[cite]Posted By: BexleyRed[/cite]Would still have been more effective as an impact sub than Izzy or Tuna, dont think this was a good move on our part.
But Parky doesn't want to give players a place on the bench based on reputation or just ability. Seems everyone was happy last season when the likes of Ambrose, Moutaouakil etc were left out due to lack of effort or a bad attitude, but when it comes to Dickson it's wrong not to give him an automatic place on the bench.
I think the fact is that Dickson can't play in a 4-4-1-1 but he could play in a 4-4-2. However, to loan him to Brizzle seems silly looking at the league table now! Dickson, McLeod, Tuna - all of them have their plus points and negatives - but if you were chasing a game and needed someone to come off the bench and SCORE - who would you back?
I'd back Dickson in front of McLeod and Tuna - so maybe McKenzie is firmly in Parkie's thoughts ...
Perhaps his attitude was borne out of frustration at continually being overlooked, despite scoring in pre season. Our new system has served us well so far, but teams may begin to suss us out and then we'll need to be able to change it.
I don't say that on the face of it some of your points do not seem correct. Dickson would seem to be the most likely 'supersub'.
However, Parky does not like him. Can you not just accept that? He's done well regarding his choice of players this season so you have to just accept his decision.
Regarding what team he's gone to, there's no point loaning him to a club that can't afford him, is there?
If Bristol Rovers have the money but happen to be near the top, that's just the way it is.
Personally I'd be happy for Bristol Rovers to finish champions as long as we finish second.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Personally I'd have let him rot in the reserves rather than loan him out. Are you happy for Rovers to finish 2nd aslong as we finish 3rd?
Still, I'd have moved Parky on before Dickson.
Exactly - shows how much you know. If you were in charge we'd have Dickson scoring a consolation goal in defeat every week and be down there with Southampton.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Personally I'd have let him rot in the reserves rather than loan him out. Are you happy for Rovers to finish 2nd aslong as we finish 3rd?
But you won't sell a player who's rotting in reserves.
And yes, if Rovers finish above us with Dickson then so be it. That just means that we wouldn't be good enough or deserve promotion.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Personally I'd have let him rot in the reserves rather than loan him out. Are you happy for Rovers to finish 2nd aslong as we finish 3rd?
But you won't sell a player who's rotting in reserves.
And yes, if Rovers finish above us with Dickson then so be it. That just means that we wouldn't be good enough or deserve promotion.
I'd rather pay his wages than aid a rival, why is that strange?
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Personally I'd have let him rot in the reserves rather than loan him out. Are you happy for Rovers to finish 2nd aslong as we finish 3rd?
Still, I'd have moved Parky on before Dickson.
Exactly - shows how much you know. If you were in charge we'd have Dickson scoring a consolation goal in defeat every week and be down there with Southampton.
I wouldnt have Dickson in the starting 11, I think he'd make a much better sub than McClown though.
I think it boils down to what is more important, getting 50- 100k from B Rovers, or possibly finishing third to them and Leeds. I'd rather forsake the money for a better chance of automatic promotion. At least if he scores too many we have the option to call him back.
[cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]so what do we do about izale then Jim just curious of your opinion ?
Give him regular football.
Against Brentford he had an excellent ten minutes off the bench, ran at defenders, scored a goal which was deemed to be off-side (no problem with the decision), but all strikers will occasionally miss sitters.
If Bristol Rovers have the money then they'll going to get someone decent in anyway. So why keep a player that you don't want just to try to spite them. Keeping such a player could mean we finish badly anyway.
[quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]so what do we do about izale then Jim just curious of your opinion ?[/quote]
Give him regular football.
Against Brentford he had an excellent ten minutes off the bench, ran at defenders, scored a goal which was deemed to be off-side (no problem with the decision), but all strikers will occasionally miss sitters.[/quote]
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]If Bristol Rovers have the money then they'll going to get someone decent in anyway. So why keep a player that you don't want just to try to spite them. Keeping such a player could mean we finish badly anyway.
So why help them ourselves, let them get their player elsewhere.
It's not about spiting the player, it's about helping ourselves. We could have offerd him to clubs lower down the league for free, if you honestly believe simply keeping him around the place will have that much of a negative effect.
