Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Post-Match thread; Charlton Athletic Vs Barnsley | Saturday 14th January 2023-KO 3-00 PM
Comments
-
I think we should be fair to Garner. He was appointed to play a certain way and not backed sufficiently to make it happen. When we had full availability we put in some good performances. I do agree that it is not playing to our strengths playing the ball out with Lavelle and Innis but I suspect Holden has had more freedom to be pragmatic due to Sandgaard losing a bit of interest. It was the same with Bowyer. He did well when Duchatelet took no interest and let him get on with it. If we want to point the finger, the manager/s is the last place we should look.
24 -
Put it this way, Garner was much more screwed over by the EOC injury than Holden, due to EOC being a ball-playing defender. And EOC's back now anyway. As I say, his lack of pragmatism didn't go in his favour, and our defenders look a lot happier now - Inniss finally showing how good he is when he has a clear head, Ness colossal - but when we did have Leaburn in the side and firing, we looked a very good side for the most part. It was with Stockley and Aneke as the only 'fit' (but not really) forward options that Garner just wasn't able to find a solution (Kirk as a 10 was one of the BETTER tries for God's sake) , and it cost him dearly7
-
And to reiterate, I reckon Holden's pragmatism is probably ideal when you have a compromised squad. I'd also like to see what he can do with all the tools he wanted, however.
I'm also going to row back slightly on the 'Garner wasn't pragmatic' idea - he DID go 4-4-2, which probably wasn't the original plan. But it is true that he didn't pragmatise when it came to overall playing style
1 -
Agree it’s the depth of the squad that’s the issue.ShootersHillGuru said:I didn’t see yesterdays game but was very pleased for us to win against a Barnsley side I watched outplay us over 90 minutes up at Oakwell in September. It’s worth remembering I think, just how much Charlton are a transitional team. New manager, new players and new system. I still don’t think that we have even a first eleven that’s good enough to challenge, let alone squad. I’m still hoping that first eleven will be addressed this window. Edun and two or three more first team ready might tip the present unbalance. Of course all the hopes in the world won’t amount to a hill of beans if what’s going on behind the scenes doesn’t work out.AMB
Egbo Inniss Ness Sessegnon
…make up a very good defence. O’Connell, Kane and potentially Edun add depth. Lavelle is just about ok as cover.
Leaburn, Bonne, JRS & CBT are good options up top. Campbell also coming through. Can’t see us bringing in another striker, although it would help if we did.Midfield is slightly lacking though, and it was overrun yesterday. Dobbo & Fraser are starters. Morgan & Payne are nearly men. Clare is unproven in the role. Henry is developing nicely. But would like to see another first choicer brought in to bolster the midfield, if we want to make a (probably futile) push for the playoffs.1 -
Key difference between the two at the minute is that Holden isn’t afraid to change formations to suit the players he has available to him.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games0 -
Garner changed to a 442 to try and suit Stockley.CAFCsayer said:
Key difference between the two at the minute is that Holden isn’t afraid to change formations to suit the players he has available to him.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games2 -
no - we have partly addressed the striker situation already - we had the whole summer to do that and didn't, despite bringing in umpteen new players - garner thought stockley could do the lone striker role so wasn't as bothered as he should have been - inexcusable poor judgement and the passing it around at the back nonsense just made it worseCafc43v3r said:
I think it's a bit harsh on Garner. Take yesterday as a good example. I know Kane only lasted 45 minutes but that would have been Chin in December. We had Leaburn, Bonne and Stockley avaliable, how many times did Garner have 3 strikers avaliable?DOUCHER said:
100% agreed - he was partly culpable in leaving us with that lack of striker situation and totally culpable for the style of playSouthbank said:
No, Garner insisted in playing a system that he did not have the players for. The passing around at the back was hideous to watch and often dangerous with the defenders not being up to it. We ended up losing games where we had 60% possession.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games
Holden has dumped that quite rightly and Inniss in particular has benefited, and the defence in general.
Garner also had one fit experienced Centre Forward and played a system that he could not fit in to. Fortunately Miles came through at the right time to compensate for that a little.
Garner was operating from the trendy coaching manual not the real world of actual players with their skills and limitations and it nearly got us in the relegation zone.
