Rhone Cup Upset Avoided

Believe it or not, the weekend wasn’t entirely devoid of meaningful football, for me at least, thanks to a quick answer to a question from my French partner Suzanne. I’d booked a trip to Lyon a while back and thought there might be the chance to take in a Lyon Duchere game. She checked; seems they would be playing away in the Coupe de France (an early round), against l’US Pont la Roche, on Sunday afternoon. What about, she suggested, driving south on Saturday, to around Tain l’Hermitage, going to either Charpoutier or another recommended wine outlet and also taking in a visit to the chocolate museum in the town (she has her weaknesses too), staying the night at a farm around Mersez, go to the game on Sunday, then drive back to Lyon (she does like to plan ahead)?

There are some questions which require careful thought; there are others to which a failure to reply in the affirmative before said partner has the option to reconsider having afforded me the possibility of wallowing in plenty of my favourite reds in return for a stroll around a chocolate museum merit a large tattoo of ‘plonker’ across the forehead. So off we duly went, despite a weather forecast which suggested that if we were lucky we’d only get moderately wet.

And wallow we did. The chocolate ‘museum’ (http://www.citeduchocolat.com/fr) was more than acceptable: EUR10 to go in, carrying tasting samples with additional free selections along the way, followed by more freebies in the shop. All very educational. Then on to my kind of shop (http://www.hermite.fr/). On the table as we entered were bottles to taste of Crozes Hermitage, Hermitage, and Cote Rotie. I mentioned that St Joseph was my preferred tipple and their immediate reaction was to take a bottle from the rack and open that to taste too. Even I had the decency not to say that I also liked Cornas, and anything else they might suggest from the area. The first Crozes Hermitage was a perfectly pleasant entre, the sort of unpretentious red that if any pub/bar within striking distance of The Valley were to offer would put an end to all our usual pre-match deliberations. The second one was a step or two up from that, splendid. Have to say that the Cote Rotie is a little too delicate for my peasant’s palate, the Hermitage was a slight let-down (the lady said she had tasted it that morning and it was fine but that now seemed too aerated, perhaps the cold; she added that it did need a few more years to be at its best and was ‘difficult’ to drink, which prompted the appropriate response from me), but then the St Joseph sent me into raptures.

Some of the second Crozes Hermitage and of the St Joseph safely purchased, along with a bottle of sweet white for Suzanne, and it was just a matter of carrying them, plus the chocolate, back to the car to drive east to Marsez and the farm. All perfectly welcoming and agreeable, save for the suggestion that breakfast was to be taken no later than 10.00. Later, despite reservations about my ability to be able to navigate our way back the short distance on dark, French country roads (Suzanne is a very fine driver and has many other splendid qualities, but she would agree that a sense of direction is not among them), we drove to St Donat to a recommended restaurant (not expensive and very friendly, perhaps in contrast to the one in the town with a Michelin star). Starters of foie gras and a mushroom concoction in mushroom puree, then St Jacques (Suzanne knows what she likes) and pork (so do I), followed by an assortment of desserts (the slice of lemon tart was a bit limp but the rest very good – especially for the reminder that while we are close to the Ardeche should get some chestnut sauce, delicious with vanilla ice cream and Chantilly). All washed down with a recommended Crozes Hermitage, Domaine des 7 Chemins, which proved to be all I could hope for.

After breakfast at the ungodly hour and a decent stroll around the area (pour la sante), we drove back west to be in place for the football (ah yes, there was a reason for this post). Just happened to see on the road a sign for Domaine des 7 Chemins, so yours truly the navigator kicked into gear. We found ourselves driving along (I kid you not) Rue de Syrah until we arrived at the vinyard. Now it was around 11.45 on a Sunday, so hopes of it being open for business were not high. Indeed, on the door ‘ferme’. But every problem has a solution, in this case a French one. When you find yourself at a vineyard which declares itself to be closed, but you see a couple of French men sitting around outside, push out of the car an attractive woman to go and talk to them. A couple of minutes later the place was duly opened, ‘by exception’. Not long after that, having admired their various awards (although in France so many seem to be handed out that you have to find a real wine lake-filler for there not to be trophies/certificates lining the walls) and availed myself of another glass, we emerged carrying more bottles. I look forward to reacquainting myself with this one (http://www.crozes-hermitage-vin.fr/domaine-des-sept-chemins) in the days ahead and would heartily recommend you do the same.

The difficulties in finding the location for the game – we thought the stadium might be at Point de l’Isere but it proved to be at la Roche de Glun - were offset by a couple more glasses of red in different locations along the way, plus a quick stop to get a couple of jars of said chestnut sauce/puree (and a little Serrano ham). OK, ‘stadium’ is a little too grand. We were informed that l’US Pont la Roche ply their trade some four divisions below Lyon Duchere (seems that at this stage of the Coupe de France the games are regional and the smaller team is always given home advantage). And more power to them. There was a bar (no wine but a demi of beer for EUR2 a go) and changing rooms, but basically it was a case of three football pitches side-by-side. As the middle one had corner flags planted and a metal rail running alongside the pitch, it seemed to be the one for the day. Admission price? Well, zero. No suggestion of trying to milk the occasion, rather everyone (probably a couple of hundred, players and officials included) enjoying the opportunity for a potential giantkilling.