What I don't get, is why if he has such a bad attutide he scored for fun at the gills and doesnt seem to be doing so badly at Bristol Rovers.
Maybe the kid calls it how it is and has annoyed Parky and that is why in fact he's been shipped out leaving the goal scoring machine mcclown to sit on the bench and miss one on ones. Only time will tell, I sure do hope this doesnt come back to bite us in the arse though.
If we look at the facts - in this league he's scored goals for Gillingham and after just one game for Bristol Rovers, he has two goals already ..... He can only play and score if he's given the chance to play and score..... If he's not going to get in our side - he should have been loaned out to a team lower in the division - simple!
probably going off on a tangent here, but i can't believe how many of our ex players scored today
Dickson 2 Lisbie 2 Jerome Thomas Bent Ambrose Macdonald...tbh not sure if that was Charlie for Brentford or not though.
I know they're mainly in different divisions and i'm not suggesting none should have been sold but i can't recall that many on the scoresheet in 1 week.
If Dicko's attitude was so bad how do we explain Gillingham's desperation to get him back?
No one is suggesting that we should change our style to accomodate Dicko. What we are saying is that we will need to change our system from time to time because opposition will soon work out a way of combatting 4-5-1 especially when we are at home.
IHere's a few examples of stikers who aren't/weren't exactly "footballers" but who could chase "long" balls:
Killer
Linneker
Defoe
Phillips
Wrighty
You could hardly say that the teams they played for were one dimensional in their play.
[cite]Posted By: Addick Addict[/cite]If Dicko's attitude was so bad how do we explain Gillingham's desperation to get him back?
If his attitude is not that bad, why is he behind McLeod (who is no better), Tuna (a 17 year old without a pro contract) and McKenzie (a new signing who hasn't proven anything) in the pecking order? He's obviously not doing enough in training, behind the scenes, improving in other areas.
Like I said in here or another thread, we have fans that wanted the likes of Ambrose and Todorov out for not putting in the effort, and others in the past for having bad attitudes, but for some reason Dickson is defended a lot more.
In the end if Dickson was that good, he'd have been in our team, and wouldn't have had anything to moan about. He's not in the team for a reason, he wasn't on the bench for a reason and we're actually doing very well without him.
[cite]Posted By: Addick Addict[/cite]If Dicko's attitude was so bad how do we explain Gillingham's desperation to get him back?
If his attitude is not that bad, why is he behind McLeod (who is no better), Tuna (a 17 year old without a pro contract) and McKenzie (a new signing who hasn't proven anything) in the pecking order? He's obviously not doing enough in training, behind the scenes, improving in other areas.
Like I said in here or another thread, we have fans that wanted the likes of Ambrose and Todorov out for not putting in the effort, and others in the past for having bad attitudes, but for some reason Dickson is defended a lot more.
In the end if Dickson was that good, he'd have been in our team, and wouldn't have had anything to moan about. He's not in the team for a reason, he wasn't on the bench for a reason and we're actually doing very well without him.
I've answered your point on the other thread. The fact is that Dicko is proven at this level but not for us because he's never been given a chance for us in this Division. Ambrose was given ample opportunity and simply didn't perform and Todorov as most people know was a crock so the comparisons simply don't stack up.
Just reading one of the blogs about the Q & A, interesting bit about Dickson
Dickson; I think Parky was as clear as he could be that Chris Dickson isn't viewed as Charlton's striking future. He gave the example of Dickson being in his office the first day after not being picked to play Crawley Town pre-season and asking for a move. The Bristol Rovers loan is attractive because they have cash from the Ricky Lambert sale to Southampton, so we are hoping he scores goals for the Pirates and earns us a reasonable transfer fee. Gillingham simply don't have the money....
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]Just reading one of the blogs about the Q & A, interesting bit about Dickson
Dickson; I think Parky was as clear as he could be that Chris Dickson isn't viewed as Charlton's striking future. He gave the example of Dickson being in his office the first day after not being picked to play Crawley Town pre-season and asking for a move. The Bristol Rovers loan is attractive because they have cash from the Ricky Lambert sale to Southampton, so we are hoping he scores goals for the Pirates and earns us a reasonable transfer fee. Gillingham simply don't have the money....
