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

Post-Match Thread: Charlton Athletic vs Bristol Rovers | Saturday 17th December 2022

1…6781012

Comments

  • Smithy
    Smithy Posts: 1,022
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
  • Athletico Charlton
    Athletico Charlton Posts: 14,279
    What were the words to the song in the second half from upper north yesterday with drummer. End sounded like "we only care about CAFC" ?  Thanks 
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,320
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    edited December 2022
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    He tried to clear the second one didn't he?
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,320
    Chunes said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    He tried to clear the second one didn't he?
    The second one was clearly an attempted pass imo
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    Leuth said:
    Chunes said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    He tried to clear the second one didn't he?
    The second one was clearly an attempted pass imo
    To my cousin in the North Stand.
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,320
    Chunes said:
    Leuth said:
    Chunes said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    He tried to clear the second one didn't he?
    The second one was clearly an attempted pass imo
    To my cousin in the North Stand.
    If he'd tried to clear it, it'd have stayed cleared.

    Honestly, the second mistake was more unlucky than anything - two inches either side and the headed through-ball would have been impossible. But because he'd made the first one, Mud was his name
  • usetobunkin
    usetobunkin Posts: 2,185
    Marquis is a limited player, let go by most every club or team he has been contracted too. 
    Yet he was good enough to beat us almost single handed. 
    BR where limited in ideas, and players individual skill. 
    Yet still had enough to beat us.

    Iniss is big lad and should be bullying almost everyone he comes across, yet some how he keeps making stupid mistakes. 

    Yesterday was summed up for me when i was watching the half-time subs "warm up"
    Anke barely gave any effort to the routine. 

    I will keep coming to see CAFC, even if we go down, because they are MY CLUB, i was here before TS and i will be here long after him, Raelynn, his boy and Keohane have long gone!

    Don't think we are rock bottom yet, still aways to go. Its a club i love and fanbase i consider almost family. JUST WISH THE PLAYERS DID.
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    Leuth said:
    Chunes said:
    Leuth said:
    Chunes said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    He tried to clear the second one didn't he?
    The second one was clearly an attempted pass imo
    To my cousin in the North Stand.
    If he'd tried to clear it, it'd have stayed cleared.

    Honestly, the second mistake was more unlucky than anything - two inches either side and the headed through-ball would have been impossible. But because he'd made the first one, Mud was his name
    Leuth... You've finally found your new Naby!
  • Talal
    Talal Posts: 11,491
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    It wasn't just about clearing it yesterday, there was zero awareness. He was literally looking at the Rovers player when he got the ball, turns back towards goal and thinks what? The attacker is just going to give up? It was pathetic defending, all the excuses in the world won't change that. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,320
    Talal said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    It wasn't just about clearing it yesterday, there was zero awareness. He was literally looking at the Rovers player when he got the ball, turns back towards goal and thinks what? The attacker is just going to give up? It was pathetic defending, all the excuses in the world won't change that. 
    I'm not giving excuses; it was horrendous. But it doesn't mean he can't be good enough. When he doesn't do silly avoidable things like that he more than is
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,320
    I'd rather have a CB who dominates and makes errors in possession than one who lets attackers do literally as they like (Lavelle). I mean, I'd rather have neither ideally, but only one of Inniss and Lavelle could solve their problem overnight.
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    edited December 2022
    If it can be fixed overnight, I don't understand why he's done it so many times this season. He's been quite lucky with the opposition missing the chances he's giving them. I think Cheltenham hit the bar and the post with the one-on-ones he gave them. Even going back to FGR (was it?) I remember him marauding up the pitch, past the halfway line, him losing the ball and them breaking and scoring the equaliser. 

    Him and Lavelle should both be gone at the end of the season, hopefully.
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,320
    Chunes said:
    If it can be fixed overnight, I don't understand why he's done it so many times this season. 
    There hasn't been a pragmatic decision to allow him to hoof it when he doesn't have EOC alongside him.

