A significant minority of posters on this forum have slagged Parky's 4-5-1 off all season even when we have been winning with it. Does that mean that they are not fans too?
Irrational hatred of the Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday, combined with resentment at another example of a lack of sycophancy by longtime fan Mick Collins, is distorting the reaction of many to this report.
For the record to answer the question I regard it as slightly harsh. It doesn't matter what formation you play if you miss your chances and we had two good ones and perhaps four half chances. I personally think Mick has mixed issues a little and allowed his own antipathy towards 4-5-1 to colour his judgement but plenty on this forum think the same way so who am I to disagree?
There is no doubt we were short of oomph until the second half changes. After that we should have won the game. I feel that 4-5-1 (or is it 4-4-1-1) has stood us pretty well up to the point that Semedo got injured. The main problem in recent games is that the midfield hasn't supported the loan striker quick enough so moves brake down as Burton has been able to hold the ball up enough.
When Semedo played, he was able to sit if necessary as another defender which allowed Llera and Dailly on occasions to support the attacks. I think he also worked well with Racon. He and Racon broke up attacks better an immediately moved the ball forward quickly. Burton had then more space and the other midfielders, particularly Jonjo and Sam were anticpating the ball moved forwards with pace. On occasions Semedo himself got forward to support the attack. Spring for all his decent qualities just hasn't got the physical attributes of Jose.
Micks piece is OK. As a journalist who needs an angle, he has written this from the glass is half empty point of view, whereas as a fan he will probably be like most of us, looking at things with a glass is half full perspective.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]I instinctively want to reject everything Mick has said. Trouble is his words have hit a nagging patch of doubt and unease, something I don't want to face up to. I'm retreating to my 'It's too early in the season to tell' position.
Agreed.
I certainly am concerned that early success may cement certain tactical preferences that many teams in the division may be able to adjust to. And if the players are going to come in for criticism for failing to convert easy chances, the gaffer ought to be in for similar criticism for putting his team in a position where there were going to be only a handful of chances to be had.
The consensus here and at the stadium, at the time, seemed to be that the first half was dreadfully boring. How can Mick be faulted for referring to the strategy that led to that awful forty-five minutes as "desperately negative."
Spot on Mick, the changes were obviously needed after the dire first half, not 20 minutes into the second. It was definitely the sort of game where early changes were obviously required, but didn't happen. I would have thought he could of changed the formation sooner, but was over cautious as we had previously done well with this formation. 442 has to be employed earlier sometimes, not just in the last part of a game.
Totally agree with the piece. It's not anti-Parky, it criticises what he did in that game based on rational analysis. It's what journalists are supposed to do.
Can't help but feel that there are a few of you out there who would feel smugly and self righteously content to see us fail to win promotion (you're clearly from the ....."there I told you so camp"), as much as happy and delighted to see us succeed.Not sure which of the two scenarios would give you the most satisfaction to be honest...only you know the 'true' answer to that.
Golfie(as always), you are by far and away top of the list from that point of view.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Can't help but feel that here are a few of you out there who would feel smugly and self righteously content to see us fail to win promotion(you're from the ....."there I told you so camp"), as much as happy and delighted to see us succeed.Not sure which of the two scenarios would give you the most satisfaction to be honest...only you know the 'true' answer to that.
[cite]Posted By: bexleyboy[/cite]Not harsh at all in fact bang on ..Parky as lost it over the last few games, seems reluctant to leave out his fav players even when they have been poor...
That kind of reactionism (is that a word) is something that Pardew far too often employed and look where it got him (and us).
Yes, we are not at our best at the moment but we are still controlling games and creating chances. If we beat Huddersfield and Gills then we are back, if not then we need to start mixing it up in my opinion.
We are still ahead of the 2 points per game that is needed for promotion and that will be fine with me.
There may have some justification for playing 4-5-1 to accomodate our best players, but as soon as we lost Semedo, it was crying out for 4-4-2 at home. Our early success was predictable given the poor quality of teams we have been playing - a squad with the quality of ours should be steam-rollering sides, as Huddersfield did Saturday, not winning by the odd goal.
