Disagree with the loan argument in American_Addick's post. Can't believe the number of times this comes up. The problem with the loan players wasn't lack of commitment, it was that they were crap at football. Were the likes of Hudson and Todorov committed either?
Saying that we shouldn't have signed Randolph if we weren't going to play him is also utter rubbish. Who would we have on the bench as a sub keeper if we hadn't signed him? If we get the opportunity to get someone in on loan who the manager thinks is better, then he should play instead.
Very thoughtful stuff from AA. Much to chew on there, but it's hard to fault 90 per cent of the analysis.
Moots and Dickson don't fit the team spirit Parkinson is trying to build, and I support his decsion in that. If he doesn't want them back, then I don't want them back, either. But it was hard to see why we put out a back five on Saturday that included two borrowed players who - as AA points out - had barely had time to learn the names of their team mates. There were other options and he said on Friday that it was a 50:50 call between Randolph and the Wolves man. If it's that close a call in terms of the job he thought they would do for the side, then surely you go with your own man?
Or did the big club dictate to the little club that their man was only going on loan if he was going to play? In which case, why say it was a 50:50 call?
Loan players could work if they are offered the carrot of a possible contract if they do well.
I haven't heard many folk calling for Parkinson's head, I questioned him getting a contract extension at this stage but certainly never said he should be sacked.
Whether he is the right man for the job remains to be seen but one thing we don't need at this time is more instability
Rumour has it that "the young right back on loan at Motherwell" was shagging the wife of one of his Charlton team mates, if true then he had to go really.
[cite]Posted By: Dazzler21[/cite]Well moaners is this what you want already? Bit of a dry spell and we start going all bloody Suicidal.... Really can't understand you lot! What you want a new manager is that it? You want more instability at our club? Please tell me exactly what you want????
Rant over....for now!
I don't want a new manager at the moment but on the flip side I didn't want Parky to get an extension either. He has done nothing to deserve it yet. Reward him when, if, he achieves something.
Parky has not proved to me that he knows how to teach a side how to defend. Carlisle had scored only 15 goals in 14 games before Saturday, yet put 3 past us. The difference between our early games and now is that (despite Sodje being quicker than Llera) we are defending deeper. This invites teams to attack us and when in possession makes it harder for the midfield to find a red shirt.
Despite offloading the so called "bad influences" and bringing in "characters", we have given up in recent matches. We no longer bring the ball out from the back and have no focus for our attacks. Our decline goes back to the Llera injury and offloading Dickson - has something happened in the dressing room to upset morale?
Has anyone asked why a midfield of Racon, Bailey, Semedo and Sam, with Shelvey in front was good enough at various times last year to be part of the shittest team in the champ? I don't remember too many wins or too much dynamism. Admittedly when they were all fit they looked good enough to do something but rarely did.
Parky introduced the five as we were woefully short of midfielders with any game intelligence whatsoever; something ZZ and Ambrose were just as bad at. Bailey is a case in point, someone out of all them that has a bit or irrational energy yet in the middle can just be positionally erratic at the wrong moment; this is acceptable unlike others as at least he's trying to tackle or close down but the point is he doesn't lead a midfield and provide cohesion when we're in a poor phase of the match.
People can bang on about our midfield being championship level but as a unit they don't have that irrational spark, or the game intelligence to close the match down in a four. Nothing has changed that is why Parky is to be applauded at getting them together and getting so many wins. The simple fact is those midfielders need to be in a five. Sure some matches we should try 4-4-2 at home but away from home Parky is a bit delusioned if he thinks our current personnel can close a poor match out with 4-4-2. As I said before if Parky had got Puncheon things may have been a little different and Bailey could be brought inside to provide a little more tenacity in the middle. But it don't change a thing about 4-5-1 still being the best use of our talented but mainly unconventional midfielders.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Has anyone asked why a midfield of Racon, Bailey, Semedo and Sam, with Shelvey in front was good enough at various times last year to be part of the shittest team in the champ? I don't remember too many wins or too much dynamism. Admittedly when they were all fit they looked good enough to do something but rarely did.