    Did he make all these errors with EOC next to him, btw? I really think not. EOC a massive loss. That post earlier saying EOC is just as bad on the ball as the other two is still enraging me, it's such bullshit. He's a baller
  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 44,955
    Talal said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    It wasn't just about clearing it yesterday, there was zero awareness. He was literally looking at the Rovers player when he got the ball, turns back towards goal and thinks what? The attacker is just going to give up? It was pathetic defending, all the excuses in the world won't change that. 
    Of course it was, nobody is going to argue against that.
    Inniss is fine when he doesn't have to think, and can simply attack the ball. He's good at what he does best.

    His problem is when he has time on the ball, trying to decide which option to take. It makes him unsure and indecisive.
    There's his issue.

    He's a traditional centre back. That's his ability and strength.
    Expecting him to play a creative role from the back when he obviously struggles with it is the problem.




  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 44,955
    Leuth said:
    I'd rather have a CB who dominates and makes errors in possession than one who lets attackers do literally as they like (Lavelle). I mean, I'd rather have neither ideally, but only one of Inniss and Lavelle could solve their problem overnight.
    Lavelle is another problem, whatever his limitations and lack of pace, the player is broken.

    Take him out of the team for his own sake. He seems bereft of all self-belief and confidence.



  • lonman
    lonman Posts: 254
    Story of our season. Play well in Patches and get punished when we take our foot off the gas. Sacking Garner and replacing with Hayes is going to be our undoing. I'm hoping it's not a cricket score against Brighton.
  • Talal
    Talal Posts: 11,491
    Oggy Red said:
    Talal said:
    Leuth said:
    Smithy said:
    Inniss does what he did yesterday every single week, it’s just that he usually gets bailed out or bails himself out. These are not isolate incidents, he is a consistently mistake prone centre back and if Sandgaard had put any kind of money towards the team I don’t think we would have given him a contract extension
    If he just cleared it, when there isn't an easy ball on, he'd be a bloody good defender at this level. He needs a sports psychologist maybe but everyone saying he's a lost cause aren't looking at what he can and does do on the positive side
    It wasn't just about clearing it yesterday, there was zero awareness. He was literally looking at the Rovers player when he got the ball, turns back towards goal and thinks what? The attacker is just going to give up? It was pathetic defending, all the excuses in the world won't change that. 
    Of course it was, nobody is going to argue against that.
    Inniss is fine when he doesn't have to think, and can simply attack the ball. He's good at what he does best.

    His problem is when he has time on the ball, trying to decide which option to take. It makes him unsure and indecisive.
    There's his issue.

    He's a traditional centre back. That's his ability and strength.
    Expecting him to play a creative role from the back when he obviously struggles with it is the problem.




    This is just more excuses imo. Unless Hayes has told him to never clear his lines then he has to engage a modicum of common sense and realise there's a time to clear the ball. He doesn't appear to have the intelligence to do so. 
  • Brown59
    Brown59 Posts: 236
    Can’t believe how bad Charlton are. They have fallen to a level that probably won’t or can’t get fixed.  No leadership anywhere in the club on and off the field. I’m afraid the signs look ominous and no manger worth his salt will come to our club. Why would they? Hayes is certainly not good enough apart from passing messages to the players by little notes. 
    The train strikes have made a decision for me not to come and wow have they saved me from watching this shambles. I do fear for our great club it’s in free fall and until sandgaard goes It’s not for me anymore. Even my family and friends don’t want my season to go and watch. Says it all really. 

    I’m dreaming of us picking up maximum points against the posh and Portsmouth. But alas it’s only a dream. But in the scheme of things going on in the country at the moment Charlton are my least worry. 

    Go sandgaard now and let us save our club. 
  • Simonsen
    Simonsen Posts: 5,503
    edited December 2022
    I was a centre-back for 30 years but I knew that I couldn't "play football." So, with every new partner or full back, I told them not to pass the ball to me unless I demanded it, as it would just lead to trouble. Clare shouldn't even have been thinking of playing the ball to Inniss in that situation but thats Garner who has drilled them to do that and now their thinking is muddled.

