The problem now is people in the Bowyer out camp will be looking to place any on field happenings they don’t like firmly at his door. Sadly it’s like a snowball rolling downhill and only getting bigger. The bloke has made some bad decisions no one can deny that we all make mistakes but let’s try and keep things in perspective
First game of men’s football this season, playing Tuesday night, Williams coming on. No one thought that Williams would be totally crap. That is not Bows fault. The blame lies squarely with Williams.
He did look good. He suffered from the realisation of Charlton football a few times of looking up and seeing nobody making an effin run! He had the will to then dribble and take a risk, as Bows wants. No doubt our "fans" will soon claim he holds onto the ball too long.
First game of men’s football this season, playing Tuesday night, Williams coming on. No one thought that Williams would be totally crap. That is not Bows fault. The blame lies squarely with Williams.
Must admit to being impressed with him so far. For someone so inexperienced he seems extremely confident on the ball and also prepared to roll his sleeves up and get stuck in. Looks to have a good work ethic and deceptively quick too
On the down side there have been a couple of theatrical dives that I suspect Bowyer will try to kick out of him
Must admit to being impressed with him so far. For someone so inexperienced he seems extremely confident on the ball and also prepared to roll his sleeves up and get stuck in. Looks to have a good work ethic and deceptively quick too
On the down side there have been a couple of theatrical dives that I suspect Bowyer will try to kick out of him
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
So who was at fault. I don't disagree that Millar was not the problem. Just one piece of the puzzle.
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
Or we could have started the game with someone who has been our best attacking player in recent games, and has just had a weeks rest, and gone in at the end of the first half perhaps even winning the game.
I'm not football manager, and I don't tend to watch many games outside of Charlton but I do believe that most managers play their best players for as long as possible and don't just bring them on in the hope that we are in a position to capitalise in the second half.
Funny, that’s exactly how I looked when Watson gave the ball away on the edge of the box for their third tonight......and I was wearing the same jump suit......it’s cosy.
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No problem with the reasoning of Millar being on the bench but why not start him, get a lead then sub him at half time when leading instead of bringing him on when we are chasing the game?
Funny, that’s exactly how I looked when Watson gave the ball away on the edge of the box for their third tonight......and I was wearing the same jump suit......it’s cosy.
Give it back you thief , it must be well tight or are you only a baby too ?
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
Or we could have started the game with someone who has been our best attacking player in recent games, and has just had a weeks rest, and gone in at the end of the first half perhaps even winning the game.
I'm not football manager, and I don't tend to watch many games outside of Charlton but I do believe that most managers play their best players for as long as possible and don't just bring them on in the hope that we are in a position to capitalise in the second half.
Morgan's shot could've gone in off the underside of the bar instead of over off the top of it, Schwartz could've swiveled on the ball and buried it in the bottom corner instead of hesitating for a split second and losing control, Portsmouth goal could've been scooped narrowly over instead of into the top corner and we go in 2-0 up and Millar doesn't need to come on.
As I said, we lost the game without and with him. Even though he carried the ball well at pace, he didn't have a meaningful shot or lay a clear chance of for a teammate. Bull shit defending it what cost us that game and Millar was neither here nor there where that was concerned.
Players get rested by teams all the time. The days of the same 11 players playing every week unless they're too injured to run are long gone, even more so in the current congested season, and no one on here has any idea what information or guidance Bowyer was given by the medical team. Clearly someone has identified Millar needed some kind of a rest and it's not entirely surprising given he'd never played first team football a month ago and every match he is asked to make multiple 60 to 70 yard sprints with the ball. Maybe even having him on the bench as an emergency backup was more than the medical staff wanted. Maybe they thought he could start at a push or play 60, but Bowyer felt he's just too important to take any more risks than necessary with, but felt us being a goal down to a fellow play-off hopeful was sufficient circumstance to take the risk. Maybe Millar identified himself he didn't feel right to start. Maybe Bowyer or the analysts felt they identified a weakness in Portsmouth that the diamond could exploit and made a judgement call that was the best way to set up. Maybe there's a requirement we consult his parent club and they said no to starting him. Who knows - certainly not you or I. But how likely is it Bowyer and the tactics bods wanted to start with a winger, and they had complete clearance from the medical team to do so, and Millar said he felt fine, but they decided to bench him anyway?
