seriously, whoever amongst you lot was calling for Curbishley's head back in 2006 because he "couldn't take you to the next level" should be taking a long, hard look at yourselves. Because I remember loads of you calling in to 606 and shaking my head at the folly of it all. And then taking Dowie
Are you on a wind-up? Half a dozen gobby wankers calling in to radio phone-in does not equate with a whole fan base. It saddens me that this myth is widely believed in the media and has become received wisdom. The vast silent majority at the Valley were fully aware of the scale of Curbs achievement in punching substantially above our weight
Whilst in general I agree that as a club under Curbs we had gone well beyond where I thought we could, without major investment, I did think some of his decisions towards the end of his tenure were questionable. Dropping Jason Euell & Murphy, allowing the latter to go minutes before the deadline without replacement (and suggesting there was no problem between them). Allowing Kinsella to leave for Villa. Selling Keily to Pompy. Mysteriously dropping Steve Jones from our home game against Bury after he had scored both goals in our 2-2 draw away at Man City during the week (and no he wasn't injured). How we fell from grace so soon after was incredible and I never for one moment thought possible.
Would I have back tomorrow though ? Of course I would.
seriously, whoever amongst you lot was calling for Curbishley's head back in 2006 because he "couldn't take you to the next level" should be taking a long, hard look at yourselves. Because I remember loads of you calling in to 606 and shaking my head at the folly of it all. And then taking Dowie
Are you on a wind-up? Half a dozen gobby wankers calling in to radio phone-in does not equate with a whole fan base. It saddens me that this myth is widely believed in the media and has become received wisdom. The vast silent majority at the Valley were fully aware of the scale of Curbs achievement in punching substantially above our weight
Whilst in general I agree that as a club under Curbs we had gone well beyond where I thought we could, without major investment, I did think some of his decisions towards the end of his tenure were questionable. Dropping Jason Euell & Murphy, allowing the latter to go minutes before the deadline without replacement (and suggesting there was no problem between them). Allowing Kinsella to leave for Villa. Selling Keily to Pompy. Mysteriously dropping Steve Jones from our home game against Bury after he had scored both goals in our 2-2 draw away at Man City during the week (and no he wasn't injured). How we fell from grace so soon after was incredible and I never for one moment thought possible.
Would I have back tomorrow though ? Of course I would.
I wouldn't argue that Curbs got every decision right, far from it. It's this myth that we all wanted him replaced by somebody better equipped to take us to "the next level" that annoys me.
I always knew it would come to this @Tutt-Tutt. The old, experienced head versus the young up-and-comer. The man in the stands versus the boy at his computer. Trackie bottoms versus pajama bottoms. You know what let's not carry that metaphor on any further or even think too much about it...
So I agree with pretty much everything you've written, and as always, you've written it very well. The point I was trying to make was not getting fixated on formations, as in the numbers used to describe our set-up. I am very much a believer in, and proponent of, the tactical side of the game--systems, styles of play, how formations are used and executed, etc.
The reason why I made my comment (and I fully admit it wasn't clear) was that I saw various people saying "oh we're playing such a defensive system in 4-2-3-1 at home" when we should switch to 4-4-2, and various comments of the like. What I was trying to say was that 4-2-3-1 is completely interpretive, and for me can be a very attacking formation. Just as Man City's 4-1-4-1 looks NOTHING like our 4-1-4-1 away to Scunthorpe and Oxford. Another good example of this being the fact that teams these days often play one formation when attacking and one when defending. Using the City example again, they're more like 4-1-2-2-1 when defending (it's rare you'll see the wingers--Sterling/Navas/Nolito--in line with the attacking midfielders--De Bruyne/Silva/Gundogan) but given the way they manically press a lot of shapes are possible. Then, when attacking, at least most of the year they've been playing something of the old W-M, 3-2-2-3 with Fernandinho dropping between the center halves, the fullbacks push up past that line and oftentimes tucking inside, then the attacking midfield two, the three forwards pushed right up on the opposition's defense. Needless to say, I've really enjoyed watching them this year.
As far as putting the team in a 4-4-2 to simplify things, my issue with that is a broader one that for so long English football has been wedded not just to that formation, but to a stagnant, stodgy way of playing it. But to be honest you're probably right. Even though I think the game has changed drastically over the last ten years, at least at the top, a lot of our senior players will have grown up probably playing mostly 4-4-2.
On the Sean Dyche thing, had a quick look and couldn't find 5Live where it's not blocked because I'm in the States but I'll have a further look. To be fair to Jonathan Wilson, he has said EXACTLY that, that just because he writes about tactics doesn't mean he'd be a good manager.
So hopefully that clarifies things. I always enjoy reading your tactical writings on the game.
I always knew it would come to this @Tutt-Tutt. The old, experienced head versus the young up-and-comer. The man in the stands versus the boy at his computer. Trackie bottoms versus pajama bottoms. You know what let's not carry that metaphor on any further or even think too much about it...
