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.

Devils And Dust

I had no plans to scribble anything about the World Cup. It’s not as if there’s a lack of it. But what a night! If Camus was looking for any fresh evidence to support his comments about football, morality and life he need only rerun the two games. First we had Brazil and Chile tearing into each other, in the best possible way, in the most breathless first half of a game I can remember, followed by Chile coming within the width of the woodwork from winning the game in extra-time and then from extending the penalty shoot-out. Similarities with England’s exits against Argentina and Germany (with the exception that we knew then that penalties would end in our tears), but I don’t think that any team can leave a tournament with more hard-won pride and respect.

Then we were served up ‘good versus evil’. Like everyone else I was rooting for Colombia, preferably by a few clear goals with Uruguay ending the game with six or seven on the pitch. I thought the final 20 minutes were fascinating, to see how the Uruguay players would respond to the gradual ebbing away of their hopes, already feeling that the world was against them. Basically I was waiting for it all to kick off. But – with the exception of one moment which seemed to pass without comment, when a Uruguayan player trying to get the ball for a free-kick kicked a lump out of the Colombian and surely should have seen red – they instead kept their cool and continued to strive nobly to get back into the game. One more goal for Colombia and/or one flare-up and it might have been different, but instead Uruguay went out with their dignity (on the pitch at least) intact.

We’re brought up to believe in ‘goodies’ and ‘badies’; the latter are the ones with the black hats in the movies. By the time you’re a wizened old git like me you know that nothing’s that simple. We all contain the seeds of both and in certain circumstances veer towards one or the other. I have my heroes: Wellington, De Gaulle, Camus etc. But I wouldn’t suggest for a minute that they didn’t have their own particular foibles (flaws if you like), weren’t people of their time, and didn’t say or do things that we would consider reprehensible. The Catholic church (and most religions) would have it differently; saints and sinners. As ideals, goals to work towards, the approach can be useful (just as it would, in my opinion, be far more useful to define human qualities that we as a nation aspire to rather than trying to pretend that there are ‘British values’, which surprisingly all turn out to be positive when put down on paper). I wouldn’t mind betting that Mother Theresa had a few less than saintly tendencies, none of which should seriously detract from her legacy.

I don’t blame Suarez (ha, spelt it correctly this time) for coming out with a line that just might have got him off the hook. Whether or not his ban is excessive or too lenient, the Fifa judgement amounts to branding him a liar. We all know that there’s no media-led vendetta against him. It’s just easier to believe in that rather than the alternative, that Suarez let down his team and his country, that the hero under pressure was found wanting and to be less than perfect. What is more shameful is the attitude of other vested interests: Liverpool looking to escape the consequences (whether in terms of the transfer fee or his availability) of Suarez’s actions as if they are being punished for something that doesn’t involve them (when they signed him they bought the whole package), the same for the Uruguay squad and management. They are only focused on their material interests. How can Suarez ‘fess up’ and try to deal with his problems on the pitch when all around him – and his entire nation - want him to serve their needs. Keep thinking of Cool Hand Luke’s howl of anguish: ‘stop feeding off me’.

If Suarez goes to Spain the Premiership will be a poorer place. Like other footballing geniuses he can do things that take your breath away. His movement for both goals against England was simply wonderful. He just isn’t Mother Theresa (or perhaps in a sense he is). I’ll never know what it feels like to have the expectations of a nation on your shoulders, how you cope if you blow it or how you feel if you succeed (Andy Murray etc). Let’s just be kinder when it’s the former and share the joy when the latter and accept it all as part of the game. People may think that Neymar’s reaction at the end of the shoot-out last night was a bit over-the-top. He’d only scored a penalty after all. But it was more than that. Five didn’t convert their spot-kicks but they weren’t the player set up to be the hero or the villain, Neymar was and he succeeded.

The post-match commentary on the box tended to focus on Brazil’s shortcomings to date, but if I were a gambling man I’d now get to the bookies (I’m old enough to think in those terms rather than click a button) and put on a double: Brazil to beat Colombia at 4/5 on and Brazil to win the World Cup at 5/2 (or 13/5). This is football of course and perhaps Colombia will be 4-0 up in the first 20 minutes; and there is a doubt over Neymar’s fitness. But I suspect that last night will lift the shackles from Brazil, that for the first time they will now believe that the tournament is theirs to win rather than the focus being on a fear of failure. Last night was their crucible. Colombia have made history already by making the quarter-finals for the first time and gave indications in the second half of their game that, notwithstanding the quality they have, mentally they have now won their competition. I could of course be wrong, but that’s all betting is: finding those moments when the odds look attractive enough.