I agree with a lot of the points, but Racon was injured for most of the year (coming back at the point when results took a (slight) upturn. Shelvey wasn't risked until later in the season and Semedo was out for a long time, too.
Agree that some proper width would have made a difference. I wonder if Plymouth would allow Noone to go. Looked great against us on both wings and through the middle and scored a spanker from range at the weekend (currently on loan at Exeter).
Colin Tat enquired : ''Has anyone asked why a midfield of Racon, Bailey, Semedo and Sam, with Shelvey in front was good enough at various times last year to be part of the shittest team in the champ?''
It's actually pretty much the midfield that Pardew started the last championship season with, although there were injuries and he brought in Bouazza and old father Holland was still knocking around.
But I do tend to agree : the biggst question at the moment is probably not even what's (not) happening up front but why such a talented midfield on paper is delivering so little in recent games. I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure Parky must have some ideas and will be addressing it before the next league game v MK Dons...
The odd thing is that we all thought the problem was Semedo's absence. But from what I saw at Gillingham, and judging from the result at Carlisle, it doesn't seem to have got any better since his return and we are most certainly not bossing anything in midfield right now.
I can handle Semedo in a five, but it is going beyond some to think he is a cnetral midfielder in a two. The fact is there is no one in the midfield with tenacity, energy and nous who is going to push the midfield fifteen yards up the pitch.
That can be by a Newton/Robinson/Mcsheffrey type player who other teams are pretty scared of their pace, or a Liam Lawerence player who goes like Billy 'O and crunch tackles full backs in the final third turning over possession, or a Kinsella who is virtually always able to make a forward pass and certainly always do it when we were counter attacking. I'm not harking back to the past these are just examples. And if we had Puncheon flying on the left our midfield would naturally be fifteen yards up the pitch, resulting in Bailey and Racon effecting the game offensively.
We don't. Even with Puncheon I'd say we would be best in a 4-5-1, but with him at home it'd be worth starting in a 4-4-2 especially against a defensive minded team like Oldham and a cavalier team like Huddersfield; but away from home I can not see any logic behind not starting with 4-5-1.
The only problem with American Addick's criticism of the 2 loan players, is that Charlton Lifers rated Ikeme the MOM and Omosuzi was also rated as one of our best players. Arguement doesn't stack up on that basis.
''Omosuzi was also rated as one of our best players.''
Wasn't there, but he gifted their second goal and got an average rating of five and a half. Hardly a triumphant debut! Fortunately, there seems to be every chance that Richardson will be fit again v MK Dons and so we won't be seeing Mr O in the league again.
From what I've read of his circumstances, he's more of a trialist than a loanee, as he doesn't seem to be a Fulham player in any real sense, other than that they still hold his registration. Hope he makes the grade for us and is good enough to earn a contract in Jan - but we should be trialing him in the ressies or the JP, not in the first XI in the league.
As for the Wolves third-choice, he let in three goals and was still MoM. Which makes me glad I wasn't there to see such an apparently dire team performance. Hope Randolpho puts in a couple of good performances in the cups and grabs the jersey for the next league game - although his confidence must have taken a bit of a battering from Parky's treatment of him over the last few days.
[cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]The only problem with American Addick's criticism of the 2 loan players, is that Charlton Lifers rated Ikeme the MOM and Omosuzi was also rated as one of our best players. Arguement doesn't stack up on that basis.
Did any Charlton players come away from the Carlisle match with any credit following that performance? Were they the best of a poor lot, but not much, if any, better?
Bringing in two loan players so late in the week and so close to match day, and playing them over your own players who were waiting for their opportunity, is potentially dangerous because it may not just unsettle the players that were left out, it may also unsettle their teammates who had to take to the field with players they didn't even know.
The result, and the overall performance, was not likely to be any worse without the two loan players in the lineup for this particular match under the circumstances they were brought in.
[cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]
Bringing in two loan players so late in the week and so close to match day, and playing them over your own players who were waiting for their opportunity, is potentially dangerous because it may not just unsettle the players that were left out, it may also unsettle their teammates who had to take to the field with players they didn't even know.
The result, and the overall performance, was not likely to be any worse without the two loan players in the lineup for this particular match under the circumstances they were brought in.
I think you're inventing something which isn't there. I cannot see why "their teammates" would be that unsettled by playing with players they met during the week. I think footballers are pretty simple beings - as long as they're playing, they're happy.
Unless there is real clangers in the goalies and right back position, at this level they're two positions that should not effect their team-mates; as long as the outfield spine is strong those boys should be peripharies.
What is more worrying, and very much what all our players did last season, is that Kavanagh had a huge chasm of space to chug into to score his two goals. Irregardless of who we play in the middle be it Semedo, Racon, Bailey, Spring none of them should be giving up space like that but yet all of them do unless they're in a midfield 5.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Unless there is real clangers in the goalies and right back position, at this level they're two positions that should not effect their team-mates; as long as the outfield spine is strong those boys should be peripharies.
What is more worrying, and very much what all our players did last season, is that Kavanagh had a huge chasm of space to chug into to score his two goals. Irregardless of who we play in the middle be it Semedo, Racon, Bailey, Spring none of them should be giving up space like that but yet all of them do unless they're in a midfield 5.
Our midfield is moulded on the Benitez school of zonal marking. Parky has just extended it to open play.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Unless there is real clangers in the goalies and right back position, at this level they're two positions that should not effect their team-mates; as long as the outfield spine is strong those boys should be peripharies.
What is more worrying, and very much what all our players did last season, is that Kavanagh had a huge chasm of space to chug into to score his two goals. Irregardless of who we play in the middle be it Semedo, Racon, Bailey, Spring none of them should be giving up space like that but yet all of them do unless they're in a midfield 5.[/quote]
Which is why we shouldn't be playing 442 away from home, and why we conceded very few early in the season when we played 451. Save the 442 for home games Parky, but first find a couple of strikers who actually compliment each other.
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]
Bringing in two loan players so late in the week and so close to match day, and playing them over your own players who were waiting for their opportunity, is potentially dangerous because it may not just unsettle the players that were left out, it may also unsettle their teammates who had to take to the field with players they didn't even know.
The result, and the overall performance, was not likely to be any worse without the two loan players in the lineup for this particular match under the circumstances they were brought in.
I think you're inventing something which isn't there. I cannot see why "their teammates" would be that unsettled by playing with players they met during the week. I think footballers are pretty simple beings - as long as they're playing, they're happy.
If the reason why all sports teams conduct trainings and team building is "inventing something which isn't there," then I guess we might as well have players just show up on Saturdays and let the board pick the team.
Why unsettled?
Because they don't know who they are playing with; aren't aware of their abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Don't know what they can trust them to do or count on them in certain circumstances.
Psychologically, they may become unsettled because they believe a teammate, a co-worker, a friend has not been treated fairly. And they may begin to wonder if they are being treated fairly.
The players may be simple, but the management had better put a lot of thought into what they are doing. And in this case Parky left himself exposed.
Had he played Randolph in goal with Basey at left back and moved Youga to right back, there would not have been very little asked of that decision. And if it didn't work out, and he then made the switch to the loan players, again, there would have been very little questioning from any quarter. And if it did work out, all the better because you accomplished it with your own people.
How Omosuzi could be described as one of our better players on Saturday is beyond me. Admittedly the whole team did pretty much sweet fa but i dont think anyone can describe him as having played well. His clearance for the second goal was shocking, he didn't link up with Sam at all (probably understandable given the lack of preparation time, which is what I think American_Addick was saying) and he did get caught out a few times. The fact he had to go off after 60 mins in order to put Youga right back (which is the situation we tried to avoid by bringing him into the team) shows this.