As for McLeod's shooting prowess, shouldn't somebody be helping him? Curbs had KP working with players on individual short-comings, perhaps we should get him back, or draft in Mendonca.
[cite]Posted By: Addickson's God[/cite]There may have some justification for playing 4-5-1 to accomodate our best players, but as soon as we lost Semedo, it was crying out for 4-4-2 at home. Our early success was predictable given the poor quality of teams we have been playing - a squad with the quality of ours should be steam-rollering sides, as Huddersfield did Saturday, not winning by the odd goal.
As for McLeod's shooting prowess, shouldn't somebody be helping him? Curbs had KP working with players on individual short-comings, perhaps we should get him back, or draft in Mendonca.
Our strikers work on their finishing till they're blue in the face....as do ALL pro strikers.
But it in the end it comes down to an either you have it or you don't scenario....not on the training ground , where "he striketh 8 in 10".....but on match day (as with McLeod), where "he striketh 1 in 10!"
I think we are approaching a very crucial stage of the season for us which could go either way. Our Midfield Five has been our strength thus far so I can understand the manager perservering with it for as long as he has. What concerns me though is that in the last five or six games how many genuine goalscoring chances have we created? Not nearly enough in my view. Perhaps it's time we shook up the way we played particularly at home.
[cite]Posted By: Addickson's God[/cite]There may have some justification for playing 4-5-1 to accomodate our best players, but as soon as we lost Semedo, it was crying out for 4-4-2 at home. .
agree with this
[cite]Posted By: Addickson's God[/cite]As for McLeod's shooting prowess, shouldn't somebody be helping him? Curbs had KP working with players on individual short-comings, perhaps we should get him back, or draft in Mendonca.
at the risk of being labelled a train spotter I was at Colchester early and watched the full warm-up
each of the forwards had four or five shots from 12 yards out laid off by Kinsella at the reserve keeper - McLeod didn't hit the target once which says it all really
Mick is of course entitled to his opinion, and if that is how he interpreted it then that is of course his right to write it that way. Personally i feel its a little bit unnecessarily downbeat, and not a true reflection of what i personally saw, or more pertinently, where we are at the moment in the context of where we thought we would be.
"The blame for the boredom lay as much with Charlton manager Phil Parkinson, as with his players.
Opting to leave Dean Burton as a lone striker, with the usually purposeful Jonjo Shelvey hopelessly lost in a roaming role was, in the circumstances, a desperately negative move."
The blame for the boredom was largely at the hands of Oldham undertaking such a negative approach to proceedings. The frustration was that we could not craft a way around it, but that was not the sole blame. If Jonjo is 'usually purposeful', then it could only be seen as a 'desperately negative move' only with the benefit of hindsight ?
"That Charlton failed to score was a statement of the obvious, that they created any real chances at all is a more contentious claim."
I don't think it is contentious. We hit the bar twice, with the keeper beaten, Spring missed by inches, while McLeod had three chances that on another day another striker may have had a hat trick. We had 14 attempts at goal, and 11 corners.
"After three league games without a goal, the impetus Charlton enjoyed after their impressive start to the season may be starting to fade. Their squad looks poorly equipped to withstand any major absences and, with a long season remaining in front of them, the lack of guile they demonstrated in their attempts to break down a resolute Oldham side, sorely lacking in ambition, suggest that maintaining that early momentum may be a considerable challenge."
Fair point, but how we deal with it will be the key. Oldham wil not be the only team to come here and play for a draw, and we've got to find a way to overcome that. You could have argued that Parky could have switched the formation earlier (i would have made the McLeod / Shelvey switch at HT), but that was because we needed to get a player on who would attempt to get behind Oldham's backline. We tried to play football the right way throughout, and i'm not going to criticise that. We just fell down a little in our approach in the final third. If i was to highlight any inadequacies, it is the fact that we appear to be missing an effective striker who can run behind defences and stretch them defensively, or a natural 'box striker'. I know too little on McKenzie to know whether that may be him, but it is sadly becoming obvious that although McLeod does it 80% right, its not enough without the end product.
