Now am I wrong in thinking that the reason we play this formation is not necessarily that it suits our play better, but because we are blessed with 5 talented midfielders in Sam, Semedo, Racon, Bailey and Shelvey so we make changes to accommodate everyone, because that's the way I see it. If this is the case then why did we stick to the same formation last night when we played the ever so untalented Mr. Muscle(Matt Spring for the sheer lack of any on his whole body) and Jug Ears Wagstaff (who is actually a bit talented but has funny ears). I mean this is beyond the whole point that our 4-5-1 doesn't work anymore but could anyone really see us reaching the levels we did earlier in the season with this system without Racon and Bailey?
0
Comments
Not mooney's fault just i think parkinson did not really use him in the right position.
Also agree why play 451 last night should of played mckenzie up front with mooney, which i think would work quite well
they would be my pairing for saturday....dunno why we just don't get Burton's hernia sorted sooner rather than later, he's clearly 'carrying' it.
Battleships !
Hangman
Agreed ....... for 5 weeks now, we've had a half fit, half paced player who has clearly lost his effectiveness.
It's not that we're still winning with his involvement in the team.
If Parky had straightaway got the player off to hospital, got his hernia fixed - Burton would be soon ready to come back.
It would be like signing a new player.
In our case the 5 always seem to be closer to the 4 leaving a vacant area the size of Millwall's trophy cabinet upto the 1 lone striker. The 5 then in turn seem to get under one an others feet hence not providing that outlet ball/width etc...thus creating panic and confusion onto the back 4.Meanwhile the lonesome 1 is upfront contemplating his navel being guarded by two 6'2'' center halves while he waits for the long high ball to be pumped up front in the hope that he brings the ball down,turn's, sprints away from the two center halves,avoids the lunging challenges of both retreating full backs and then cooly chips the advancing goalkeeper.
Got to sign off now as here comes Matron with my tablets.
Didn't have faith in midfield 4 to stop attacks.
Could get the best out of Semedo in 5 man midfield.
Didn't fancy Shelvey in midfield 4 but wanted to play him.
Wanted to give full-backs a bit more freedom to get forward.
Perhaps he didn't think he had a decent enough pair of strikers?
Thought that many 3rd Div teams wouldn't be able to cope as they were used to 4-4-2.
Thought overall it best suited the players at his disposal.
You'd have to say, that for a while it worked very well and it still might in the future. Think the bottom line is that injuries disrupted the team, results affected confidence, confidence affected performance. Now the challenge is to rebuild the whole thing again and get over injuries to key players like Elliott, Burton and Richardson. Not easy but it can be done.
All the back four had decent games, but played too deep, inviting Saints to attack us. Spring was anonymous and hiding, making it hard for Semedo to play his simple out-ball, wingers and forwards OK. 4-42 next match please and FFS defence push up.
We have generally played 4-5-1 with Semedo, Racon and Shelvey in the central midfield positions and it's clear for those three that Semedo is the holding/defensive midfielder. That should leave Racon as the 'governor', receiving the ball, pinging balls around ... especially out to the wide players ... occasionally running at the defence and sometimes getting shots in. Shelvey, in turn, should be supporting the front man, frequently running at the defence, getting lots of shots in, slipping through balls into the box etc.
Even when we were getting results at the start of the season, could we honestly say that roles as I have described were being fulfilled ... either by those named, or whoever played in these positions?
I'm not sure that Parkinson or the coaching team go to this level of instruction ... hence, our players are unclear ... and they seem to have great trouble working it out on the pitch.
For me, this is where we should be addressing things.
It was definitely 5 in midfield last night rather than the usual 4.5. Semedo looked very ponderous to me and didn't move the ball quickly at all. He looks nervous. A game at right back on Sat (if Richardson is unfit) may help get him back into things. The Saints full backs often drove our two wingers backwards (how many times...and I include Holden....did you see them coming back with the ball rather than facing and taking on the FB's?) Mooney was totally isolated and received no help from Wagstaff, Sam or midfield.
Physically Saints seemed bigger and stronger than us. Technically (being able to control the ball) they seemed to have the better players. Burton did improve this when he came on.
The defending for the 1st goal was awful. Someone has to head that away but we let matey have a half-volley on the six yard line.
Think it will be 4-4-2 on Sat but with only one winger. On last night's evidence, I wish to revise my earlier call for Wagstaff to play instead of Sam!
one word... carlisle
one word... carlisle[/quote]
Agreed. But why should that be? Those players as individuals are not physically weak or lightweight. No more so than most other midfields in the division. There has to be more to it. It has to be down to other factors such as, lack of effort, poor motivation or tactics.
I would still say that individually we have the best midfield in the division in terms of skill and ability.
I cannot remember a Charlton team playing consistently well with 442 since Scott Parker left.
Curbs papered over the cracks for a while, but most of his success post Parker was by playing the 451 formation. I recall most fans agreeing that Danny Murphy couldn't play in a 442 and the only way to accommodate him was in a 451. However Murphy doesn't seem to have this problem at Fulham and plays very well in a 442.
I recall Bailey's debut against Reading, when we had a midfield of Sam, Bailey, Holland and Bouazza. On paper that's no stronger than our current midfield and yet we scored four goals and played very well. But Bailey on that day was tenacious in the tackle and the team as a whole worked for each other in covering and putting in the effort. So I think in order to be successful playing 442 you have to have a player like a Parker or Bailey, putting in 110% effort, and the whole team playing well around them.
I don't think i have ever seen anyone as isolated as Mooney was last night.
*Midway through 2004/2005 - and our form under Curbs after that was patchy at best.
I don't think i have ever seen anyone as isolated as Mooney was last night.[/quote]
That was my point. After Parker left he started the 451 experiment and we have never really played consistently well since.
The problem ultimately boils down to the fact that other than Darren Bent, we have not had a decent, consistent striker in the last 6 seasons. in fact you could argue for the whole decade, or at least since the demise of Mendonca.
Charlton Manager.
PI_S PO_R PA_K_NS_N ????
PILS POUR PARKINSON??
What's that got to do with anything?
Although logically the five man midfield seems the way forward, partly to accomadate Shelvey, he seems to play to deep IMO. and the last two games has simply been ineffective and wasteful by his standards......
As others have posted the midfield seemed to lack, a cohesion, as a unit, who stays back who goes forward, who plays behind etc..... Sam should be more effective, and less wasteful, still not convinced that he can play two consecutive games at a decent level, time will tell if the promise he showed at the start of the season is to be fulfilled. Always feel happier with Bailey in the team, as he seems to drive the team on
Last years game plan was play two wingers, but one forward was small and the other poor in the air (Mooney) and Forster coming off the bench was no bigger than Burton. Little wonder that the wide men didn’t rain in crosses. If we go 4-4-2 it needs a big target man and a quick guy on the last shoulder. So far we have Akpo who is neither, although I do like him as long as we don’t lump it forward.