As stated in the keeper thread I think it's bad management by Parky playing Omosuzi and Ikeme in that game. How can Randolph be expected to play well at Northwich if he's been told he's not good enough for a league game, and Omosuzi will surely be replaced by Richardson for the McDons game.
'''he had to go off after 60 mins in order to put Youga at right back (which is the situation we tried to avoid by bringing him into the team)''
Exactly! The best comment I've read yet on why the knee-jerk 'someone's injured, who can we borrow?' mentality is so misguided. And why on earth are we paying Mr O a month's wages to play 60-70 mins at Carlisle given, as Allez points out, that Richardson is likely to be back v MK Dons.
I've been a big supporter of Parky this season. Thought he showed real chartacter over the summer and I backed him rooting out those like Moots and Dickson who diidn't fit his team ethic. But I lost a lot of my faith in him last week.
We got a couple of injuries and I thought his knee-jerk reaction destroyed much of the good work he had done in building a 'proper Charlton' spirit in the squad and took us right back to the headless chicken days of Pardew. I wonder if Randolph has put in his transfer request yet?
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]Allez noted of the borrowed Omosuzi :
'''he had to go off after 60 mins in order to put Youga at right back (which is the situation we tried to avoid by bringing him into the team)''
Exactly! The best comment I've read yet on why the knee-jerk 'someone's injured, who can we borrow?' mentality is so misguided. And why on earth are we paying Mr O a month's wages to play 60-70 mins at Carlisle given, as Allez points out, that Richardson is likely to be back v MK Dons.
I've been a big supporter of Parky this season. Thought he showed real chartacter over the summer and I backed him rooting out those like Moots and Dickson who diidn't fit his team ethic. But I lost a lot of my faith in him last week.
We got a couple of injuries and I thought his knee-jerk reaction destroyed much of the good work he had done in building a 'proper Charlton' spirit in the squad and took us right back to the headless chicken days of Pardew. I wonder if Randolph has put in his transfer request yet?
How about so he can also play against Northwich Victoria and Soton and rest Richardson properly giving him time to recover as he has been carrying an injury virtually the whole season ?
''How about so he can also play against Northwich Victoria and Soton...''
Please God, no... are you saying, Covered End, that decent squad players like Basey cannot now even expect a game in the Johnston's Paint because we prefer a borrowed journeyman?
Wasn't Basey our MoM in the last JP game, playing in two different positions across the back four?
Let's all pray you are wrong about Mr O getting another trial in the cup games!
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]''How about so he can also play against Northwich Victoria and Soton...''
Please God, no... are you saying, Covered End, that decent squad players like Basey cannot now even expect a game in the Johnston's Paint because we prefer a borrowed journeyman?
Wasn't Basey our MoM in the last JP game, playing in two different positions across the back four?
Let's all pray you are wrong about Mr O getting another trial in the cup games!
Basey is of course is a left back and it is a right back that we need.
Sorry, CE, but that is simply not the point. Can you tell us how we played the last 20 mins at Carlisle after Mr O's howler?
Basey replaced him and , as Allez astutely pointed out : : '''he had to go off after 60 mins in order to put Youga at right back (which is the situation we tried to avoid by bringing him into the team)''...
Comments
Saying that we shouldn't have signed Randolph if we weren't going to play him is also utter rubbish. Who would we have on the bench as a sub keeper if we hadn't signed him? If we get the opportunity to get someone in on loan who the manager thinks is better, then he should play instead.
Moots and Dickson don't fit the team spirit Parkinson is trying to build, and I support his decsion in that. If he doesn't want them back, then I don't want them back, either. But it was hard to see why we put out a back five on Saturday that included two borrowed players who - as AA points out - had barely had time to learn the names of their team mates. There were other options and he said on Friday that it was a 50:50 call between Randolph and the Wolves man. If it's that close a call in terms of the job he thought they would do for the side, then surely you go with your own man?
Or did the big club dictate to the little club that their man was only going on loan if he was going to play? In which case, why say it was a 50:50 call?
