Spanners v Charlton - Post match fury
Comments
-
http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/23534618Callumcafc said:
Powell lost BWP, Haynes and Fuller in that summer. He spent all summer chasing replacements.ElfsborgAddick said:
Genuine question. No I don't.Callumcafc said:
You do remember the circumstances under which he was signed, don't you?ElfsborgAddick said:
Church has had enough chances, he will have to go.cafctom said:
For missing an absolute sitter which he didn't even come close to scoring when it was 1-1. Who else should be blamed for that?cafc4life said:
Blaming Church now for us losing? Bore off you idiotcafctom said:"Yeah but let's give Church another one year deal as Luzon will get the best out of him and he runs around etc etc"
Load of bollocks. Ship him off the moment the season is over. Hopeless. Disgrace to the shirt.
We should not have signed him in the first place, any striker with a one in five goal ratio is not to the standard we should be signing.
So in fairness to Church it is Powell we should be criticising for bringing him in.
So in fairness to Powell we should be criticising Slater and Tone for bringing him in.
I firmly believe Church was only on trial as a fall back option in case we couldn't get anyone better and we needed numbers to fulfill friendlies.
It got to about three days until the beginning of the season and Kermorgant was still our only senior striker. Powell was left to offer Church a contract as well as bring in Sordell on loan from Bolton.
The season started two days later. We almost went into the season with one striker. Gives you an idea of how desperate the situation was.3 -
Anyway, back to the post match views. :-)1
-
When cafc4life said "Blaming Church now for us losing?" you didn't dispute it there. Your reply suggested that that was what you were saying. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but that's how it came across.cafctom said:
Sorry can you point out where I said he was responsible for us losing?EpsomAddick said:
No. It's a bad miss and he should have done better.cafctom said:
So its OK that he missed a free header? Even though he is a six foot "striker"?thenewbie said:
Since when did Watt actually score a header? Actually, how often does even win headers? Generally that's Igor's role. Watt's got a lot of talent no question but aerial prowess is not really in his skillset on current evidence. Maybe Church COULD have done better with one chance but the other was far too high, no striker in the league has a 1:1 chance:goal ratio so putting all the blame on Church is ridiculous.cafctom said:
Watt would have at least made a connection with the ball.cafc4life said:
It wasn't a sitter. If Watt had missed it no one would of said a thing. Your just looking for another excuse to dig him out .cafctom said:
For missing an absolute sitter which he didn't even come close to scoring when it was 1-1. Who else should be blamed for that?cafc4life said:
Blaming Church now for us losing? Bore off you idiotcafctom said:"Yeah but let's give Church another one year deal as Luzon will get the best out of him and he runs around etc etc"
Load of bollocks. Ship him off the moment the season is over. Hopeless. Disgrace to the shirt.
So why didn't we score that then? The cross? The rain getting in his eyes? You tell me why he barely even made a connection with the ball.
It's what you said earlier, that he is the one to blame for us losing, that I take issue with. He wasn't responsible for us playing poorly throughout the game. Nor for us being down to 10 men. Nor for Watt and Vetokele having poor games. Nor for the ricochet that fell to Gueye for the equaliser. Nor for Hooiveld reacting quicker than Johnson for the winner.
.