What Mick highlights may very well be true, or prove to be true, but its a very quick on the gun for me to be highlighting negatives and potential pitfalls. We shall see.
AFFKA said -If i was to highlight any inadequacies, it is the fact that we appear to be missing an effective striker who can run behind defences and stretch them defensively, or a natural 'box striker'.
Spot on IMO, and no, that isn't a 'bring back Dicko' cry. I'm wondering if this is getting to the team as well? At Parky's Q&A, he said that he didn't want supporters going home feeling that the players hadn't given their all. My shirtometer has moved to 'not convinced'. (The lacklustre patch has also co-incided with the breakdown of the takeover). Oldham has given all clubs a very effective lesson on how to stop us playing. We are missing chances, it's frustrating the hell out of me and presumably the players aren't immune to the disappointment of not securing wins. Haven't a clue what we can do about it.
as said above playing 4-5-1 to accomodate our best players was okay to a point but it has really collapsed with Semedo missing. I think Mick went a bit over the top but I do fear that the wheels are beginning to fall off the bus and I don't think Parky is tactically astute enough to rectify it. The first 45 was dull , boring and uneventful. The system wasn't working so why persevere with it in the second half. Why wait another 15 minutes just to find out it still wasn't working. Changes should have been made at half-time. Also I am beginning to wonder if Parky has the balls to drop a Bailey or a Shelvey when required. What also worries me is a lack of creativity and even nous. That Youga was our most attacking threat (again) says it all.
Finally, if anyone on here thinks that some Lifers travel to Tranmere, Hartlepool etc but really want the team to lose just so they can say 'told you so' then frankly you must be mad. Maybe it's because they travel the length and breath of the country to support the team that they get so frustrated by it and therefore seem to 'moan' continually.
Over the top comments made in hindsight such as the Shelvey one, and the failure to acknowledge very real chances, are just partisan and swallow up any valid criticisms he may have had to make. Sounds like Parky has crossed him and he won't let it lie!
Surprised at some of the backlash to this. It's not an unfair or unbalanced attack on the manager. This tactics have achieved three back to back League games without a goal: something that Dowie, Reed and Pardew never did in the Premiership/Championship. You might even note that the only recent occasion that we saw goals flying in was against Barnet where a different system was deployed.
Taking it as an assessment of justSaturday's match (rather than the last few or our season in general as many on here seem to have done) I don't think it's harsh at all.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]Stilladdicted observed : ''The lacklustre patch has also co-incided with the breakdown of the takeover''.
Arguable...you could equally say it has coinicided with the demotion of Derek Chappell ;0)
I'd made that comment as Pardew had said how the breakdown of the Zabeel takeover had affected everyone quite badly. Parky had wanted to strengthen the team, had been messed about during the transfer window and our future has still not been secured. I'm probably just looking for reasons that don't exist.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]I do fear that the wheels are beginning to fall off the bus
Can you expand on that?
our 4-5-1 has been found out, we are creating less chances, lack of a real Plan B, no goals in three games, early season wins overshadowed unconvincing performances, lack of creativity.
I thought we played nice pretty football with no end product....I personally wouldnt have played Sam who was not at his best anyway and marked off the pitch, which should have opened the game up for Shelvey, but didnt....I think we had a few off form players out there on Saturday, who on another day would have torn Oldham to shreds. Lets see how we fair by the end of this month before we start tearing into the players and manager....i was dissapointed with the booing,......we wasnt that bad afterall.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]I do fear that the wheels are beginning to fall off the bus
Can you expand on that?
our 4-5-1 has been found out, we are creating less chances, lack of a real Plan B, no goals in three games, early season wins overshadowed unconvincing performances, lack of creativity.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]I do fear that the wheels are beginning to fall off the bus
Can you expand on that?
our 4-5-1 has been found out, we are creating less chances, lack of a real Plan B, no goals in three games, early season wins overshadowed unconvincing performances, lack of creativity.