I haven't heard many folk calling for Parkinson's head, I questioned him getting a contract extension at this stage but certainly never said he should be sacked.
Whether he is the right man for the job remains to be seen but one thing we don't need at this time is more instability
Only a rumour, don't shoot the messenger!
and this is likely a lie and more likely pardew was shagging the rb's wife lol
Large is spot on IMO
Despite offloading the so called "bad influences" and bringing in "characters", we have given up in recent matches. We no longer bring the ball out from the back and have no focus for our attacks. Our decline goes back to the Llera injury and offloading Dickson - has something happened in the dressing room to upset morale?
Parky introduced the five as we were woefully short of midfielders with any game intelligence whatsoever; something ZZ and Ambrose were just as bad at. Bailey is a case in point, someone out of all them that has a bit or irrational energy yet in the middle can just be positionally erratic at the wrong moment; this is acceptable unlike others as at least he's trying to tackle or close down but the point is he doesn't lead a midfield and provide cohesion when we're in a poor phase of the match.
People can bang on about our midfield being championship level but as a unit they don't have that irrational spark, or the game intelligence to close the match down in a four. Nothing has changed that is why Parky is to be applauded at getting them together and getting so many wins. The simple fact is those midfielders need to be in a five. Sure some matches we should try 4-4-2 at home but away from home Parky is a bit delusioned if he thinks our current personnel can close a poor match out with 4-4-2. As I said before if Parky had got Puncheon things may have been a little different and Bailey could be brought inside to provide a little more tenacity in the middle. But it don't change a thing about 4-5-1 still being the best use of our talented but mainly unconventional midfielders.
Agree that some proper width would have made a difference. I wonder if Plymouth would allow Noone to go. Looked great against us on both wings and through the middle and scored a spanker from range at the weekend (currently on loan at Exeter).
It's actually pretty much the midfield that Pardew started the last championship season with, although there were injuries and he brought in Bouazza and old father Holland was still knocking around.
But I do tend to agree : the biggst question at the moment is probably not even what's (not) happening up front but why such a talented midfield on paper is delivering so little in recent games. I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure Parky must have some ideas and will be addressing it before the next league game v MK Dons...
The odd thing is that we all thought the problem was Semedo's absence. But from what I saw at Gillingham, and judging from the result at Carlisle, it doesn't seem to have got any better since his return and we are most certainly not bossing anything in midfield right now.
That can be by a Newton/Robinson/Mcsheffrey type player who other teams are pretty scared of their pace, or a Liam Lawerence player who goes like Billy 'O and crunch tackles full backs in the final third turning over possession, or a Kinsella who is virtually always able to make a forward pass and certainly always do it when we were counter attacking. I'm not harking back to the past these are just examples. And if we had Puncheon flying on the left our midfield would naturally be fifteen yards up the pitch, resulting in Bailey and Racon effecting the game offensively.
We don't. Even with Puncheon I'd say we would be best in a 4-5-1, but with him at home it'd be worth starting in a 4-4-2 especially against a defensive minded team like Oldham and a cavalier team like Huddersfield; but away from home I can not see any logic behind not starting with 4-5-1.
Wasn't there, but he gifted their second goal and got an average rating of five and a half. Hardly a triumphant debut! Fortunately, there seems to be every chance that Richardson will be fit again v MK Dons and so we won't be seeing Mr O in the league again.
From what I've read of his circumstances, he's more of a trialist than a loanee, as he doesn't seem to be a Fulham player in any real sense, other than that they still hold his registration. Hope he makes the grade for us and is good enough to earn a contract in Jan - but we should be trialing him in the ressies or the JP, not in the first XI in the league.
As for the Wolves third-choice, he let in three goals and was still MoM. Which makes me glad I wasn't there to see such an apparently dire team performance. Hope Randolpho puts in a couple of good performances in the cups and grabs the jersey for the next league game - although his confidence must have taken a bit of a battering from Parky's treatment of him over the last few days.
Did any Charlton players come away from the Carlisle match with any credit following that performance? Were they the best of a poor lot, but not much, if any, better?