So I agree with pretty much everything you've written, and as always, you've written it very well. The point I was trying to make was not getting fixated on formations, as in the numbers used to describe our set-up. I am very much a believer in, and proponent of, the tactical side of the game--systems, styles of play, how formations are used and executed, etc.
The reason why I made my comment (and I fully admit it wasn't clear) was that I saw various people saying "oh we're playing such a defensive system in 4-2-3-1 at home" when we should switch to 4-4-2, and various comments of the like. What I was trying to say was that 4-2-3-1 is completely interpretive, and for me can be a very attacking formation. Just as Man City's 4-1-4-1 looks NOTHING like our 4-1-4-1 away to Scunthorpe and Oxford. Another good example of this being the fact that teams these days often play one formation when attacking and one when defending. Using the City example again, they're more like 4-1-2-2-1 when defending (it's rare you'll see the wingers--Sterling/Navas/Nolito--in line with the attacking midfielders--De Bruyne/Silva/Gundogan) but given the way they manically press a lot of shapes are possible. Then, when attacking, at least most of the year they've been playing something of the old W-M, 3-2-2-3 with Fernandinho dropping between the center halves, the fullbacks push up past that line and oftentimes tucking inside, then the attacking midfield two, the three forwards pushed right up on the opposition's defense. Needless to say, I've really enjoyed watching them this year.
As far as putting the team in a 4-4-2 to simplify things, my issue with that is a broader one that for so long English football has been wedded not just to that formation, but to a stagnant, stodgy way of playing it. But to be honest you're probably right. Even though I think the game has changed drastically over the last ten years, at least at the top, a lot of our senior players will have grown up probably playing mostly 4-4-2.
On the Sean Dyche thing, had a quick look and couldn't find 5Live where it's not blocked because I'm in the States but I'll have a further look. To be fair to Jonathan Wilson, he has said EXACTLY that, that just because he writes about tactics doesn't mean he'd be a good manager.
So hopefully that clarifies things. I always enjoy reading your tactical writings on the game.
Good reply. Football is a game of opinions, everyone thinks they are right and some people look at the game in more simple terms than others. Each to their own. There are a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum and a lot of experience of watching Charlton. They can't be fooled. If Brussell thinks he can pacify the fan base with cliches and condescending comments, he's on a loser. He needs to shape up.
One up front only works if you have fit and pacey midfielders who can quickly support the lone striker. Otherwise the guy up top has a hopeless job, as there will be nobody to support him when the ball is hit towards him
We don't have pace in our midfield, therefore the tactics on Saturday left Magennis completely isolated
Comments
Would I have back tomorrow though ? Of course I would.
It's this myth that we all wanted him replaced by somebody better equipped to take us to "the next level" that annoys me.
So I agree with pretty much everything you've written, and as always, you've written it very well. The point I was trying to make was not getting fixated on formations, as in the numbers used to describe our set-up. I am very much a believer in, and proponent of, the tactical side of the game--systems, styles of play, how formations are used and executed, etc.
The reason why I made my comment (and I fully admit it wasn't clear) was that I saw various people saying "oh we're playing such a defensive system in 4-2-3-1 at home" when we should switch to 4-4-2, and various comments of the like. What I was trying to say was that 4-2-3-1 is completely interpretive, and for me can be a very attacking formation. Just as Man City's 4-1-4-1 looks NOTHING like our 4-1-4-1 away to Scunthorpe and Oxford. Another good example of this being the fact that teams these days often play one formation when attacking and one when defending. Using the City example again, they're more like 4-1-2-2-1 when defending (it's rare you'll see the wingers--Sterling/Navas/Nolito--in line with the attacking midfielders--De Bruyne/Silva/Gundogan) but given the way they manically press a lot of shapes are possible. Then, when attacking, at least most of the year they've been playing something of the old W-M, 3-2-2-3 with Fernandinho dropping between the center halves, the fullbacks push up past that line and oftentimes tucking inside, then the attacking midfield two, the three forwards pushed right up on the opposition's defense. Needless to say, I've really enjoyed watching them this year.
As far as putting the team in a 4-4-2 to simplify things, my issue with that is a broader one that for so long English football has been wedded not just to that formation, but to a stagnant, stodgy way of playing it. But to be honest you're probably right. Even though I think the game has changed drastically over the last ten years, at least at the top, a lot of our senior players will have grown up probably playing mostly 4-4-2.
On the Sean Dyche thing, had a quick look and couldn't find 5Live where it's not blocked because I'm in the States but I'll have a further look. To be fair to Jonathan Wilson, he has said EXACTLY that, that just because he writes about tactics doesn't mean he'd be a good manager.
So hopefully that clarifies things. I always enjoy reading your tactical writings on the game.
We don't have pace in our midfield, therefore the tactics on Saturday left Magennis completely isolated
Other than Russell.