Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Summer 2022 transfer rumours (Gilbey loan confirmed p513, a signing falls through last minute p541)

1…554555557559560…569

Comments

  • Clarky
    Clarky Posts: 582
    masicat said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    masicat said:
    Airman Brown said:
    My understanding is that Bonne was agreed days in advance with Gallen despite TS then trying to renegotiate it himself, but was always a back up. Thing is, QPR knew that Charlton’s other options were unrealistic so they always expected the deal to come forward. Their end say it was over hours before Charlton confirmed it, although that doesn’t tally with Jaiyesimi being pulled back from Mansfield very late.
    QPR offered Bonne a deal to make the Charlton deal permanent. Bonne refused and Charlton pulled out after a stand off. 
    In my opinion, everybody wins except QPR. I have some sketchy details , but I know a figure of 25% was involved. I really don’t know if QPR offered him 25% of his contract or not. Can’t ask my source for more details than this - ‘ QPR offered to pay up his contract to 25% but he turned it down’. 
    Sorry if I waffled a bit there, maybe someone can explain exactly what this means as I’m not totally sure. However, I do know the information is right. 


    None of the above is true as QPR manager has admitted today that the deal fell
    through because they failed to get the striker they wanted so .. pulled the Bonne deal nothing more  nothing  less .. people trying to make something out of lies 
    My source sticks by this and says that Bonne told him QPR tried to shaft him and he refused. I stick by my comments ..
    Sounds plausible. QPR tries to shaft him, he then reads what we say about him, refuses to leave, and promptly posts a silly little picture to get back at us!
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,728
    What I like about Clayden is that he plays his game and I think it will mean he develops quickly into a decent player. We should factor in that he is not a left back and of course that he is still learning which is apparent sometimes but other times he looks good and grabs your attention. A poster suggested he might be better playing in Kirk's position but the issue of course is we don't have a left back to replace him with. 
  • Clarky
    Clarky Posts: 582
    StrikerFirmani said:
    thenewbie said:
    StrikerFirmani said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    SomervilleAddick said:
    Sage said:
    Not sure why my comments on Dobson and Clare I made 12 months ago are being brought up for discussion. Neither were any good at the start of last season, and although they turned their form around incredibly well and are far from being an issue in the current side, that’s not the issue. They proved a lot of people wrong. Good on them! However, one is playing out of position by necessity yet proving to be decent, the other is all about winning it back and the more Garner has time to implement his style, the less I’ll see the him being used. We got a taste of that already against Derby. Give it a few months or another transfer window and I can see it being a way we go forward under Garner. But those two are not an issue and not what the conversation is about. Using a comment and opinion from a year ago to devalue an opinion now is a bit frustrating.

    Stockley has offered us nothing this season. He doesn’t possess the leadership skills on the pitch to take us up a level. He doesn’t press but when he does lots like he’s running through water, he’s constantly moaning at other players, like I’ve said before he doesn’t run in behind, his hold up play is actually poor for a man of his size, he’s not great with the ball at his feet, he’s often behind the play and unless we have patient build up and put the ball in the box, he doesn’t look threatening. I actually believe Davison would have offered us more so far because at least he’s willing to stretch a defence, he works hard, he’s less predictable.

    We saw last season Stockley up front on his own is shocking and in a new style and system, I’ve seen nothing this season to change that.
    So why keep playing him? Put Leaburn up there, put Stockley and maybe Kanu on the bench. I know people, and probably the club, don’t want to put too much pressure on Leaburn, but at this point, can he do any worse? We know he can run, we know he can hold the ball up and pass. Sure he might get outmuscled by some of the old hands, but at this point, what is there to lose by going that route. 

    It’s not Stockleys fault Garner keeps playing him. 
    It’s not Garners either.
    Perhaps it is partially because he could tweak the system to play to Stockley's strengths, I accept where you are coming from though, the SMT got it wrong and TS has not backed him. 

