Charlton Post-match

[Thracian]

Thrac, I wasn't talking about you just to clarify. It was something I've seen several people say. You're posts have been very encouraging and nice to read!!

And I was only clarifying what you had to say by referring to the reaction of fans who were there. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

[Babylon]

I might argue the opposite - that the back line left too big a gap between the midfield and therefore no chance of recovery. Times I've said we need to move backwards and forwards as a unit.

Good point.

[Guest Col city fan]

I might argue the opposite - that the back line left too big a gap between the midfield and therefore no chance of recovery. Times I've said we need to move backwards and forwards as a unit. i've always thought it strange that while the Beckfords and Dyers are expected to work back when we've lost the ball, defenders can take a break when we go forward.

It's wrong and if our backline had pushed up just a few more yards there wouldn't have been such a big gap between the midfielder involved and Moore in our last line of defence so a) the final ball might have been cut out or b) SWP wouldn't have been able to shoot direct at goal after one simple turning of his marker but would have been obliged to make further ground giving some chance of a recovery tackle or harrassment from a covering defender.

In City's defence they may not have closed the gap because they didn't want SWP to get behind them but he did so they were mistaken and they were so deep that just evading the last defender allowed SWP to get a match-winning shot away.

To me it makes a case for pulley-style defending rather than a flat line because, with the pulley system, there would always be a fast full-back covering any centre-back and therefore getting behind the centre-back would not necessarily be disastrous.

A defensive midfield specialist would provide a different kind of protection - in front of the defence - but it would cost us dearly in forward momentum and goals potential which, to me, is too big a sacrifice, especially when we have King (if fit and well) who is more than capable of covering intelligently in front of the back four and who remains arguably our most accurate finisher.

Why would it?

City had Lennon, yet Claridge, Heskey, Colly etc went on to score plenty of goals.

Man City have DeJong and score goals for fun.

Barcelona have Mascherano, yet Villa remains one of La Liga's perennial top scorers.

I'm not saying that we are on a par with these teams of course, but its all relative. They aren't playing the likes of Peterborough and Barnsley each week.

There are plenty of teams who score goals and who have one of their midfielders sitting off the back four. Probably because they retain better ball possession. In addition, having the reassurance that your midfield partner is 'holding' gives the other midfielder (s) more licence to get forward in an attacking threat.

Having the generic midfielder, if you like, who is expected to bomb forwards when we have the ball and to get back quickly enough when we don't will only work if they are pretty good at both aspects and if they have a real engine.

Do our midfielders have this? I dunno, I guess time will tell.

[Thracian]

Why would it?

City had Lennon, yet Claridge, Heskey, Colly etc went on to score plenty of goals.

Man City have DeJong and score goals for fun.

Barcelona have Mascherano, yet Villa remains one of La Liga's perennial top scorers.

I'm not saying that we are on a par with these teams of course, but its all relative. They aren't playing the likes of Peterborough and Barnsley each week.

There are plenty of teams who score goals and who have one of their midfielders sitting off the back four. Probably because they retain better ball possession. In addition, having the reassurance that your midfield partner is 'holding' gives the other midfielder (s) more licence to get forward in an attacking threat.

Having the generic midfielder, if you like, who is expected to bomb forwards when we have the ball and to get back quickly enough when we don't will only work if they are pretty good at both aspects and if they have a real engine.

Do our midfielders have this? I dunno, I guess time will tell.

Again, to me it points towards the pulley system of defending whereby if the opposition develop play down their left, for example, our right back is onto him and furthest of the back four up the field. The other defenders lie 10-15 yards off him and 20/25-degrees deeper right across the field. If play switches the pulley changes to have the opposite full-back furthest forward.

It works just the same in an attacking sense and means that at least one of our back four and perhaps even a centre-back can be involved in going forward, largely doing away with the need for a specialist defensive midfielder and would stop someone like King having to run himself into exhaustion.

It's why I've always wanted fast attack-capable full-backs because the system allows more easily for sustained attack while limiting the risk of being countered.

Zonal marking and a flat back four just encourages mistakes to me but, like you and others, we'll see. Mistakes this early in the season are inevitable anyway and if we learn the lessons from the Charlton game, the result might prove a blessing.

[Thracian]

Why would it?

City had Lennon, yet Claridge, Heskey, Colly etc went on to score plenty of goals.

Man City have DeJong and score goals for fun.

Barcelona have Mascherano, yet Villa remains one of La Liga's perennial top scorers.

I'm not saying that we are on a par with these teams of course, but its all relative. They aren't playing the likes of Peterborough and Barnsley each week.