Not surprisingly it proved not to be one for the purist. The pitch was not exactly flat, and with the corniche that marks the boundary of the Ardeche only a stone’s throw from the far edge of the pitch and storms in the region periodically a gale blew across the playing surface. And one had to add in the fact that the match officials were, well pants (bless them, they tried their best). The linesman in front of us seemed rather confused by his role, keeping his flag down and shouting ‘advantage’ after one agricultural challenge, then turning his back on play to run down the line only to miss the fact that the ball had gone out. The referee was kitted out perfectly and had the air of authority of a minor French bureaucrat (which he presumably was). He was consistent: he gave free kicks for almost all minimal contact outside the box but nothing within it, gave regular lectures to players after ‘fouls’ but kept his card in his pocket (until very late on when presumably he remembered he had a quota to work to), and looked on with indifference when early in the game a home defender went flying in two-footed off the ground. He missed the ball (there was never much possibility of that) and fortunately the Duchere player. As there had been no actual contact, not only was there no red card, he didn’t even give a foul. If the Duchere players were a little circumspect after that, who could blame them?

In truth, whatever the conditions, Duchere played poorly in the first half, seemingly unsure whether to try to pass the ball forward or loft it on the chance that the prevailing gale might spark an opportunity. One botched header from a great position from a corner was all they had to show, while at the other end aside from a moment when the Duchere keeper went walkabout and a sliced shot from a decent position the goal was not threatened. At the break by not taking control of the game Duchere had given heart to the opposition and an upset, while not clearly on the cards, was a distinct possibility.

Perhaps some harsh words were exchanged during half-time as Duchere did begin the second period with more intent. A little more urgency and better passing saw Pont la Roche under pressure and less able to clear their lines. And the breakthrough came in perhaps predictable circumstances. After a genuine hack from behind the free kick was lofted towards the far post. It became gale-assisted and cleared both the Duchere player and the keeper, going on to hit the inside of the far post and drop a couple of feet over the line. Hard lines for the Pont la Roche keeper, but on the balance of play just about deserved.

Duchere then had chances to put the game to bed. Their winger somehow failed to bundle the ball in at the far post, perhaps unsure which part of his body to use to apply the necessary touch, then a driven low cross evaded everyone in a crowded box. After these went begging, it was really a case of whether the late, desperate efforts of La Roche might produce an equaliser and extra time (seems it would be decided on the day, with penalties if necessary, all of which might have delighted the other 198 in attendance but perhaps not us, or at least not Suzanne who was beginning to think about the pork with mustard she was intending to cook back in Lyon). There were a couple of penalty appeals, which were never going to get the time of day from this ref (and to be fair the decisions looked correct), and the La Roche keeper up for a stoppage-time corner. But in the end Duchere safely negotiated passage to whatever the next round brings, the people of l’US Pont la Roche were left to refocus on what they do best (providing greedy Englishmen with lots of his favourite red wine), and we were clear to get into the car shortly before the heavens opened.

Is there a conclusion, beyond the fact that no doubt there are plenty of Addicks out there who were desperate to hear of the cup fate of Lyon Duchere (for the record their start in the league has been less than impressive, although a 4-0 victory in their last game has taken then clear of the relegation zone)? Probably not, save perhaps for the fact that at least now I am better prepared in the event that I end up losing a certain bet, one struck in the wake of last January’s transfer window debacle, one that I was then and will be happy to lose.

Not Enough On The Day

If we’d contrived to lose this one, there’s no question who would have been to blame. Last season we were able to rely on any sort of downpour to get a game called off if things weren’t going our way, or if we weren’t really up for the challenge. Now with a bright, shiny new surface we had to play it out. It was a case of two points lost rather than one gained, not because we deserved to win (we didn’t) but because too many on the pitch had below-par games when you felt the game was there to be won. Having taken the lead, we didn’t have it in the tank to go on and win well against vulnerable opposition, or to go again once they’d equalised. Perhaps the most telling fact was that we failed to create a single opportunity after the first minute of the second half. It seemed as if after the magnificent win at Norwich we wanted to just get through this one and get to the break. Not enough on the day.

The team was much as expected in that Solly came back in for Gomez and Morrison had his first appearance due to the unavailability of Ben Haim, with Bulot continuing to provide support for Vetekole up front and Cousins and Wilson in the wide midfield slots. The view of some Birmingham fans before the game was that they carried a threat but that defensively they were all over the place, and early on it looked as though Vetekole might win it on his own.

We didn’t exactly dominate possession in the opening minutes; rather we kept the ball exclusively, albeit to no great effect until a rather ordinary ball forward to Igor saw him do all the hard work – controlled it, turned inside his marker to make the space – only to curl his effort wide when there was the whole goal to aim at. No matter, the next time we worked the ball down the left a cross into the box saw Vetekole unmarked to head down and into the corner. You did wonder how Birmingham allowed him to get free as he was the only one to mark, but it’s happened before and you have to give full marks for his movement and ability to escape the defenders.