    I find it intriguing that Adkins, Jackson and now Garner are sticking to one system on the whole and so far non of them were prepared to change or tweak a system.  Even though they didn't/don't have the round pegs for round holes. 


    I am speaking only of Garner's situation (as it's sufficiently different I think to warrant it) but I would say that in his defence he's always tried to implement the system he's pushing and pretty much every signing we DID make was geared towards making that system work. 

    I'm fairly sure that if he'd known going in that he was not going to be given one of the key ingredients he might have come up with a different plan but it feels to me that he's had the metaphorical rug pulled out as much as we have, if not more.
    I do agree with you on this and in fairness to Garner the realisation that he has been left with out the players he likely expected is fresh.  Going forward though he needs to find a solution between now and January even if it means changing or tweaking the system.  Else this is likely to unfold as it did under the previous 2 managers.

      
    I actually wouldn't mind seeing Rak-Sakyi upfront with Stockley as an alternative formation, think Rak-Sakyi would cause havoc in the penalty area and he certainly as an eye for goal.
  • SomervilleAddick
    SomervilleAddick Posts: 3,575
    Jac_52 said:
    paulsturgess said:
    Posting without having read in case this has already been shared… but we could’ve had this kid if we hadn’t mugged spurs off with Nile John last season.





    We have our own kid that has scored 2 in 122 mins of football
    Yeah, but people don’t want to play our kids as they don’t have enough experience. I can’t imagine the whining we would have heard if we got a Spurs 18 year old on a loan. 
  • Clarky
    Clarky Posts: 582
    Southbank said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Covered End said:
    addick_for_life said:
    There seems to be a lot of chat about Clare , who personally I think is an excellent player and rumours of championship clubs being interested but our problem is left back , we have tried to make Clayden into a full back who was a winger - he was at fault for the first 2 goals on Saturday - watch the highlights carefully - he is still young but he is not a full back and the goals are coming down that side - we need to sort that out first - it’s great having a left back who can get forward but he needs to be a defender first . 
    Unfortunately, he was at fault for all 3 goals.
    The 3rd goal he was marking their player who received the short free kick.
    Their player ran and received the ball and Clayden was far too slow to simply run with him.
    Next thing the ball is in the net.
    Apologies to Clayden a young lad thrown in at the deep end, but all 3 goals were mainly down to him (obviously not totally down to him).
    In Clayden's defense he has very little experience at all, virtually none at full back and worst of all gets zero protection from the wage stealing pisstaker in front of him Charlie The Shirk Kirk
    Charles has been callously thrown to the dogs and left to fend for himself - on that context his performances are remarkable - better a team of eleven Claydens than ever see Kirk in Charlton red again
    Clayden looks more effective as a winger than Kirk. Once Sessignon/Egbo are back I would kick Kirk out and put Clayden on the wing.
    Clayden instead of CBT? Claydon would make a decent option on the bench when we have our injured players back.
  • Jac_52
    Jac_52 Posts: 1,460
    Southbank said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Covered End said:
    addick_for_life said:
    There seems to be a lot of chat about Clare , who personally I think is an excellent player and rumours of championship clubs being interested but our problem is left back , we have tried to make Clayden into a full back who was a winger - he was at fault for the first 2 goals on Saturday - watch the highlights carefully - he is still young but he is not a full back and the goals are coming down that side - we need to sort that out first - it’s great having a left back who can get forward but he needs to be a defender first . 
    Unfortunately, he was at fault for all 3 goals.
    The 3rd goal he was marking their player who received the short free kick.
    Their player ran and received the ball and Clayden was far too slow to simply run with him.
    Next thing the ball is in the net.
    Apologies to Clayden a young lad thrown in at the deep end, but all 3 goals were mainly down to him (obviously not totally down to him).
    In Clayden's defense he has very little experience at all, virtually none at full back and worst of all gets zero protection from the wage stealing pisstaker in front of him Charlie The Shirk Kirk
    Charles has been callously thrown to the dogs and left to fend for himself - on that context his performances are remarkable - better a team of eleven Claydens than ever see Kirk in Charlton red again
    Clayden looks more effective as a winger than Kirk. Once Sessignon/Egbo are back I would kick Kirk out and put Clayden on the wing.

