[Archived] Charlton away April 28th

[bazza]

Regarding Caddis:---     I have watched him play at Ewood only. (I've only seen 2 away games at Oldham and Shrewsbury).  I disagree with many who have slated him over the season.

Caddis is a capable right back and can play left back as he has demonstrated. He defends very well and has an experienced football brain. He can "read" a game. I have always appreciated his performances, unlike many on this message board. 

However, he hasn't got pace and, therefore, is incapable of being an "overlapping full back". But he is still a good full back for League 1.

Now, regarding the Charlton game, I am disappointed to hear that he has put weight on and looks unfit. Also I am disappointed that TM didn't play Travis from the start. TM must have had his good reasons.

Travis has impressed me with his performances except his first (against Crewe in the cup?) when he looked very feeble.

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

No I didnt go due to family reasons. 

Why give up on a formation thats does work? 

Dack playing behind 2 strikers does work tho?

Payne played like a false 9 role with Samuel and Armstrong wide strikers. Samuel makena couple of good runs in behind. 

Samuel provide no goal threat? Didnt he hit the bar and was foul when clean through or didnt u see it?

Samuel hasnt scored since November chaddy. Yes I saw it, it was in front of me.

The first question ive put in bold is the same question ill ask you regarding a 4-2-3-1 that has been consistent throughout a season in which weve been promoted. 3 at the back didnt work yesterday. Charlton Athletic 1-0 Blackburn Rovers is my main line of evidence.

The second question ive put in bold, when we play it, its 2 players either side of a central player. Yesterday it would have meant that Dack is a false 9, unless he was played either side of said false 9. So you are basing your approval of a formation Mowbray is playing on the reasoning of a formation that is slightly different.

I have no doubt youll come back at me with Plan B reasoning,  but its a very intricate formation, not one to keep changing to and from. Every time we play it, we look slow, ponderous and quite frankly boring to watch.

[bazza]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

A promotion like Tuesday is one reason to celebrate. A subsequent title would have been two. Two reasons to celebrate would have been far better than one don't you think Parson? As well as he has done this season I really don't understand the indifference of the manager to the possibility of winning the title. As another poster said, how often Do we have the chance to win a League of any description? It's an extremely rare event and should be embraced not ignored.

Rev, the "rested" players WERE INJURED!!!!!!!!   FFS

[blueboy3333]

22 hours ago, Mercer said:

A couple of my friends and wives

'Wives'. Player.

[RevidgeBlue]

24 minutes ago, bazza said:

Rev, the "rested" players WERE INJURED!!!!!!!!   FFS

Come off it. Although some of them may have been carrying niggles/ knocks/strains you know as well as I do if we'd needed the 3 points on Saturday to secure promotion the line up would have been virtually identical to Tuesday. (FFS)

[funny-old-game]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Come off it. Although some of them may have been carrying niggles/ knocks/strains you know as well as I do if we'd needed the 3 points on Saturday the line up would have been virtually identical to Tuesday. (FFS)

But we didn't need 3 points as nice as it would have been. Playing players that have niggles, knocks and stains can cause injuries that can last all of the summer and affect the start of the coming season. We are now promoted Rev,Job done.

[bazza]

20 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Come off it. Although some of them may have been carrying niggles/ knocks/strains you know as well as I do if we'd needed the 3 points on Saturday to secure promotion the line up would have been virtually identical to Tuesday. (FFS)

Raya with a groin problem which has been obvious for a few games.

Conway has a broken metatarsal. 

Bennett has a dislocated shoulder.

Dack has been playing with a hamstring problem for a while; and it showed.

Williams is knackered and was replaced by an award-winning player.

Niggles, knocks, strains; my arse!

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Samuel hasnt scored since November chaddy. Yes I saw it, it was in front of me.

The first question ive put in bold is the same question ill ask you regarding a 4-2-3-1 that has been consistent throughout a season in which weve been promoted. 3 at the back didnt work yesterday. Charlton Athletic 1-0 Blackburn Rovers is my main line of evidence.

The second question ive put in bold, when we play it, its 2 players either side of a central player. Yesterday it would have meant that Dack is a false 9, unless he was played either side of said false 9. So you are basing your approval of a formation Mowbray is playing on the reasoning of a formation that is slightly different.

I have no doubt youll come back at me with Plan B reasoning,  but its a very intricate formation, not one to keep changing to and from. Every time we play it, we look slow, ponderous and quite frankly boring to watch.