There are plenty of teams who score goals and who have one of their midfielders sitting off the back four. Probably because they retain better ball possession. In addition, having the reassurance that your midfield partner is 'holding' gives the other midfielder (s) more licence to get forward in an attacking threat.

Having the generic midfielder, if you like, who is expected to bomb forwards when we have the ball and to get back quickly enough when we don't will only work if they are pretty good at both aspects and if they have a real engine.

Do our midfielders have this? I dunno, I guess time will tell.

City scored plenty of goals under MON because we had giant kamikaze attackers in Walsh, Elliott, Heskey and Marshall from all dead ball situations and because we had a maestro delivering the crosses in Guppy. Had we not had such an attack - and we certainly don't have that approach today - then I don't see how Lennon would have helped improve matters. It was a special situation.

That's not trying to negate what you say. I don't think King can perform a lone box-to-box role and still score goals and there's no other sensible candidates so something needs to be done.

But, for me, there's more goals in a pulley system and central midfielders would then be free to operate as they think best both in defence or attack.

[Captain...]

I might argue the opposite - that the back line left too big a gap between the midfield and therefore no chance of recovery. Times I've said we need to move backwards and forwards as a unit. i've always thought it strange that while the Beckfords and Dyers are expected to work back when we've lost the ball, defenders can take a break when we go forward.

It's wrong and if our backline had pushed up just a few more yards there wouldn't have been such a big gap between the midfielder involved and Moore in our last line of defence so a) the final ball might have been cut out or b) SWP wouldn't have been able to shoot direct at goal after one simple turning of his marker but would have been obliged to make further ground giving some chance of a recovery tackle or harrassment from a covering defender.

In City's defence they may not have closed the gap because they didn't want SWP to get behind them but he did so they were mistaken and they were so deep that just evading the last defender allowed SWP to get a match-winning shot away.

To me it makes a case for pulley-style defending rather than a flat line because, with the pulley system, there would always be a fast full-back covering any centre-back and therefore getting behind the centre-back would not necessarily be disastrous.

A defensive midfield specialist would provide a different kind of protection - in front of the defence - but it would cost us dearly in forward momentum and goals potential which, to me, is too big a sacrifice, especially when we have King (if fit and well) who is more than capable of covering intelligently in front of the back four and who remains arguably our most accurate finisher.

Won't argue with that but it still goes back to us having an inexperienced team that will grow into their roles, and the need of a vocal leader to organise things when he can see we are out of shape or exposed.

[Dr The Singh]

Won't argue with that but it still goes back to us having an inexperienced team that will grow into their roles, and the need of a vocal leader to organise things when he can see we are out of shape or exposed.

Saying that, omething I noticed at the Sunderland match, the difference between cattermule and morgan. Cattermule was far more vocal, he organised and was forever giving instructions.

[Bettsj2]

Saying that, omething I noticed at the Sunderland match, the difference between cattermule and morgan. Cattermule was far more vocal, he organised and was forever giving instructions.

Why should a captain have to continuously organise and give instructions throughout the game?

Everyone knows their job surely?

Too much stock is placed on how vocal a captain is. Cattermule probably was shouting for 99% of the game, but I gaurantee you it was 100% bullshit which wouldnt help anyone.

[Thracian]

Won't argue with that but it still goes back to us having an inexperienced team that will grow into their roles, and the need of a vocal leader to organise things when he can see we are out of shape or exposed.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately cajoling others is not so easy when you're under pressure yourself and Morgan had his hands full against Charlton. He couldn't beat Kermo in the air and was vulnerable to the pace and movement of SWP.

Charlton certainly seemed to have done their homework tactically and while they were never comfortable against our attacking play they knew exactly how they might hurt us on the counter attack and from set pieces.

[Thracian]

Why should a captain have to continuously organise and give instructions throughout the game?

Everyone knows their job surely?

Too much stock is placed on how vocal a captain is. Cattermule probably was shouting for 99% of the game, but I gaurantee you it was 100% bullshit which wouldnt help anyone.

An authoritative organiser - not necessarily the skipper - can make the difference between winning something and coming second. Dave Mackay at Spurs was one such but there were many others like Bobby Moore, Roy Keane at United and Forest, Steve Walsh at Leicester and so on.

Good leaders get the last drop of effort from people and start by setting their own example. Many have the ability to read the game so well they build the belief of everyone around them. Or they lead with their sheer presence and bloody-mindedness.

Leicester had a centre-back and captain called Ian King. The bloke was calmness personified. Not only did he win difficult balls but his distribution was immaculate. He almost always found time on the ball and a constructive answer to most any problem and his assurance rubbed off on his team-mates to the point where Leicester became a problem team for everyone and had perhaps the most successful period in their history. .