    He might look it on the basis he runs up and down the line a lot, but he certainly isn't.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,728
    edited September 2022
    SomervilleAddick said:
    Jac_52 said:
    paulsturgess said:
    Posting without having read in case this has already been shared… but we could’ve had this kid if we hadn’t mugged spurs off with Nile John last season.





    We have our own kid that has scored 2 in 122 mins of football
    Yeah, but people don’t want to play our kids as they don’t have enough experience. I can’t imagine the whining we would have heard if we got a Spurs 18 year old on a loan. 
    It isn't that, you play them according to how ready they are. An 18 year old can absolutely be ready or may need a bit more nuturing. It just is what it is. I would imagine the coaches think say Kanu has to develop other areas of his game more to be effective and if that is the case, playing him other than a sub cameo here and there would not be sensible at this stage. Leaburn is effective in the role he is playing but has looked lost when leading the line. Maybe the formation has to be looked at - horses for courses and all that.

    We all do it, but the players on the bench or not in the squad or in somebody else's squad are usually better when the first team is not performing.
  • NabySarr
    NabySarr Posts: 4,284
    Jac_52 said:
    Southbank said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Covered End said:
    addick_for_life said:
    There seems to be a lot of chat about Clare , who personally I think is an excellent player and rumours of championship clubs being interested but our problem is left back , we have tried to make Clayden into a full back who was a winger - he was at fault for the first 2 goals on Saturday - watch the highlights carefully - he is still young but he is not a full back and the goals are coming down that side - we need to sort that out first - it’s great having a left back who can get forward but he needs to be a defender first . 
    Unfortunately, he was at fault for all 3 goals.
    The 3rd goal he was marking their player who received the short free kick.
    Their player ran and received the ball and Clayden was far too slow to simply run with him.
    Next thing the ball is in the net.
    Apologies to Clayden a young lad thrown in at the deep end, but all 3 goals were mainly down to him (obviously not totally down to him).
    In Clayden's defense he has very little experience at all, virtually none at full back and worst of all gets zero protection from the wage stealing pisstaker in front of him Charlie The Shirk Kirk
    Charles has been callously thrown to the dogs and left to fend for himself - on that context his performances are remarkable - better a team of eleven Claydens than ever see Kirk in Charlton red again
    Clayden looks more effective as a winger than Kirk. Once Sessignon/Egbo are back I would kick Kirk out and put Clayden on the wing.

