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

Holland MOTM?...

supaclivesupaclive
edited January 2009 in General Charlton
Wel, if Matty was MOTM and it was at centre half, then we actually have to give Parkinson (and Matty) some credit as they are the people who chose the position and then played there - perhaps it shows that footballers can play in any position ...

How did Burton play? And why did Dicko not get more than the usual 10 minutes?! I'm almost glad now my eldest had a bit of a mare this morning and as punishment (!) I didn't take him to the game ....

Cue the "as punishment I should have taken him to the game" quotes!
«1

Comments

  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    Holland was MOTM by a country mile. Speaks volumes inho. Burton was isolated up front on his own and did ok under those circumstances. He was well played by Gary Doherty who aint gonna get mugged by a loan striker.
  • ScoSco
    Holland did well but there is no way that is his position.

    Burton did fairly well when the ball was with him. Not really an option as a loan striker imo.

    Dickson may possibly have thrived in the one match where we had the ball in the box a lot. Coming on at 1 - 1 when the team and crowd's fragile confidence had been knocked wasn't really gonna provide much.
  • ScohamScoham
    edited January 2009
    Burton is ok but isn't a goalscorer.

    Dickson should have had longer, needed Jonjo or Todorov on with him to create chances.

    Holland will do a decent job at centre back or right back, though at times isn't good enough in the air. Think Parkinson just wanted to keep Bailey and Semedo playing together, and didn't trust Youga to play centre back.
  • PragueAddickPragueAddick
    Agree with all those comments but just to say that Matt Holland did what he was asked to do to the very best of his ability, and did a lot of cajoling too, especially after we conceded and heads hit the floor.
  • Oggy RedOggy Red
    With Hudson out, who was skipper today ...... Holland?
  • LenGloverLenGlover
    [cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]With Hudson out, who was skipper today ...... Holland?

    Yep
  • falconwood_1falconwood_1
    edited January 2009
    Holland was excellent today.

    We are weak in these depts:

    Goalkeeper

    Central Defence

    Central Midfield

    Wingers

    Forwards

    NB: We only had 1 recognised Centre Half in todays squad.
  • ScreamerScreamer
    We aren't too great at full back either... oh shit that's everyone
  • falconwood_1falconwood_1
    Sh*t I forgot about right back!

    We need at least 16 players then :o(
  • Oggy RedOggy Red
    [cite]Posted By: Screamer[/cite]We aren't too great at full back either... oh shit that's everyone

    Lol ...... if only it was funny ...(!)
  • Sponsored links:


  • nigelnigel
    Hudson''s inadequacies as captain (let alone as a defender) have often been discussed here.

    Whatever position Matty plays, is it time to make him club captain again?

    I think if Parky were to say to him ''you're my man on the field'' it would be a good way to begin stamping his mark.

    And if - and I say ''if '''and not ''when'' - we are playing in div one next season, I can see Old Father Holland's experience and leadership being towering qualities in that division...
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    Agree nigel.
  • falconwood_1falconwood_1
    Like Pardoo said to Varney?? ''you're my main front man on the field''

    No fear.
  • ct_addickct_addick
    isn't Holland a bit small to be a CH?
  • Oggy RedOggy Red
    [cite]Posted By: ct_addick[/cite]isn't Holland a bit small to be a CH?

    Big enough today, apparently.
  • ScohamScoham
    That's the only negative I think for him playing there, couldn't always win headers, but it didn't cause too many problems for us.
  • Essex_AlEssex_Al
    I thought Holland was suberb today, I was gobsmacked to see him line at centre back. He was winning headers against forwards a good six to nine inches taller than him. I even thought Burton played well and linked up nicely with Jonjo. Excellent first half from the team (we could have easily been three up), but as usual not sustained in the second!
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    Too small and not an answer in any way to our central defence problems. However. He will be good enough in Div 1 next season to play in midfield or preferably as a sweeper.
  • LedgeLedge
    [cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Holland was MOTM by a country mile. Speaks volumes inho. Burton was isolated up front on his own and did ok under those circumstances. He was well played by Gary Doherty who aint gonna get mugged by a loan striker.

    i thought we'd signed Burton permanently now :-)
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    D`oh thats terrible Ledge..............;-)
  • Sponsored links:


  • nigelnigel
    edited January 2009
    My main point, though, was that Matty showed leadership qualities today and wherever he plays, he's a better captain/leader of men than Hudson...
  • stilladdictedstilladdicted
    Undoubtedly MOTN for me. I thought he was pretty good in the air today, and put in some pretty crucial blocking headers. Burton isn't going to get us the goals IMO, his lack of pace is a real problem. But Bouazza always looked threatening and had he passed to Shelvey instead of going for an acute angled shot, who knows? Holland as captain? A resounding yes. He was alert to danger and really worked to keep the team going when it went into headless chicken mode. But at least that stage came at 70 minutes and not after 45. I didn't think a lot of Dickson but then he hadn't been given a real chance, but someone else called him a carthorse. Crap support, 12,816 with Norwich taking was it 4000? That gave us a support base of around 8-9000.
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    Crap support..............Get used to it methinks
  • ScohamScoham
    [cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Burton isn't going to get us the goals IMO, his lack of pace is a real problem.

    I was thinking how well we would have done with Bent there, Jonjo would have been putting through balls to him, that just wasn't an option with Burton up front.

    Thing is he wasn't signed for his goals, as bad as that sounds. He was an alternative to Gray as a player that can hold up the ball and that sort of stuff.
  • Kap10Kap10
    [cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Holland was MOTM by a country mile. Speaks volumes inho. Burton was isolated up front on his own and did ok under those circumstances. He was well played by Gary Doherty who aint gonna get mugged by a loan striker.

    He's permanent now, but historically players have been better as loans than when they have subsequently signed - Pringle, Bartlett
  • nigelnigel
    Agree about Pringle, but not about Bartlett. Thought he did a superb job for us and was hugley under-rated - esp. when he was playing up front on his own in a 4-5-1. Apart from Bent (D), can't think of anyone who has done that better for us in recent years...certainly not Iwelumo or Gray.
  • ScohamScoham
    It's true about Pringle, with Bartlett he looked like he was more of a goalscorer than he was while he was on loan.
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    [quote][cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Holland was MOTM by a country mile. Speaks volumes inho. Burton was isolated up front on his own and did ok under those circumstances. He was well played by Gary Doherty who aint gonna get mugged by a loan striker.[/quote]

    Kap10 I meant loan as in singular !
  • Red_Pete_in_DubaiRed_Pete_in_Dubai
    [cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Holland was MOTM by a country mile. Speaks volumes inho. Burton was isolated up front on his own and did ok under those circumstances. He was well played by Gary Doherty who aint gonna get mugged by a loan striker.

    Kap10 I meant loan as in singular !
    That word would be lone then!!
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    you are right. I know what I meant.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!