Addick Addict said: "a shame we had to undermine Randolph in the first place. For someone who was always going to have his allegiances elsewhere as evidenced by his speedy exit.''
I have to agree with that. The chap did a job. No more, no less. IMO Randolph could have done it just as well, but Wolves were not going to lend us their man to sit on the bench.
Which is plain wrong. The call as to who wears a Charlton shirt should be ours, not the loaning club. The slightly off-kilter note in this is Parky's claim the day before Ikeme's debut that it was 50-50 in his mind between playing Randolph or the loanee - when it appears that a promise had already been given to Wolves.
Oggy's asked ''will we miss him?'' Well no. You need to get to know someone before you can miss them. And we didn't really have time, did we?
[cite]Posted By: Graham R.[/cite]Anyone else hear Dean Kiely on R5, hinting at a possible return? If Randolph leaves in January, perhaps?
Good signing if he's happy to play 2nd/3rd fiddle. But on SS recently he emphasised how frustrated he felt being on the bench and said that whilst recognising his age he felt he should not be prejudiced because of it. Why sit on the bench in League 1 when you can do the same in the Championship - for almost certainly more money.
Unless, of course, he was returning as standby keeper/goalkeeping coach which would make a lot of sense.
Would be a great addition, he'd help mentor Robbie, provide good cover and help with the gk coaching. Also would allow Randolph to go, as he won't want to stay at a club where he is 3rd choice, behind Elliot and a loan!
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]I have to agree with that. The chap did a job. No more, no less. IMO Randolph could have done it just as well, but Wolves were not going to lend us their man to sit on the bench.
Which is plain wrong. The call as to who wears a Charlton shirt should be ours, not the loaning club. The slightly off-kilter note in this is Parky's claim the day before Ikeme's debut that it was 50-50 in his mind between playing Randolph or the loanee - when it appears that a promise had already been given to Wolves.
There is no evidence to back this up. I think Parky just thinks Ikeme is a better keeper, so used him instead.
he won't be missed, to me he was no better/worse than what we had. Think Radolph has been a bit hard done by to be honest and who could blame him if he wanted out in January.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]I have to agree with that. The chap did a job. No more, no less. IMO Randolph could have done it just as well, but Wolves were not going to lend us their man to sit on the bench.
Which is plain wrong. The call as to who wears a Charlton shirt should be ours, not the loaning club. The slightly off-kilter note in this is Parky's claim the day before Ikeme's debut that it was 50-50 in his mind between playing Randolph or the loanee - when it appears that a promise had already been given to Wolves.
There is no evidence to back this up. I think Parky just thinks Ikeme is a better keeper, so used him instead.
But how Randolph going to become a better keeper if he isn't playing? He kept us in the game against Northwich and yes he made an error of judegement in not coming out for the goal but he wasn't the reason we lost. Ikeme made at least one if not two blunders against Southampton but because that was the JPT it didn't matter.
This attitude is also the reason why we have virtually a 40 year old as our first choice keeper - because all the top clubs want finished articles and consequently play foreign number ones or twos. The reason we had the likes of Shilton, Clemence, Corrigan and Parkes at the same time is because they all started in the first team at around 18 so, by the time they were 26 or 27, they were all capable of being England number ones.
Foster will be 27 in April and is meant to be the heir apparant for the England jersey. This is simply mind boggling bearing in mind that he has started just 11 Premiership matches for Man Utd and is not even first choice there.
The other issue is that there may come a time when we won't be able to get a loan keeper in. This would have been the ideal opportunity to see if Randolph was good enough.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Sometimes you have to trust the things you don't see - such as the training they go through every single day.
Parkinson (and the goalkeeping coach) obviously thought Ikeme was better than Darren and they don't see Darren as a future #1 so I'm happy with that.
Darren had a chance of first team football at Hereford (?) and obviously that did not convince the CAFC people either.
What WSS said. It may be obvious in training that Randolph isn't going to make it for us. People can keep bringing up the Liverpool game but that was over 2 years ago. He may not have had much of a chance, but I don't want him to get a chance if Parky doesn't think he's good enough. I know this begs the question why did we keep him, but you always need a backup keeper. Once Elliot was injured we got a loanee in, one who Parky thought was better so used him instead.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Sometimes you have to trust the things you don't see - such as the training they go through every single day.