How convenient for Parky to mention that. Did he also mention that he was number 2 to the man who originally froze him out, gave him minimal chances in the Championship when we played a 4-5-1 system which took us down and then told him that he wasn't even in the team for a pre-season friendly.
I think that the writing was on the wall so far as Parky's "attitude" towards Dicko is concerned a long time ago. If Steve Coppell had treated Ian Wright the same way when he had "issues" Wrighty might never had had his chance to prove that he was one of the greatest strikers we've ever seen in this country.
Dicko is desperate to prove himself and I really hope he does so though there is every chance that he might do so in spite of us. And that would be a very sad state of affairs imho.
What parkie was saying at the meeting was this was an early season friendly and all players were going to be given a chance, but rather than waiting for his chance or even banging on the managers door and demanding to be in the team, Dickson demanded a transfer. Also at the meeting Parkie stated he only wanted players who wanted to play for the club and (my interpretation) Dickson by his demand had shown that he did not. There was a comment about players who were willing to run through walls for the shirt and others that were not the former reffered to tuna and - think - the latter Dickson.
[cite]Posted By: Addick Addict[/cite]I've answered your point on the other thread. The fact is that Dicko is proven at this level but not for us because he's never been given a chance for us in this Division. Ambrose was given ample opportunity and simply didn't perform and Todorov as most people know was a crock so the comparisons simply don't stack up.
Very different situations yes, but same sort of thing - three players Parky doesn't think have worked hard enough in training and/or matches when given a chance. He's not had loads of chances, but he's always involved in the reserves, pre-season, had around 6 starts last season, several sub appearances but just couldn't do enough to keep his place.
Obviously it's not all his fault, last season the team didn't create many chances for him, they had little confidence and it was only 6 starts like I said. This season it's different, we're doing well and if he wants to play for us he has to work hard and be patient.
Other players have worked for their places, kept their places, and we're unbeaten, scoring goals and second in the league. He wants to play regularly so we gave him the option to go out on loan. The strikers that are still here are happy to keep working hard and wait for their opportunity.
We could have loaned out McLeod and kept Dickson, but then we'd be loaning out a player that wants to be here, and keeping a player that isn't happy to wait for his chance. We know he didn't want to go on loan initially, but he's decided to in the end because he knew he'd go straight into their team rather than have to be patient here.
He was unhappy here, so I can't see how we'd get the best out of him anyway, if his chance did come along due to injuries/suspensions.
Comments
But Parky doesn't want to give players a place on the bench based on reputation or just ability. Seems everyone was happy last season when the likes of Ambrose, Moutaouakil etc were left out due to lack of effort or a bad attitude, but when it comes to Dickson it's wrong not to give him an automatic place on the bench.
This is the point. He scored both goals from long balls.
What's the most important to preserve: our system of play or Dicko?
It's a no-brainer if you ask me.
We did the right thing to loan him out even if he scores a goal a game.
N.B: I like what I see of Dickson on the pitch, but I, like every supporter, do not have to deal with him every day as a colleague or employee.
I'd back Dickson in front of McLeod and Tuna - so maybe McKenzie is firmly in Parkie's thoughts ...
I don't say that on the face of it some of your points do not seem correct. Dickson would seem to be the most likely 'supersub'.
However, Parky does not like him. Can you not just accept that? He's done well regarding his choice of players this season so you have to just accept his decision.
Regarding what team he's gone to, there's no point loaning him to a club that can't afford him, is there?
If Bristol Rovers have the money but happen to be near the top, that's just the way it is.
Personally I'd be happy for Bristol Rovers to finish champions as long as we finish second.
Really? When were you there?
Still, I'd have moved Parky on before Dickson.
Exactly - shows how much you know. If you were in charge we'd have Dickson scoring a consolation goal in defeat every week and be down there with Southampton.
But you won't sell a player who's rotting in reserves.
And yes, if Rovers finish above us with Dickson then so be it. That just means that we wouldn't be good enough or deserve promotion.
I'd rather pay his wages than aid a rival, why is that strange?
I wouldnt have Dickson in the starting 11, I think he'd make a much better sub than McClown though.
I'd rather forsake the money for a better chance of automatic promotion.
At least if he scores too many we have the option to call him back.
I'd get rid of him probably. As soon as we know that Mackenzie and/or Tuna are going to do the job anyway.
Give him regular football.
