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

Post-match thread: Charlton v AFC Wimbledon | Sat 12 Dec 2020

178101213

Comments

  • With five substitutes allowed, it seems a good tactic to designate two players to come off at half-time.

    So Bogle /  Gilbey are instructed to use all their energy making it difficult for the opposing defenders - in particular force them run around as much as possible.

    Then Chucks and Williams are the perfect pair of "finishers". Managers seem reluctant to embrace the idea of starters and finishers but maybe the game is going this way.

    Of course, if Chuck is "out for a couple of months with a hamstring problem", I'll have to think again.
  • It could be argued that Famewo being injured actually helped us. Pratley playing centre half meant that we didn't have both him and Watson playing in midfield when we only need one. 
  • For Paddy:

    Purrington was on long enough to out skill the defender in the box and then get on the end of the move after Jonny's flick.

    Fans never miss Purrington's mistakes but don't seem to give him credit when he does good things.

    Sage did TBF.
    Of course. But we were 4-2 up and it's injury time against a deflated, defeated opponent. I missed that when reviewing the game and writing my post-match.

    I've never once scapegoated a player. Ever. And I will not do so. I also don't think I'm even subconsciously unfair toward him. I actually don't think I'll ever be able to criticise Purrington too much, purely because he scored in the playoff final.
  • A lot of analysis on Purrington for scoring the 5th in an already wrapped up win. 


  • edited December 2020
    PaddyP17 said:
    For Paddy:

    Purrington was on long enough to out skill the defender in the box and then get on the end of the move after Jonny's flick.

    Fans never miss Purrington's mistakes but don't seem to give him credit when he does good things.

    Sage did TBF.
    Of course. But we were 4-2 up and it's injury time against a deflated, defeated opponent. I missed that when reviewing the game and writing my post-match.

    I've never once scapegoated a player. Ever. And I will not do so. I also don't think I'm even subconsciously unfair toward him. I actually don't think I'll ever be able to criticise Purrington too much, purely because he scored in the playoff final.

    Paddy, I enjoy your bullet points review and TBF it was only a cameo from Ben Purrington yesterday but it was amazing that he started and finished the move.
    Players off the shackles can relax and play.
    Being 4-2 up helps but I have seen him try that before but shot wide when by the post.

    Pleased also that you are the same as me and never Scapegoat. I will support a player during a game and then highlight their good and bad points. Constructive criticism and praise where ever possible.
    Even Bogle and Gilbey who are struggling to establish any consistent good form in the team at present.


  • Davo55 said:
    I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
    Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 
    For me it was not a major improvement, or at least not for as long as you mention. I won't compare it to the MK Dons game because they were just the better side.

    But after the first 20 minutes the way we played in possession was no different to Burton or Shrewsbury. We didn't lose the ball at the back like we did against Burton, but that's because Wimbledon didn't press us like they did - and we didn't look as likely to concede as against Shrewsbury but Wimbledon didn't have any pace to hurt us.

    However once Wimbledon changed it up in that first half and stopped us playing through JFC and Maddison we slipped back into the same predictable patterns of play - passing along the back line, and cutting back when we advanced up the pitch due to lack of options and movement.

    However the moment the second half started, even before the subs, this all changed. I'm not sure what we did, though I feel it might be to do with the full backs being more attacking, but we played with alot more pace and purpose and there were so many more options. 
    Well, one of the joys of football is that relatively sane and intelligent people can watch exactly the same thing and reach quite different conclusions  :)

    I respect yours and @AFKAs views but I felt our passing was crisper, there was more movement around the pitch, some good balls into the channels etc. If Chuks had been on instead of Bogle I think things would have gone much better. I'd score the first half performance (excepting the mad 5/10 minutes) a 6/10 and the second half a 9/10, so definitely a huge step up.
  • Davo55 said:
    Davo55 said:
    I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
    Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 
    For me it was not a major improvement, or at least not for as long as you mention. I won't compare it to the MK Dons game because they were just the better side.

    But after the first 20 minutes the way we played in possession was no different to Burton or Shrewsbury. We didn't lose the ball at the back like we did against Burton, but that's because Wimbledon didn't press us like they did - and we didn't look as likely to concede as against Shrewsbury but Wimbledon didn't have any pace to hurt us.

    However once Wimbledon changed it up in that first half and stopped us playing through JFC and Maddison we slipped back into the same predictable patterns of play - passing along the back line, and cutting back when we advanced up the pitch due to lack of options and movement.