Ness has come on leaps and bounds in the last 6 weeks which means Lavelle is nowhere near the match day squad now EOC and Thomas, are fit.
Lavelle and Chin start yesterday and Stockley comes on for Leaburn we don't win that.
Yes the passing out from the back became a liability, especially with Innis, Lavelle, MacGillivray and no left back.
The not signing a striker and another left back in the summer cost us more points than Garner personally did.
The last 3 managers were ultimately hamstrung by the make up of the squad and if we don't get the last 2 or 3 players we need, so will Holden.0 -
I think Garner probably had no real choice about backing Stockley for the lone striker role. He is probably our highest paid player, was captain, I think there was a huge expectation upon Garner that Stockley was a mainstay. That meant we couldn't really sign a backup of quality either because which quality striker would come in as a backup.DOUCHER said:
no - we have partly addressed the striker situation already - we had the whole summer to do that and didn't, despite bringing in umpteen new players - garner thought stockley could do the lone striker role so wasn't as bothered as he should have been - inexcusable poor judgement and the passing it around at the back nonsense just made it worseCafc43v3r said:
I think it's a bit harsh on Garner. Take yesterday as a good example. I know Kane only lasted 45 minutes but that would have been Chin in December. We had Leaburn, Bonne and Stockley avaliable, how many times did Garner have 3 strikers avaliable?DOUCHER said:
100% agreed - he was partly culpable in leaving us with that lack of striker situation and totally culpable for the style of playSouthbank said:
No, Garner insisted in playing a system that he did not have the players for. The passing around at the back was hideous to watch and often dangerous with the defenders not being up to it. We ended up losing games where we had 60% possession.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games
Holden has dumped that quite rightly and Inniss in particular has benefited, and the defence in general.
Garner also had one fit experienced Centre Forward and played a system that he could not fit in to. Fortunately Miles came through at the right time to compensate for that a little.
Garner was operating from the trendy coaching manual not the real world of actual players with their skills and limitations and it nearly got us in the relegation zone.
Ness has come on leaps and bounds in the last 6 weeks which means Lavelle is nowhere near the match day squad now EOC and Thomas, are fit.
Lavelle and Chin start yesterday and Stockley comes on for Leaburn we don't win that.
Yes the passing out from the back became a liability, especially with Innis, Lavelle, MacGillivray and no left back.
The not signing a striker and another left back in the summer cost us more points than Garner personally did.
The last 3 managers were ultimately hamstrung by the make up of the squad and if we don't get the last 2 or 3 players we need, so will Holden.3 -
Yes. We tried to get a striker on deadline day. You can't blame Garner for that falling through even if you don't rate the individual.DOUCHER said:
no - we have partly addressed the striker situation already - we had the whole summer to do that and didn't, despite bringing in umpteen new players - garner thought stockley could do the lone striker role so wasn't as bothered as he should have been - inexcusable poor judgement and the passing it around at the back nonsense just made it worseCafc43v3r said:
I think it's a bit harsh on Garner. Take yesterday as a good example. I know Kane only lasted 45 minutes but that would have been Chin in December. We had Leaburn, Bonne and Stockley avaliable, how many times did Garner have 3 strikers avaliable?DOUCHER said:
100% agreed - he was partly culpable in leaving us with that lack of striker situation and totally culpable for the style of playSouthbank said:
No, Garner insisted in playing a system that he did not have the players for. The passing around at the back was hideous to watch and often dangerous with the defenders not being up to it. We ended up losing games where we had 60% possession.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games
Holden has dumped that quite rightly and Inniss in particular has benefited, and the defence in general.
Garner also had one fit experienced Centre Forward and played a system that he could not fit in to. Fortunately Miles came through at the right time to compensate for that a little.
Garner was operating from the trendy coaching manual not the real world of actual players with their skills and limitations and it nearly got us in the relegation zone.
Ness has come on leaps and bounds in the last 6 weeks which means Lavelle is nowhere near the match day squad now EOC and Thomas, are fit.
Lavelle and Chin start yesterday and Stockley comes on for Leaburn we don't win that.
Yes the passing out from the back became a liability, especially with Innis, Lavelle, MacGillivray and no left back.