Only problem was having scored really quite easily we seemed to think that we could do so again if necessary. We weren’t exactly on the boil before the goal, but after it were decidedly off it and just got sloppy, playing as if we believed that Birmingham couldn’t score, given that Norwich hadn’t managed it. They nearly did not long after courtesy of a poor pass by Buyens that was easily intercepted and put us on the back foot, only for their guy to curl it over. Buyens went on to have a rant at the ref, as if that disguised the error.

We continued to amble through the remainder of the first half, with nothing of note coming down the flanks and Bulot peripheral, but just as it seemed we had made it to the break without alarm Birmingham played a ball into the box which seemed to be diverted goalwards, only for a guy in an offside position to give it an unnecessary extra touch. Have to see it again but my impression at the time was that if he’d left well alone it would have gone in and been legitimate.

You hoped that would serve as a wake-up call and that the team would come out with more purpose in the second half. That almost proved to be the case as in the first minute Vetekole played it square across the box to the incoming Wilson only for him to curl it over the bar rather than under it. It was to prove important as a second then may well have killed off the game. Instead Henderson was called into action to block an effort shortly after before the game settled back into its previous pattern: us looking relatively untroubled but not exactly worrying them either.

That relative contentment was upset after about 10 minutes of the second half. It looked as though a Birmingham training ground corner routine had gone wrong as their guy failed to control the ball to him on the edge of the box, but it broke square and their guy running on to it on the left side drilled it into the opposite corner, giving Henderson no chance.

Fair enough, on the balance of play we couldn’t complain, even if the goal had an element of good fortune about it. Plenty of time left, we have to go on now and win the game again. Sometimes it’s just not that easy as when the intensity and drive hasn’t been there generating it isn’t easy. Peeters tried to shake things up with changes but they didn’t result in a better tempo. Shortly after their goal Moussa came on for Jackson, with Cousins again switching inside and Bulot going wider. The skipper seemed to me seemed less than pleased. On the day Buyens was playing poorly and if one of them had to go to inject more life, there was a case, if the legs were OK, for it to be Buyens instead of him.

In any event the change made no material difference and after another 10 minutes or so Tucudean came on for Wilson, with Moussa now pushed wide left. He too was to disappoint, looking short of confidence and finding it hard to get into the game. Birmingham seemed to appreciate that as long as they kept Vetekole under wraps – which they had failed to do early in the game – the threat to their goal was modest.

In a rather subdued atmosphere even the announcement of six extra minutes failed to inject fresh impetus. Instead Cousins landed awkwardly and was stretchered off, to be replaced by Fox, who operated as a central midfielder. The extra minutes passed with no dramas and at the death both sets of supporters were probably left with the feeling of what might have been. On actual efforts on goal they had probably shaded it and, having shut us out for the bulk of the second half, may feel if anyone deserved to win it it was them. We left with the feeling that if we’d played to our potential we would have won, but having failed to do so had no real complaints.

If we’d come away from Carrow Road with a gutsy 0-0 and won today we’d be delighted. We are after all still unbeaten and in the frame. Just could have been a good deal better and that has to go down as a missed opportunity.

Player Ratings:

Henderson:  8/10. No chance with the goal and dealt with everything else very well.

Solly: 7/10. Much as before, no problems defensively but not quite the storming presence going forward that we’ve seen in the past.

Wiggins: 7/10. With the exception of one occasion getting caught out in the second half perfectly sound; as with Solly, not a lot going forward – perhaps it’s to do with the combinations in front of them.

Bikey-Amougou:  8/10. There was nothing wrong (again) with the defence today, Birmingham scored somewhat out of the blue and otherwise only had two clear efforts on goal.

Morrison: 8/10. My man of the match. He can’t have played much competitive football of late and came in, didn’t put a foot wrong. Very reassuring that he’s not gone off the boil.

Wilson: 4/10. Let’s face it, a poor game. Was unable to get anything going and when he had the chance to put the game beyond Birmingham the shot went over.

Buyens: 4/10. He’s a good deal better than he showed today. I thought against Middlesbrough he was playing a bit within himself and today he got more than a bit sloppy. Poor pass nearly cost us a goal.

Jackson: 6/10. Nothing dramatic or decisive. On the day he was unlucky to be taken off.

Cousins: 7/10. No point in going on about the limitations when he finds himself in a position where a natural winger would thrive. Just hope the landing doesn’t prove to be serious.

Bulot: 4/10. Potential is fine, but today he was entirely peripheral, playing centrally and out wide. Hope for better.

Vetekole: 8/10. Birmingham couldn’t handle him and he nearly won it on his own, although he was better dealt with in the second half.

Subs:  Moussa (5/10 – no material impact); Tucudean (5/10 – the same); Fox (no mark as he was only on for stoppage time).