Still, it's good that you don't disagree with anything else I said. So will you retract what you said about Church being a 'disgrace to the shirt'?0 -
Powelly knew what was best for the club and was unlucky.0
-
Hang on, so you're telling me that I suggested we lost because of Church based on something I didn't actually say? Ha, OK.EpsomAddick said:
When cafc4life said "Blaming Church now for us losing?" you didn't dispute it there. Your reply suggested that that was what you were saying. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but that's how it came across.cafctom said:
Sorry can you point out where I said he was responsible for us losing?EpsomAddick said:
No. It's a bad miss and he should have done better.cafctom said:
So its OK that he missed a free header? Even though he is a six foot "striker"?thenewbie said:
Since when did Watt actually score a header? Actually, how often does even win headers? Generally that's Igor's role. Watt's got a lot of talent no question but aerial prowess is not really in his skillset on current evidence. Maybe Church COULD have done better with one chance but the other was far too high, no striker in the league has a 1:1 chance:goal ratio so putting all the blame on Church is ridiculous.cafctom said:
Watt would have at least made a connection with the ball.cafc4life said:
It wasn't a sitter. If Watt had missed it no one would of said a thing. Your just looking for another excuse to dig him out .cafctom said:
For missing an absolute sitter which he didn't even come close to scoring when it was 1-1. Who else should be blamed for that?cafc4life said:
Blaming Church now for us losing? Bore off you idiotcafctom said:"Yeah but let's give Church another one year deal as Luzon will get the best out of him and he runs around etc etc"
Load of bollocks. Ship him off the moment the season is over. Hopeless. Disgrace to the shirt.
So why didn't we score that then? The cross? The rain getting in his eyes? You tell me why he barely even made a connection with the ball.
It's what you said earlier, that he is the one to blame for us losing, that I take issue with. He wasn't responsible for us playing poorly throughout the game. Nor for us being down to 10 men. Nor for Watt and Vetokele having poor games. Nor for the ricochet that fell to Gueye for the equaliser. Nor for Hooiveld reacting quicker than Johnson for the winner.
.
Still, it's good that you don't disagree with anything else I said. So will you retract what you said about Church being a 'disgrace to the shirt'?
No I won't retract what I said. The guy scores 5 goals in approximately 50 games and has the nerve to cup his ears to the North Stand when he scores in a League Cup game against Colchester. I don't care how much he runs around, he clearly hasn't done enough in training to develop himself into a better player.
1 -
Well, you seemed to be blaming Church for something more than just missing that chance. Again though, apologies for misreading.
"he clearly hasn't done enough in training to develop himself into a better player" - that criticism could be applied to pretty much every footballer on the planet who isn't playing at the very highest level. Why only Church? It's remarkable how you claim to know how good he should be if he's never actually played as well as he should have done, and how you know how hard he works in training.
Alan McCormack was a disgrace to the shirt. Izale MacLeod was a disgrace to the shirt. Danny Mills was a disgrace to the shirt in his second spell. Are you really putting Church in that same category?1 -
Notice how you didn't touch upon the fact that he gave stick to our supporters after scoring a rare goal.EpsomAddick said:Well, you seemed to be blaming Church for something more than just missing that chance. Again though, apologies for misreading.
"he clearly hasn't done enough in training to develop himself into a better player" - that criticism could be applied to pretty much every footballer on the planet who isn't playing at the very highest level. Why only Church? It's remarkable how you claim to know how good he should be if he's never actually played as well as he should have done, and how you know how hard he works in training.
Alan McCormack was a disgrace to the shirt. Izale MacLeod was a disgrace to the shirt. Danny Mills was a disgrace to the shirt in his second spell. Are you really putting Church in that same category?
I don't know what makes him better than the likes of McCormack or McLeod. He runs around more?
What many fail to mention is that the reason he is running around so much is usually because he has failed to win/trap the ball into him the first time around and therefore has to chase. Usually chasing once the player is away from him and putting in a token gesture run which he knows will lead to nothing, but at least hes trying right?
Not sure how he can be compared to Danny Mills, who was a good player for us but his reputation was tarnished based on discipline.
If he is doing the right things in training day in and day out then he would know how to make connection with a ball when he gets a free header or how to not sidefoot a ball into the keepers arms when he is through on goal. I would expect those failings with players who are at Conference level, who have access to Conference training resources - not from someone who is plying their trade in the Championship and on the international scene.0 -
Notice how you've decided to judge his entire attitude based on one incident. The difference between him and Mccormack, MacLeod or Mills is that their attitude was shockingly bad. Mills in particular should have done better in his second spell but decided to get sent off.
Your third paragraph is complete rubbish. Most of his runs are made before the ball is played and help draw the defenders out of position.
Did you call Chris Eagles a disgrace when he missed that golden headed opportunity against Reading? Church's finishing is poor, yes, but there are lots of other strikers at this level who can be accused of the same thing.
