|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Nov 23, 2016 15:52:19 GMT
Just seen the "highlights". The defence was abysmal full stop. In fact there didn't seem to be any. Absolute shocker, can't understand why we are so bad at the back this season. And yes i thought Roos should have stopped 3 and 4 Third one maybe, but he may not have had a clear view of the ball. Fourth one he had no chance. Roos was already diving to cover the bottom right of the goal when the shot was deflected upwards. The third one seems to be deflected off the guy standing in front of him. I wouldn't put any of the goals directly down to a Roos error. That's not to say that he may have saved a couple of them on a better day, though.....
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Nov 23, 2016 16:16:36 GMT
I thought their gk was faking injury after he brought down gaffers but watch the defender power blast the ball in his face it's hilarious 😂
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Nov 23, 2016 16:19:53 GMT
There is absolutely no way, no way on earth, Moore should score higher than Locker.
Moore was static and unimaginative. Lockyer saved our further blushes with more than one goal line clearance from very difficult positions.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 23, 2016 16:53:24 GMT
I thought their gk was faking injury after he brought down gaffers but watch the defender power blast the ball in his face it's hilarious 😂 Yep, great consolation prize for everyone who stayed till the end.
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Nov 23, 2016 16:55:13 GMT
Would of been funnier if it was a size 9
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Nov 23, 2016 17:46:18 GMT
Why do we seem to start singing after we have conceded a goal. Anyone can make a noise after their team scores. Making a noise after conceding is class support. yeah no doubt. thing is there was no noise when it was 0 0.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Nov 23, 2016 17:50:44 GMT
Thought the noise volume was fairly low from my seat. Need to be a bit noisier throughout the game. Why do we seem to start singing after we have conceded a goal. I was stood on the east terrace and thought the crowd were excellent tonight. Had a quite spell end of first half beginning of second, other than that was the loudest I've heard us in a while P.s I thought charlton fans were very very quiet. I sit pretty much above the away dugout slight right of the away end and just wasnt hearing the same as you. Couldnt hear thatchers end until they scored, Charlton definitely considering the numbers made more noise.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Nov 23, 2016 18:02:51 GMT
DC -2 And that's because we've had that coming all season especially at home , we can't keep starting our negative and lack of creativity starting line up and expect to come back from it as we usually trying to because eventually we will get found out , MK dons were sh** and that's the reason why we weren't punished then but tonight we were made to pay, away to the Wall it was hard to try and decipher our obvious problems as the sending off made it hard to establish , personally thinking DC tinkers with the starting line up far too much to the extent that know one knows their ass from their elbow when it goes tits up , why not start our strongest attacking starting line up with a little bit of width at especially at home and on our travels keep it tight at the back and utilise Sinclair in his best role and snatch the points , hiccup You do realise we started in a 4-4-2 last night (not negative/had creativity/attacking line up/had width) with two wingers and two strikers? It's what some on here have been crying out for, as anything other than 4-4-2 is the work of the devil. 442 is what people might like to see. But we had 2 wingers who are in no formal whatsoever, Montano slightly better of the 2 Moore lacks confidence. With number of CMS we have and that we have only one striker who seems to score a 451 I belive would work. Strike problem won't correct itself, we are reliant on Matty Taylor to score, would do well to go buy a striker in January. Defense and goalkeeper ships goals for fun, Leadbitter not consistent and opposition have started to realise they will have more chance attacking down his side. Center Mid is another problem area now and down to a mixture of problems, DC loyalty to Sinclair and Lines dip in form. I would rather see Lines paired with another or 2. Sinclair works hard, but that is about it, yes he has a beard but footballing wise struggle to see what he offers. Why Boateng cant get a regular game is beyond me. Colkett I like, but lacks the experience of Lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 18:03:50 GMT
You give the ref 7? I know the game was lost but the deliberate foul on Gaffney when he awarded a penalty was a sending off offence. It was a professional foul that stopped a certain goal and that is still a sending off offence. Of course it would have made no difference to the outcome tonight BUT if the ref did what he is required to do in these situations irrespective of score and irrespective of the time the keeper would have walked and been unavailable for selection as a result. The ref by failing to do this has given Charlton an advantage they shouldn't have in the next game and possibly the next three games. The ref should be removed from the list for an absolutely diabolical and corrupt decision that will most likely have an effect on Charlton's future opponents and possibly people's careers. If you bothered to read the rule changes it states that where a penalty has been awarded the referee can give a yellow card unless the penalty is awarded for serious foul play
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 18:13:13 GMT
We actually had more possession, more shots and more corners but managed to lose 5-1. To be honest I thought we did okay in the first half. We had plenty of attacking play and could easily have scored a couple of goals. I'm not sure the half time changes were necessary, they certainly didn't work. Charlton were ahead thanks to a long range deflected shot and some poor defending just before half time. I think that goal just before the break made Clarke change tactics but I think we'd have been better sticking with 4-4-2. I personally didn't think the wingers were doing too badly. Both Monty and Moore put in near perfect crosses for Taylor, the first Taylor used his hand and the second was about an inch too high for him to keep below the bar. I thought we were causing them problems and maybe the introduction of Bodin or Easter might have been a better option. Second half was very poor. We were struggling even before JCS went off and as I said the change in formation really didn't work. Roos isn't good enough and we now have a problem at CB with both JC & JCS out injured because McChrystal is a liability at this level. We need more from our wingers and the only midfielders that are fairly consistent are Lines and Sinclair. Colkett was awful last night. We're also now struggling to score goals. The late penalty was the only one scored in our last 3 league games. This period is going to be a real test of DC's management. But is mccrystal a liability in a judgement made on one game.he is a good old fashioned no nonsense centre half and by big we needed one last night.its OK saying Hartley scores goals but with his lack of pace and general poor positional play how many goals has he cost us As for Roos when I said he was not that highly regarded at derby I was. told to shut up because he is a great keeper hate to say it but I.t. y.s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 18:14:55 GMT
So the panacea of playing our best players in 442....how did that work out?