...and still second
take two points from the next nine available and we won't be
I think he's right, but placed a more negative turn to it than needed. These matches happen. He is right we will struggle with particular players getting injured and he is right that a change in the 63 rd minute isn't positive enough. Whilst 4-5-1 is our best formation it would be nice to see a squad capable of shifting the formation and emphasis rather than Bailey and Sam/Wagstaff swapping wings for five mins. Perhaps Mckenzie with Burton from the fifitieth would have been more interesting and if we'd score Mckenzie is perfectly capable to go on the wing. But most managers are addicted to the 60th plus minute change regardless the pattern of matches.
Colin Tat noted: ''most managers are addicted to the 60th plus minute change regardless the pattern of matches.''
Good point. I remember seeing Mourinho at Chelsea make tactical substitutions a couple of times some 20 mins into the first half, and I really admired him for that. Takes guts, I think, to look at a game that quickly and say 'well, I got that wrong, better change it sooner rather than later'...
To be honest, I can't actually remember whether it worked. But I rather suspect that it did...
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]Colin Tat noted: ''most managers are addicted to the 60th plus minute change regardless the pattern of matches.''
Good point. I remember seeing Mourinho at Chelsea make tactical substitutions a couple of times some 20 mins into the first half, and I really admired him for that. Takes guts, I think, to look at a game that quickly and say 'well, I got that wrong, better change it sooner rather than later'...
To be honest, I can't actually remember whether it worked. But I rather suspect that it did...
Benitez at Liverpool always makes his at the 67th minute mark when a match id deadlocked.
Comments
Irrational hatred of the Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday, combined with resentment at another example of a lack of sycophancy by longtime fan Mick Collins, is distorting the reaction of many to this report.
For the record to answer the question I regard it as slightly harsh. It doesn't matter what formation you play if you miss your chances and we had two good ones and perhaps four half chances. I personally think Mick has mixed issues a little and allowed his own antipathy towards 4-5-1 to colour his judgement but plenty on this forum think the same way so who am I to disagree?
When Semedo played, he was able to sit if necessary as another defender which allowed Llera and Dailly on occasions to support the attacks. I think he also worked well with Racon. He and Racon broke up attacks better an immediately moved the ball forward quickly. Burton had then more space and the other midfielders, particularly Jonjo and Sam were anticpating the ball moved forwards with pace. On occasions Semedo himself got forward to support the attack. Spring for all his decent qualities just hasn't got the physical attributes of Jose.
Micks piece is OK. As a journalist who needs an angle, he has written this from the glass is half empty point of view, whereas as a fan he will probably be like most of us, looking at things with a glass is half full perspective.
Agreed.
I certainly am concerned that early success may cement certain tactical preferences that many teams in the division may be able to adjust to. And if the players are going to come in for criticism for failing to convert easy chances, the gaffer ought to be in for similar criticism for putting his team in a position where there were going to be only a handful of chances to be had.
The consensus here and at the stadium, at the time, seemed to be that the first half was dreadfully boring. How can Mick be faulted for referring to the strategy that led to that awful forty-five minutes as "desperately negative."
Golfie(as always), you are by far and away top of the list from that point of view.
Good post SoundAs.
Yes, we are not at our best at the moment but we are still controlling games and creating chances. If we beat Huddersfield and Gills then we are back, if not then we need to start mixing it up in my opinion.
We are still ahead of the 2 points per game that is needed for promotion and that will be fine with me.
As for McLeod's shooting prowess, shouldn't somebody be helping him? Curbs had KP working with players on individual short-comings, perhaps we should get him back, or draft in Mendonca.
Our strikers work on their finishing till they're blue in the face....as do ALL pro strikers.