View From Norfolk

Us Addicks are of course rightly renowned for our fair and balanced assessments of a game. So having not made the trip last night (there are a few things outside of football which sometimes have to take priority), which is a pity as Norwich away is one of my favourite weekend excursions (easy journey, welcoming pre-match pubs, good atmosphere – in my experience), I thought I’d check with some Canaries acquaintances to see if they are of the same ilk.

Sadly it seems as if these ones at least have problems with perspective and an obvious tendency to get carried away with the emotion of it all. I had inquired by email if there was a general sense of relief in Norwich that they had held us to just the one goal and received the following reply:

“I think it’s more like we’re impressed that the bung you lot gave the ref worked so well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El4Lj1zekss). How many times did your defender want to handle the ball and the ref not give it? Not to mention your goalie who couldn’t hold the ball and the ref gave that as a foul as well. Other than that, your lot defended really well and were very organised and difficult to break down. You scored at the right time too so we couldn’t get back into it. Probably was the best we’ve played in a while as your lot sat so deep.” To be fair, it was signed off as a ‘bitter rant’.

I did check out the above link for supporting evidence. The first clearly wasn’t a penalty. The second is rather more confusing, but even in slow motion you can’t see a clear handball, so how the officials are supposed to give it in real time is beyond me. I said as much in an email reply, adding that if Peeters feels that the ref got the main decisions correct that’s fine by me, and was later informed that the Norwich guy “has just achieved low earth orbit and will attempt ballistic re-entry soon”.

Ah, there’s none so blind …..

Close But No Cigar

Not one to live long in the memory, as competitive and even as it was. If I was editing the highlights for the Football League show tonight, I’d include a header from a corner from them in the first half that their guy probably should have put the right (for them) side of the post, the Bikey-Amougou incident (when some irrational Boro fans made a daft claim for a stray elbow), the Bulot effort that came back off the inside of the post, the sending off, and the late chance for Wilson that might have won the game but for the foot of their keeper. Otherwise I suspect most neutrals would have written it off as a 0-0 well before half-time. It was a game that needed a goal from somewhere to open it up, or better a Bikey-Amougou header at the death to win it. Now that would have raised a grin.

Over the full game I doubt that anyone would argue that a draw was fair, just the feeling that if it had gone on another 10 minutes we may well have won it as Boro, down to 10 men, were increasingly happy to settle for the point. If there was disappointment it was that having been handed that advantage, with by then a more attacking formation than we began with, we didn’t really seize the initiative to win the game. It was a case of a need to appreciate the possibility and up the intensity as the game had changed and we didn’t really manage to do that, the late chance for Wilson notwithstanding.

We started off with Bulot utilised as a second forward/in the hole, with Tucudean on the bench alongside Ahearne-Grant and Moussa rather than Church. Otherwise the team was as expected. Cautious for sure, but see how it plays out. In the event both sides pretty much negated each other through a competitive but scrappy and one-paced first 20 minutes or so. Boro seemed big enough but not obviously blessed with either the pace or trickery to really unsettle us, while we struggled to create anything in the final third. The exception was Vetokele playing in Cousins in space on the left, but quite understandably the guy doesn’t have the instincts of a winger, to either motor at the defender or make a telling cross. Not his fault.

Henderson had a routine shot to save, one deflected effort went over the bar, but the only moment of real danger in the first half was a straightforward header from a corner which their guy probably should have converted. We did start to look more threatening when Gudmundsson switched sides with Cousins, but that didn’t last long as shortly before the break Gudmundsson turned awkwardly and went down in a heap. Looked like it might be a bad one. He was replaced by Moussa, who filled in on the left side.

At the break it was a case of plaudits all round for the efforts but no idea where a goal for either side might come from. Perhaps both sides would go for it more in the second, once we’d got through the unwelcome nonsense of our apparently new half-time ‘entertainment’, an experiment which hopefully will prove short-lived.

Instead the game continued much as before. Moussa had one or two decent moments, but it was time for a change and with about 20 minutes left Tucudean made his appearance, coming on for Jackson with Cousins moving inside and Bulot out wide. That did make a difference, just by giving their defenders more to think about than just trying to contain the lively Vetokele, and hopes did rise that we could go on to win it, with Boro pretty well contained aside from one moment when Henderson had to come out smartly to smother the ball.

Indeed, shortly after one of their guys picked up a yellow (which was to prove important before long), we fashioned our first real chance of the game, with a decent ball into the box from the left just behind Bulot, who managed to get the shot in. It wasn’t a clean strike, but it beat the keeper only to come back off the inside of the post.

We then had the Bikey-Amougou incident. He contested a ball with one of their forwards and played it back to Henderson, only for their guy to go down clutching his face, followed shortly after by Bikey himself. I honestly didn’t see anything as my eyes followed the ball, but it was right in front of the linesman and after consultations the ref took no action. It did nevertheless seem to unsettle the ref, who had seemed edgy throughout, with some curious interpretations of what was and what was not a bad challenge, plus some excessive fussiness. I mentioned to a mate that he was gearing up to send someone off – even though the game had been played with no signs of animosity - and the opportunity arose not long afterwards as their guy on a yellow went in a bit late on Wiggins. I thought at first the ref had strangely penalised Wiggins, and/or booked them both, but when the dust settled it was a second yellow and off their guy went.

