Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Jason Euell

sralansralan
edited September 2011 in General Charlton

Might come in for a bit of stick here but here goes.

Leaving sentiment out of this, I really don't think that he can do a decent job for us as a sub. Surely there are sharper and more effective players that would give us better options.Regarding last night, Mugson used his subs to change the shape and style of play. Euell came on and was totally ineffective, both as a striker/midfielder or whatever his job was.

«13

Comments

  • WheresmeticketWheresmeticket

    Might come in for a bit of stick here but here goes.

    Leaving sentiment out of this, I really don't think that he can do a decent job for us as a sub. Surely there are sharper and more effective players that would give us better options.Regarding last night, Mugson used his subs to change the shape and style of play. Euell came on and was totally ineffective, both as a striker/midfielder or whatever his job was.

    Agree. Don't get it, while PB is left hanging.

  • sammy391sammy391
    if he is gonna play , he has to start ! he did well when starting with benno vs reading
  • LargeAddickLargeAddick
    no stick from me, agree entirely. Not a striker. We have better midfield options. Was an 'old pals act' signing for me.
  • Oggy RedOggy Red
    edited September 2011
    I don't think that was down to Euell, Sralan.

    As a sub, he's primed by the management to play a certain role - but the team have to play to him too.
    He played well enough while he was on, but saw comparatively little of the ball, with our hit and hope hoofball.

    IMO, Powell used Euell to bring off a tiring Paul Hayes, more or less  playing like for like, and keeping the same formation.


    What was needed was a tactical change and pace in the hole (Waggy?) to run at tiring centrebacks and replace the by now ineffective Stephens.

    We needed to once again take the game to Wednesday and go for the 3 points.

  • DamoNorthStandDamoNorthStand
    We are DESPERATE for some impact strikers to come in on loan. Even last year, we had someone like Ecclestone on the bench. We need someone like Schlupp etc as we are looking seriously light up front.
  • grumpyaddickgrumpyaddick
    I think Euell was a shrewd signing for back-up, morale, experience and class but he is not an impact substitute.

    He was very impressive versus Reading and worked very well with Benno. He is a logical back up to Hayes but actually Waggy would probably be a more daring option to replace Hayes with 20 to go.

    No-one would have prospered against the Weds gorillas dealing with balls in the air when we had lost the plot in midfield.

    The question is not whether Euell a good signing (he is) but is Euell the right substitute up front when chasing a game and is he being selected for football reasons or emotional reasons?
  • The Prince-e-PaulThe Prince-e-Paul
    He appears to be a bit slow from what ive seen of him lately. Maybe he's not fully match fit. Didn't feel he put the fear into Wednesday as was needed at that point in the game. Fans favourite, he may be, but unless he produces the goods, he won't be for long sadly.
  • GreenieGreenie
    Euell was a straight swap for Hayes, this was not the answer, Euell was not the problem, 451 and Pritchard should have come on not Euell, that was the answer. Bad management.
  • DaveMehmetDaveMehmet
    IMO, Powell used Euell to bring off a tiring Paul Hayes

    Surely a cheap brass would have sufficed
  • smiffyboysmiffyboy
    Complete waste, not what we need, gives us nothing, too lightweight to hold the ball seems to have no touch when he does get it, need other better options can only have been signed due to old pals act.
  • Sponsored links:


  • robroyrobroy
    I agree here people. Our bench was weak last night. Highlights we need a fast impact sub. Still trust Powell to sort it out.
  • Oggy RedOggy Red
    Funny thing - if Stephens had made it 2-0 like he should have done, then that bench would have been just fine to close the game out.
    And nobody would have been saying it was the wrong bench.


    But at level pegging, I'm sure it was not lost on Powell that he didn't have a player on the bench to change tactics or create impetus.
    It was the first time this season that the situation arose.

    So many people on here wise with hindsight.
  • sadiejane1981sadiejane1981
    Euell has got ball skills comparatively more than most of the team, this comes with his premiership experience. He also has good experience and is versatile. He is fit and clean living, he has a love for Charlton and his friendship with Powell is a good thing. All of these reasons makes Euell a great signing! 

    However, he is not best as a sub. He is best as a starter, attacking midfield. fits in perfectly behind the likes of BWP and Benno. I think his versatility is the reason he is on the bench though, it is important with 11 starters and only a choice of 5 players to replace the injured or tired to have one of those five available competent enough to replace any of 6 players on the field. 