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
Or we could have started the game with someone who has been our best attacking player in recent games, and has just had a weeks rest, and gone in at the end of the first half perhaps even winning the game.
I'm not football manager, and I don't tend to watch many games outside of Charlton but I do believe that most managers play their best players for as long as possible and don't just bring them on in the hope that we are in a position to capitalise in the second half.
Morgan's shot could've gone in off the underside of the bar instead of over off the top of it, Schwartz could've swiveled on the ball and buried it in the bottom corner instead of hesitating for a split second and losing control, Portsmouth goal could've been scooped narrowly over instead of into the top corner and we go in 2-0 up and Millar doesn't need to come on.
As I said, we lost the game without and with him. Even though he carried the ball well at pace, he didn't have a meaningful shot or lay a clear chance of for a teammate. Bull shit defending it what cost us that game and Millar was neither here nor there where that was concerned.
Players get rested by teams all the time. The days of the same 11 players playing every week unless they're too injured to run are long gone, even more so in the current congested season, and no one on here has any idea what information or guidance Bowyer was given by the medical team. Clearly someone has identified Millar needed some kind of a rest and it's not entirely surprising given he'd never played first team football a month ago and every match he is asked to make multiple 60 to 70 yard sprints with the ball. Maybe even having him on the bench as an emergency backup was more than the medical staff wanted. Maybe they thought he could start at a push or play 60, but Bowyer felt he's just too important to take any more risks than necessary with, but felt us being a goal down to a fellow play-off hopeful was sufficient circumstance to take the risk. Maybe Millar identified himself he didn't feel right to start. Maybe Bowyer or the analysts felt they identified a weakness in Portsmouth that the diamond could exploit and made a judgement call that was the best way to set up. Maybe there's a requirement we consultant his parent club and they said no to starting him. Who knows - certainly not you or I. But how likely is it Bowyer and the tactics bods wanted to start with a winger, and they had complete clearance from the medical team to do so, and Millar said he felt fine, but they decided to bench him anyway?
Huh, firstly those things you mentioned actually happened. There's no what if about them - Morgan *did* hit the bar, Schwartz *did* mess up his control, Portsmouth goal *did* go in. Portsmouth *did* win.
Millar *didn't* start.
Also Millar is 21, played 36 games for Kilmarnock last season and 7 for us this season and there's been a week between games. I can understand that he may have been feeling tight hamstrings, but if you think he's fit enough to play a half, then as he's your best attacking outlet start with him and don't bring him on when you are chasing the game.
Once again we rested him with contradictory logic. Maatsen has been overplayed, and at such a young age his confidence gone with it as is making regular mistakes. We only rested him when he got a knock, then pretend he was going to be rested anyway.
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
Or we could have started the game with someone who has been our best attacking player in recent games, and has just had a weeks rest, and gone in at the end of the first half perhaps even winning the game.
I'm not football manager, and I don't tend to watch many games outside of Charlton but I do believe that most managers play their best players for as long as possible and don't just bring them on in the hope that we are in a position to capitalise in the second half.
Morgan's shot could've gone in off the underside of the bar instead of over off the top of it, Schwartz could've swiveled on the ball and buried it in the bottom corner instead of hesitating for a split second and losing control, Portsmouth goal could've been scooped narrowly over instead of into the top corner and we go in 2-0 up and Millar doesn't need to come on.
As I said, we lost the game without and with him. Even though he carried the ball well at pace, he didn't have a meaningful shot or lay a clear chance of for a teammate. Bull shit defending it what cost us that game and Millar was neither here nor there where that was concerned.
