of time 4-6 weeks ago?jacob_CAFC said:
"For some reason"Dazzler21 said:Impossible to say.
For some reason Adkins doesn't fancy him in our 4-3-3
Would have done nicely in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2. I'd like to see him given some time if we lose any chance of promotion in our next game, it becomes the ideal time for us to experiment in those final two against decent sides.
Yeah cos he's done fuck all in his time at Charlton in nearly 5 months
for some reason bowyer didn’t fancy him. For some reason, Adkins does12 - Sponsored links:
-
Schwartz leading the line, Dazzler ....... as lone striker/target man, seriously?Dazzler21 said:
I mean I'd prefer a 3-3-3-1 ofmendonca said:Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
Amos
Inniss - Pearce - Famewo
Shinnie - F.Caskey - Gilbey
Washington - Stockley - Aneke
Schwartz
Maybe he could be effective as 'False 9', dropping behind our line of advancing midfielders.
But Adkins doesn't indicate that he would even consider such a gameplan.
Schwartz is a 2nd striker. He's tidy and composed, always moving, anticipating.
Cross the ball into the box in the traditional way and he feeds off the knockdowns and loose balls.
That's his game. But he just doesn't fit comfortably into Adkins' current team set up.
0 -
Schwartz should be playing as a second striker of a big man .. how many times last night was the ball in their box and no one near it to have a shot ..7
-
Do you think ANYONE would seriously suggest a 3-3-3-1 formation? Big whooshes there Oggy!Oggy Red said:
Schwartz leading the line, Dazzler ....... as lone striker/target man, seriously?Dazzler21 said:
I mean I'd prefer a 3-3-3-1 ofmendonca said:Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
Amos
Inniss - Pearce - Famewo
Shinnie - F.Caskey - Gilbey
Washington - Stockley - Aneke
Schwartz
Maybe he could be effective as 'False 9', dropping behind our line of advancing midfielders.
But Adkins doesn't indicate that he would even consider such a gameplan.
Schwartz is a 2nd striker. He's tidy and composed, always moving, anticipating.
Cross the ball into the box in the traditional way and he feeds off the knockdowns and loose balls.
That's his game. But he just doesn't fit comfortably into Adkins' current team set up.5 -
Okay, @Dazzler, you got me. I'll take the WHOOOOOSH!Dazzler21 said:
Do you think ANYONE would seriously suggest a 3-3-3-1 formation? Big whooshes there Oggy!Oggy Red said:
Schwartz leading the line, Dazzler ....... as lone striker/target man, seriously?Dazzler21 said:
I mean I'd prefer a 3-3-3-1 ofmendonca said:Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
Amos
Inniss - Pearce - Famewo
Shinnie - F.Caskey - Gilbey
Washington - Stockley - Aneke
Schwartz
Maybe he could be effective as 'False 9', dropping behind our line of advancing midfielders.
But Adkins doesn't indicate that he would even consider such a gameplan.
Schwartz is a 2nd striker. He's tidy and composed, always moving, anticipating.
Cross the ball into the box in the traditional way and he feeds off the knockdowns and loose balls.
That's his game. But he just doesn't fit comfortably into Adkins' current team set up.
You must admit you do come up with some oddball formations at times.
But if trying to WHOOOOSH people is your end game, then hey-ho.1 -
I was responding to a post suggesting 4 up top.Oggy Red said:
Okay, @Dazzler, you got me. I'll take the WHOOOOOSH!Dazzler21 said:
Do you think ANYONE would seriously suggest a 3-3-3-1 formation? Big whooshes there Oggy!Oggy Red said:
Schwartz leading the line, Dazzler ....... as lone striker/target man, seriously?Dazzler21 said:
I mean I'd prefer a 3-3-3-1 ofmendonca said:Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
Amos
Inniss - Pearce - Famewo
Shinnie - F.Caskey - Gilbey
Washington - Stockley - Aneke
Schwartz
Maybe he could be effective as 'False 9', dropping behind our line of advancing midfielders.
But Adkins doesn't indicate that he would even consider such a gameplan.
Schwartz is a 2nd striker. He's tidy and composed, always moving, anticipating.
Cross the ball into the box in the traditional way and he feeds off the knockdowns and loose balls.