    He might look it on the basis he runs up and down the line a lot, but he certainly isn't.
    Massively agree. Kirk has had 1 bad game. Other than that he has created more than any of our other players and has 1 goal and 2 assists to his name already (and could have had more if Stockley could finish or Plymouths defender didn’t handball). Clayden is quick and direct but no where near the quality in possession and end product that Kirk can offer 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,314
    CBT, DJ and Payne exist ffs. Yes, drop Kirk. Play Clayden there are you out of your freaking mind 
  • StrikerFirmani
    StrikerFirmani Posts: 2,742
    Southbank said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Covered End said:
    addick_for_life said:
    There seems to be a lot of chat about Clare , who personally I think is an excellent player and rumours of championship clubs being interested but our problem is left back , we have tried to make Clayden into a full back who was a winger - he was at fault for the first 2 goals on Saturday - watch the highlights carefully - he is still young but he is not a full back and the goals are coming down that side - we need to sort that out first - it’s great having a left back who can get forward but he needs to be a defender first . 
    Unfortunately, he was at fault for all 3 goals.
    The 3rd goal he was marking their player who received the short free kick.
    Their player ran and received the ball and Clayden was far too slow to simply run with him.
    Next thing the ball is in the net.
    Apologies to Clayden a young lad thrown in at the deep end, but all 3 goals were mainly down to him (obviously not totally down to him).
    In Clayden's defense he has very little experience at all, virtually none at full back and worst of all gets zero protection from the wage stealing pisstaker in front of him Charlie The Shirk Kirk
    Charles has been callously thrown to the dogs and left to fend for himself - on that context his performances are remarkable - better a team of eleven Claydens than ever see Kirk in Charlton red again
    Clayden looks more effective as a winger than Kirk. Once Sessignon/Egbo are back I would kick Kirk out and put Clayden on the wing.
    Clayden is certainly more dynamic than Kirk.  I think Kirk has skill but is a luxury player and we have another in Fraser.  Two of that type of player in the same team is going to kill you dead when you are playing strong sides like Bolton. Personally I would play Fraser and make sure I have a strong dynamic players to balance it.   
  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered_End_Lad
    Covered_End_Lad Posts: 5,725
    I think CBT and JRS will both start in the wide positions when Corey is back fit
  • NabySarr
    NabySarr Posts: 4,284
    Covered_End_Lad said:
    I think CBT and JRS will both start in the wide positions when Corey is back fit
    I think it depends who we are up against. Against a weaker team that might sit back and let us have the ball I’d rather have Kirk but against better teams or most away games where there will be more space in behind and need to counter then I’d go with CBT
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,010
    RonnieMoore said:
    masicat said:
    Airman Brown said:
    My understanding is that Bonne was agreed days in advance with Gallen despite TS then trying to renegotiate it himself, but was always a back up. Thing is, QPR knew that Charlton’s other options were unrealistic so they always expected the deal to come forward. Their end say it was over hours before Charlton confirmed it, although that doesn’t tally with Jaiyesimi being pulled back from Mansfield very late.
    QPR offered Bonne a deal to make the Charlton deal permanent. Bonne refused and Charlton pulled out after a stand off. 
    In my opinion, everybody wins except QPR. I have some sketchy details , but I know a figure of 25% was involved. I really don’t know if QPR offered him 25% of his contract or not. Can’t ask my source for more details than this - ‘ QPR offered to pay up his contract to 25% but he turned it down’. 
    Sorry if I waffled a bit there, maybe someone can explain exactly what this means as I’m not totally sure. However, I do know the information is right. 


    None of the above is true as QPR manager has admitted today that the deal fell
    through because they failed to get the striker they wanted so .. pulled the Bonne deal nothing more  nothing  less .. people trying to make something out of lies 
    He's hardly likely to say 'yes it fell through as we tried to shaft him and he wasn't having it'
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,626
    StrikerFirmani said:
    thenewbie said:
    StrikerFirmani said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    SomervilleAddick said:
    Sage said:
    Not sure why my comments on Dobson and Clare I made 12 months ago are being brought up for discussion. Neither were any good at the start of last season, and although they turned their form around incredibly well and are far from being an issue in the current side, that’s not the issue. They proved a lot of people wrong. Good on them! However, one is playing out of position by necessity yet proving to be decent, the other is all about winning it back and the more Garner has time to implement his style, the less I’ll see the him being used. We got a taste of that already against Derby. Give it a few months or another transfer window and I can see it being a way we go forward under Garner. But those two are not an issue and not what the conversation is about. Using a comment and opinion from a year ago to devalue an opinion now is a bit frustrating.

    Stockley has offered us nothing this season. He doesn’t possess the leadership skills on the pitch to take us up a level. He doesn’t press but when he does lots like he’s running through water, he’s constantly moaning at other players, like I’ve said before he doesn’t run in behind, his hold up play is actually poor for a man of his size, he’s not great with the ball at his feet, he’s often behind the play and unless we have patient build up and put the ball in the box, he doesn’t look threatening. I actually believe Davison would have offered us more so far because at least he’s willing to stretch a defence, he works hard, he’s less predictable.

    We saw last season Stockley up front on his own is shocking and in a new style and system, I’ve seen nothing this season to change that.
    So why keep playing him? Put Leaburn up there, put Stockley and maybe Kanu on the bench. I know people, and probably the club, don’t want to put too much pressure on Leaburn, but at this point, can he do any worse? We know he can run, we know he can hold the ball up and pass. Sure he might get outmuscled by some of the old hands, but at this point, what is there to lose by going that route. 