  • BigRedEvilBigRedEvil
    Think he played well when he started vs Reading, definitley grew into the game, but I agree he isn't a impact sub to change a game, then again I don't think we'll face many teams who are as physical as Wednesday
  • GregGreg
    But Euell's song (Gold) is the best we've had for years!
  • Kap10Kap10
    Not the first time that CP has been found wanting when it comes to substitutions and using them.  CP did well at Bury to turn things around at half time, but yesterday needed to do things that would affect the game positively from the sidelines during the second half.  We may be content with a point but we should be looking to win all games at the valley if we are serious about the automatics.  This was the bench he chose and it should have been capable to change the game back in our favour.
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    It was the bench he chose but Green and Benson weren't available.  Other than Evina (a defender) who else was there realistically that could have been on the bench that would have had an "impact"?

    As for "old pals act" please can we stop this as it's just silly.

    If you really honestly think Powell knowingly signed a player who wasn't up to the job just because he was a mate then you also have to say he should be sacked now as that is gross misconduct.


  • OaksterOakster
    edited September 2011
    would the points dropped by not having a substitute keeper over the course of a season be greater than those gained by having an extra attacking outfield player - i would have gambled with Benno in place of Sullivan last night....

    edit - didnt realise Benson was unfit but the general point still stands
  • sadiejane1981sadiejane1981
    would the points dropped by not having a substitute keeper over the course of a season be greater than those gained by having an extra attacking outfield player - i would have gambled with Benno in place of Sullivan last night....

    edit - didnt realise Benson was unfit but the general point still stands
    too much of a risk unless you have a versatile defender who has experience or training in goal it is not a risk worth taking. What is the point in scoring 5 if we let in 6? The substitute goalkeeper is a keeper for me all the time.
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    edited September 2011
    Taylor played in goal for a number of clubs in non-league and won the FA Trophy final as a keeper.

    Does that mean he's good enough to play "in nets" (as he says) in the league?  Don't know.  Could he fill in if there was no one else?  Would have thought so.

    It's an option but the real issue isn't sub keeper or no sub keeper but having players on the pitch and on the bench who can hold on to a game.   If you go two up and keep a clean sheet you don't need an impact sub.
  • Sponsored links:


  • LargeAddickLargeAddick
    It was the bench he chose but Green and Benson weren't available.  Other than Evina (a defender) who else was there realistically that could have been on the bench that would have had an "impact"?

    As for "old pals act" please can we stop this as it's just silly.

    If you really honestly think Powell knowingly signed a player who wasn't up to the job just because he was a mate then you also have to say he should be sacked now as that is gross misconduct.


    do we know that Benson wasn't available ?
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    didn't he break some fingers?
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    To be fair to Euell, it would have been difficult for any striker to shine when he came on as the service had dried up. He did manage to win a ball and shoot wide which was a self created chance and could have resulted in a goal on anotehr day. He is an ideal man to have on the bench because of his versatility and to be honest there were no viable attacking options available other than him yesterday. When fit, I would like to see Benno on there too but people underplay it but it is a real inconvenience to us having only 5 subs.
  • WheresmeticketWheresmeticket
    didn't he break some fingers?
    As in "put me on the bench or I'll break another one"?
  • LargeAddickLargeAddick
    didn't he break some fingers?
    yes, and missed Bury away but the other day CP said his only injury worry was BWP so from that I assumed, rightly or wrongly who knows, that Benno was fit for last night.
  • Gravesend_AddickGravesend_Addick
    Glad someone else started a thread about this as I didn't want to be the 1!!

    Really liked Euell in his 1st spell at the club as many of us did but I just dont see what he offers us now!

    Benson, in my opinion, is a much better option from the bench.  Just dont see what euell gives us that other players dont.

    It pains me to say as he was good for us in the past & a good, honest pro but I dont think he is effective nowadays!
  • LonelyNorthernAddickLonelyNorthernAddick
    Maybe someone like Hughes would've been a better option to come on as a substitute as he is more physical (as far as i know) and could potentially have shut them down physically in midfield, and then we could've been able to create more chances.

    I think we need to address how we use our substitutes altogether. May start a new thread about it ... 
  • colthe3rdcolthe3rd
    Can I just add, he came on in the 78th minute. Just a hunch but are people overreacting slightly here?
  • MortimericianMortimerician
    Problem is that Benno is poor at getting the ball under control and holding up the play so if you're banging the ball long then he's not much use despite his presence.  People seem to miss the fact that there are different types of forward that are better suited to parter certain other forwards and play to a certain game plan.  It's not like fantasy football where a forward is a forward.  Our tactics, in the light of the way that Wednesday were set up, didn't suit.  This doesn't mean Euell is for the scrap heap.
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    Our tactics, in the light of the way that Wednesday were set up, didn't suit.  This doesn't mean Euell is for the scrap heap.
    what he said
    Can I just add, he came on in the 78th minute. Just a hunch but are people overreacting slightly here?
    Maybe just a smudge. 

    At least we know who our new whipping boy is for the season.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!