That's his game. But he just doesn't fit comfortably into Adkins' current team set up.
You must admit you do come up with some oddball formations at times.
But if trying to WHOOOOSH people is your end game, then hey-ho.
I generally keep to very normal formations. 442 is normal in fact 433, 343, 352, 532, 4231 all normal and somewhat common formations.the fact I consider what players to use across such formations does not mean the formations are abnormal.
Noticed you digging out my posts a lot of late. Bit weird but hey-ho.
0 -
Okay, Dazzler, I hadn't seen the post about playing 4 at top, so missed the context.Dazzler21 said:
I was responding to a post suggesting 4 up top.Oggy Red said:
Okay, @Dazzler, you got me. I'll take the WHOOOOOSH!Dazzler21 said:
Do you think ANYONE would seriously suggest a 3-3-3-1 formation? Big whooshes there Oggy!Oggy Red said:
Schwartz leading the line, Dazzler ....... as lone striker/target man, seriously?Dazzler21 said:
I mean I'd prefer a 3-3-3-1 ofmendonca said:Must win game, let's play a front 4: Aneke, Stockley, Innis and Ronnie.
Go for the win as they say
Amos
Inniss - Pearce - Famewo
Shinnie - F.Caskey - Gilbey
Washington - Stockley - Aneke
Schwartz
Maybe he could be effective as 'False 9', dropping behind our line of advancing midfielders.
But Adkins doesn't indicate that he would even consider such a gameplan.
Schwartz is a 2nd striker. He's tidy and composed, always moving, anticipating.
Cross the ball into the box in the traditional way and he feeds off the knockdowns and loose balls.
That's his game. But he just doesn't fit comfortably into Adkins' current team set up.
You must admit you do come up with some oddball formations at times.
But if trying to WHOOOOSH people is your end game, then hey-ho.
I generally keep to very normal formations. 442 is normal in fact 433, 343, 352, 532, 4231 all normal and somewhat common formations.the fact I consider what players to use across such formations does not mean the formations are abnormal.
Noticed you digging out my posts a lot of late. Bit weird but hey-ho.
Hardly digging you out though, mate.
If you write something that provokes comment, then you can't blame anyone for posting in reply.
Anyway, I always try to be reasoned and constructive in reply.
2 -
addick1956 said:
Sadly he can't play for Crewe and so wouldn't.SamB09 said:I bet he would of scored one of the low crosses into the box last night..
Huh? We did cross it into the box low a few times last night. Maybe go to specsavers?0 -
I can guarantee that under Adkins we will only ever play with one striker. Everywhere he’s been it’s been either 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.Expect a few of our strikers to be offloaded in the Summer, to be replaced with attacking midfielders. Schwartz is probably the first on the list to be cut unfortunately0
-
Only at Charlton can you sign a player called the gun slinger and the minster of shooting after 5 months we can’t work out whether he is good or absolutely useless.7
-
Long time ago now but I thought he played 4-4-2 at Scunthorpe and Southampton - Hayes alongside another at Scunthorpe and Lambert and another at Southampton?ElliotCAFC said:I can guarantee that under Adkins we will only ever play with one striker. Everywhere he’s been it’s been either 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.Expect a few of our strikers to be offloaded in the Summer, to be replaced with attacking midfielders. Schwartz is probably the first on the list to be cut unfortunately1 - Sponsored links:
-
He did. I think hes definitely preferred 1 up top in the last few years but it's not accurate to say hes always done it.Scoham said:
Long time ago now but I thought he played 4-4-2 at Scunthorpe and Southampton - Hayes alongside another at Scunthorpe and Lambert and another at Southampton?ElliotCAFC said:I can guarantee that under Adkins we will only ever play with one striker. Everywhere he’s been it’s been either 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.Expect a few of our strikers to be offloaded in the Summer, to be replaced with attacking midfielders. Schwartz is probably the first on the list to be cut unfortunately1 -
He travelled to Plymouth as someone got a photo of the squad at a station. No idea if he was with them after that.mendonca said:Does anybody know if he's still with us or back in Denmark? For some reason that would not surprise me with how it's currently worked out.