Yes I know when his last goal was. Against Bristol Rovers. Remember it very well. Also won us a penalty aswell. 

To answer your first question was the formation to blame for their goal? No it was a deflected shot. Were Charlton having loads of shots at our goal when we played that formation? No they didnt. That deflected shot were the shot they had when we played 3 at the back. 

I like playing 3 at the back in some games and 4 at the back in others. Nothing wrong with flexible and not so predictable either..

I wouldnt use the 3 up front like Mowbray did if I was playing it. But like ive said Dack behind 2 strikers Armstrong and Graham like we did at Portsmouth away on the 13th Feb. 

Nothing wrong with playing 2 formations during the season. We need to flexible next season. Some teams with man mark Dack next season and stop him playing. So we will need plan A or B or C. 

Boring to watch? We played great football with any systems. 

Bell is wing back and was signed for that reason. He was in PFA team of the year for playing left wing back for Fleetwood. 

What formation(plan A) will we play next season? I dont know but lets see who we sign first and that will tell how we be playing next season. 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes I know when his last goal was. Against Bristol Rovers. Remember it very well. Also won us a penalty aswell. 

To answer your first question was the formation to blame for their goal? No it was a deflected shot. Were Charlton having loads of shots at our goal when we played that formation? No they didnt. That deflected shot were the shot they had when we played 3 at the back. 

I like playing 3 at the back in some games and 4 at the back in others. Nothing wrong with flexible and not so predictable either..

I wouldnt use the 3 up front like Mowbray did if I was playing it. But like ive said Dack behind 2 strikers Armstrong and Graham like we did at Portsmouth away on the 13th Feb. 

Nothing wrong with playing 2 formations during the season. We need to flexible next season. Some teams with man mark Dack next season and stop him playing. So we will need plan A or B or C. 

Boring to watch? We played great football with any systems. 

Bell is wing back and was signed for that reason. He was in PFA team of the year for playing left wing back for Fleetwood. 

What formation(plan A) will we play next season? I dont know but lets see who we sign first and that will tell how we be playing next season. 

5 months between goals is not a goal threat whichever way you look at it.

When we play it, we play a lot slower, we rely on bringing the ball out from the back, when Mulgrew aside we arent good enough to do so. Lenihan in particular isnt good enough on the ball to be bringing it out.

Bell played a lot at Fleetwood as a full back.

The make up of the front 3, like I said he prefers one down the middle, that didnt work, it wouldnt suit Dack, it is a system that relies on ball retention and we arent good enough to play it quickly. 

The 3 at the back is a minor issue, the main one in regards to the Charlton game was seemingly the attitude of not being 100% bothered about the title, something I think is not acceptable, in isolation. Im delighted with the season overall, but yesterday at Charlton it was a source of frustration. 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

5 months between goals is not a goal threat whichever way you look at it.

When we play it, we play a lot slower, we rely on bringing the ball out from the back, when Mulgrew aside we arent good enough to do so. Lenihan in particular isnt good enough on the ball to be bringing it out.

Bell played a lot at Fleetwood as a full back.

The make up of the front 3, like I said he prefers one down the middle, that didnt work, it wouldnt suit Dack, it is a system that relies on ball retention and we arent good enough to play it quickly. 

The 3 at the back is a minor issue, the main one in regards to the Charlton game was seemingly the attitude of not being 100% bothered about the title, something I think is not acceptable, in isolation. Im delighted with the season overall, but yesterday at Charlton it was a source of frustration. 

Disagree on Lenihan and your comment. 

Ive have in past posted where Bell has played this season for Fleetwood as wing back and I aint doing again. Research it yourself. 

Disagree on this also

"The make up of the front 3, like I said he prefers one down the middle, that didnt work, it wouldnt suit Dack, it is a system that relies on ball retention and we arent good enough to play it quickly. "

Look at Portsmouth away game. Played it like I would. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Disagree on Lenihan and your comment. 

Ive have in past posted where Bell has played this season for Fleetwood as wing back and I aint doing again. Research it yourself. 

Disagree on this also

"The make up of the front 3, like I said he prefers one down the middle, that didnt work, it wouldnt suit Dack, it is a system that relies on ball retention and we arent good enough to play it quickly. "

Look at Portsmouth away game. Played it like I would. 