Going back to your disgrace comment - you're doing him a great disservice by calling him that because I think he puts in as much effort as he can but is limit by his lack of natural talent. Calling him a disgrace makes him one of the villains in our history, which he certainly isn't.0 -
I didn't call Chris Eagles a disgrace, because his record isn't 1 goal every 10 games or so.EpsomAddick said:Notice how you've decided to judge his entire attitude based on one incident. The difference between him and Mccormack, MacLeod or Mills is that their attitude was shockingly bad. Mills in particular should have done better in his second spell but decided to get sent off.
Your third paragraph is complete rubbish. Most of his runs are made before the ball is played and help draw the defenders out of position.
Did you call Chris Eagles a disgrace when he missed that golden headed opportunity against Reading? Church's finishing is poor, yes, but there are lots of other strikers at this level who can be accused of the same thing.
Going back to your disgrace comment - you're doing him a great disservice by calling him that because I think he puts in as much effort as he can but is limit by his lack of natural talent. Calling him a disgrace makes him one of the villains in our history, which he certainly isn't.
Watch him play next time he comes on or starts. A lot of his sprints are actually in the direction of our own goal, as he will start to run behind their defender who is in possession of the ball.
You keep going on about effort. Again - this is a guy who cups his ears to the fans who pay his wages after being largely dreadful for us. That for me is disgraceful.
I'm basing my opinions on what I've seen week in and week out. Don't see why you're trying to argue against it, as there is very little to suggest he has been anything short of abysmal in his time here.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Chris you were fired. Please just concentrate on Huddersfield now - you need to keep the 250 match unbeaten run going.Sir Chrissy said:
Here's there to defend !!! Just cos he set a goal up doesn't make him better defensively.WSS said:Fox who setup the goal yeah?
2 -
-
A league one player at best.cafctom said:
Hang on, so you're telling me that I suggested we lost because of Church based on something I didn't actually say? Ha, OK.EpsomAddick said:
When cafc4life said "Blaming Church now for us losing?" you didn't dispute it there. Your reply suggested that that was what you were saying. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but that's how it came across.cafctom said:
Sorry can you point out where I said he was responsible for us losing?EpsomAddick said:
No. It's a bad miss and he should have done better.cafctom said:
So its OK that he missed a free header? Even though he is a six foot "striker"?thenewbie said:
Since when did Watt actually score a header? Actually, how often does even win headers? Generally that's Igor's role. Watt's got a lot of talent no question but aerial prowess is not really in his skillset on current evidence. Maybe Church COULD have done better with one chance but the other was far too high, no striker in the league has a 1:1 chance:goal ratio so putting all the blame on Church is ridiculous.cafctom said:
Watt would have at least made a connection with the ball.cafc4life said:
It wasn't a sitter. If Watt had missed it no one would of said a thing. Your just looking for another excuse to dig him out .cafctom said:
For missing an absolute sitter which he didn't even come close to scoring when it was 1-1. Who else should be blamed for that?cafc4life said:
Blaming Church now for us losing? Bore off you idiotcafctom said:"Yeah but let's give Church another one year deal as Luzon will get the best out of him and he runs around etc etc"
Load of bollocks. Ship him off the moment the season is over. Hopeless. Disgrace to the shirt.
So why didn't we score that then? The cross? The rain getting in his eyes? You tell me why he barely even made a connection with the ball.
It's what you said earlier, that he is the one to blame for us losing, that I take issue with. He wasn't responsible for us playing poorly throughout the game. Nor for us being down to 10 men. Nor for Watt and Vetokele having poor games. Nor for the ricochet that fell to Gueye for the equaliser. Nor for Hooiveld reacting quicker than Johnson for the winner.
.
Still, it's good that you don't disagree with anything else I said. So will you retract what you said about Church being a 'disgrace to the shirt'?
