Charlton post match.

[Thracian]

One of the marks of a good manager is to make a difference when things go wrong - both on matchdays and on the training ground when seeking to make lasting improvements.

Pearson rarely seems to make that difference and last night was no different.

To affect games managers (in tandem with their trusted lieutenants) need to quickly analyse why their team might be losing or underperforming and to put it right effectively.

That might not mean replacing one attacker with another, one midfielder with another or one defender with another. it might mean subduing an individual or collective threat, pressurising a particular player or part of the opposition defence, changing the method of our attacking or increasing the range of attacking threats.

Whatever there's little point in maintaining the status quo when it needs to be changed and perhaps changed radically.

We fashioned a excellent equaliser last night but did we maintain the momentum? No. In fact we seemed reluctant to press our advantage and ended up in no-man's land as a team, leaving an opponent with space to volley the winner with no pressure whatsoever.

This leaving players unchallenged just outside the box has been a feature of our goals conceded or nearly conceded this season and it often seems to happen when the direction of play is switched from one direction to another and the zonal markers need to show awareness and urgency in regrouping. Clearly the problem is not being addressed.

Nor are consequences. Players didn't seem to know quite what was expected of them after we'd equalised. On one occasion Schmeichel launched a break on the right and the player in possession had to turn and wait for supporting attackers with the Charlton defence hurrying to regroup. It shouldn't have happened. Players should have been swarming forward.

But it's not just tactically and psychologically we're getting out-thought so often. We're not doing the simple things. We don't even take throw-ins accurately be delivering the ball to feet and making it comfortable for the receiver. Too often we take throws in such a way the receiver needs an extra-touch to gain control and by then any potential move might have been stifled.

Then there's the corners - there's almost always the corners. With no-one but Waghorn seemingly able to put enough pace and spin on the ball to disturb defenders we pose very little threat and hardly ever score. Last night the corners were predictable, threequarter-paced and mostly lacking in precision or praticed variation.

On the only occasion when we took a short corner, the outcome was embarrassing with an intended pass to Dyer missing its mark y a distance and going out for a goalkick with no Charlton player involved. Why our fans even get excited by a corner amazes me. Cos we hardly ever score or look likely to score.

The pass to dyer was just another schoolboy error to go with Drinkwater's which cost us the first goal but it wasn't the only one by any means and they all represented a lack of concentration and awareness. We talk so much about "working on the training ground" but sometimes there seems so little to see for it.

Watch our pre-match shooting. It is the same repetitive waste of time every week. There's no mirroring what might happen in a match. For instance we had a great early chance to sidefoot a goal and go 1-0 up but, as usual, the chance was lifted over the bar. Why do we never spend time feeding balls across the strikers so they get the feel for keeping the shots low?.

The other thing with our shooting is that we were constantly taking an extra touch instead of getting our shots in early and having our back-up players alert to any rebounds of handling mistakes by the goalkeeper.

Charlton were organised and hurried us robustly into mistakes. But a good manager would have anticipated all that and made sure that we always released the ball quickly.

But no, we produced a catalogue of unforced passing mistakes, Knockaert was his familiar careless, unpredictable and often flow-stopping self while the close marking of the visitors seemed so deter our players from making space-creating runs instead of encouraging them to make more and to stretch the covering defence as far as possible.

This, of course, was made harder by the fact that we started with relatively little pace out wide and therefore no special threat for Charlton to worry about. Only when Dyer came on did they need to double bank on Dyer which left far more available space if we'd been bright enough to use it. I know Dyer frustrates but he disturbs defences in a way Marshall is never really likely to.

[Guest]

Can anyone summarise Thracian's novel in a sentence?

[Happy Fox]

Can anyone summarise Thracian's novel in a sentence?

NP is not up for the job.

[flowwolf]

NP is not up for the job.

Yes but at least he gives us the reasons why.

[Danno]

Excellent post Thracian but i wont quote it.

[Loggy98]

Think about it, you helped us get more points to keeps us away from the relegation zone

F*** off

[inckley fox]

I'm not going to fully round on Pearson, but this is his lowest ebb as far as I'm concerned. It's not down to the results - I backed him throughout last season, but I did that because he was making changes to try to induce an improvement. A year in and they seemed to be working.

My skepticism stems from these things that I feel a decent manager should be doing-

a) Acting on poor displays, even when we win. Instead he publicly defended performances against Middlesbrough and Wolves, when in his first spell with us he would often criticise a winning side. Okay, perhaps that's just a public front? Well the team that played last night was the same one that played Boro, with precisely the same formation. The only difference is that the wingers don't seem to swap sides anymore - the last shred of unpredictability to our name.

b) Altering tactics to surprise different opposition. We appeared to have been 'sussed' before Wood came in; the surprise element threw teams for a short while but then, of course, teams 'wised up'. I haven't seen any evidence of a tactical shift since before the New Year. If he makes a change, it is always like for like. He has become the antithesis of proactive.

c) Addressing the media like a professional. Like it or not, PR is a requirement of his job. Some of his comments last night were as close as I've ever heard a manager come to saying 'it doesn't matter that we've lost'. I've already quoted some of his gems, such as 'these things happen', 'you can't win every game', 'there's nothing we can do about [falling nine points behind Hull]' and 'we've been mostly excellent all season'. For me they rank up with Taylor saying that people who'd criticised Akinbiyi and Lewis had egg on their face or Holloway saying we already had enough points to stay up. He simply did not sound like a quality manager and the moans from Konchesky and the suggestion from James that the loss against Huddersfield was a blessing sounded like they'd been listening to him too much.

d) Setting the bar high. If he genuinely feels that the season is going superbly then his ambitions are at odds with those of the owners - who have every right to aim for automatic promotion - and the fans. Perhaps that's fair enough, but most neutral pundits would agree that his achievements at City this year fall into the 'not quite as good as we expected them to be' category.

