[cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]Sorry to keep banging on about this, but I'd like to say now before the game :-
If Randolph plays well, his supporters/ Parky detractors, will be saying told you so, Parky should have played him last week.
If Randolph doesn't play well the Parky bashers will blame him, because he had damaged Randolph's psyche.
Anyway if you do, I will be quoting this.
Seems to be the way it is for almost every decision he makes. Even before things go wrong, supporters find a way to say he's made a good decision and the bashers find a way to criticize him. Without checking I bet he was both praised and criticized for signing Mooney on loan before we even saw him play.
[cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite]The fact that Parky decided that he hadn't is good enough for me, as that is what he is paid to do. Carlisle was an important match and sticking someone in who hadn't done enough to warrant inclusion could also be deemed as poor poor man mangement.
And how did he decide that Wolf No. 3 was good enough? He he seen him prior to his arrival the day before? Was he going on scouting reports?
He basically chose the unknown/relatively unknown over the known.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite] If Parkinson is in a no win situation, then he only has himself to blame because it's a situation he has created.
This is poor man management and suggests to me that the lessons of last season in respect of loan players simply hasn't been learned.
Exactly!
Parky created the whole situation himself by putting Wolf No. 3 immediately in against Carlisle. Had he waited until after the FA Cup match to make the change, there would have been no controversy ... unless Randolph played too well to replace him at that stage. Then he would have a better problem on his hands, than the bad one of a demoralized and unsettled keeper entering the match that he must play in.
It is poor man-management.
I fail to see how American Addick is wrong here? Parkinson got in a replacement keeper who I doubt he'd seen play in the flesh - why would he need to, as he appeared to have two able keepers already in his squad!
Therefore he, in just one day's training chose the other keeper in front of our own. I don't care how he played - Randolph, seeing as he MUST play in goal in the next match after, SHOULD have played in goal - maybe he wouldn't have got beaten from 30 yards twice .... we'll never know.
But what we do know is that whatever the outcome, Randolph HAD to play in goal this Saturday, so I would have played him last Saturday.
[cite]Posted By: supaclive[/cite]I fail to see how American Addick is wrong here? Parkinson got in a replacement keeper who I doubt he'd seen play in the flesh - why would he need to, as he appeared to have two able keepers already in his squad!
Therefore he, in just one day's training chose the other keeper in front of our own. I don't care how he played - Randolph, seeing as he MUST play in goal in the next match after, SHOULD have played in goal - maybe he wouldn't have got beaten from 30 yards twice .... we'll never know.
But what we do know is that whatever the outcome, Randolph HAD to play in goal this Saturday, so I would have played him last Saturday.
"And how did he decide that Wolf No. 3 was good enough? He he seen him prior to his arrival the day before? Was he going on scouting reports?"
"Parkinson got in a replacement keeper who I doubt he'd seen play in the flesh"
Must be a real idiot that manager of ours {rolls eyes}
Lets be honest, If Randolph had played on sat and made a real howler, people would have been slating Parky for getting a loan in from the prem and not playing him. Parkinson obviously knows the two keepers strengths (after a weeks training with Ikeme more so now) and weaknesses, so we have to trust his judgement.
[cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite]"And how did he decide that Wolf No. 3 was good enough? Had he seen him prior to his arrival the day before? Was he going on scouting reports?"
"Parkinson got in a replacement keeper who I doubt he'd seen play in the flesh"
Must be a real idiot that manager of ours {rolls eyes}
Well ...
Even the great managers are wrong sometimes, and ...
[cite]Posted By: cafcdan18[/cite]Lets be honest, If Randolph had played on sat and made a real howler, people would have been slating Parky for getting a loan in from the prem and not playing him. Parkinson obviously knows the two keepers strengths (after a weeks training with Ikeme more so now) and weaknesses, so we have to trust his judgement.
Completely disagree.
I don't know if anyone would have slated Parky for giving his own player a chance over a loanee that had arrived the previous day.
And just because Wolves are now in the Premier League doesn't mean their No. 3 keeper is Premiership quality or indeed any better. He might be. He might not be.
Where did Randolph make his Charlton debut? I believe it was Anfield against Liverpool.
Parky created the controversy by not playing his own player against Carlisle, knowing full well he had to play in the Cup game.
Parky is in the position to make these decisions. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them, or trust them. Any more than we could trust Dowie with anything but a powerpoint.
We're going round in circles here. We're just not going to agree. I just don't see how Ikeme being on loan makes any difference to whether he should be picked. Parky picked who he thinks is the better keeper in order to give us a better chance of winning.
Evidently Randolph isn't truly rated. And hasn't been for some time.
He was out of contract in the summer, but was offered only a further 1 year deal late on (last resort?) - and bearing in mind our then newly aquired Third Division status, you can bet your life it was on reduced terms.