The not signing a striker and another left back in the summer cost us more points than Garner personally did.
The last 3 managers were ultimately hamstrung by the make up of the squad and if we don't get the last 2 or 3 players we need, so will Holden.
We partly addressed the striker and fullback situation after Garner was sacked. You can't blame Garner for failing with players we signed after he left.
Edit: this is the squad we had for the Cheltenham home game. In hindsight AMB should have played instead of MacGillivray but there is no good formation, or system, with that lot...
1 -
How many years have you been saving that?sinking feesh said:
We gave Barnsley the chopThe Red Robin said:We took care of Barnsley2 - Sponsored links:
-
As for the ref. Largely ok but blew too quickly twice when team was in a promising position. One helped us and one helped them. Also I think he didn't spot some tough treatment on Leaburn which created something that could have been avoided within the game. Early on don't let things go. Set the tone.0
-
.0
-
the big difference is players happy to just hoof the ball out when under pressure instead of that stupid passing square along the back line when being closed down, safety first is now the rule.5
-
Garner changed formation loads. Was doing very well with a 4-4-2 but then lost Leaburn, O’Connell and Egbo to injury. His problem was maybe that he didn’t change style but he has his way of playing and that was what he was brought in to do. When he had the players to do it we did very well.CAFCsayer said:
Key difference between the two at the minute is that Holden isn’t afraid to change formations to suit the players he has available to him.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few gamesHolden has done very well but I think if he hadn’t had Leaburn returning from injury he’d have done no better than Garner was doing. The players we have available has been more important than the manager in the dugout this season. When we’ve had decent availability we’ve performed at top 6 standard, when we haven’t we’ve been relegation standard5 -
And this end bit makes this season so frustrating. If we’d added Bonne and a couple of defenders before the deadline in the summer then we’d be in or near the top 6 nowNabySarr said:
Garner changed formation loads. Was doing very well with a 4-4-2 but then lost Leaburn, O’Connell and Egbo to injury. His problem was maybe that he didn’t change style but he has his way of playing and that was what he was brought in to do. When he had the players to do it we did very well.CAFCsayer said:
Key difference between the two at the minute is that Holden isn’t afraid to change formations to suit the players he has available to him.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few gamesHolden has done very well but I think if he hadn’t had Leaburn returning from injury he’d have done no better than Garner was doing. The players we have available has been more important than the manager in the dugout this season. When we’ve had decent availability we’ve performed at top 6 standard, when we haven’t we’ve been relegation standard0 -
Holden praised Garner for the work he did with the team, especially in midfield and up front. He said that when he came in he identified that he had to make us more difficult to beat, working on the defensive side of the game.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games7 -
I think a top half finish , with a team finishing the season in good morale should be enough to see his contract extended and the building blocks in place for a more serious challenge next yearmendonca said:For those wishing we sign up Holden - just learn from the Jacko scenario and take stock at the end of the season, when his contract is due.4 -
Stating the obvious, but I think playoffs will depend on who we have in the squad at the end of the transfer window and how long they remain uninjured, match fit and willing to give it their all in every match.
Also probably reliant on some of the teams above us losing form and falling down the table.
Going to be a hard and intense few months.3 -
3 games ago we were looking at the teams below us. Now we can look at the teams from 7th and see how we could reach them within a few games. Yes there is a gap to the top 6 but will the top 6 teams all be in the top 6 at the end of the season and will another few wins put us within snapping distance of one or two of them?1
-
Even if we fall away like last season, we need to stick with a manager. If we don’t then we will end up with a squad built from recruitment by 6 different managers all with different formations/styles. We should’ve given Jackson a summer and we need to give Holden oneCH4RLTON said:
I think a top half finish , with a team finishing the season in good morale should be enough to see his contract extended and the building blocks in place for a more serious challenge next yearmendonca said:For those wishing we sign up Holden - just learn from the Jacko scenario and take stock at the end of the season, when his contract is due.4 - Sponsored links:
-
i'm reasonably happy with bonne but yes i can blame garner for not prioritising a striker or 2 much earlier in the windowCafc43v3r said:
Yes. We tried to get a striker on deadline day. You can't blame Garner for that falling through even if you don't rate the individual.DOUCHER said:
no - we have partly addressed the striker situation already - we had the whole summer to do that and didn't, despite bringing in umpteen new players - garner thought stockley could do the lone striker role so wasn't as bothered as he should have been - inexcusable poor judgement and the passing it around at the back nonsense just made it worseCafc43v3r said:
I think it's a bit harsh on Garner. Take yesterday as a good example. I know Kane only lasted 45 minutes but that would have been Chin in December. We had Leaburn, Bonne and Stockley avaliable, how many times did Garner have 3 strikers avaliable?DOUCHER said:
100% agreed - he was partly culpable in leaving us with that lack of striker situation and totally culpable for the style of playSouthbank said:
No, Garner insisted in playing a system that he did not have the players for. The passing around at the back was hideous to watch and often dangerous with the defenders not being up to it. We ended up losing games where we had 60% possession.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games
Holden has dumped that quite rightly and Inniss in particular has benefited, and the defence in general.