Parkinson (and the goalkeeping coach) obviously thought Ikeme was better than Darren and they don't see Darren as a future #1 so I'm happy with that.
Darren had a chance of first team football at Hereford (?) and obviously that did not convince the CAFC people either.
What WSS said. It may be obvious in training that Randolph isn't going to make it for us. People can keep bringing up the Liverpool game but that was over 2 years ago. He may not have had much of a chance, but I don't want him to get a chance if Parky doesn't think he's good enough. I know this begs the question why did we keep him, but you always need a backup keeper. Once Elliot was injured we got a loanee in, one who Parky thought was better so used him instead.
So why did Parky say, on the day before Ikeme made his debut, that it really was 50/50 between him and Randolph because that is exactly what he said.
If it really was that close then there was an opportinity to give Randolph for half a dozen games.
Because saying "Darren is a pretty poor keeper and i'm putting Carl in straight away" wouldnt not be very good management - especially considering Randolph HAD to play in the Northwich game.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Because saying "Darren is a pretty poor keeper and i'm putting Carl in straight away" wouldnt not be very good management - especially considering Randolph HAD to play in the Northwich game.
So, if Elliott had been injured during a match we would have had a "pretty poor keeper" sitting on the bench waiting to replace him. That really doesn't make sense.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]I know - we should have had Iker Casillas on the bench.
I would have played Casillas in front of Elliot to be honest. I know he would have been a loan player and has less premier league experience than Randolph but he could have done a job
Parky's goal is to get us promoted, he obviously weighed up the medium-term benefits of giving Randolph some experience versus the immediate benefits of playing a better keeper for some crucial games. Nobody would've been happy if Randolph had played and had cost us the franchise game.
Obviously it does suggest that Parky and his coaching staff doesn't see Randolph as a long term challenger to Elliott, but even that we can't be sure of.
The point about the 50:50 comment - pointed out by many on here at the time - was that if there was so little between the two of them, you surely go with your own man.
Unless you dare not upset the loaning club - in this case Wolves - by sitting their man on the bench.
I think it's inconceivable that before agreeing the loan Wolves did not seek informal assurances (I won't say guarantees, let's stick with assurances) that their man was actually going to play.
Anyway, all irrelevant now. Ikeme has gone. Randolph has been underminded and will be off in Jan if someone makes a decent offer, and Rob E will be back v Brighton. And the last point at least, is a very good thing, I think we can all agree.
being 50-50 on who to select would be after having taken into account the various factors so I don't think you can take that to mean that the manager had equal confidence in the ability of the two players. And that is assuming that the 50-50 comment is statistically accurate anyway!
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]I have to agree with that. The chap did a job. No more, no less. IMO Randolph could have done it just as well, but Wolves were not going to lend us their man to sit on the bench.
Which is plain wrong. The call as to who wears a Charlton shirt should be ours, not the loaning club. The slightly off-kilter note in this is Parky's claim the day before Ikeme's debut that it was 50-50 in his mind between playing Randolph or the loanee - when it appears that a promise had already been given to Wolves.
There is no evidence to back this up. I think Parky just thinks Ikeme is a better keeper, so used him instead.
But how Randolph going to become a better keeper if he isn't playing? He kept us in the game against Northwich and yes he made an error of judegement in not coming out for the goal but he wasn't the reason we lost. Ikeme made at least one if not two blunders against Southampton but because that was the JPT it didn't matter.
This attitude is also the reason why we have virtually a 40 year old as our first choice keeper - because all the top clubs want finished articles and consequently play foreign number ones or twos. The reason we had the likes of Shilton, Clemence, Corrigan and Parkes at the same time is because they all started in the first team at around 18 so, by the time they were 26 or 27, they were all capable of being England number ones.
Foster will be 27 in April and is meant to be the heir apparant for the England jersey. This is simply mind boggling bearing in mind that he has started just 11 Premiership matches for Man Utd and is not even first choice there.
Sorry AA but on what professional and practical basis are you a better judge than the Manager?