It was the time, remember, of the takeover talks and so much uncertainty that even Parky didn't know if he had a job next day. So to retain Randolph pro-tem was an adequate and economical decision to solve the problem of back up keeper.
But that didn't necessarily imply that Randolph was the keeper that Parky would have chosen to sign if circumstances were not forced upon him. It now seems Parky can let Randolph go in January and sign a keeper he prefers.
The biggest worry of course, is the impact on the rest of the squad. If morale collapses amongst the fringe players who feel they will now never get a chance, that could have an unsettling effect in the first team dressing room throughout the rest of the season.
I said right at the beginning of this thread, that the commonsense decision apparently would have been to play Randolph against Carlisle, as otherwise the defence would have to play with 3 different keepers in 3 consecutive games - or even 4 consecutive games with a change of keeper including the MK Dons game.
That must be really unsettling for the defence. I really do question the logic of that.
As this appears to have approached "deadlock" its been thrown open to the public vote, who have unanimously decided that the Covered End camp is 100% right.
American Addick et al, its been an 'amazing journey'. Here are your best bits.........
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]As this appears to have approached "deadlock" its been thrown open to the public vote, who have unanimously decided that the Covered End camp is 100% right.
American Addick et al, its been an 'amazing journey'. Here are your best bits.........
An investiagtion has been launched following an allegation of irregular voting patterns. More to follow........
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]As this appears to have approached "deadlock" its been thrown open to the public vote, who have unanimously decided that the Covered End camp is 100% right.
American Addick et al, its been an 'amazing journey'. Here are your best bits.........
Well as you're always right AFKA, I thank you :-)
Anyway it's been a very good mass debate, which I have enjoyed. Well done one and all :-)
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]As this appears to have approached "deadlock" its been thrown open to the public vote, who have unanimously decided that the Covered End camp is 100% right.
American Addick et al, its been an 'amazing journey'. Here are your best bits.........
Someone else that can't see the forest for the trees, besides being unable to do basic maths ... moderator, or not.
What is amazing is how little some people seem to know or understand about managing a team and dealing with players.
Perhaps they've never done it before, but all opinions are welcome. Discussion is what this is all about.
[cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]
What is amazing is how little some people seem to know or understand about managing a team and dealing with players.
Perhaps they've never done it before.
It is equally amazing my friend how so many people can form such strong opinions without full knowledge of the facts.
For all we know, Randolph could have been showing an alarming lack of form in training and practice matches, he could have been showing a sustained period of poor attitude and ambition to work hard in training, he could have been carrying a niggling knock. We don't know.
What we do know is Phil Parkinson wanted to pick in his opinion his strongest 11 to play Carlisle, and in his opinion, based on full knowledge of facts, he felt Ikeme gave us more chance of achieving that.
I said right at the beginning of this thread, that the commonsense decision apparently would have been to play Randolph against Carlisle, as otherwise the defence would have to play with 3 different keepers in 3 consecutive games - or even 4 consecutive games with a change of keeper including the MK Dons game.
That must be really unsettling for the defence. I really do question the logic of that.[/quote]
After being missing from this thread for the while, I know that this was the point I was originally trying to make. Randolph might be awful, but he still HAS to play on Sunday. In order for Randolph to play at his best, and for the defence to play better at Carlisle, imo it would have been better to play the keeper we already had in the squad....
What we know is that Parky said that his selection for Carlisle could go either way the day before. So it wasn't so clear cut.
Do you really think he would have said that it was 50/50 for Carlisle if Randolph had "a sustained period of poor attitude," been carrying a knock or shown an "alarming lack of form?"
Even if he had said that Wolf No. 3 would play against Carlisle, and Randolph would play against Northwich Vic, and then he'd see how they played before deciding who would play against MK Dons ... that could potentially get the best out of both of them, without unnecessarily p*ssing off either one.
The way Parky handled it, he unsettled Randolph (and perhaps teammates/friends) and then threw more gasoline on the fire by saying he should beat out Elliot or leave, without indicating if he would even get a fair chance to do it. All before he actually needs him to play the cup game.
There are several ways that Parky could have handled the situation better.
[cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]Even if he had said that Wolf No. 3 would play against Carlisle, and Randolph would play against Northwich Vic, and then he'd see how they played before deciding who would play against MK Dons ... that could potentially get the best out of both of them, without unnecessarily p*ssing off either one.
But how do you know, AA, that this isn't exactly what Parky has said to them in private? I'm in general agreement with your point that Parky picked the wrong guy at Carlisle but you're making a lot of strong assertions without actually being privvy to anything but a few press conference comments. He said in the smae press conference that 'Randolph understands the situation' suggesting there will have been discussions with the player behind the scenes.