But it in the end it comes down to an either you have it or you don't scenario....not on the training ground , where "he striketh 8 in 10".....but on match day (as with McLeod), where "he striketh 1 in 10!"
agree with this
at the risk of being labelled a train spotter I was at Colchester early and watched the full warm-up
each of the forwards had four or five shots from 12 yards out laid off by Kinsella at the reserve keeper - McLeod didn't hit the target once which says it all really
"The blame for the boredom lay as much with Charlton manager Phil Parkinson, as with his players.
Opting to leave Dean Burton as a lone striker, with the usually purposeful Jonjo Shelvey hopelessly lost in a roaming role was, in the circumstances, a desperately negative move."
The blame for the boredom was largely at the hands of Oldham undertaking such a negative approach to proceedings. The frustration was that we could not craft a way around it, but that was not the sole blame. If Jonjo is 'usually purposeful', then it could only be seen as a 'desperately negative move' only with the benefit of hindsight ?
"That Charlton failed to score was a statement of the obvious, that they created any real chances at all is a more contentious claim."
I don't think it is contentious. We hit the bar twice, with the keeper beaten, Spring missed by inches, while McLeod had three chances that on another day another striker may have had a hat trick. We had 14 attempts at goal, and 11 corners.
"After three league games without a goal, the impetus Charlton enjoyed after their impressive start to the season may be starting to fade. Their squad looks poorly equipped to withstand any major absences and, with a long season remaining in front of them, the lack of guile they demonstrated in their attempts to break down a resolute Oldham side, sorely lacking in ambition, suggest that maintaining that early momentum may be a considerable challenge."
Fair point, but how we deal with it will be the key. Oldham wil not be the only team to come here and play for a draw, and we've got to find a way to overcome that. You could have argued that Parky could have switched the formation earlier (i would have made the McLeod / Shelvey switch at HT), but that was because we needed to get a player on who would attempt to get behind Oldham's backline. We tried to play football the right way throughout, and i'm not going to criticise that. We just fell down a little in our approach in the final third. If i was to highlight any inadequacies, it is the fact that we appear to be missing an effective striker who can run behind defences and stretch them defensively, or a natural 'box striker'. I know too little on McKenzie to know whether that may be him, but it is sadly becoming obvious that although McLeod does it 80% right, its not enough without the end product.
What Mick highlights may very well be true, or prove to be true, but its a very quick on the gun for me to be highlighting negatives and potential pitfalls. We shall see.
Spot on IMO, and no, that isn't a 'bring back Dicko' cry. I'm wondering if this is getting to the team as well? At Parky's Q&A, he said that he didn't want supporters going home feeling that the players hadn't given their all. My shirtometer has moved to 'not convinced'. (The lacklustre patch has also co-incided with the breakdown of the takeover). Oldham has given all clubs a very effective lesson on how to stop us playing. We are missing chances, it's frustrating the hell out of me and presumably the players aren't immune to the disappointment of not securing wins. Haven't a clue what we can do about it.
Finally, if anyone on here thinks that some Lifers travel to Tranmere, Hartlepool etc but really want the team to lose just so they can say 'told you so' then frankly you must be mad. Maybe it's because they travel the length and breath of the country to support the team that they get so frustrated by it and therefore seem to 'moan' continually.
Arguable...you could equally say it has coinicided with the demotion of Derek Chappell ;0)
I'd made that comment as Pardew had said how the breakdown of the Zabeel takeover had affected everyone quite badly. Parky had wanted to strengthen the team, had been messed about during the transfer window and our future has still not been secured. I'm probably just looking for reasons that don't exist.
our 4-5-1 has been found out, we are creating less chances, lack of a real Plan B, no goals in three games, early season wins overshadowed unconvincing performances, lack of creativity.
take two points from the next nine available and we won't be
Good point. I remember seeing Mourinho at Chelsea make tactical substitutions a couple of times some 20 mins into the first half, and I really admired him for that. Takes guts, I think, to look at a game that quickly and say 'well, I got that wrong, better change it sooner rather than later'...
To be honest, I can't actually remember whether it worked. But I rather suspect that it did...
Benitez at Liverpool always makes his at the 67th minute mark when a match id deadlocked.