It's not just about players knowing their job but about many other things like restoring the confidence of players who've dropped a clanger or recognising which opponents are causing the problems and having the authority to do something about it.

[Dan]

I'm growing absolutely massively concerned at some of our "fans".

Lets go through things;

"Pearson out". Why? What good could POSSIBLY come from sacking a manager who's just had his pre-season with his new signings, a man who has never failed to deliver a good season when he's been able to lay the foundations himself, this coming two fvcking games in, following a win on the opening day and a loss against a side on a real high, who we should've beaten bar a pair of mistakes, the signs are there, unfortunately, so are you.

"Get rid of Vardy he's not good enough". Right, what a load of shite. Not only has he only played two games, has he been bad? No. Not at all. He's looked energetic, positive and whilst he'll obviously lack the quality at times, he's not going to let us down too often. That was a bad miss but Jesus, he's human, look at this for crying out loud; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Nu-Q1Qbzc 3:55. Every fvcker makes mistakes. It was a bad miss but writing him off because of it? Forget his fvcking past, he's here now and he has not been bad at all in those TWO games.

One comment from someone I can't remember was up there with the absolute dumbest I've seen on here. "Why do we sign 25 year olds from non-league, it's like signing Junior Lewis type of players who MIGHT be good". Who exactly doesn't qualify as "might" be good? Lionel Messi wouldn't be a guaranteed success here. No-one is a definite good buy and no-one is a definite bad, one thing that is definite, is that it's far too early to say.

I just cannot understand the attitude of some fans for one second, I can't understand why you're so quick to write off everything we do, every player we sign, things take time, Jesus Christ, did Reading go unbeaten last year? No, they'd lost 4 games by mid-September. They won the league and they're enjoying the Premier. Did Norwich, Swansea, QPR, West Ham, Southampton, Newcastle, West Brom, Blackpool etc... did a single one of them not lose a game?

It doesn't require 46 wins to go up, at this time of the season, results do matter but performances matter nearly as much, well not technically, but you can read into this side a lot by how we play, our first half wasn't acceptable, the second was total domination. How is that possibly a bad thing? We will get PLENTY of chances to win these games based on that display, but because we didn't win this 2-6, we're automatically not going up.

Can anyone calling for Pearson out, please explain to everyone with good reasons why they think he should go, why it'd be good for our players and the personnel at the club for him to be sacked, who we would get in and make things better, and why they would.

Anyone who says Sven has less brain cells than a fvcking brick.

Rant over. Plenty to come based on the amount of idiots we appear to have "supporting" us.

[Dan]

.

[Dan]

Interview with Kermo after the game, for those that are interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/19346688

and Pearson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/19338755

I can't believe Pearson said the defence played well.

[_Fatboyslow_]

I found the points raised by the pulley system v central midfielder quite interesting and do feel both are valid in principle but I do belive you still need the right personal to run what ever system you choose which certinly last season and maybe still we don't appear to have, apart from maybe King who I guess still has fitness concerns. The room on the pitch that chalton expoilted for the first goal just should not be there. This is not meant as a dig at Morgan or the defence,we just seem to lack some one who has a good handle on what's going on. Which I guess takes me back to King, although he gets slated for going missing when in fact he is covering and and the play moves around him. Maybe the answer lies with King starting ?

[Guest Col city fan]

I found the points raised by the pulley system v central midfielder quite interesting and do feel both are valid in principle but I do belive you still need the right personal to run what ever system you choose which certinly last season and maybe still we don't appear to have, apart from maybe King who I guess still has fitness concerns. The room on the pitch that chalton expoilted for the first goal just should not be there. This is not meant as a dig at Morgan or the defence,we just seem to lack some one who has a good handle on what's going on. Which I guess takes me back to King, although he gets slated for going missing when in fact he is covering and and the play moves around him. Maybe the answer lies with King starting ?

Although I agree with you in principle, I think that King's game is wasted if he's the midfielder who's relied upon to adopt a more defensive, holding role.

This is for two reasons. Firstly, he runs out of puff relatively quickly (is this why Pearson is currently only giving him 45 mins?) Secondly, he's got such a good attacking brain, he needs to sit further forward to make those impressive runs into the opposition box.

Pearson seems to want to play two generic, box to box midfielders. I don't think King fits this mould, especially not when playing away from home.