That was surely the cue for leaders on the pitch to raise the tempo and press for a win. Indeed, Wilson came on for Bulot to perhaps provide extra impetus and direct play. We did indeed create that one more chance to win it, with the ball laid on for Wilson to run onto inside the box before their defender could get to it. He hit it cleanly enough but not quite wide enough of the keeper and it came back off his leg. And that pretty much proved the end of it.

Wish the report could have been a bit livelier but it wasn’t that sort of game. In the end it was a fair reflection of where we currently are: competitive and playing decent stuff, solid defensively, but lacking a bit of daring and drive and sufficient support for Vetokele where it matters.

Player Ratings:

Henderson: 8/10. No complaints at all. Did all he had to and came out well to smother a dangerous moment in the second half.

Solly: 7/10. Decent enough game. Still gives the impression to me that he’s not yet back to where he was, not quite the swagger and assuredness and less inclined to bomb forward, but that will hopefully come.

Wiggins: 7/10. Also sound enough defensively, just not the influence going forward that we’ve seen before, possibly due to new partners in front of him on that side.

Ben Haim: 8/10. As before, calm and assured. Attempts to break forward didn’t exactly come off, but good marks for trying.

Bikey-Amougou: 8/10. That’s on the assumption that the Boro fans and bench were deluding themselves that he did anything wrong.

Gudmundsson: 7/10. Thought he was starting to have more of an influence on the game when he got injured. Hopefully not a lengthy spell out.

Jackson: 6/10. Not a marked impression on the game, the combination with Buyens keeps us solid but does limit us as an attacking force.

Buyens: 6/10. Less impressed with him today than previously. Thought he was a bit more casual and lethargic than I’ve seen before. Undoubtedly quality, need him really on his game.

Cousins: 6/10. I’m not going to mark him lower playing a position that doesn’t suit him.

Bulot: 6/10. Can’t say that using him as a second forward was a resounding success, although if his shot was a centimetre to the left he would have been the match-winner (playing wide). Clearly has ability and look forward to seeing him play wider.

Vetokele: 7/10. Was a threat throughout, despite being up against two big guys. Didn’t happen for him today, but not for want of trying.

Subs – Moussa (6/10 – had a full half to strut his stuff, some decent bits but nothing decisive); Tucudean (6/10 – didn’t really do much I remember but his presence did help to tilt the balance of play in our favour); Wilson (6/10 – not on for long but he too almost won us the game).

Possession Sometimes Doesn't Count For Much

As this was my first game of the season, I can’t compare the performance with what has gone before. But not surprisingly there can’t be many complaints after a win against one of the promotion favourites, one in which we displayed solidity when out of possession, created the better chances, took three of them, and left nothing to be desired in terms of effort and commitment.

Derby will probably look back and wonder how they lost, given the balance of play over the full game. They did not least because their defence was unable to cope and whereas our defence remained organised theirs seemed to switch off rather too often. At times it seemed as though they believed that we couldn’t hurt them, so we went and did. A review of the actual decent chances created in the game should leave no room for complaints on their front, especially when you add in the fact that the referee chose not to accompany our penalty on the stroke of half-time – the moment which may well have turned the game - with a red card. More later.

Given Henderson’s injury, the surprise on the team selection front was the absence of Solly, with presumably three games in quick succession too much for him at this stage of his return, and the fact that Gomez got the nod at right-back instead of Wilson. Otherwise it was in line with the previous games, with Bikey-Amougou and Ben Haim keeping out Morrison, Cousins and Gudmundsson in the wide berths either side of Jackson and Buyens, and Tucudean and Vetokele up front in a basic 4-4-2.

We had the better of the early exchanges just through keeping possession well , with Derby kept at arms’ length. We didn’t look especially threatening, but the shape was good and Derby looked a little sluggish as we kept them off the ball. And we managed to turn that decent start into a better one with a goal, albeit one rather out of the blue. The ball was played out to Cousins on the left and he picked out Tucudean in the box with his back to goal. Decent control and as their defenders backed off and gave him too much time he turned and shot with some assurance into the corner of the net. Reports to date haven’t been universally complementary about him, but it was well taken and probably helped raise his confidence as he went on to produce an entirely praiseworthy first-half performance.

Rather stung by the goal, and with us if not sitting back not surprisingly focusing on keeping the shape, Derby came more into it after that. In fact a couple of minutes after the breakthrough they had a not dissimilar chance, with one into the box knocked down, but their guy was unable to control the ball and get a shot away. We converted our half-chance, they didn’t. But as the half progressed they did start to dominate possession and the equaliser when it came wasn’t against the run of play. A shot from the edge of the left of our box was parried by Pope, a decent enough save but the ball remained in play and their guy was able to knock it back to around the edge of the box, from where it has to be said that another curled in an unstoppable shot into the top corner.