Garner also had one fit experienced Centre Forward and played a system that he could not fit in to. Fortunately Miles came through at the right time to compensate for that a little.
Garner was operating from the trendy coaching manual not the real world of actual players with their skills and limitations and it nearly got us in the relegation zone.
Ness has come on leaps and bounds in the last 6 weeks which means Lavelle is nowhere near the match day squad now EOC and Thomas, are fit.
Lavelle and Chin start yesterday and Stockley comes on for Leaburn we don't win that.
Yes the passing out from the back became a liability, especially with Innis, Lavelle, MacGillivray and no left back.
The not signing a striker and another left back in the summer cost us more points than Garner personally did.
The last 3 managers were ultimately hamstrung by the make up of the squad and if we don't get the last 2 or 3 players we need, so will Holden.
We partly addressed the striker and fullback situation after Garner was sacked. You can't blame Garner for failing with players we signed after he left.
Edit: this is the squad we had for the Cheltenham home game. In hindsight AMB should have played instead of MacGillivray but there is no good formation, or system, with that lot...1 -
and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves0
-
We needed another. Garner wanted another. He didn't call the shots. But then when he didn't get one he planned it around recent Sheffield Wednesday target J Stockley. He wasn't to know just how atrocious that man would beDOUCHER said:
i'm reasonably happy with bonne but yes i can blame garner for not prioritising a striker or 2 much earlier in the windowCafc43v3r said:
Yes. We tried to get a striker on deadline day. You can't blame Garner for that falling through even if you don't rate the individual.DOUCHER said:
no - we have partly addressed the striker situation already - we had the whole summer to do that and didn't, despite bringing in umpteen new players - garner thought stockley could do the lone striker role so wasn't as bothered as he should have been - inexcusable poor judgement and the passing it around at the back nonsense just made it worseCafc43v3r said:
I think it's a bit harsh on Garner. Take yesterday as a good example. I know Kane only lasted 45 minutes but that would have been Chin in December. We had Leaburn, Bonne and Stockley avaliable, how many times did Garner have 3 strikers avaliable?DOUCHER said:
100% agreed - he was partly culpable in leaving us with that lack of striker situation and totally culpable for the style of playSouthbank said:
No, Garner insisted in playing a system that he did not have the players for. The passing around at the back was hideous to watch and often dangerous with the defenders not being up to it. We ended up losing games where we had 60% possession.Leuth said:The 'Garner was rubbish' narrative has settled in well and truly then, unfairly I might add. Holden has done well. Like Garner before him he's identified an effective system and unlike Garner he's shown some pragmatism. The biggest spanner in Garner's works was player availability. I'd advise checking his points gained with Leaburn available versus Leaburn not available. Losing EOC, Sessegnon, Egbo at points also screwed him over. The last three games have been good, but Holden has indisputably had a FAR better squad to choose from than the one that stumbled through Garner's last few games
Holden has dumped that quite rightly and Inniss in particular has benefited, and the defence in general.
Garner also had one fit experienced Centre Forward and played a system that he could not fit in to. Fortunately Miles came through at the right time to compensate for that a little.
Garner was operating from the trendy coaching manual not the real world of actual players with their skills and limitations and it nearly got us in the relegation zone.