So now it's the fault that he made changes (changing it to exactly the team Steve and others were suggesting)
How, exactly, could he have picked a settled side and play 442 and play our best players? The only way would be by time travel.
Or, should he have just played the same team for both MkDonalds and Charlton? Would that extra time to "gel" have given two wins?
Seems a bit tenuous. To me it seems the 442 and best players theory has been smacked out the park, down the road and into the middle of next week.
I would suggest that most of the evidence suggests that last night we could not control the centre of the park (common with 442 and wingers). We often got in positions where out CBs were exposed in central areas (common with 442 and wingers). All of our attacks were mainly crossss (common with 442 and wingers) which were ineffective.
We certainly did not get skinned repeatedly down the flanks.
have to say, it's a damning verdict for the dinosaurs and the only thing I can hold on to as a positive is a mild feeling of smug satisfaction that I won a petty point on a football forum :-(
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Nov 23, 2016 18:35:31 GMT
You give the ref 7? I know the game was lost but the deliberate foul on Gaffney when he awarded a penalty was a sending off offence. It was a professional foul that stopped a certain goal and that is still a sending off offence. Of course it would have made no difference to the outcome tonight BUT if the ref did what he is required to do in these situations irrespective of score and irrespective of the time the keeper would have walked and been unavailable for selection as a result. The ref by failing to do this has given Charlton an advantage they shouldn't have in the next game and possibly the next three games. The ref should be removed from the list for an absolutely diabolical and corrupt decision that will most likely have an effect on Charlton's future opponents and possibly people's careers. If you bothered to read the rule changes it states that where a penalty has been awarded the referee can give a yellow card unless the penalty is awarded for serious foul play If you bothered to read the rule changes it says; When a denial of a goal scoring opportunity offence is committed by a defender in the penalty area, the penalty kick effectively restores the goal scoring opportunity so the punishment for the player should be less strong ( eg yellow card) than when the offence is committed outside of the penalty area. However, when the offence is handball or clearly not a genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball the player will be sent off" From my view last night there was no attempt by the keeper to play or challenge for the ball. I've not watched the whole horror show since so am only going by my live view of it which s why I've called it as a sending off offence. So stick your condescending "if you bothered to read the rule change" crap back up your backside and wind your neck in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 19:23:25 GMT
So the panacea of playing our best players in 442....how did that work out? So now it's the fault that he made changes (changing it to exactly the team Steve and others were suggesting) How, exactly, could he have picked a settled side and play 442 and play our best players? The only way would be by time travel. Or, should he have just played the same team for both MkDonalds and Charlton? Would that extra time to "gel" have given two wins? Seems a bit tenuous. To me it seems the 442 and best players theory has been smacked out the park, down the road and into the middle of next week. I would suggest that most of the evidence suggests that last night we could not control the centre of the park (common with 442 and wingers). We often got in positions where out CBs were exposed in central areas (common with 442 and wingers). All of our attacks were mainly crossss (common with 442 and wingers) which were ineffective. We certainly did not get skinned repeatedly down the flanks. have to say, it's a damning verdict for the dinosaurs and the only thing I can hold on to as a positive is a mild feeling of smug satisfaction that I won a petty point on a football forum :-( It's not formations that fail is it? It's the players that play in those positions. Perhaps people now know why DC doesn't play 4.4.2;we don't have the players capable of playing there.