Players get rested by teams all the time. The days of the same 11 players playing every week unless they're too injured to run are long gone, even more so in the current congested season, and no one on here has any idea what information or guidance Bowyer was given by the medical team. Clearly someone has identified Millar needed some kind of a rest and it's not entirely surprising given he'd never played first team football a month ago and every match he is asked to make multiple 60 to 70 yard sprints with the ball. Maybe even having him on the bench as an emergency backup was more than the medical staff wanted. Maybe they thought he could start at a push or play 60, but Bowyer felt he's just too important to take any more risks than necessary with, but felt us being a goal down to a fellow play-off hopeful was sufficient circumstance to take the risk. Maybe Millar identified himself he didn't feel right to start. Maybe Bowyer or the analysts felt they identified a weakness in Portsmouth that the diamond could exploit and made a judgement call that was the best way to set up. Maybe there's a requirement we consultant his parent club and they said no to starting him. Who knows - certainly not you or I. But how likely is it Bowyer and the tactics bods wanted to start with a winger, and they had complete clearance from the medical team to do so, and Millar said he felt fine, but they decided to bench him anyway?
Huh, firstly those things you mentioned actually happened. There's no what if about them - Morgan *did* hit the bar, Schwartz *did* mess up his control, Portsmouth goal *did* go in. Portsmouth *did* win.
Millar *didn't* start.
Also Millar is 21, played 36 games for Kilmarnock last season and 7 for us this season and there's been a week between games. I can understand that he may have been feeling tight hamstrings, but if you think he's fit enough to play a half, then as he's your best attacking outlet start with him and don't bring him on when you are chasing the game.
But you are implying we wouldn't have lost the game had Millar started - that's something that is unproven and has limited evidence to suggest it is true given we lost the half in which Millar did play. My point is, fine margins can change the entire course of a game. Maybe Millar only made the bench because of the extra 2 days rest, perhaps he was going to be rested completely on Saturday, so Bowyer spent the week preparing for a match which he wouldn't have been available. In that circumstance is a total switch in tactics the way to go? Maybe it was, but Bowyer has to make a call on that.
Like I say, we lost both halves. We concede three due to poor defending and individual errors. Neither of those failings were affected by Millar, or should be expected to be, but Millar was not able to help us score 3 at the other end, so I just don't really think his inclusion or exclusion is a particularly relevant to where this game was lost.
You want something to criticise Bowyer for something - try the setup that left our back four with almost no protection from midfield in the first half, but even then it's hard to pin the Matthews and Watson screw up on Bowyer - he won't have been coaching them to do that, and I doubt Gunter or Stockley have been coached to lose their men at a corner either.
Lets just keep playing him a tear his hamstrings then. Then the thread would've been full of people bitching about us not learning the lessons of previous injuries to players.
Some of you have made your minds up about Bowyer now and will twist everything into a stick to beat him with.
No he had two extra days off from a game situation. If Bowyer didn't allow him recovery time and decent time with a physio/sports massage therapist that's on him.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
Or we could have started the game with someone who has been our best attacking player in recent games, and has just had a weeks rest, and gone in at the end of the first half perhaps even winning the game.
I'm not football manager, and I don't tend to watch many games outside of Charlton but I do believe that most managers play their best players for as long as possible and don't just bring them on in the hope that we are in a position to capitalise in the second half.
Morgan's shot could've gone in off the underside of the bar instead of over off the top of it, Schwartz could've swiveled on the ball and buried it in the bottom corner instead of hesitating for a split second and losing control, Portsmouth goal could've been scooped narrowly over instead of into the top corner and we go in 2-0 up and Millar doesn't need to come on.
As I said, we lost the game without and with him. Even though he carried the ball well at pace, he didn't have a meaningful shot or lay a clear chance of for a teammate. Bull shit defending it what cost us that game and Millar was neither here nor there where that was concerned.
Players get rested by teams all the time. The days of the same 11 players playing every week unless they're too injured to run are long gone, even more so in the current congested season, and no one on here has any idea what information or guidance Bowyer was given by the medical team. Clearly someone has identified Millar needed some kind of a rest and it's not entirely surprising given he'd never played first team football a month ago and every match he is asked to make multiple 60 to 70 yard sprints with the ball. Maybe even having him on the bench as an emergency backup was more than the medical staff wanted. Maybe they thought he could start at a push or play 60, but Bowyer felt he's just too important to take any more risks than necessary with, but felt us being a goal down to a fellow play-off hopeful was sufficient circumstance to take the risk. Maybe Millar identified himself he didn't feel right to start. Maybe Bowyer or the analysts felt they identified a weakness in Portsmouth that the diamond could exploit and made a judgement call that was the best way to set up. Maybe there's a requirement we consultant his parent club and they said no to starting him. Who knows - certainly not you or I. But how likely is it Bowyer and the tactics bods wanted to start with a winger, and they had complete clearance from the medical team to do so, and Millar said he felt fine, but they decided to bench him anyway?
