Looking at the statistics, Charlton look like a decent mid-table side. Digging a little deeper, it is easy to see that the home results are similar to those of relegation-threatened sides, yet the away form is more in line with a promotion side. You could say that if the away form hadn't been so good, we would be down there with likes of Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester and Coventry City. Is it just a case that most games have been tight and haven't gone our way? Or, do we lack something to win games at home? Curbs was one of those manages, in my view, who used to sneak draws from games where we were so-so and win games that were even. My perception, admittedly from afar, is that we have the reverse problem this season. We lose games that are even and draw games when we are slightly the better team. Is that the real problem - we don't get as many points as we should?
0
Comments
Fresh out of the Prem, its one of the better stadiums in the division, it is one of the highest crowds, and it has a good surface. Opposing players will be looking forward to playing at The Valley more than they will at Blackpool and Burnley, for example. If you play every week over Danson Park, then you're away at a nice private club, you always seem to play better.
Coupled with that, tactically we've been a bit naive as well i feel. Opposing teams have learnt that if they put the emphasis on us to ask the questions, if they are well drilled in the first 10-15 minutes, we will get nervy, make mistakes, and seek to play it longer and earlier.
We've also not played with enough width my likings. To be successful at Championship football for me, it is about breaking teams out of their well drilled mould. You either outwork the opposition, or you do it with good width and movement. Only times i've really seen us play with that gameplan was the 2nd half of the Sheff W game, and home to Palace and Stoke. The latter two we had two full backs looking to get on the overlap, turing their wide midfield the wrong way and making their full backs play less narrow.
Pards has deliberately it seemed shunned this style in recent months. He has chose to play with only one wide midfielder playing the touchline, the other more central, and for two more holding full backs in the Thatcher and Halford. My reading of that is that he hasn't been confident enough of his two centre halves if they are stretched, and similarly that the centre of the park could do with an extra body. But its not how i would of played it.
I guess one could argue he didn't have the personnel to pull it off. Early on he accomodated Reid and so the midfield was a bit f(l)at, with one out and out winger, but the pie eating one's presence compensated for this a little. I think he touched on a new pace driven formula when he played McLeod, and two wingers/pacey full backs around Christmas, sadly this didn't continue.
One thing that has annoyed me about Pards (and his predecessors) is the insistence in playing Ambrose on the wing, a position where he is totally ineffective - when central attacking midfield is so patently a position where he is effective, and on ocassions shows match winning potential. I can understand wanting to get your best players on the pitch but he's a waste of space in that position.