After that, I suspect we’d have been happy to make it to the break all square and regroup, especially as a foul on Tucudean saw him receive lengthy treatment. But just as we were into the final of four minutes of added time Tucudean turned from some way out and ran at them. They backed off, probably expecting a lay-off. Instead he just kept going, into the box, sidestepping one or two challenges. The way I saw it (and I have been known to get these things wrong), he cut back onto his left and was just about to get the shot away when his legs were taken from behind. No question about it being a penalty, but no red card. There were other defenders around, but the way I saw it Tucudean had sidestepped them and was then denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. In any event, Buyens stepped up and confidently tucked away the penalty.

Trudging off the pitch Derby must have been scratching their heads as they were behind, again, having equalised and dominated the final 20 minutes or so of the half. Fact is, during that time they hadn’t converted that possession into decent opportunities (for which the credit goes to our defence and midfield), then failed to prevent a guy seemingly hopelessly outnumbered from running through them.

Tucudean’s knock was sufficient to take him out of the game at the break, with Moussa coming on to play as the second forward rather than Church. Derby made a change of their own and not surprisingly realised that their height and physical advantage had increased. Perhaps with a word or two from their manager in their ears they were up for the task and once more had the bulk of possession. But aside from a fierce shot from the edge of the box which cleared the bar and one ball across the face, I can’t remember Pope being called on to make a real save whereas I can remember Vetokele taking a ball in their box which was rolling sweetly into the path of Moussa, plus Vetokele wriggling free to create a one-on-one which their keeper turned away, and a free kick in a decent position which Jackson put just a bit too much on for it to curl under the bar.

Wilson came on for Cousins, with Gudmundsson switching to the left, and as the clock was starting to tick down we did convert another chance, one which left me wondering just where their defence went to. Good work down the right produced a cross to the near post which Wilson deftly flicked on and Vetokele running in nodded home from a couple of yards out. Good goal, but just how was it possible? Can only say that not for the first time their defence went to sleep.

After that, with Ben Haim and Bikey-Amougou commanding and Buyens generally marshalling things in front of them (including taking one for the team when someone did get past him), it felt like game over, even though Derby’s greater number of big guys meant an obvious danger from set pieces. The goal that gave them hope towards the death was, however, an obvious error by Pope, as an innocuous shot somehow went through him. From my angle I couldn’t see quite how, but now it was a case of getting through the final minutes with some tired legs out there (and Fox coming on to provide fresh ones in place of Gudmundsson). Despite one or two edgy moments that was accomplished.

I did just have a final quick check of the BBC possession stats and according to them Derby enjoyed 63% of the play. Shots on target show we had seven to their five and in the end that’s what counted. Rounds off an opening salvo of games that Peeters and the players can be well pleased with. So can the fans, as on the basis of what was shown tonight we have weapons to hurt teams, good organisation, and a solid back four. Pope’s error was just one of those things which he will learn from, the other lesson perhaps being that they pressured him from backpasses because they saw mileage from it as it at least affected his distribution. It’s not easy for any young keeper to be a commanding presence from the off, but it will come in time. The central midfield pairing of Jackson and Buyens looks good defensively but means we don’t have too much pace and forward momentum in that area. Nevertheless, with six goals in three games and a team which will still be learning how to play together these are quibbles on a night when all else was positive.

Player Ratings:

Pope – 5/10. No disgrace in that. It was a bad error which cost us a goal and on another night perhaps points.

Gomez – 8/10. Accomplished performance, what more could you ask for from the guy? Never looked out of place and when caught out was quickly back in position.

Wiggins – 7/10. Not evidence of the driving force going forward that we know he can be, but that’s in part due to learning to play with another guy in front of him on his side. Defensively sound.

Ben Haim – 9/10. I’d just about make him my man of the match. Very sound and composed.

Bikey-Amougou – 8/10. Not far behind.

Gudmundsson – 7/10. Guy clearly has something, intelligent in his play and capable of trickery to create space and opportunities. Doesn’t seem blessed with blistering pace, but good first impression.

Jackson – 6/10. Decent performance, especially in front of the back four, but can’t remember too much from him going forward.

Buyens – 8/10. Excellent. Reads the game and keeps things ticking over, perfectly capable of looking after himself.

Cousins – 7/10. Decent showing in another position for him, involved in the first goal.

Vetokele – 7/10. If the guy keeps popping up when it matters that will be fine by me. Perhaps should have scored more than one.

Tucudean – 8/10. If he’d played the full game and played in the second half as in the first may well have been man of the match. Took his goal well and made the second out of nothing.

Subs – Moussa (6/10; tough ask to play as a forward alongside another non-target man); Wilson (7/10; played his part in the third goal, would have liked more driving runs to the corner flag in the final minutes); Fox (not on long enough for a mark).

Promised Meeting(s) Cynically Circumvented?

I must be getting a bit slow on the uptake in my old age. When someone posted a comment to say that the promised meeting(s) with supporters groups (or group) would be held on 3 August I thought ‘fine, rather late, not the best of times (as the comment mentioned), but at least progress’. When I saw the piece on the club site about the ‘day of fun’ at The Valley I thought ‘good idea, chance to showcase the improvements to the ground (which deserve praise), chance for fans to mingle with the players etc’. It didn’t immediately occur to me that the two are somehow supposed to be related. I hope they’re not, as what is being offered up on the day – a question and answer session with Meire, Murray, Peeters and Jackson – is, while laudable, not in any way shape or form delivering on the statement released in March.