Huh, firstly those things you mentioned actually happened. There's no what if about them - Morgan *did* hit the bar, Schwartz *did* mess up his control, Portsmouth goal *did* go in. Portsmouth *did* win.
Millar *didn't* start.
Also Millar is 21, played 36 games for Kilmarnock last season and 7 for us this season and there's been a week between games. I can understand that he may have been feeling tight hamstrings, but if you think he's fit enough to play a half, then as he's your best attacking outlet start with him and don't bring him on when you are chasing the game.
But you are implying we wouldn't have lost the game had Millar started - that's something that is unproven and has limited evidence to suggest it is true given we lost the half in which Millar did play. My point is, fine margins can change the entire course of a game. Maybe Millar only made the bench because of the extra 2 days rest, perhaps he was going to be rested completely on Saturday, so Bowyer spent the week preparing for a match which he wouldn't have been available. In that circumstance is a total switch in tactics the way to go? Maybe it was, but Bowyer has to make a call on that.
Like I say, we lost both halves. We concede three due to poor defending and individual errors. Neither of those failings were affected by Millar, or should be expected to be, but Millar was not able to help us score 3 at the other end, so I just don't really think his inclusion or exclusion is a particularly relevant to where this game was lost.
You want something to criticise Bowyer for something - try the setup that left our back four with almost no protection from midfield in the first half, but even then it's hard to pin the Matthews and Watson screw up on Bowyer - he won't have been coaching them to do that, and I doubt Gunter or Stockley have been coached to lose their men at a corner either.
I didn't imply that at all, and never said those words. I implied that if we started with Millar the result may have turned out differently because the game situation would have been completely different. I think that's a very fair judgement to make - but something we will never know because we only got to see him in the second half when we were already chasing the game.
That's not like saying if we took our chances and Portsmouth missed there's then we would have won. Because that's exactly what didn't happen.
Millar has played an average of 77 minutes across the 7 games he has played since joining in January. If he has mentioned that his hamstrings were feeling a bit tight, then after 7 days rest you either don't play him at all or you start him after a MoM performance then bring him off after giving yourself the best possible chance to be ahead in the game.
If this was just a one off decision by Bows then it wouldn't have irked so many people. But it's not the first time this season he has done this. Its becoming a bit of a meme now.
Comments
On the down side there have been a couple of theatrical dives that I suspect Bowyer will try to kick out of him
The excuses never end.
If you think he can only play 45 minutes, then start him and sub him off at half time if he is struggling.
He managed 55 so why didn't we try him for the first 45 and look to sub him after?
Because you hope that the XI you put out can win the game without him so you don't have to use him at all. He only came on because we were losing. Millar not playing was not the reason we lost - we lost the first half without him and we lost the second half with him.
I'm not football manager, and I don't tend to watch many games outside of Charlton but I do believe that most managers play their best players for as long as possible and don't just bring them on in the hope that we are in a position to capitalise in the second half.
Millar *didn't* start.
Also Millar is 21, played 36 games for Kilmarnock last season and 7 for us this season and there's been a week between games. I can understand that he may have been feeling tight hamstrings, but if you think he's fit enough to play a half, then as he's your best attacking outlet start with him and don't bring him on when you are chasing the game.
That's not like saying if we took our chances and Portsmouth missed there's then we would have won. Because that's exactly what didn't happen.
Millar has played an average of 77 minutes across the 7 games he has played since joining in January. If he has mentioned that his hamstrings were feeling a bit tight, then after 7 days rest you either don't play him at all or you start him after a MoM performance then bring him off after giving yourself the best possible chance to be ahead in the game.
If this was just a one off decision by Bows then it wouldn't have irked so many people. But it's not the first time this season he has done this. Its becoming a bit of a meme now.