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

Post-match Thread: Sunderland vs Charlton Athletic | Saturday 23rd October 2021

1131416181922

Comments

  • Chunes said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Chunes said:
    We've heard of the philosophy, identity, pathway bla bla bla. Under Adkins we never started a game outside of 433/ 4231, it may have been a preference from the club, it may have been Nigel stubbornness.

    We'll probably never know for sure, but, today we saw a different formation and players playing to clear instructions, if JJ is allowed to do what he wants and it works. Long may it continue.

    Unbelievable result.


    I think we do know for sure. Adkins has played the 4231 for his entire career. That's his system and we knew he would play that here. The idea that he's been made to play it by Ged and the heirarchy, even when it wasn't working, is for the birds. 
    Adkins hasn't played 4231 for his entire career...... 
    Ok. Overstatement. It's his preferred formation and it's what we knew he would play coming through the door. Obviously he has not played it every single game in his career, he's been a manager for a long time and the game has changed over that period. Plus he played 352 twice with us. (Again proving he wasn't being told what tactics to play). But it is a conspiracy theory.
    It might just be a conspiracy theory, I suppose it definitely is because it's only based on opinions not fact.

    But there are questions, that will never truthfully, be fully answered.

    Was Adkins appointed, either in part or totally because he used/wanted to use that formation?  Its surely mentioned in the recruitment process and it is what our age groups have played for a while.  It's also the most used formation in the top 3 divisions on English football. 

    Why did the "recruitment committee" sign 2 wingers and nearly two different ones in January when Bowyer, in 3 years, have never shown a preference for wingers? 

    Why/how did we sign, or resign, about a dozen players over the summer and end up with a squad either unable, or unwilling, to play a system they were all signed to play in? 
  • ross1 said:
    Why did Adkins not like playing Dobson, Marshall and Purrington then if they can play like they did today
    Who is Marshall?

    ross1 said:
    Why did Adkins not like playing Dobson, Marshall and Purrington then if they can play like they did today
    Marshall??


    Sorry, Mathews
  • Great day, great performance & Sunderland fans were once again the most friendly in the land.
    I hope they get promoted. 
    Agreed had a good chat with some off them in Yates before the game

    Shame about the group of teenagers who followed us back to the metro station throwing rocks and bottles. 
  • cabbles said:
    The thing I can’t get my head around is that was it so bad under NA the team had literally given up and didn’t want to play for him?  I understand the manager you work for has a massive impact on how you feel at work, for everyone, not just footballers, but was he really that bad to play under?  

    Bit of a rhetorical question on my part, pondering, rather than asking, but it seems that within a couple of days there has been a massive facelift.  

    As others have posted, players probably didn’t like playing in set ups that were confusing, and there were too many changes, but I find it crazy how it seems to have done a complete 180 in a matter of days.  I don’t believe it’s a new manager bounce.  I really think the players just weren’t feeling it 
    I think people can over simplify putting effort in. When you lose belief in how things are going at work, trust in your manager, and there's just a nasty feeling of failure in the air, it's hard to get the best out of yourself. You can just get stuck in a routine of flatness.

    Once Adkins left of course that shakes things up, there's hope for change, and the players are re energized. What we saw against Sunderland was the players going at damn close to 100% effort. I think its unrealistic to keep that level of commitment and focus consistently, unless there is a winning run of confidence and something to play for.

    That's why it would be foolish to both criticize them for "not bothering to try for Adkins" or to give JJ the job based on 1 game.
  • It was interesting that Jacko highlighted in his post match interview that he told the players that if you want to play in one of his teams then 100% effort and work is the minimum he expects and the players that fail to meet that standard won’t play for him. You can argue that shouldn’t need to be said but it certainly got a reaction from them yesterday and makes you wonder what Adkins had been telling them. 
  • Sometimes you can be a flop at one place, but move on to be a legend elsewhere.


    Was he that much of a flop at Charlton or did the axe fall a bit to early.

  • Sponsored links:


  • cabbles said:
    The thing I can’t get my head around is that was it so bad under NA the team had literally given up and didn’t want to play for him?  I understand the manager you work for has a massive impact on how you feel at work, for everyone, not just footballers, but was he really that bad to play under?  

    Bit of a rhetorical question on my part, pondering, rather than asking, but it seems that within a couple of days there has been a massive facelift.  

    As others have posted, players probably didn’t like playing in set ups that were confusing, and there were too many changes, but I find it crazy how it seems to have done a complete 180 in a matter of days.  I don’t believe it’s a new manager bounce.  I really think the players just weren’t feeling it 
    Watching the Accrington game on Tuesday, the players certainly looked like they were trying to me. How about when Washington busted a gut to get onto Gilbey’s long ball which led to Stockley’s goal? There was real commitment as they tried to get something from the game.

    Maybe the issue isn’t that simple and has been due to a combination of factors - lack of a consistent team selection; uncertainty of job roles; the blend of players not being quite right; not playing to our strengths; rigidly sticking to a tactic that wasn’t working. Why play Stockley as lone striker and then complain when the players were lumping it forward to him?

    Maybe they just didn’t really warm to Adkins - he was maybe a bit too “old school” - a bit like a teacher or ones dad - for this bunch of 20 and 30 somethings…
    What concerns me is the same thing has happened twice, in the space of a year and all the reasons you suggested were there in Adkins first 12 games, why did they become an issue in his second 12? 

    One defeat in 12 to 8 defeats in 12 is quite a staggering turn round.  Last season, under Bowyer, we won 6 games on the spin, then it took another 22 games to win 6 more.  Bowyer never won 2 consecutive games again.