Ness has come on leaps and bounds in the last 6 weeks which means Lavelle is nowhere near the match day squad now EOC and Thomas, are fit.
Lavelle and Chin start yesterday and Stockley comes on for Leaburn we don't win that.
Yes the passing out from the back became a liability, especially with Innis, Lavelle, MacGillivray and no left back.
The not signing a striker and another left back in the summer cost us more points than Garner personally did.
The last 3 managers were ultimately hamstrung by the make up of the squad and if we don't get the last 2 or 3 players we need, so will Holden.
We partly addressed the striker and fullback situation after Garner was sacked. You can't blame Garner for failing with players we signed after he left.
Edit: this is the squad we had for the Cheltenham home game. In hindsight AMB should have played instead of MacGillivray but there is no good formation, or system, with that lot...3 -
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves7 -
not really - suck it up - this isn't personal to any fans but sometimes you should just accept when u get it wrong and they did get it wrong - we've played half a season with no centre forwardCafc43v3r said:
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves0 -
Agreed. No one said we didn’t need striker, but quiet a few said they didn’t think it was a ‘priority’ compared to other positions.Cafc43v3r said:
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves
I know there’s lots of variables involved, but considering we are 5th in the table for goals for, and 17th for goals against - I think those defensive reinforcements were what we were really crying out for.
0 -
bingo - that's exactly what people were saying and what garner was saying and how wrong they were - we need a left back, yes but playing half a season with stockley as the only senior striker is shockingFishCostaFortune said:
Agreed. No one said we didn’t need striker, but quiet a few said they didn’t think it was a ‘priority’ compared to other positions.Cafc43v3r said:
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves
I know there’s lots of variables involved, but considering we are 5th in the table for goals for, and 17th for goals against - I think those defensive reinforcements were what we were really crying out for.1 -
But if Garner was not fused about a striker why did we nearly sign Bonne on deadline day? For bants?DOUCHER said:
bingo - that's exactly what people were saying and what garner was saying and how wrong they were - we need a left back, yes but playing half a season with stockley as the only senior striker is shockingFishCostaFortune said:
Agreed. No one said we didn’t need striker, but quiet a few said they didn’t think it was a ‘priority’ compared to other positions.Cafc43v3r said:
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves
I know there’s lots of variables involved, but considering we are 5th in the table for goals for, and 17th for goals against - I think those defensive reinforcements were what we were really crying out for.4 -
why did he leave it to the final day / to chance ? it was THE priority signing!!!Cafc43v3r said:
But if Garner was not fused about a striker why did we nearly sign Bonne on deadline day? For bants?DOUCHER said:
bingo - that's exactly what people were saying and what garner was saying and how wrong they were - we need a left back, yes but playing half a season with stockley as the only senior striker is shockingFishCostaFortune said:
Agreed. No one said we didn’t need striker, but quiet a few said they didn’t think it was a ‘priority’ compared to other positions.Cafc43v3r said:
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves
I know there’s lots of variables involved, but considering we are 5th in the table for goals for, and 17th for goals against - I think those defensive reinforcements were what we were really crying out for.1 -
If you think any manager, for the last 2 and a half years, has a big influence on signings you want to give your head a wobble. It's like when Bowyer said there were no center halves better than Gunter and Pratley.DOUCHER said:
why did he leave it to the final day / to chance ? it was THE priority signing!!!Cafc43v3r said:
But if Garner was not fused about a striker why did we nearly sign Bonne on deadline day? For bants?DOUCHER said:
bingo - that's exactly what people were saying and what garner was saying and how wrong they were - we need a left back, yes but playing half a season with stockley as the only senior striker is shockingFishCostaFortune said:
Agreed. No one said we didn’t need striker, but quiet a few said they didn’t think it was a ‘priority’ compared to other positions.Cafc43v3r said:
No one said that. People also said we needed a left back. The two weren't, and still aren't, mutually exclusive. Anyone digging other fans for things no one ever said needs to have a word with themselve.DOUCHER said:and anybody else who said a striker or 2 wasn't a priority in the summer need to have a word with themselves
I know there’s lots of variables involved, but considering we are 5th in the table for goals for, and 17th for goals against - I think those defensive reinforcements were what we were really crying out for.3