    It’s not Stockleys fault Garner keeps playing him. 
    It’s not Garners either.
    Perhaps it is partially because he could tweak the system to play to Stockley's strengths, I accept where you are coming from though, the SMT got it wrong and TS has not backed him. 

    I find it intriguing that Adkins, Jackson and now Garner are sticking to one system on the whole and so far non of them were prepared to change or tweak a system.  Even though they didn't/don't have the round pegs for round holes. 


    I am speaking only of Garner's situation (as it's sufficiently different I think to warrant it) but I would say that in his defence he's always tried to implement the system he's pushing and pretty much every signing we DID make was geared towards making that system work. 

    I'm fairly sure that if he'd known going in that he was not going to be given one of the key ingredients he might have come up with a different plan but it feels to me that he's had the metaphorical rug pulled out as much as we have, if not more.
    I do agree with you on this and in fairness to Garner the realisation that he has been left with out the players he likely expected is fresh.  Going forward though he needs to find a solution between now and January even if it means changing or tweaking the system.  Else this is likely to unfold as it did under the previous 2 managers.

      
    Not much tweaking or changing of system if :

    You only have 2 fit "strikers"

    The other "forwards / "wingers" aren't that great at scoring. Out of Kirk,CBT,DJ & JRS only JRS looks like he can finish. The other snatch at shots & usually hit them wide or over the bar.

    Out of the midfielders only Fraser has scored. Payne looks like he could chip in with a few but currently he hasnt shown it. 

    Therefore, as has been said countless times on here (and there is even a thread about where are the goals going to come from) it doesnt really matter if we played 433, 442 or 352 we still dont have enough players who can score enough goals to get us promoted. 
  • charltonbob
    charltonbob Posts: 8,254
    cabbles said:
    Fanny Fanackapan said:
    Glad I'm not the only one to feel this way and especially relieved that Sage is the one to echo my thoughts. 

    TS has totally left BG up the creek without a paddle IMO.

    He'll want the gaffer to put more youngsters in the team , putting them out there and encouraging bids for their services as he did with Burstow. 

    That's one of the only ways to recoup some of his outlay.
    I must admit, when I saw those comments from @sage, I was quite glad.  He knows his onions and generally I consider him to be quite patient and positive when it comes to the playing side of things, but it’s a bit of a wake up call imo 
    Have to say I think there's been a fair few who I would call positive/optimistic who just recently seem to be getting "slightly" critical.
  • IR94
    IR94 Posts: 743
    StrikerFirmani said:
    Southbank said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Covered End said:
    addick_for_life said:
    There seems to be a lot of chat about Clare , who personally I think is an excellent player and rumours of championship clubs being interested but our problem is left back , we have tried to make Clayden into a full back who was a winger - he was at fault for the first 2 goals on Saturday - watch the highlights carefully - he is still young but he is not a full back and the goals are coming down that side - we need to sort that out first - it’s great having a left back who can get forward but he needs to be a defender first . 
    Unfortunately, he was at fault for all 3 goals.
    The 3rd goal he was marking their player who received the short free kick.
    Their player ran and received the ball and Clayden was far too slow to simply run with him.
    Next thing the ball is in the net.
    Apologies to Clayden a young lad thrown in at the deep end, but all 3 goals were mainly down to him (obviously not totally down to him).
    In Clayden's defense he has very little experience at all, virtually none at full back and worst of all gets zero protection from the wage stealing pisstaker in front of him Charlie The Shirk Kirk
    Charles has been callously thrown to the dogs and left to fend for himself - on that context his performances are remarkable - better a team of eleven Claydens than ever see Kirk in Charlton red again
    Clayden looks more effective as a winger than Kirk. Once Sessignon/Egbo are back I would kick Kirk out and put Clayden on the wing.
    Clayden is certainly more dynamic than Kirk.  I think Kirk has skill but is a luxury player and we have another in Fraser.  Two of that type of player in the same team is going to kill you dead when you are playing strong sides like Bolton. Personally I would play Fraser and make sure I have a strong dynamic players to balance it.   
    Would disagree, kirk certainly has dynamism, its consistency and strength that are in question, having seen anything from clayden dynamic except being a good athlete
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,314
    Kirk has dynamism? He has a great right foot. That is pretty much that.
  • Jac_52
    Jac_52 Posts: 1,460
    Leuth said:
    Kirk has dynamism? He has a great right foot. That is pretty much that.