This could improve, but the only way that will happen is - as I see it - if he significantly alters his own approach.

[theessexfox]

I'm not going to fully round on Pearson, but this is his lowest ebb as far as I'm concerned. It's not down to the results - I backed him throughout last season, but I did that because he was making changes to try to induce an improvement. A year in and they seemed to be working.

My skepticism stems from these things that I feel a decent manager should be doing-

a) Acting on poor displays, even when we win. Instead he publicly defended performances against Middlesbrough and Wolves, when in his first spell with us he would often criticise a winning side. Okay, perhaps that's just a public front? Well the team that played last night was the same one that played Boro, with precisely the same formation. The only difference is that the wingers don't seem to swap sides anymore - the last shred of unpredictability to our name.

b) Altering tactics to surprise different opposition. We appeared to have been 'sussed' before Wood came in; the surprise element threw teams for a short while but then, of course, teams 'wised up'. I haven't seen any evidence of a tactical shift since before the New Year. If he makes a change, it is always like for like. He has become the antithesis of proactive.

c) Addressing the media like a professional. Like it or not, PR is a requirement of his job. Some of his comments last night were as close as I've ever heard a manager come to saying 'it doesn't matter that we've lost'. I've already quoted some of his gems, such as 'these things happen', 'you can't win every game', 'there's nothing we can do about [falling nine points behind Hull]' and 'we've been mostly excellent all season'. For me they rank up with Taylor saying that people who'd criticised Akinbiyi and Lewis had egg on their face or Holloway saying we already had enough points to stay up. He simply did not sound like a quality manager and the moans from Konchesky and the suggestion from James that the loss against Huddersfield was a blessing sounded like they'd been listening to him too much.

d) Setting the bar high. If he genuinely feels that the season is going superbly then his ambitions are at odds with those of the owners - who have every right to aim for automatic promotion - and the fans. Perhaps that's fair enough, but most neutral pundits would agree that his achievements at City this year fall into the 'not quite as good as we expected them to be' category.

This could improve, but the only way that will happen is - as I see it - if he significantly alters his own approach.

Good post, where can I find his interview from yesterday?

[L1wood]

I know im gonna get shot down for this BUT

Yeah good finish for their 2nd goal

But for a keeper of Kaspers size he can not afford to be edge of 6 yard box when the ball falls on the edge of the box.

Therefore IMO their 2nd goals was a catalogue of errors agreed. Should win 1st & 2nd ball but ultimately Kaspers fault for poor positioning .

[The People's Hero]

Agreed about KS in this instance, but we concede so many screamers now, just as we did with Weale in goal, because we are always so slow to close down and compete for 'second balls' or 'loose balls' or whatever you want to call them. The space in front of our back four is usually just not closed down, whilst all our midfielders look at it.

Just my take on it, feel free to completely disregard it, I don't care.

[theessexfox]

Agreed about KS in this instance, but we concede so many screamers now, just as we did with Weale in goal, because we are always so slow to close down and compete for 'second balls' or 'loose balls' or whatever you want to call them. The space in front of our back four is usually just not closed down, whilst all our midfielders look at it.

Just my take on it, feel free to completely disregard it, I don't care.

A space that could be filled by a defensive midfielder perhaps, would you get one in?

[The People's Hero]

A space that could be filled by a defensive midfielder perhaps, would you get one in?

I'd turn that round a little and change the question, if you don't mind, politician stuff really.

I'd like to see NP get one in as cover for the eventuality we come up against a 5 man midfield. Its in those situations we really miss having a ball-winner with the awareness to see threats developing around him. I would stress it would need to be someone with experience and not even necessarily at the peak of their powers, but with the know how and ability to dictate pace etc etc.

What would be better though, is if NP could either a) innovate a bit more against these 5 men midfields and impose our game on them or b) get us back playing confident, enterprising stuff with movement. Why have all the players stopped moving and offering the ball carrier options?

I don't think just signing any old DM - and definitely not a sub 25 year old one is going to sort this out. We don't want to be blooding other teams' youngsters.

Even a Mark Davies type player could easily play the role, he's versatile enough, knows the game and can pick a pass as well as having the energy to take the ball forwards when needed, much like Morgan has to do now (why can Drinkwater/King/James not show this sort of initiative and enterprise).

Ideally I'd just have Jem Karacan turn up.

[Thracian]

Good post, where can I find his interview from yesterday?