    Inniss is the strongest, most dominant CB at Charlton so should play but he needs to be protected from having to play out. Somebody needs to tell him its ok just to whack it. If we can get a better CB in then great but until then make the best of Inniss. In a team that clearly lacks strong characters, he at least is a strong character and we will need buckets of character for the dog-fight. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Crusty54
    Crusty54 Posts: 3,232
    msomerton said:
    In Innis we have found another player who cannot play for more than 40mins.
    May be we should start a 40min competition we would do well.
    Shouldn't have been asked to play on the left. Mitchell should have been on the pitch.
  • LouisMend
    LouisMend Posts: 5,448


    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/four-takeaways-from-charltons-2-1-defeat-against-bristol-rovers-individual-errors-are-a-collective-problem/
  • LouisMend
    LouisMend Posts: 5,448
    seth plum said:
    Were there any post match interviews with Anthony Hayes?
    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/anthony-hayes-blames-individual-errors-for-charltons-2-1-loss-to-bristol-rovers/

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/anthony-hayes-denies-ben-garner-lost-the-charlton-athletic-dressing-room/
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,633
    Simonsen said:
    I was a centre-back for 30 years but I knew that I couldn't "play football." So, with every new partner or full back, I told them not to pass the ball to me unless I demanded it, as it would just lead to trouble. Clare shouldn't even have been thinking of playing the ball to Inniss in that situation but thats Garner who has drilled them to do that and now their thinking is muddled.

    Inniss is the strongest, most dominant CB at Charlton so should play but he needs to be protected from having to play out. Somebody needs to tell him its ok just to whack it. If we can get a better CB in then great but until then make the best of Inniss. In a team that clearly lacks strong characters, he at least is a strong character and we will need buckets of character for the dog-fight. 
    And there I was thinking you were a small midfield with the class of Messi. 
  • The Prince-e-Paul
    The Prince-e-Paul Posts: 6,688
    edited December 2022
    Some players have their strengths. I think Innis is similar to Stockley in that he can out muscle and head the ball but is poor with his feet and decision making is often left wanting and both are pedestrian. Neither have a football brain and the skill to match. No matter what their age, their skill isn't going to improve, so it's a no from me. Add Aneke to that list of ambling lumps. Give me Leaburn, Sessegnon or Rak Saki, fit agile and swiched on any day of the week.

    Too many of our players are poor technically. Their endeavour is generally good, but their impact on the uninspiring. If you are listening Sandguaard, fans want to get off their seats in joy, not in anger. The later will result in no bums on seats in the first place.


  • Croydon
    Croydon Posts: 12,728
    Almost have to admire Leuth's loyalty at this point. Would no doubt forgive Inniss if he came home to see him hanging out the back of his missus 
  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    edited December 2022
    DOUCHER said:
    JamesSeed said:
    If you’re forced to play Inniss surely you give him license to play the long ball out of defence if there’s even a hint of pressure. He’s a square peg in a round hole in a ‘Garnerball’ system. 
    he tried that for their second goal 
    Longer than that. Long ball over the top, into their half. The second one was a pass that just begged to be intercepted. 
  • thetomahawkkid
    thetomahawkkid Posts: 763
    IMO there has been a huge amount of over reaction in some of the comments. The result was very disappointing, and like the Cheltenham game, we should have won it. The first half display was very decent and we were unlucky not to go in more than one up. I think if we had got the second goal that we deserved, then we would have won the game. However, we didn't score a second and the second half performance was poor, but not as bad as some are suggesting. Without the two huge defensive errors we would have won.