    All phenomena can be explained as manifestations of Kirk's right foot.
  • NabySarr
    NabySarr Posts: 4,284
    Leuth said:
    Kirk has dynamism? He has a great right foot. That is pretty much that.
    What about the assist he got last week with his left foot. Or the one he put on stockleys head with his left a few weeks ago? He doesn’t offer much defensively and he had an absolute shocker on Saturday. But before that he’d been pretty good and created our most chances this season 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,314
    Okay, he has a great right foot and a decent left foot. His ability to control, cross or pass a ball is not in question. But he doesn't move well, with or without the ball, and the thought of him getting stuck in is actually quite funny. He's the kind of player I'd absolutely love to watch if it was walking football, or if the opposition stood back and let him do his thing. I appreciate skill and delivery. But he gets sidelined from a game so easily, and unlike the other players vying for his spot, he doesn't scrap, or really take on his man, or pop up in different places. He may get a final pass into the box, but the other players have to create all the play for him to do so, because he sure as hell won't
  • Sponsored links:



  • cafc_harry
    cafc_harry Posts: 3,360
    I think Kirk needs to have the ‘free’ role similar to what Foden has had at city where he’s free to roam from out wide to create. Sadly that’s for teams much better than us. 
  • Exiled_Addick
    Exiled_Addick Posts: 17,168
    edited September 2022
    Kirk is like Darren Ambrose was for us (only even less good). He does something encouraging just often enough to prolong the hope in those who are inclined to cling onto the idea he will one day come good and deliver consistently. In the meantime, he has the rest of us wondering is he's even playing most of the time. 
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    Didn't someone share a stat the other day where he was in the top 5 for chances created in the entire EFL?
  • StrikerFirmani
    StrikerFirmani Posts: 2,742
    golfaddick said:
    StrikerFirmani said:
    thenewbie said:
    StrikerFirmani said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    SomervilleAddick said:
    Sage said:
    Not sure why my comments on Dobson and Clare I made 12 months ago are being brought up for discussion. Neither were any good at the start of last season, and although they turned their form around incredibly well and are far from being an issue in the current side, that’s not the issue. They proved a lot of people wrong. Good on them! However, one is playing out of position by necessity yet proving to be decent, the other is all about winning it back and the more Garner has time to implement his style, the less I’ll see the him being used. We got a taste of that already against Derby. Give it a few months or another transfer window and I can see it being a way we go forward under Garner. But those two are not an issue and not what the conversation is about. Using a comment and opinion from a year ago to devalue an opinion now is a bit frustrating.

    Stockley has offered us nothing this season. He doesn’t possess the leadership skills on the pitch to take us up a level. He doesn’t press but when he does lots like he’s running through water, he’s constantly moaning at other players, like I’ve said before he doesn’t run in behind, his hold up play is actually poor for a man of his size, he’s not great with the ball at his feet, he’s often behind the play and unless we have patient build up and put the ball in the box, he doesn’t look threatening. I actually believe Davison would have offered us more so far because at least he’s willing to stretch a defence, he works hard, he’s less predictable.

    We saw last season Stockley up front on his own is shocking and in a new style and system, I’ve seen nothing this season to change that.
    So why keep playing him? Put Leaburn up there, put Stockley and maybe Kanu on the bench. I know people, and probably the club, don’t want to put too much pressure on Leaburn, but at this point, can he do any worse? We know he can run, we know he can hold the ball up and pass. Sure he might get outmuscled by some of the old hands, but at this point, what is there to lose by going that route. 