    I did read the first few pages of last seasons Sunderland away game this morning (link here https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/91501/post-match-thread-sunderland-v-charlton-sat-10-april-2021/p1) and its exactly the same comments as today.   The same players brought back into the fray, Pearce having his best game of the season by far, after being, rightly, written off by most.  Its so similar its spooky.

    Maybe it will take nipping a bad run in the bud for me to be convinced it won't happen again because that seems to have been completely beyond the previous two managers. 
  • Bailey said:
    Sometimes you can be a flop at one place, but move on to be a legend elsewhere.


    Was he that much of a flop at Charlton or did the axe fall a bit to early.

    Can't remember all the circumstances tbh but stats not good for us.  The four columns on the right are win/draw/lose/total



  • cabbles said:
    The thing I can’t get my head around is that was it so bad under NA the team had literally given up and didn’t want to play for him?  I understand the manager you work for has a massive impact on how you feel at work, for everyone, not just footballers, but was he really that bad to play under?  

    Bit of a rhetorical question on my part, pondering, rather than asking, but it seems that within a couple of days there has been a massive facelift.  

    As others have posted, players probably didn’t like playing in set ups that were confusing, and there were too many changes, but I find it crazy how it seems to have done a complete 180 in a matter of days.  I don’t believe it’s a new manager bounce.  I really think the players just weren’t feeling it 
    Watching the Accrington game on Tuesday, the players certainly looked like they were trying to me. How about when Washington busted a gut to get onto Gilbey’s long ball which led to Stockley’s goal? There was real commitment as they tried to get something from the game.

    Maybe the issue isn’t that simple and has been due to a combination of factors - lack of a consistent team selection; uncertainty of job roles; the blend of players not being quite right; not playing to our strengths; rigidly sticking to a tactic that wasn’t working. Why play Stockley as lone striker and then complain when the players were lumping it forward to him?

    Maybe they just didn’t really warm to Adkins - he was maybe a bit too “old school” - a bit like a teacher or ones dad - for this bunch of 20 and 30 somethings…
    Or maybe yesterday was a blip & we will revert to type next Saturday. Who knows, ......hopefully this IS the start of a recovery & by the end of November we are clear of the relegation places, but remember that 1 swallow doth not a summer make.
  • Gribbo said:
    This is better than the Sky highlights, showed how much pressure we had at times.
  • Scoham said:
    Saw this on Facebook


    Surely we should be a sword 🗡 instead of an arrow.
  • I just had a peak at a Sunderland forum.

    Not only do they talk shit (e) (like) (man) , the spelling and punctuation is awful.
    If any of them are thinking of making a post on Charlton Life, they'll never get past the Grammar Police. :wink:


  • edited October 2021
    Gribbo said:
    This is better than the Sky highlights, showed how much pressure we had at times.
    Shows that we are still crap at taking a corner. Most go sailing over the players in the box & none look threatening. Ball needs to be landing between the 6 yard line & the penalty spot. 
  • Just gonna say that if JJ is not appointed manager, there are a lot of other clubs in either L1 or L2 that might pull out the chair for him soon. How many managers has he worked under now? He is not gonna just keeping being an assistant for manager after manager for the rest of his life. Use him or lose him.
    He isn't 40 yet, 100s of "number 2s" never get a chance.  Dozens do in their mid to late 40s, even 50s.  Many reasons to give, or not give, him the job.  That's not one of them, unless he really wants it to be. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Us playing Sunderland is like us playing Millwall, you just know what the results going to be.
  • Gribbo said:
    This is better than the Sky highlights, showed how much pressure we had at times.
    Watching this video, 3mins 30 seconds, looked like Lavelle had a big tug on his shirt impeding him as the ball came across the box?

    If the ref had seen it, would've had to have been a penalty with the ball in play.


  • MattF said:
    Safe to say that wasn't better than sex for Lee Johnson 

    Is Lee Johnsons interview available to see/hear anywhere ?
  • Sometimes you can be a flop at one place, but move on to be a legend elsewhere.


    Who is he?
  • Sometimes you can be a flop at one place, but move on to be a legend elsewhere.


    Who is he?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Stokoe
  • ct_addick said:
    LouisMend said:
    I do not have an English degree only an O level but good lord the spelling mistakes in that piece....doesn't anyone proof read this stuff before posting
    It’s recorded speech and we don’t speak as we would when committing to the written page. Thinking grammar rules are logical is a myth and it’s only the influence of the “superior” upper classes of the last two centuries that created the concept of grammar having to reflect classical Latin syntax.
    Syntax is only one part of grammar.
    Syntax is not grammar. The syntax of speech differs from the syntax of the written word. Speech conforms to the instinctive grammar learned when we learned to speak as opposed to the arbitrary rules of grammar we are taught as “proper” English. 

     If I say “Billy and me go to a football match” it’s syntax that everyone understands. It’s only “bad” grammar for the pedant.

    Why do we say “Arn’t I late” instead of “Amn’t I late” and not get pulled up for bad grammar? It’s simply because the syntax would be alien to our ears and no one really cares if it’s grammatically logical or not.
  • sam3110 said:
    Oggy Red said:
    jonno said:
    That Sunderland defender handling the ball on on the goal line.

    He couldn't prevent the goal as Stockley's header was too powerful - but a a deliberate handball, actively attempting to prevent a goal by cheating.
    Red card offence but not even a caution. Lucky for him the referee turned a blind eye.


    Yup, even though we scored it's a sending off, like when players get sent off for intent when they go in two footed or high, even if they miss the opposition player
    Kind of PWR and I'm not really here but...this is one of the most insane things I've ever read on here, lol
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!