Comments
I have to agree with that. The chap did a job. No more, no less. IMO Randolph could have done it just as well, but Wolves were not going to lend us their man to sit on the bench.
Which is plain wrong. The call as to who wears a Charlton shirt should be ours, not the loaning club. The slightly off-kilter note in this is Parky's claim the day before Ikeme's debut that it was 50-50 in his mind between playing Randolph or the loanee - when it appears that a promise had already been given to Wolves.
Oggy's asked ''will we miss him?'' Well no. You need to get to know someone before you can miss them. And we didn't really have time, did we?
Good signing if he's happy to play 2nd/3rd fiddle. But on SS recently he emphasised how frustrated he felt being on the bench and said that whilst recognising his age he felt he should not be prejudiced because of it. Why sit on the bench in League 1 when you can do the same in the Championship - for almost certainly more money.
Unless, of course, he was returning as standby keeper/goalkeeping coach which would make a lot of sense.
Yeah. That's what I was thinking.
Steve Brown.
Would be a great addition, he'd help mentor Robbie, provide good cover and help with the gk coaching. Also would allow Randolph to go, as he won't want to stay at a club where he is 3rd choice, behind Elliot and a loan!
There is no evidence to back this up. I think Parky just thinks Ikeme is a better keeper, so used him instead.
More confident with him in goal than I ever have been with Darren.
Hard to say which is the better both having played so little and most of Ikeme's games having been in hurricanes but out of the two I prefer Elliot.
Deano as back up to Rob would be great but only if Deano is willing to be no.2 and we could afford the wages.
But how Randolph going to become a better keeper if he isn't playing? He kept us in the game against Northwich and yes he made an error of judegement in not coming out for the goal but he wasn't the reason we lost. Ikeme made at least one if not two blunders against Southampton but because that was the JPT it didn't matter.
This attitude is also the reason why we have virtually a 40 year old as our first choice keeper - because all the top clubs want finished articles and consequently play foreign number ones or twos. The reason we had the likes of Shilton, Clemence, Corrigan and Parkes at the same time is because they all started in the first team at around 18 so, by the time they were 26 or 27, they were all capable of being England number ones.
Foster will be 27 in April and is meant to be the heir apparant for the England jersey. This is simply mind boggling bearing in mind that he has started just 11 Premiership matches for Man Utd and is not even first choice there.
No but conversely they have no chance of becoming world class playing with the stiffs.
Parkinson (and the goalkeeping coach) obviously thought Ikeme was better than Darren and they don't see Darren as a future #1 so I'm happy with that.
Darren had a chance of first team football at Hereford (?) and obviously that did not convince the CAFC people either.
What WSS said. It may be obvious in training that Randolph isn't going to make it for us. People can keep bringing up the Liverpool game but that was over 2 years ago. He may not have had much of a chance, but I don't want him to get a chance if Parky doesn't think he's good enough. I know this begs the question why did we keep him, but you always need a backup keeper. Once Elliot was injured we got a loanee in, one who Parky thought was better so used him instead.
I'm pleased.
So why did Parky say, on the day before Ikeme made his debut, that it really was 50/50 between him and Randolph because that is exactly what he said.
If it really was that close then there was an opportinity to give Randolph for half a dozen games.
So, if Elliott had been injured during a match we would have had a "pretty poor keeper" sitting on the bench waiting to replace him. That really doesn't make sense.
I would have played Casillas in front of Elliot to be honest. I know he would have been a loan player and has less premier league experience than Randolph but he could have done a job
Some on here would still moan that we should've signed Buffon instead.
Obviously it does suggest that Parky and his coaching staff doesn't see Randolph as a long term challenger to Elliott, but even that we can't be sure of.
Unless you dare not upset the loaning club - in this case Wolves - by sitting their man on the bench.
I think it's inconceivable that before agreeing the loan Wolves did not seek informal assurances (I won't say guarantees, let's stick with assurances) that their man was actually going to play.
Anyway, all irrelevant now. Ikeme has gone. Randolph has been underminded and will be off in Jan if someone makes a decent offer, and Rob E will be back v Brighton. And the last point at least, is a very good thing, I think we can all agree.
Sorry AA but on what professional and practical basis are you a better judge than the Manager?