Bringing in two loan players so late in the week and so close to match day, and playing them over your own players who were waiting for their opportunity, is potentially dangerous because it may not just unsettle the players that were left out, it may also unsettle their teammates who had to take to the field with players they didn't even know.
The result, and the overall performance, was not likely to be any worse without the two loan players in the lineup for this particular match under the circumstances they were brought in.
I think you're inventing something which isn't there. I cannot see why "their teammates" would be that unsettled by playing with players they met during the week. I think footballers are pretty simple beings - as long as they're playing, they're happy.
What is more worrying, and very much what all our players did last season, is that Kavanagh had a huge chasm of space to chug into to score his two goals. Irregardless of who we play in the middle be it Semedo, Racon, Bailey, Spring none of them should be giving up space like that but yet all of them do unless they're in a midfield 5.
Our midfield is moulded on the Benitez school of zonal marking. Parky has just extended it to open play.
What is more worrying, and very much what all our players did last season, is that Kavanagh had a huge chasm of space to chug into to score his two goals. Irregardless of who we play in the middle be it Semedo, Racon, Bailey, Spring none of them should be giving up space like that but yet all of them do unless they're in a midfield 5.[/quote]
Which is why we shouldn't be playing 442 away from home, and why we conceded very few early in the season when we played 451.
Save the 442 for home games Parky, but first find a couple of strikers who actually compliment each other.
If the reason why all sports teams conduct trainings and team building is "inventing something which isn't there," then I guess we might as well have players just show up on Saturdays and let the board pick the team.
Why unsettled?
Because they don't know who they are playing with; aren't aware of their abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Don't know what they can trust them to do or count on them in certain circumstances.
Psychologically, they may become unsettled because they believe a teammate, a co-worker, a friend has not been treated fairly. And they may begin to wonder if they are being treated fairly.
The players may be simple, but the management had better put a lot of thought into what they are doing. And in this case Parky left himself exposed.
Had he played Randolph in goal with Basey at left back and moved Youga to right back, there would not have been very little asked of that decision. And if it didn't work out, and he then made the switch to the loan players, again, there would have been very little questioning from any quarter. And if it did work out, all the better because you accomplished it with your own people.
As stated in the keeper thread I think it's bad management by Parky playing Omosuzi and Ikeme in that game. How can Randolph be expected to play well at Northwich if he's been told he's not good enough for a league game, and Omosuzi will surely be replaced by Richardson for the McDons game.
'''he had to go off after 60 mins in order to put Youga at right back (which is the situation we tried to avoid by bringing him into the team)''
Exactly! The best comment I've read yet on why the knee-jerk 'someone's injured, who can we borrow?' mentality is so misguided. And why on earth are we paying Mr O a month's wages to play 60-70 mins at Carlisle given, as Allez points out, that Richardson is likely to be back v MK Dons.
I've been a big supporter of Parky this season. Thought he showed real chartacter over the summer and I backed him rooting out those like Moots and Dickson who diidn't fit his team ethic. But I lost a lot of my faith in him last week.
We got a couple of injuries and I thought his knee-jerk reaction destroyed much of the good work he had done in building a 'proper Charlton' spirit in the squad and took us right back to the headless chicken days of Pardew. I wonder if Randolph has put in his transfer request yet?
How about so he can also play against Northwich Victoria and Soton and rest Richardson properly giving him time to recover as he has been carrying an injury virtually the whole season ?
Please God, no... are you saying, Covered End, that decent squad players like Basey cannot now even expect a game in the Johnston's Paint because we prefer a borrowed journeyman?
Wasn't Basey our MoM in the last JP game, playing in two different positions across the back four?
Let's all pray you are wrong about Mr O getting another trial in the cup games!
Basey is of course is a left back and it is a right back that we need.
Basey replaced him and , as Allez astutely pointed out : : '''he had to go off after 60 mins in order to put Youga at right back (which is the situation we tried to avoid by bringing him into the team)''...