    Innis's mistakes were howlers by any standard and the team spirit visibly disappeared after the equaliser. However, I think it is unfair for some to say that Innis didn't care. I am sure that hurt a lot and it must have been tough on him being cheered by the Gas supporters every time he touched the ball. We all know, and he probably knows too, that he is extremely limited playing out from the back, but he was also playing the wrong side to accommodate Lavelle. We desperately need O'Connell back along side him, and management need to tell him it is okay to hoof it if in doubt. 

    Good to see Leaburn back from injury.

    Disappointing and worrying (based on how close we are to the relegation zone) but not as terrible a performance as some are making out.

    We really need to get behind the players and help the team get out of this mess, not get on their backs. Good to hear the covered end trying to get behind them in the second half, but we need more, whether or not they deserve it.
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,324
    Croydon said:
    Almost have to admire Leuth's loyalty at this point. Would no doubt forgive Inniss if he came home to see him hanging out the back of his missus 
    To be fair I wouldnt argue with him, after the way he went through that Wimbledon player

    Probably safer to ask if the ambiance is okay, and whether they need another candle lighting
  • Bailey
    Bailey Posts: 3,265
    Leuth said:
    Chunes said:
    It's like watching a Hollywood movie where a bunch of misfits with bad attitudes have been gathered together into the league's biggest joke of a team. And what it needs is a cowboy manager to ride into town and turn them around in a montage of unorthodox training sessions and some breakthrough team bonding moments. 

    I honestly wouldn't be surprised if pictures were released of a Sparrows Lane passing drill where some of this lot had fags hanging out of their mouths and others were in the background carousing with hired women.
    Go through them individually and it's baffling though - they should be better than this but they're just so feeble together. That said, there are issues with application and attitude in some crucial parts of the pitch.

    Just the mental side of the game, for yesterday's lot, as far as I can tell:

    AMB - nothing amiss here
    Clare - could stand to pass it forward more and seems afraid to attack, otherwise very committed
    Inniss - okay, he has a screw loose, we all know this - he might freeze or go in far too hard - but he's always given 100% and isn't shy of the tough stuff
    Lavelle - I would argue he's much more of a weak link mentally than Inniss. He just doesn't challenge. There was one in the first couple of minutes yesterday when I was pleasantly surprised, but after that he just backed away and let them have it
    Sessegnon - elite mentality, wish he could last 90 more
    Dobson - will never, ever stop, holds it all together
    Fraser - has pleasantly surprised me with how much he's willing to get stuck in. Not just a fancy player. He just doesn't quite have the fitness for 90 (this is a theme)
    JRS - doesn't always take the right option. Because he's a teenager.
    CBT - hmm. Really doesn't always take the right option, and doesn't have JRS' excuse. But doesn't seem to shirk
    Payne - keep him in the XI. Utterly, utterly committed at all times. 
    Stockley -  okay here's where the issues really take hold. Seems to be protecting himself. Seems to be playing within himself. And there wasn't so much there (heading aside) in the first place. Moans. Has fucked us this season, and it's obvious to everyone. One of the major problems
    Aneke - another serious problem, alas. Last few games he's looked like he's protecting himself, hasn't been involved much. We all know what he can do, but if he's not even doing it in his 30 minutes...
    Leaburn - nothing amiss here
    Morgan - honestly, his mentality isn't the issue. If anything he tries too hard sometimes
    Chin - nothing wrong with his mentality. He's a bit flimsy and won't scare anyone, but he's committed
    Kirk - well, there's a reason he keeps getting dropped, isn't there

    So, the attitude problems, as far as I see it, are mostly concentrated on our forward line. However, there are smaller issues all over the rest of the side, and it adds up. Together, it makes us weak. Our central midfield can't drag us out of the shit ever  
    That was an apology for some players, at the moment i'm not prepared to apologise for them. We all know that there were no teacups thrown and that they don't have any respect for the caretaker manager, poor bloke has only just got his badges. The squad is a result of the owners crass stupidity and his losses are in part due to that stupidity as well. 

Categories

“Marketplace”