A cynic might be tempted to conclude that some management course ‘graduate’ came up with a wheeze, to turn around a perceived negative into a positive. (For the record I used to have a policy of immediately binning a CV from anyone who’d been on a management training course and have seen and heard nothing since to make me change my mind.) ‘We have a problem. We issued a statement in March to try to head off criticism and buy time and it seems some still expect us to deliver on the contents. Why not have a fun day, open to all fans, give away some freebies, include an informal chat with two board members, the head coach and the skipper, which should be broad enough to ensure that the real concerns, like those pesky Trust questions, can be glossed over? We are seen to be keeping our word, we should generate some goodwill, and we’ve got around a problem’. If that (or something like it) is the thinking, it is treating fans with contempt, regarding their views as potential problems to be circumvented if possible.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s absolutely no reason why contact between the board and the supporters should be exclusively through the Trust, and/or the Royal Oak group. The more the merrier. The March statement (which I printed out and kept; it is still on the club site if you go back far enough, to 28 March) said ‘be assured that we will be making plans to meet with as broad a spectrum of the fanbase as possible’. A fun day as outlined is a very useful element in delivering on the promises. But it is only that. I don’t think anyone back in March would have believed that this alone was what was intended to address the very real and heartfelt concerns raised by the Trust and others.

Perhaps the ‘board’ wishes to stick to the letter of the statement rather than the spirit. So let’s go through it. ‘Since we arrived at the club in January we understood the importance of interaction with Charlton supporters’. To back that up, the video of the new board, a Q&A session with VIP supporters by Meire and Murray, and the recorded interview with Duchatelet were cited. Sorry, but stage-managed events/recordings are not a substitute for what – in March and still today – is the real issue, Duchatelet being quizzed, unscripted, by fans’ representatives on his plans, vision, and motivation. That would be interaction, not an attempt to pay lip-service. The statement goes on. ‘Understandably, given events on and off the field over the past few weeks, we have received a number of requests from supporters’ groups for a meeting to discuss our approach to running Charlton and our vision for the club’s future’. The Duchatelet recorded interview is then cited as a ‘first step’, before the excuse for delay was outlined.

To be fair, nowhere in the statement is there an actual pledge to hold meetings with one or more of the groups that had requested them. It is carefully worded to avoid that. Instead there was that ‘as broad a spectrum of the fanbase as possible’, which if you are a lawyer you may feel is satisfied by the fun day Q&A. I don’t think there is any doubt that anyone reading the statement at the time believed it amounted to a commitment to hold meetings with the groups that had requested them, or at least just with the Trust. That was the spirit of the statement.

Sometimes even a lawyer’s statement inadvertently gives it away. The statement included: ‘we understand the current requests for dialogue and are keen to meet with supporters to hear their views and discuss a shared vision for the future of this great club’. What is the point of ‘discussing a shared vision’? If it is shared, both parties are in agreement and the ‘dialogue’ is mutually-supportive and quite frankly pointless. What is wrong with discussion about a vision for the club, to listen and perhaps take on board the views of those that might not agree with it? That, again, would be interaction rather than paying lip-service. The March statement said that we ‘are keen to meet with supporters’. Prove it.

What infuriates me is that – absent any fresh news regarding real meetings – it amounts to a missed opportunity. A ‘problem’ is something to be dealt with, even learn from, rather than circumvented (which usually means it doesn't go away). The Trust and others are people who care about Charlton and have nothing but the best interests of the club at heart. They devote time and effort to that end. They are people to be embraced by the board, to be listened to seriously. People like myself who view with a mix of disdain and concern what we understand of Duchatelet’s vision and motivation (which is inevitably limited) would be ready to amend views in the event that people who we know have Charlton’s interests at heart came away from a meeting with Duchatelet (I mean no disrespect to Meire but the only question I would ask her is exactly what her decision-making capabilities are) either reassured or at least appreciative that he has taken time to truly listen to what they have to say and to have answered their questions honestly, even if there is still disagreement.

Again, don’t get me wrong. Duchatelet owns the club, he is under no obligation to have meetings with supporters groups, it is not something that they have any right to. We were told early on that communication isn’t one of his strengths. So be it, I don’t know what he might be scared of. Absent such meetings just please don’t in any way pretend to ‘understand the importance of interaction with Charlton supporters’. They become empty words.

On a brighter note (or at least a mix of the positive and negative), Peeters does continue to impress with his openness and attitude. The comments regarding Ghoochannejhad hit the right note. I don’t know yet whether he’s staying or going, but agree that unless his attitude is better the latter is fine. I wasn’t impressed with what I saw. His diving in and around the box was an embarrassment, as was his obvious delight at having contributed mightily to the cause when he managed to fall over around the centre-circle and win a free kick. He clearly has talent, but I’d genuinely rather watch Dickie Plumb honestly plying his trade.