    It’s not Stockleys fault Garner keeps playing him. 
    It’s not Garners either.
    Perhaps it is partially because he could tweak the system to play to Stockley's strengths, I accept where you are coming from though, the SMT got it wrong and TS has not backed him. 

    I find it intriguing that Adkins, Jackson and now Garner are sticking to one system on the whole and so far non of them were prepared to change or tweak a system.  Even though they didn't/don't have the round pegs for round holes. 


    I am speaking only of Garner's situation (as it's sufficiently different I think to warrant it) but I would say that in his defence he's always tried to implement the system he's pushing and pretty much every signing we DID make was geared towards making that system work. 

    I'm fairly sure that if he'd known going in that he was not going to be given one of the key ingredients he might have come up with a different plan but it feels to me that he's had the metaphorical rug pulled out as much as we have, if not more.
    I do agree with you on this and in fairness to Garner the realisation that he has been left with out the players he likely expected is fresh.  Going forward though he needs to find a solution between now and January even if it means changing or tweaking the system.  Else this is likely to unfold as it did under the previous 2 managers.

      
    Not much tweaking or changing of system if :

    You only have 2 fit "strikers"

    The other "forwards / "wingers" aren't that great at scoring. Out of Kirk,CBT,DJ & JRS only JRS looks like he can finish. The other snatch at shots & usually hit them wide or over the bar.

    Out of the midfielders only Fraser has scored. Payne looks like he could chip in with a few but currently he hasnt shown it. 

    Therefore, as has been said countless times on here (and there is even a thread about where are the goals going to come from) it doesnt really matter if we played 433, 442 or 352 we still dont have enough players who can score enough goals to get us promoted. 
    I agree that we don't have enough strikers to get promoted as it stands.

    However rather than just give up and throw in the towel to another mid table season Garner needs to find some solutions to try and stay in touch with the play off positions.

    You have mentioned countless times of a quick striker to play up top, so there is no reason not to play 2 strikers. JRS seems to have the attributes to play off of Stockley additionally ML should be able to in a different way and has CBT ever been used in this way by us.  It will come down to trial or error.

    There has been a number of times that a mid table team go on a run after January and make the play offs.  

    You would hope come January the problem can be addressed.     
  • alburyaddick
    alburyaddick Posts: 574
    Exiled_Addick said:
    Kirk is like Darren Ambrose was for us (only even less good). He does something encouraging just often enough to prolong the hope in those who are inclined to cling onto the idea he will one day come good and deliver consistently. In the meantime, he has the rest of us wondering is he's even playing most of the time. 
    This is a great comparison, Ambrose used to drive me bonkers. Kirk is definitely of the same ilk, lasy and ineffective.
    Ambrose only used to try when his contract was nearly up. Quite often it was like playing with 10 men 
    Then he went to Palace and basically kept them in the Championship with his goals !!  
  • charltonbob
    charltonbob Posts: 8,254
    soapy_jones said:
    ISawLeaburnScore said:
    KiwiValley said:
    KiwiValley said:
    What’s this Terrel Thomas chap all about? Opinions?

    Does no one have an opinion on Terrel? Or did i miss the discussion?
    Proper bargain bucket stuff but that's where we are. Signed a 12 month contract with Crewe at the start of last season, mutually terminated by January because in part, he couldn't hold a place in their side (they got relegated). Turned up at Reading on a short term deal in March, played 2 Champ games, released. Failed trial at Portsmouth in the summer. Still no club... now here.
    Fits our MO!  We'll have him long term injured by November.  Looking forward to Tommy boy's welcoming statement...