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]Even if he had said that Wolf No. 3 would play against Carlisle, and Randolph would play against Northwich Vic, and then he'd see how they played before deciding who would play against MK Dons ... that could potentially get the best out of both of them, without unnecessarily p*ssing off either one.
But how do you know, AA, that this isn't exactly what Parky has said to them in private?
Why would he be motivational in his private handling and then incendiary in his public handling of the situation?
If he actually got it right either way, then he handled it ass backwards.
President Barack Obama has urged Americans not to jump to conclusions.
In a special news conference, he said: "We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."
[cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]Why would he be motivational in his private handling and then incendiary in his public handling of the situation?
If he actually got it right either way, then he handled it ass backwards.
To keep the opposition guessing about our starting line up? Besides that, I don't see what is incendiary about any of Parky's comments - you're in danger of hyping this more than a tabloid journalist would.
For all we know Parky has said to Randolph - "I want to have a look at both of you ready for big home game with MK Dons - Ikeme is getting Carlisle because he can't play at Northwich, plus I don't want you injured for Northwich cos that would mean picking Binks. Play well at Northwich and knuckle down in training and you've got a very good chance of taking over from Elliot for the time being."
As I've said, I'd have handled it differently but that doesn't mean Parky's way is totally irrational.
[cite]Posted By: Exiled_Addick[/cite]For all we know Parky has said to Randolph - "I want to have a look at both of you ready for big home game with MK Dons - Ikeme is getting Carlisle because he can't play at Northwich, plus I don't want you injured for Northwich cos that would mean picking Binks. Play well at Northwich and knuckle down in training and you've got a very good chance of taking over from Elliot for the time being."
As I've said, I'd have handled it differently but that doesn't mean Parky's way is totally irrational.
We're on the same page here.
If he had said what you wrote, then it would have been handled professionally.
But that isn't what he said publically, when it would have been good management to say what you wrote both publicly and privately.
[cite]Posted By: Red_Pete[/cite]AA, you have amazingly strong opinions on something you actually know nothing about. FFS just give it a rest!!
Red_Pete, you don't know what I know or don't know.
And as Jack Nicholson once said to Tom Cruise, "You can't handle the truth!"
;-)
Seems to me that opinion on here sounds fairly evenly split, so you'd think that given our difference of opinon either way would have been a reasonable choice/making the best of a bad situation.
I would have thought you play the back-up, but there is so much we don't know about Randolph and/or the circumstances of the loan coming available. Parkinson's got the best perspective to make that choice and he's made one for good or for ill. That's his job...making judgment calls.
Let's save our energy for second-guessing or going over the top praising the choice that he's made (as applicable in a few hours) don't you think? We're football fans after all! ;-)
Comments
And how did he decide that Wolf No. 3 was good enough? He he seen him prior to his arrival the day before? Was he going on scouting reports?
He basically chose the unknown/relatively unknown over the known.
Exactly!
Parky created the whole situation himself by putting Wolf No. 3 immediately in against Carlisle. Had he waited until after the FA Cup match to make the change, there would have been no controversy ... unless Randolph played too well to replace him at that stage. Then he would have a better problem on his hands, than the bad one of a demoralized and unsettled keeper entering the match that he must play in.
It is poor man-management.
Therefore he, in just one day's training chose the other keeper in front of our own. I don't care how he played - Randolph, seeing as he MUST play in goal in the next match after, SHOULD have played in goal - maybe he wouldn't have got beaten from 30 yards twice .... we'll never know.
But what we do know is that whatever the outcome, Randolph HAD to play in goal this Saturday, so I would have played him last Saturday.
Thank you.
"Parkinson got in a replacement keeper who I doubt he'd seen play in the flesh"
Must be a real idiot that manager of ours {rolls eyes}
Well ...
Even the great managers are wrong sometimes, and ...
Completely disagree.
I don't know if anyone would have slated Parky for giving his own player a chance over a loanee that had arrived the previous day.
And just because Wolves are now in the Premier League doesn't mean their No. 3 keeper is Premiership quality or indeed any better. He might be. He might not be.
Where did Randolph make his Charlton debut? I believe it was Anfield against Liverpool.
Parky created the controversy by not playing his own player against Carlisle, knowing full well he had to play in the Cup game.
Parky is in the position to make these decisions. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them, or trust them. Any more than we could trust Dowie with anything but a powerpoint.
He was out of contract in the summer, but was offered only a further 1 year deal late on (last resort?) - and bearing in mind our then newly aquired Third Division status, you can bet your life it was on reduced terms.
It was the time, remember, of the takeover talks and so much uncertainty that even Parky didn't know if he had a job next day. So to retain Randolph pro-tem was an adequate and economical decision to solve the problem of back up keeper.