Against Brentford he had an excellent ten minutes off the bench, ran at defenders, scored a goal which was deemed to be off-side (no problem with the decision), but all strikers will occasionally miss sitters.
Give him regular football.
Against Brentford he had an excellent ten minutes off the bench, ran at defenders, scored a goal which was deemed to be off-side (no problem with the decision), but all strikers will occasionally miss sitters.[/quote]
occasionally lmfao
So why help them ourselves, let them get their player elsewhere.
It's not about spiting the player, it's about helping ourselves. We could have offerd him to clubs lower down the league for free, if you honestly believe simply keeping him around the place will have that much of a negative effect.
What I don't get, is why if he has such a bad attutide he scored for fun at the gills and doesnt seem to be doing so badly at Bristol Rovers.
Maybe the kid calls it how it is and has annoyed Parky and that is why in fact he's been shipped out leaving the goal scoring machine mcclown to sit on the bench and miss one on ones. Only time will tell, I sure do hope this doesnt come back to bite us in the arse though.
Dickson 2
Lisbie 2
Jerome Thomas
Bent
Ambrose
Macdonald...tbh not sure if that was Charlie for Brentford or not though.
I know they're mainly in different divisions and i'm not suggesting none should have been sold but i can't recall that many on the scoresheet in 1 week.
Think you might find that we'd be 3rd behind Leeds if that were the case.
No one is suggesting that we should change our style to accomodate Dicko. What we are saying is that we will need to change our system from time to time because opposition will soon work out a way of combatting 4-5-1 especially when we are at home.
IHere's a few examples of stikers who aren't/weren't exactly "footballers" but who could chase "long" balls:
Killer
Linneker
Defoe
Phillips
Wrighty
You could hardly say that the teams they played for were one dimensional in their play.
If his attitude is not that bad, why is he behind McLeod (who is no better), Tuna (a 17 year old without a pro contract) and McKenzie (a new signing who hasn't proven anything) in the pecking order? He's obviously not doing enough in training, behind the scenes, improving in other areas.
Like I said in here or another thread, we have fans that wanted the likes of Ambrose and Todorov out for not putting in the effort, and others in the past for having bad attitudes, but for some reason Dickson is defended a lot more.
In the end if Dickson was that good, he'd have been in our team, and wouldn't have had anything to moan about. He's not in the team for a reason, he wasn't on the bench for a reason and we're actually doing very well without him.
I've answered your point on the other thread. The fact is that Dicko is proven at this level but not for us because he's never been given a chance for us in this Division. Ambrose was given ample opportunity and simply didn't perform and Todorov as most people know was a crock so the comparisons simply don't stack up.
http://drinkingduringthegame.blogspot.com/2009/09/parky-upbeat.html
I guess that can be seen as enthusiasm, but it shows Dickson thought he deserved his chance and didn't want to be here because he wasn't given it.
How convenient for Parky to mention that. Did he also mention that he was number 2 to the man who originally froze him out, gave him minimal chances in the Championship when we played a 4-5-1 system which took us down and then told him that he wasn't even in the team for a pre-season friendly.
I think that the writing was on the wall so far as Parky's "attitude" towards Dicko is concerned a long time ago. If Steve Coppell had treated Ian Wright the same way when he had "issues" Wrighty might never had had his chance to prove that he was one of the greatest strikers we've ever seen in this country.
Dicko is desperate to prove himself and I really hope he does so though there is every chance that he might do so in spite of us. And that would be a very sad state of affairs imho.
Obviously it's not all his fault, last season the team didn't create many chances for him, they had little confidence and it was only 6 starts like I said. This season it's different, we're doing well and if he wants to play for us he has to work hard and be patient.
Other players have worked for their places, kept their places, and we're unbeaten, scoring goals and second in the league. He wants to play regularly so we gave him the option to go out on loan. The strikers that are still here are happy to keep working hard and wait for their opportunity.
We could have loaned out McLeod and kept Dickson, but then we'd be loaning out a player that wants to be here, and keeping a player that isn't happy to wait for his chance. We know he didn't want to go on loan initially, but he's decided to in the end because he knew he'd go straight into their team rather than have to be patient here.
He was unhappy here, so I can't see how we'd get the best out of him anyway, if his chance did come along due to injuries/suspensions.