If you think 30 minutes in 1 game is enough evidence, baring in mind Mowbray hasnt played it like that since, and also Im taking your word for it, and presumably you went to get this opinion so fair enough. Then thats your call.

[47er]

8 hours ago, islander200 said:

In the case of Caddis and this is purely speculation on my part, Mowbray could have already told Caddis that he won't be part of his plans next season and is giving him game time now promotion is secured to see if it will help get him fixed up for next season. I really can't see Caddis being in the match day squads next season.Caddis could actually be decent if he got fit, he isn't bad on the ball but he is no way fit enough to be Championship standard 

You would put that ahead of winning the Championship?????

[islander200]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

You would put that ahead of winning the Championship?????

I didn't say that I'm saying what I think might be Mowbray's reasoning. I would have rathered Travis got the start ahead of Caddis I wouldn't have risked any of the players carrying niggles and injuries. If playing Caddis does remind a team or two that he is still about and helps get his wage off the books next season then him starting won't have been all bad 

[blueboy3333]

 

[47er]

6 hours ago, islander200 said:

I didn't say that I'm saying what I think might be Mowbray's reasoning. I would have rathered Travis got the start ahead of Caddis I wouldn't have risked any of the players carrying niggles and injuries. If playing Caddis does remind a team or two that he is still about and helps get his wage off the books next season then him starting won't have been all bad 

No you said TM was thinking that way. I'm asking you if you agree? I think to put Caddis' interests above those of the club would be really reprehensible and there must be another explanation (which I would still disagree with!)

[Parsonblue]

10 hours ago, bazza said:

Raya with a groin problem which has been obvious for a few games.

Conway has a broken metatarsal. 

Bennett has a dislocated shoulder.

Dack has been playing with a hamstring problem for a while; and it showed.

Williams is knackered and was replaced by an award-winning player.

Niggles, knocks, strains; my arse!

Don't be silly Bazza, the folk on here know far more than the manager or medical staff at Ewood.    

[roversfan99]

Just now, Parsonblue said:

Don't be silly Bazza, the folk on here know far more than the manager or medical staff at Ewood.    

People arent saying that! They are complaining because the manager sees a League title as seemingly as irrelevance. Not because he hasnt picked injured players.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Bowyer admitting Charlton were very lucky to win

 

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16191937._Did_we_get_a_bit_of_luck__I_think_we_did____Lee_Bowyer_reacts_to_Rovers_win/?ref=mac 

[Parsonblue]

17 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

People arent saying that! They are complaining because the manager sees a League title as seemingly as irrelevance. Not because he hasnt picked injured players.

He's quite right.  Promotion is all that matters and we've achieved that - so why risk players to long term injuries when the main target is achieved?  How many people remember who beat us to the Third Division title when Kendall won promotion without looking it up.  I'd rather have the key players fit, well and resting over the summer rather than spending the 'off' season having to come into Brockhall for treatment.

[47er]

I wonder how Scunny and Plymouth feel about it? TM wasn't happy a year ago when Huddersfield did it.

[Parsonblue]

Just now, 47er said:

I wonder how Scunny and Plymouth feel about it? TM wasn't happy a year ago when Huddersfield did it.

So are you saying that the players weren't injured?

[roversfan99]

12 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

He's quite right.  Promotion is all that matters and we've achieved that - so why risk players to long term injuries when the main target is achieved?  How many people remember who beat us to the Third Division title when Kendall won promotion without looking it up.  I'd rather have the key players fit, well and resting over the summer rather than spending the 'off' season having to come into Brockhall for treatment.

Why is it all that matters? Just because you seem to have a disregard for our club winning a trophy, doesnt make it right. No one said he should have played unfit players but he shouldnt be implying that winning silverware is irrelevant, because to most fans its not.

I wasnt born when that happened but im sure that the team that won it remembers winning it.

[47er]

Just now, Parsonblue said:

So are you saying that the players weren't injured?

That's what the Huddersfield manager said. Even if they were he didn't pick his best side.

[islander200]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

No you said TM was thinking that way. I'm asking you if you agree? I think to put Caddis' interests above those of the club would be really reprehensible and there must be another explanation (which I would still disagree with!)

Are you even reading my posts?In my first post i said it was pure speculation on my part.In my second post i said i would have played Travis?Caddis being off our wage bill next season is in the clubs interest though.

[47er]

 

i honestly don't think he played Caddis to get him off our wage bill. if he did its back-fired eh?