I'd rather see King given licence to orchestrate the play with the reassurance that his midfield colleague is sitting behind him to defend when necessary. I'd like to see a player like Jay Spearing playing alongside King. Spearing to charge about, winning the ball, King to distribute it around the pitch and to set up attacks.

I dont think that King is a bad player but, like Beckford, I believe he has to be played in the right way, with the correct set up, to get the best out of him. I think he will start at Blackburn though because I don't think Pearson actually knows what his best midfield is.

[marty78]

I found the points raised by the pulley system v central midfielder quite interesting and do feel both are valid in principle but I do belive you still need the right personal to run what ever system you choose which certinly last season and maybe still we don't appear to have, apart from maybe King who I guess still has fitness concerns. The room on the pitch that chalton expoilted for the first goal just should not be there. This is not meant as a dig at Morgan or the defence,we just seem to lack some one who has a good handle on what's going on. Which I guess takes me back to King, although he gets slated for going missing when in fact he is covering and and the play moves around him. Maybe the answer lies with King starting ?

There is no one right way to play but there is a lot wrong ones. The ideas of a defensive midfielder or a five man midfield are fine in principle, as are a number of other ways of playing, the only thing that annoys me a little bit is when people make out the way they think we should play is the only way to be successful. That can't be the case or every team would be the same and tactics wouldn't exist.

I also think King should start and he is better defensively than people give him credit for. He also contributed when coming on a sub and played a part in improved second half performances.

[Guest Col city fan]

There is no one right way to play but there is a lot wrong ones. The ideas of a defensive midfielder or a five man midfield are fine in principle, as are a number of other ways of playing, the only thing that annoys me a little bit is when people make out the way they think we should play is the only way to be successful. That can't be the case or every team would be the same and tactics wouldn't exist.

I also think King should start and he is better defensively than people give him credit for. He also contributed when coming on a sub and played a part in improved second half performances.

If this is aimed at me? I'm not advocating that City adopt the same style of play in every game. This would be daft and would make me wonder why we need a manager?

At home, when we have the ball more than the opposition, we can control a game with the current flat 4-4-2 set up. Pearson has proved this lots of times.

It's away from home that I have an issue with the flat 4-4-2. When we don't have the ball, we leave ourselves too exposed to the gap that lies between the midfield and the defence. I'm not basing this only on the Charlton game of course... Just look at the stats from last season... Pearson at home, no problem, Pearson away... more of a problem.

City lost 10 matches away from home last season and conceded 33 goals. I hope that we will improve on this this season.

Compare this to West Ham, for instance, who lost only 4 times away from home, conceding 22 goals and it makes me wonder whether their set up away from home was based upon a stronger midfield?

Anyway we'll see...

[_Fatboyslow_]

I also think King should start and he is better defensively than people give him credit for. He also contributed when coming on a sub and played a part in improved second half performances.

Where as I agree with you here I get the feeling he is being eased back in, maybe Kings ankle is still an issue?

[marty78]

If this is aimed at me? I'm not advocating that City adopt the same style of play in every game. This would be daft and would make me wonder why we need a manager?

At home, when we have the ball more than the opposition, we can control a game with the current flat 4-4-2 set up. Pearson has proved this lots of times.

It's away from home that I have an issue with the flat 4-4-2. When we don't have the ball, we leave ourselves too exposed to the gap that lies between the midfield and the defence. I'm not basing this only on the Charlton game of course... Just look at the stats from last season... Pearson at home, no problem, Pearson away... more of a problem.

Not aimed at you or anyone else, it just frustrates slightly when people are so adamant that something is wrong tactically based on last season. It may be a continuing issue this year and it may also be something Pearson changes or should change during the season. Their is absolutely nothing wrong with a flat 4-4-2 though if the players know their jobs and they are good enough to carry out their instructions.

Maybe the players are not good enough to pull it off and a tactical change is needed but that is up to Pearson, and his team of staff, to recognise and rectify. I don't think one game is enough to say Pearson's style is faulty and will ultimately fail, which saying we will get routinely turned over away from home would seem to suggest.

[marty78]

Where as I agree with you here I get the feeling he is being eased back in, maybe Kings ankle is still an issue?

It is impossible to say but he will force his way into the starting XI if he keeps coming of the bench and doing well.

[Guest Col city fan]

Not aimed at you or anyone else, it just frustrates slightly when people are so adamant that something is wrong tactically based on last season. It may be a continuing issue this year and it may also be something Pearson changes or should change during the season. Their is absolutely nothing wrong with a flat 4-4-2 though if the players know their jobs and they are good enough to carry out their instructions.