    However the moment the second half started, even before the subs, this all changed. I'm not sure what we did, though I feel it might be to do with the full backs being more attacking, but we played with alot more pace and purpose and there were so many more options. 
    Well, one of the joys of football is that relatively sane and intelligent people can watch exactly the same thing and reach quite different conclusions  :)

    I respect yours and @AFKAs views but I felt our passing was crisper, there was more movement around the pitch, some good balls into the channels etc. If Chuks had been on instead of Bogle I think things would have gone much better. I'd score the first half performance (excepting the mad 5/10 minutes) a 6/10 and the second half a 9/10, so definitely a huge step up.
    Exactly. And it's nice to be able to discuss opposing views in a positive and productive way without people thinking you've insulted their family honour because you don't necessarily agree.

    I don't think Bogle had a terrible half. He is quiet skilful and strong, and he does not try to hide - but I do agree that in that first half if we had Chuks movement we certainly would have been stronger. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • I would happily have Tom Allen on Valley Pass. His commentary on Sky Sports for our game was superb. “He’s bald and he looks like me”😂
    Not normally a fan of his but must admit that was funny 
  • Great come back from the boys .. Quality stuff
  • edited December 2020
    Great team result, just what they deserved. Pleased as punch. Coverage on valley live was excellent. Well worth a tenner. The emotion of Thomas  towards Charlton during half time chat was plain to see. Onwards and upwards.
    Is this available on video anywhere or can someone give details of what was said.
    Many thanks.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Davo55 said:
    I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
    Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 
    I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.

    Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.

    So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.

    We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.  

    Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally. 

    Just my take. 
    Heavily deflected goal?
    What!?
  • I saw a reference to Tom Allen on Sky, and I assumed it was a sports reporter with the same name as the ubiquitous comedian, but no!


    Never heard of him 
  • Davo55 said:
    I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
    Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 
    I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.

    Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.

    So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.

    We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.  

    Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally. 

    Just my take. 
    Heavily deflected goal?
    What!?
    Their number 22 stuck out his leg. It looked like it clipped him but I didn’t think it changed the trajectory of the ball! My Eyes are bad so I might not be the best person to comment!
  • Davo55 said:
    I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
    Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 
    I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.

    Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.

    So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.

    We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.  

    Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally. 

    Just my take. 
    Heavily deflected goal?
    What!?
    Watch the goal again, it does look on replay as though it takes a heavy nick off the defender when Washington shoots
  • I saw a reference to Tom Allen on Sky, and I assumed it was a sports reporter with the same name as the ubiquitous comedian, but no!


    Never heard of him 
    He knows you. 
  • edited December 2020
    Davo55 said:
    I thought we played well all game except for the 5 minute spell before half time. The whole team played well , passed the ball well and were on the front foot , looked a different class to AFC.
    Agreed. I just don't understand some of the negative views of our first half performance. Obviously it got nowhere near the heights of that second half showing but for 35-40 minutes it was a major improvement on the performances against Burton, MK and Shrewsbury. 
    I don’t think it was, just my opinion but I’ll explain my reasons. It was largely different because we weren’t playing a team like Burton who pressed us really hard all over the pitch and forced mistakes, or MK Dons who simply outplayed us.

    Wimbledon sat, kept shape let our back four have the ball and basically said down to you to break us down. And because we’d were set up pretty defensively ourselves, we as an 11 just were comfortable with that.

    So it was largely nothingness. Pearce, to Pratley, to Gunter, to Watson, to Pearce, to Maatsen, to Pearce, to Pratley etc...there was little movement in front, and where you needed Watson or Gilbey or JFC to pick the ball on the half turn and start something forward-making, it was just the same old status quo of pushing it around without intent. Halfway through the first half Gilbey got the ball off Maatsen on the left, launched a beautiful cross field ball, to the right touchline to switch play, yet within two passes it was back with Pratley and any forward impetus had gone. That move summed up our play first half.

    We were playing a team whose game plan was to stay tight, frustrate and put the onus on us to attack and our starting team / set up wasn’t going to trouble that. We were languid and effectively playing defensive training ground keep ball until we tried something different and inevitability lost it. That’s why Washington’s heavily deflected goal seemed such a surprise to what had gone before it.  

    Of course, we won, scored 5 goals and everyone will point out its a game played over 90 mins. Perhaps that’s our game plan, keep tight for 60 mins and then turn it into a 30-min game to win with our best attacking players. Like a boxer who’s conserved energy for the first 7 rounds.  But off the back of two really poor performances, what was shown first half and to go in losing to a poor team, I thought was concerning personally. 

    Just my take. 
    It's been the plan all season.
    Keep it tight try and stay level (if you haven't nicked a goal) and then take off Bogle and another under performer and bring on Chucks and another to win the game in the last 30+stoppage time.

    And yes Washington's shot was deflected. I think the goalie may well have saved it, if it hadn't looped up and over him.
    Still a great effort from Washington.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!