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Nov 23, 2016 19:37:59 GMT
So the panacea of playing our best players in 442....how did that work out? So now it's the fault that he made changes (changing it to exactly the team Steve and others were suggesting) How, exactly, could he have picked a settled side and play 442 and play our best players? The only way would be by time travel. Or, should he have just played the same team for both MkDonalds and Charlton? Would that extra time to "gel" have given two wins? Seems a bit tenuous. To me it seems the 442 and best players theory has been smacked out the park, down the road and into the middle of next week. I would suggest that most of the evidence suggests that last night we could not control the centre of the park (common with 442 and wingers). We often got in positions where out CBs were exposed in central areas (common with 442 and wingers). All of our attacks were mainly crossss (common with 442 and wingers) which were ineffective. We certainly did not get skinned repeatedly down the flanks. have to say, it's a damning verdict for the dinosaurs and the only thing I can hold on to as a positive is a mild feeling of smug satisfaction that I won a petty point on a football forum :-( It's not formations that fail is it? It's the players that play in those positions. Perhaps people now know why DC doesn't play 4.4.2;we don't have the players capable of playing there. [b You guys got it spot on. IF we had two big CFs who could knock the s*** out of their CBs & two wingers pumping crosses in to them & a CB who could have contained Magennis, it might have worked. But we didn't. All this formation stuff is spurious but the pseudo-experts love droning on about it & how it makes such a big difference. As you say it's the actual players & their abilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 19:51:18 GMT
We actually had more possession, more shots and more corners but managed to lose 5-1. To be honest I thought we did okay in the first half. We had plenty of attacking play and could easily have scored a couple of goals. I'm not sure the half time changes were necessary, they certainly didn't work. Yep, I still fancied we might get something at half time. istm it was changed just coz we were 2-0 down. I thought Moore was having a decent game. It didn't help that Ellis and Colkett both had mares. Are you seriously blaming the substitute for last night's horror show?the midfield was non existent the back 4 were chasing shadows the keeper couldn't catch a cold but 2 substitutes caused us to ship 5 goals despair
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 19:53:58 GMT
If you bothered to read the rule changes it states that where a penalty has been awarded the referee can give a yellow card unless the penalty is awarded for serious foul play If you bothered to read the rule changes it says; When a denial of a goal scoring opportunity offence is committed by a defender in the penalty area, the penalty kick effectively restores the goal scoring opportunity so the punishment for the player should be less strong ( eg yellow card) than when the offence is committed outside of the penalty area. However, when the offence is handball or clearly not a genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball the player will be sent off" From my view last night there was no attempt by the keeper to play or challenge for the ball. I've not watched the whole horror show since so am only going by my live view of it which s why I've called it as a sending off offence. So stick your condescending "if you bothered to read the rule change" crap back up your backside and wind your neck in. As in all good responses Up yours
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Nov 23, 2016 19:59:05 GMT
😂
|
|
|
Post by WeAreTheGas on Nov 23, 2016 20:25:03 GMT
It's not formations that fail is it? It's the players that play in those positions. Perhaps people now know why DC doesn't play 4.4.2;we don't have the players capable of playing there. [b You guys got it spot on. IF we had two big CFs who could knock the s*** out of their CBs & two wingers pumping crosses in to them & a CB who could have contained Magennis, it might have worked. But we didn't. All this formation stuff is spurious but the pseudo-experts love droning on about it & how it makes such a big difference. As you say it's the actual players & their abilities.Yes and no. Since switching to a 3-4-3 against Hull in October, Chelsea have won 6 out of 6 in the Premier League, scoring 17 and conceding 0. In their first 6 league games this season playing 4-2-3-1, Chelsea won 3, drew 1 and lost 2 (goals for 10, goals against 9). Same manager, same players, but systems do make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 23, 2016 20:57:39 GMT
Yep, I still fancied we might get something at half time. istm it was changed just coz we were 2-0 down. I thought Moore was having a decent game. It didn't help that Ellis and Colkett both had mares. Are you seriously blaming the substitute for last night's horror show?the midfield was non existent the back 4 were chasing shadows the keeper couldn't catch a cold but 2 substitutes caused us to ship 5 goals despair No. I didn't say anything like that. What I'm saying is that the substitutions didn't improve anything (in the brief time we had them and eleven men), and that may have merely been because they didn't play well. If you make substitutions to change the game, the subs still have to play well to change the game, even if it was a good substitution from a tactical point of view.
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Nov 23, 2016 21:32:54 GMT
[b You guys got it spot on. IF we had two big CFs who could knock the s*** out of their CBs & two wingers pumping crosses in to them & a CB who could have contained Magennis, it might have worked. But we didn't. All this formation stuff is spurious but the pseudo-experts love droning on about it & how it makes such a big difference. As you say it's the actual players & their abilities.Yes and no. Since switching to a 3-4-3 against Hull in October, Chelsea have won 6 out of 6 in the Premier League, scoring 17 and conceding 0. In their first 6 league games this season playing 4-2-3-1, Chelsea won 3, drew 1 and lost 2 (goals for 10, goals against 9). Same manager, same players, but systems do make a difference. haha so does £500m worth of players
|
|