Maybe the players are not good enough to pull it off and a tactical change is needed but that is up to Pearson, and his team of staff, to recognise and rectify. I don't think one game is enough to say Pearson's style is faulty and will ultimately fail, which saying we will get routinely turned over away from home would seem to suggest.

I did acknowledge that we have played but one game away from home this season. I also pointed out some stats from last season.

You're right Marty... This season, away from home, we will hopefully concede less goals than we did last season.

But don't ignore the stats from last season. Not controlling games away from home was effectively why we didn't make top 6.

It's a football forum mate. We have to trust in Pearson but that doesn't mean any of us cant analyse where we look good and where we don't look so good.

As I said yesterday, I want to see us go to Blackburn and look a defensively stronger team. Fingers crossed. I think we'll win 2-1.

[theessexfox]

Were people watching a different game? The 2-0 half-time score was unjust, to say the least. We were easily the better team in the first half, especially in the 20 minutes before they scored, when we bossed the game. We were in their half significantly more than they were in ours, and we carved out plenty of half-chances, as well as a few decent ones. Vardy was brilliant in the air, especially for his height, and we looked defensively secure. Their goal came completely against the run of play - out of the blue. We then were slightly the better side in the 15 minutes before we conceded a second, which was a shocker to concede. Even after that we weren't terrible, albeit not as good as before.

The second half was when we showed a lot of fight and character. Kingy's goal was another peach, and we created plenty of chances, although how Vardy, and especially Dyer missed those I do not know. Charlton didn't pose a threat in the second period, and Knockaert was a revelation - like a Championship Messi.

All in all, I was pleased with the performance, although gutted about the result, and our inablility to cope with a counter-attack.

[marty78]

I did acknowledge that we have played but one game away from home this season. I also pointed out some stats from last season.

You're right Marty... This season, away from home, we will hopefully concede less goals than we did last season.

But don't ignore the stats from last season. Not controlling games away from home was effectively why we didn't make top 6.

It's a football forum mate. We have to trust in Pearson but that doesn't mean any of us cant analyse where we look good and where we don't look so good.

As I said yesterday, I want to see us go to Blackburn and look a defensively stronger team. Fingers crossed. I think we'll win 2-1.

I think some of our home results contributed as much to be fair, one of which cost Sven his job (not on its own of course).

As far as Blackburn go I want to attack early and try everything to get our foot in front rather than soaking up pressure and allowing them to come at us and grow into the game. I am not an advocate of all out attack all the time you understand but against a club facing the pressures of Blackburn I think you take a risk and go for the throat. It is a risk of course but for me football is all about the balance of risk and reward.

I get a feeling if we can get our noses in front early they may fold like a cheap suit, at least I hope so.

[Guest Col city fan]

I think some of our home results contributed as much to be fair, one of which cost Sven his job (not on its own of course).

As far as Blackburn go I want to attack early and try everything to get our foot in front rather than soaking up pressure and allowing them to come at us and grow into the game. I am not an advocate of all out attack all the time you understand but against a club facing the pressures of Blackburn I think you take a risk and go for the throat. It is a risk of course but for me football is all about the balance of risk and regard.

I get a feeling if we can get our noses in front early they may fold like a cheap suit, at least I hope so.

Our home form was as good as most teams. And especially so under Pearson. Pearson made us into fortress Walkers the last time he was managing us.

It's about possession of the ball and control of games.

There will always be defensive mishaps and strikers will always miss chances. That's a given I'm afraid. Of course, we don't want too many defensive errors and chances spurned. If that does happen, they are issues of concern in themselves.

Tomorrows game will be won or lost in the midfield IMO. Win the battle against Etuhu and Murphy... Get at em quickly and give them little time on the ball and the defence will be supported and the strikers provided with chances. Lose that midfield battle and we will lose the game. I reckon so anyway.

[Captain...]

If this is aimed at me? I'm not advocating that City adopt the same style of play in every game. This would be daft and would make me wonder why we need a manager?

At home, when we have the ball more than the opposition, we can control a game with the current flat 4-4-2 set up. Pearson has proved this lots of times.

It's away from home that I have an issue with the flat 4-4-2. When we don't have the ball, we leave ourselves too exposed to the gap that lies between the midfield and the defence. I'm not basing this only on the Charlton game of course... Just look at the stats from last season... Pearson at home, no problem, Pearson away... more of a problem.

City lost 10 matches away from home last season and conceded 33 goals. I hope that we will improve on this this season.

Compare this to West Ham, for instance, who lost only 4 times away from home, conceding 22 goals and it makes me wonder whether their set up away from home was based upon a stronger midfield?

Anyway we'll see...

..but..but..but...you should never change a winning team.