No I won't retract what I said. The guy scores 5 goals in approximately 50 games and has the nerve to cup his ears to the North Stand when he scores in a League Cup game against Colchester. I don't care how much he runs around, he clearly hasn't done enough in training to develop himself into a better player.1 -
Church is absolutely shocking and the 30th of June can't come quickly enough so my hard earned money can stop paying his wages.3
-
I'm not arguing that Church has been particularly good for us. I think abysmal is too harsh though. I'd say he's a League 1level player, brought in because we had no-one else, who has given his all for the club. That, for me, can never be a disgrace.cafctom said:
I didn't call Chris Eagles a disgrace, because his record isn't 1 goal every 10 games or so.EpsomAddick said:Notice how you've decided to judge his entire attitude based on one incident. The difference between him and Mccormack, MacLeod or Mills is that their attitude was shockingly bad. Mills in particular should have done better in his second spell but decided to get sent off.
Your third paragraph is complete rubbish. Most of his runs are made before the ball is played and help draw the defenders out of position.
Did you call Chris Eagles a disgrace when he missed that golden headed opportunity against Reading? Church's finishing is poor, yes, but there are lots of other strikers at this level who can be accused of the same thing.
Going back to your disgrace comment - you're doing him a great disservice by calling him that because I think he puts in as much effort as he can but is limit by his lack of natural talent. Calling him a disgrace makes him one of the villains in our history, which he certainly isn't.
Watch him play next time he comes on or starts. A lot of his sprints are actually in the direction of our own goal, as he will start to run behind their defender who is in possession of the ball.
You keep going on about effort. Again - this is a guy who cups his ears to the fans who pay his wages after being largely dreadful for us. That for me is disgraceful.
I'm basing my opinions on what I've seen week in and week out. Don't see why you're trying to argue against it, as there is very little to suggest he has been anything short of abysmal in his time here.
By your logic Eagles should be a disgrace because he should have spent more time on the training field learning how to head the ball properly. He learned his trade at Man U, so surely he should be as good at finishing as Rooney?
You keep going on about one incident. Imagine thousands of people were telling you that you were crap at your job and then you did something right. Would you not at least feel the urge to do something like that? And did you criticise Wilson when he did the same last Boxing Day? He didn't do it when he scored at Blackpool the other week. You also seem to think it means he holds the fans in contempt, which I don't think is true.1 -
This, this .. and T H I SAFKABartram said:Cursed.
Feckin gypsy cursed1 -
Chris Eagles played at Manchester United as a teenager, he hasn't been playing with those players for about 10 years. I'm confident he will be more of a success for us than Church, think that is clear to see.EpsomAddick said:
I'm not arguing that Church has been particularly good for us. I think abysmal is too harsh though. I'd say he's a League 1level player, brought in because we had no-one else, who has given his all for the club. That, for me, can never be a disgrace.cafctom said:
I didn't call Chris Eagles a disgrace, because his record isn't 1 goal every 10 games or so.EpsomAddick said:Notice how you've decided to judge his entire attitude based on one incident. The difference between him and Mccormack, MacLeod or Mills is that their attitude was shockingly bad. Mills in particular should have done better in his second spell but decided to get sent off.
Your third paragraph is complete rubbish. Most of his runs are made before the ball is played and help draw the defenders out of position.
Did you call Chris Eagles a disgrace when he missed that golden headed opportunity against Reading? Church's finishing is poor, yes, but there are lots of other strikers at this level who can be accused of the same thing.
Going back to your disgrace comment - you're doing him a great disservice by calling him that because I think he puts in as much effort as he can but is limit by his lack of natural talent. Calling him a disgrace makes him one of the villains in our history, which he certainly isn't.
Watch him play next time he comes on or starts. A lot of his sprints are actually in the direction of our own goal, as he will start to run behind their defender who is in possession of the ball.
You keep going on about effort. Again - this is a guy who cups his ears to the fans who pay his wages after being largely dreadful for us. That for me is disgraceful.
I'm basing my opinions on what I've seen week in and week out. Don't see why you're trying to argue against it, as there is very little to suggest he has been anything short of abysmal in his time here.