    "It is great to welcome Terrel to club, we have been working on this for a number of afternoons.  He has two legs and a head on him, he was shit at Crewe, pony at Reading and was laughed out of the door at Portsmouth". Kerrrangh!!!
    Three & a half year deal apparently.
  • KiwiValley
    KiwiValley Posts: 3,379
    charltonbob said:
    soapy_jones said:
    ISawLeaburnScore said:
    KiwiValley said:
    KiwiValley said:
    What’s this Terrel Thomas chap all about? Opinions?

    Does no one have an opinion on Terrel? Or did i miss the discussion?
    Proper bargain bucket stuff but that's where we are. Signed a 12 month contract with Crewe at the start of last season, mutually terminated by January because in part, he couldn't hold a place in their side (they got relegated). Turned up at Reading on a short term deal in March, played 2 Champ games, released. Failed trial at Portsmouth in the summer. Still no club... now here.
    Fits our MO!  We'll have him long term injured by November.  Looking forward to Tommy boy's welcoming statement...

    "It is great to welcome Terrel to club, we have been working on this for a number of afternoons.  He has two legs and a head on him, he was shit at Crewe, pony at Reading and was laughed out of the door at Portsmouth". Kerrrangh!!!
    Three & a half year deal apparently.
    I heard it a deal for half of this year and half of next year (not sure if this means half of every day in each year or half of each week in each year).
  • charltonbob
    charltonbob Posts: 8,254
    addick_for_life said:
    There seems to be a lot of chat about Clare , who personally I think is an excellent player and rumours of championship clubs being interested but our problem is left back , we have tried to make Clayden into a full back who was a winger - he was at fault for the first 2 goals on Saturday - watch the highlights carefully - he is still young but he is not a full back and the goals are coming down that side - we need to sort that out first - it’s great having a left back who can get forward but he needs to be a defender first . 
    That's the whole point, he isn't a left back, he's being forced to play there because we haven't any cover for the bloke signed to play LB who's now injured. Clubs are going to target him, don't blame Clayden, ask sandgaard why we haven't got cover at LB.
  • charltonbob
    charltonbob Posts: 8,254
    masicat said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    masicat said:
    Airman Brown said:
    My understanding is that Bonne was agreed days in advance with Gallen despite TS then trying to renegotiate it himself, but was always a back up. Thing is, QPR knew that Charlton’s other options were unrealistic so they always expected the deal to come forward. Their end say it was over hours before Charlton confirmed it, although that doesn’t tally with Jaiyesimi being pulled back from Mansfield very late.
    QPR offered Bonne a deal to make the Charlton deal permanent. Bonne refused and Charlton pulled out after a stand off. 
    In my opinion, everybody wins except QPR. I have some sketchy details , but I know a figure of 25% was involved. I really don’t know if QPR offered him 25% of his contract or not. Can’t ask my source for more details than this - ‘ QPR offered to pay up his contract to 25% but he turned it down’. 
    Sorry if I waffled a bit there, maybe someone can explain exactly what this means as I’m not totally sure. However, I do know the information is right. 


    None of the above is true as QPR manager has admitted today that the deal fell
    through because they failed to get the striker they wanted so .. pulled the Bonne deal nothing more  nothing  less .. people trying to make something out of lies 
    My source sticks by this and says that Bonne told him QPR tried to shaft him and he refused. I stick by my comments ..
    You don't need to justify your comments, nobody believes a word from Ronnie Moore unless it appeared in the Plymouth Herald first.
  • Jac_52
    Jac_52 Posts: 1,460
    I actually think Kirk's movement off the ball is pretty good when we're in possession. He makes intelligent movements/runs a lot of the time to create space or receive a pass which often doesn't come. What he doesn't do is run in behind a full back, which is why he works better with a Clayden type player who does do that although that comes with its own problems.

    If we're keeping possession in the opponent's half a lot, as is the plan, he would be key to creating chances. At the moment we are playing so deep and finding it hard to move up the pitch to control games so he's is struggling to impose himself, although I'd still argue he makes things happen when we do give him the ball as he is probably our most positive player in possession. I'd like to see Fraser move to the left of the 3 midfielders as I feel him and Kirk link up very well.

Categories

“Marketplace”