But that didn't necessarily imply that Randolph was the keeper that Parky would have chosen to sign if circumstances were not forced upon him. It now seems Parky can let Randolph go in January and sign a keeper he prefers.
The biggest worry of course, is the impact on the rest of the squad. If morale collapses amongst the fringe players who feel they will now never get a chance, that could have an unsettling effect in the first team dressing room throughout the rest of the season.
I said right at the beginning of this thread, that the commonsense decision apparently would have been to play Randolph against Carlisle, as otherwise the defence would have to play with 3 different keepers in 3 consecutive games - or even 4 consecutive games with a change of keeper including the MK Dons game.
That must be really unsettling for the defence. I really do question the logic of that.
American Addick et al, its been an 'amazing journey'. Here are your best bits.........
An investiagtion has been launched following an allegation of irregular voting patterns. More to follow........
Well as you're always right AFKA, I thank you :-)
Anyway it's been a very good mass debate, which I have enjoyed. Well done one and all :-)
Someone else that can't see the forest for the trees, besides being unable to do basic maths ... moderator, or not.
What is amazing is how little some people seem to know or understand about managing a team and dealing with players.
Perhaps they've never done it before, but all opinions are welcome. Discussion is what this is all about.
It is equally amazing my friend how so many people can form such strong opinions without full knowledge of the facts.
For all we know, Randolph could have been showing an alarming lack of form in training and practice matches, he could have been showing a sustained period of poor attitude and ambition to work hard in training, he could have been carrying a niggling knock. We don't know.
What we do know is Phil Parkinson wanted to pick in his opinion his strongest 11 to play Carlisle, and in his opinion, based on full knowledge of facts, he felt Ikeme gave us more chance of achieving that.
I said right at the beginning of this thread, that the commonsense decision apparently would have been to play Randolph against Carlisle, as otherwise the defence would have to play with 3 different keepers in 3 consecutive games - or even 4 consecutive games with a change of keeper including the MK Dons game.
That must be really unsettling for the defence. I really do question the logic of that.[/quote]
After being missing from this thread for the while, I know that this was the point I was originally trying to make. Randolph might be awful, but he still HAS to play on Sunday. In order for Randolph to play at his best, and for the defence to play better at Carlisle, imo it would have been better to play the keeper we already had in the squad....
What we know is that Parky said that his selection for Carlisle could go either way the day before. So it wasn't so clear cut.
Do you really think he would have said that it was 50/50 for Carlisle if Randolph had "a sustained period of poor attitude," been carrying a knock or shown an "alarming lack of form?"
Even if he had said that Wolf No. 3 would play against Carlisle, and Randolph would play against Northwich Vic, and then he'd see how they played before deciding who would play against MK Dons ... that could potentially get the best out of both of them, without unnecessarily p*ssing off either one.
The way Parky handled it, he unsettled Randolph (and perhaps teammates/friends) and then threw more gasoline on the fire by saying he should beat out Elliot or leave, without indicating if he would even get a fair chance to do it. All before he actually needs him to play the cup game.
There are several ways that Parky could have handled the situation better.
But how do you know, AA, that this isn't exactly what Parky has said to them in private? I'm in general agreement with your point that Parky picked the wrong guy at Carlisle but you're making a lot of strong assertions without actually being privvy to anything but a few press conference comments. He said in the smae press conference that 'Randolph understands the situation' suggesting there will have been discussions with the player behind the scenes.
Why would he be motivational in his private handling and then incendiary in his public handling of the situation?
If he actually got it right either way, then he handled it ass backwards.
In a special news conference, he said: "We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."
To keep the opposition guessing about our starting line up? Besides that, I don't see what is incendiary about any of Parky's comments - you're in danger of hyping this more than a tabloid journalist would.
For all we know Parky has said to Randolph - "I want to have a look at both of you ready for big home game with MK Dons - Ikeme is getting Carlisle because he can't play at Northwich, plus I don't want you injured for Northwich cos that would mean picking Binks. Play well at Northwich and knuckle down in training and you've got a very good chance of taking over from Elliot for the time being."
As I've said, I'd have handled it differently but that doesn't mean Parky's way is totally irrational.
We're on the same page here.
If he had said what you wrote, then it would have been handled professionally.
But that isn't what he said publically, when it would have been good management to say what you wrote both publicly and privately.
Red_Pete, you don't know what I know or don't know.
And as Jack Nicholson once said to Tom Cruise, "You can't handle the truth!"
;-)
I would have thought you play the back-up, but there is so much we don't know about Randolph and/or the circumstances of the loan coming available. Parkinson's got the best perspective to make that choice and he's made one for good or for ill. That's his job...making judgment calls.
Let's save our energy for second-guessing or going over the top praising the choice that he's made (as applicable in a few hours) don't you think? We're football fans after all! ;-)