By your logic Eagles should be a disgrace because he should have spent more time on the training field learning how to head the ball properly. He learned his trade at Man U, so surely he should be as good at finishing as Rooney?
You keep going on about one incident. Imagine thousands of people were telling you that you were crap at your job and then you did something right. Would you not at least feel the urge to do something like that? And did you criticise Wilson when he did the same last Boxing Day? He didn't do it when he scored at Blackpool the other week. You also seem to think it means he holds the fans in contempt, which I don't think is true.
And as for "people telling Church he was crap" - yes, they were on social media and online forums. On match days, when it mattered, he was getting support like every other player on the pitch. If I'd scored 3 goals in about 35 games then I wouldn't have the nerve to start cupping ears to the fans as if they were responsible for me being inept.0 -
Has he slept with your Mrs?3
-
There's a difference between players who take the mickey and players who lack something but don't hide. Church is the latter. A better player would have connected with that header. But a better player probably wouldn't be a second-choice forward at a mid-table Championship club.6
-
Well said Brentfordaddick.
And it is utterly laughable to accuse Church of blaming the fans for his own failings. Unless of course you have evidence that he does?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I suppose a 3 point gift for Fulham on tuesday night is out of the question?1
-
Was in a Stockholm bar desperately trying to keep up with the game via twitter on the pubs sh*tty wifi. Soul destroying when I got the update saying they'd got a winner. Only twenty minutes before I'd given a poor old Swedish woman the fright of her life celebrating our goal!
Some things just don't change do they? Sounds like quite a gutsy performance but doesn't make the results any better. Really thought we were going to do it this time. Hopefully we can make up for it slightly tomorrow night, I haven't seen us beat Fulham for years.
Also no chance in hell that I would not mind us losing tomorrow because it would help send Millwall down.0 -
"Sounds like quite a gutsy performance..." No, gutless like all the previous ones against them.0
-
Really....?...... We had 10 men for the majority of the game, most of the players were absolutely shattered at the end.....Oh and we almost won with 10 men.Cardinal Sin said:"Sounds like quite a gutsy performance..." No, gutless like all the previous ones against them.
Personally I am very proud of all of them.......!
0 -
Agreed mate, the team just didn't turn up, were awful and Millwall deserved their win, so dissapointing after the way we have played recently.Cardinal Sin said:"Sounds like quite a gutsy performance..." No, gutless like all the previous ones against them.
Mind you not as dissapointing as the behaviour of a couple of idiots at the beamback. We were all gutted when they took the lead, but some big fat slob at the front took it upon hiself to go up to the big screen and scream c*nt this and c*nt that at the top of his voice. Loads of woman and children all around him, total embarrassment, and we moan about the behaviour of their fans!!2 -
All players miss chances. It wasn't a terrible miss. Timed his jump a bit wrong. Frustrating as it was a key moment, but he didn't mean to miss.1
-
Well you threw that away didn't you. What was Solly thinking!!?
We had two players who could barely control the ball or make a completed pass and we still somehow won. I thought this would be your year.
What was really strange was just how many Charlton had their tops off and were swinging them around their heads in sheer euphoria at leading lowly Millwall.
All that bottle throwing too and letting off flares, surprised so many Millwall fans made it in to your end to act like that.3 -
It will still be our year when we see you relegated.1
-
Will you have a Millwall relegation party? Think you care more than we do!MuttleyCAFC said:It will still be our year when we see you relegated.
0 -
What a charmer he was!Essex_Al said:
Agreed mate, the team just didn't turn up, were awful and Millwall deserved their win, so dissapointing after the way we have played recently.Cardinal Sin said:"Sounds like quite a gutsy performance..." No, gutless like all the previous ones against them.
Mind you not as dissapointing as the behaviour of a couple of idiots at the beamback. We were all gutted when they took the lead, but some big fat slob at the front took it upon hiself to go up to the big screen and scream c*nt this and c*nt that at the top of his voice. Loads of woman and children all around him, total embarrassment, and we moan about the behaviour of their fans!!
0