Our pre-match twitter shows the players who are doing runs before a game to conclude they've not made the matchday 16, but no sight of Ronnie. So that's just my guess.1 -
He did. But so did almost everyone else. Now everyone players at least 3 central midfielders. If you play 442 you end up getting over run in midfield.Scoham said:
Long time ago now but I thought he played 4-4-2 at Scunthorpe and Southampton - Hayes alongside another at Scunthorpe and Lambert and another at Southampton?ElliotCAFC said:I can guarantee that under Adkins we will only ever play with one striker. Everywhere he’s been it’s been either 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.Expect a few of our strikers to be offloaded in the Summer, to be replaced with attacking midfielders. Schwartz is probably the first on the list to be cut unfortunately
It's what you sacrifice to get the 3rd man that's the issue/problem/puzzle.1 -
Yup, if you want two strikers you either play a diamond and sacrifice the wing play or you go 3-5-2 but that relies on having very decent wing backs to make it work.
As it is, with the players we have available, I think it's worth trying a hybrid formation of sorts and using Washington as one of the two wingers in a 4-3-3 and have him buzzing around the play centrally at times, going wide at other times. This isn't a role that Ronnie can play.
...
Or (with a view to next season) you go out and buy the two best midfielders in the division who will be able to cope together vs three week in week out. Another system Curbs liked to employ in the past was a wide midfielder on one side who can help centrally when needed and a pacey winger on the other flank.
2 -
Could his wife be close to labour at this point? There's been talk of her being pregnant since we signed him in January so?Talal said:
He travelled to Plymouth as someone got a photo of the squad at a station. No idea if he was with them after that.mendonca said:Does anybody know if he's still with us or back in Denmark? For some reason that would not surprise me with how it's currently worked out.
Our pre-match twitter shows the players who are doing runs before a game to conclude they've not made the matchday 16, but no sight of Ronnie. So that's just my guess.0 -
Agreed, that's what I would go for. Either way, I don't think we have the players for Adkins' style so a busy summer ahead.Callumcafc said:Yup, if you want two strikers you either play a diamond and sacrifice the wing play or you go 3-5-2 but that relies on having very decent wing backs to make it work.
As it is, with the players we have available, I think it's worth trying a hybrid formation of sorts and using Washington as one of the two wingers in a 4-3-3 and have him buzzing around the play centrally at times, going wide at other times. This isn't a role that Ronnie can play.1 -
Can’t comment on Scunthorpe so he may well have played 4-4-2. I’m pretty certain he played a 4-2-3-1 at Southampton, Ricky Lambert up top virtually every week with Billy Sharp and David Connolly there as cover - I had to study the system for coursework and it was some of the best football I’d seen.Scoham said:
Long time ago now but I thought he played 4-4-2 at Scunthorpe and Southampton - Hayes alongside another at Scunthorpe and Lambert and another at Southampton?ElliotCAFC said:I can guarantee that under Adkins we will only ever play with one striker. Everywhere he’s been it’s been either 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.Expect a few of our strikers to be offloaded in the Summer, to be replaced with attacking midfielders. Schwartz is probably the first on the list to be cut unfortunatelyI personally love a 4-2-3-1, the more attacking midfielders the better in my book. The issue is we don’t seem to have the personnel at the moment to play it. Really looking forward to the Summer transfer window and seeing what sort of player we bring in0 -
Ronnie the Rocket?
He's one of those you remove from the Bendix box, it's looks ok so you place it in the milk bottle, light the fuse and retire the safe distance... THEN
NOTHING0 -
Perhaps he got the boat from there to Copenhagen.Talal said:
He travelled to Plymouth as someone got a photo of the squad at a station. No idea if he was with them after that.mendonca said:Does anybody know if he's still with us or back in Denmark? For some reason that would not surprise me with how it's currently worked out.
Our pre-match twitter shows the players who are doing runs before a game to conclude they've not made the matchday 16, but no sight of Ronnie. So that's just my guess.2 -
Could you imagine the sort of things we'd say about him if he ever got a decent amount of playing time?????
I'm sort of of the opinion that, if we have a formation and tactic that isn't working in a game, you change them to something else (and sooner). Maybe Schwartz wouldn't work out, but it would be nice to think he'd been given a chance.9