So there we have it. I hope everyone who attends the fun day has a great time. No doubt the club site will be hailing a success whatever happens. I shall of course have swanned off to France before then, so will not have the opportunity in the Q&A to ask the only question that really matters: when will there be the proper meeting)s)?

Not Up For It Yet, But Will Be

As others have commented, it really ought to be the time of year when we start to get geared up and enthusiastic for the campaign ahead, rested and raring to go. Perhaps it’s the skinfull last night, the storm during the night, the two weeks-plus of builders (for some very necessary repairs), or the prospect of a late afternoon basking on the heath (which I hope won’t involve falling asleep and waking up in the middle of the next storm). Perhaps it’s the weeks of additional footie handed to us on a plate (we will gloss over my previous outstanding prediction that having luckily got past Chile, Brazil will go on to win it; I didn’t plan for the absence of the two key players or the fact that the rest of them, plus the manager, proved to be pants). But I’m not up for it yet.

I passed on Welling on Saturday as the front wall needed painting and after years of going to a glorified training session didn’t really fancy another. You can’t infer anything from the result or the players’ contributions. In recent years I’ve come away thinking that Mambo might be ready to make the first team (I hope he’s thriving at Ebbsfleet and does go on to have the career he promised) and that Pigott might make a major contribution to the campaign (again, hope it’s only a case of delayed a year). It isn’t malaise, or even antipathy towards the new owner, rather the usual prospect of being away for the start of the season and so mentally some way off getting prepared. As things stand, due to the rigidity of the French holiday season, it won’t be until the Derby game on 19 August that I get my first taste of it, and that’s a long way off.

I may be against us being consigned to Duchatelet’s consortium for a period of time (and may have been tempted to contribute for the Valley wall the fact that my favourite memories were all before he bought the club and will resume after he’s handed it on, but that would have been churlish), but I’ll readily acknowledge that a good sum has been spent on the ground and that the past few weeks have seen us bring in players that at least on paper look as though we can have confidence in being competitive (I’ve no comment on any of those brought as regards their abilities as I know no more than I read, but of course they are welcome and we trust they go on to be heroes, or at least make a more material contribution to satisfying our desires than Polish Pete has managed to date).

Of course it’s going to be a challenge for Peeters to get them to gel, work out the best partnerships and formation to play to strengths (assuming of course he picks the team). But the missing parts are getting filled in, so who knows? It’s daft at this stage to be making any sort of predictions for us, but whereas a few weeks ago it was a case of expecting decent players to be brought in, now it’s one of setting our doubts against those of other clubs and feeling that at worst there will be others facing a tougher challenge than us. Poor Jose (whose gone from being instructed to get the best out of a disparate bunch thrown together by someone else to being asked to create a new team almost from scratch but reportedly not from buy a new team but reportedly not having the backing for his choices), poor Fuller.

On other matters, we still wait and see. Still no news that I’ve seen regarding the promised meetings with supporters groups (no, it won’t be forgotten), some interest in the outcome of Standard Liege’s Champions League third qualifying round in late July and early August (if they make it into the competition proper, does the pendulum swing back to other elements of the consortium supplying decent players – and vice versa?), and now it seems the possibility of the Red, Red Robin being dropped.

On that one I’m in agreement with Wyn Grant (which hasn’t always been the case over recent months) that the song is part of the Valley experience. If it doesn’t suit the players and the manager (what the owner thinks is irrelevant) and fans are not strongly in favour of its retention for when the players come out, shift it to another slot. It isn’t the most rousing of songs, but it is fun and does get us singing and clapping, if not in a rabble-rousing manner. The argument that we’re not Robins so it should go doesn’t hold water. The club badge is an even more recent creation (of the 1970s I think), from a miserable effort to rebrand us as the Valliants. I’d be happy to see that one go, but it would mean more spend on a new crest (and let’s face it incorporating an ‘Addick in some way shape or form wouldn’t be easy). Perhaps Glenn Tilbrook can get the necessary permission to record a version of Mull of Kintyre which would be fit for purpose.

One more acid test of the new regime’s intentions might become apparent when we get to sample the new facilities at The Valley. Prices are for me an issue. I hope we’re not fed some line about the cost of a bottle of water being commensurate with those in airport lounges. It is a cartel approach. I expect (but of course don’t welcome) to get royally legged over if I want to buy some water in that sort of environment; I’m in a captive environment buying something from a company that doesn’t give a monkeys about my interests (which of course means I don’t buy, bar in extremis). At Charlton fans deserve to be treated as welcome guests playing their part rather than exploited to the max. We shall see.

So that may be it from me for a while. A Eurostar to Lyon awaits at the end of the month, by which time my partner Suzanne will have expected me to have finished the post-building work complete redecoration of my place (I have very limited abilities on that front but happily slosh around some paint) and to arrive ready to sort out her shower, washing machine etc before we head off on hols. By the time I return I expect Peeters to have us purring along like a well-oiled machine, rolling over all and sundry. Blimey, perhaps I am getting ready for it after all.