My favourite goal to date remains Van Persie’s header rather than the wonderful strikes by Cahill and Rodriguez. Those shots were magnificent, superb technique and for pure aesthetical quality they top the Dutchman’s effort. It’s just that for me I see his goal as a masterpiece of improvisation. If there were the time to think it through, you could imagine an internal conversation: ‘my job is to put the ball in the net; it’s an unusual situation, I’m in the clear but the ball is coming towards me in the air; do I have the time to bring it down? No, the keeper’s off his line, if I can divert the ball over him and on target there’s a good chance of it going in’. To be able to sum up such a situation, come up with a solution, and execute it in the blink of an eye is football at its very best.

All Good Things Must End

The day that we feared, but which in our heart of hearts we knew was unavoidable, has indeed arrived. Tonight there’s no football on the box. Not a single bloody game. Get me hooked on three games a night, then confuse me a little with four games but only two capable of being watched live, then suddenly cold turkey. Rest day? Who organises these things? I don’t need a rest day, especially as it’s supposed to chuck down later on so chilling out on the heath with a bottle of red isn’t on the agenda. Whole bloody day to wait before normal service resumes; and one day it will all be over.

On other matters, I suspect I’m not the only one who had a double-take when seeing the reports that we’d splashed out EUR3m on Vetokele (assuming them to be true of course). Not on the grounds that we might have overpaid (I have no idea how good the guy is, hopefully he will prove the bargain of the season) but rather that one minute we’re failing to land a Barnsley striker apparently because of a failure to agree personal terms and watching Hamer and Dervite move on to take up better offers, all in line with the stated desire of getting the club to breakeven (or towards that goal) asap, the next we’re shelling out a sizeable sum. No contradiction of course – and hopefully the Trust and others will add questions about players contracts (ie the extent to which they may be required to move around the consortium) as and when the promised meetings actually take place – but strange nonetheless.

At this stage there’s no good reason not to take the signing, along with Duchatelet’s recent comments about building a team to compete in the Championship, at face value. I just hope that he and his people don’t get too formulaic when it comes to putting together a team. From things said/written plus the landing of Vetokele and the failure to sign O’Grady it’s tempting to believe that Duchatelet and his team of stats gnomes calculate what in their world a player should be worth (fees and wages) and, if the calculations say act, offer that – and walk away if those terms are not acceptable.

As a general principle that’s not necessarily wrong, but sometimes you need to pay more than the calculations suggest if that player is a missing part. In other words the player’s value to us might be greater than to others and greater than any stale calculation might produce. If you’ve just shelled out a relatively large sum on a forward and are looking for another you are presumably interested in someone that will help bring out the best in the first. If that means going a little further than you want to in order to land that player, it’s good sense to do so. Nothing has intrinsic value. I did once interview Jack Charlton who said he asked Sir Alf Ramsey why he picked him for England as he (Charlton) thought there were better centre-halves available. Seems Ramsey told him that he had the best defender in the world in Bobby Moore and needed a type of player alongside him and that Charlton was the best available of that type. That’s always been a lesson for me in how you build a team (I promise, no more old fogey anecdotes, at least not for now).

And I’m delighted that Morrison has decided to stay with us. He’s had my vote for player of the season for the past two campaigns (which is no slight on the actual recipients). Him staying will only strengthen us, without him we would have needed another leader for the defence. Wood’s decision to leave for Rotherham, following Dervite and Cort, obviously leaves us very thin in central defence, but nothing more on that front can be said until we see the cut of who comes in to replace them.

Confirmation of Poyet’s departure was of course the bad news of the week. Barring some unlikely statement from him to the contrary even I wouldn’t blame Duchatelet for that. This was a case of the legacy of the previous owners coming home to roost. Whether more could have been done earlier to tie him down is a moot point, but there’s no evidence to support any such thoughts. I suspect most of us thought from the moment that Buyens got on the eurostar that the club knew he was off, given the descriptions of the player coming in. Am curious though where this leaves Cousins. Some have criticised Sir Chris for not bringing Poyet in sooner, but I doubt that they were there on the training ground to make any such assessment. Powell gave him his debut and a chance when he felt Poyet was ready. To say he grabbed it with assurance is something of an understatement. But it wasn’t much before then that Cousins was getting the rave reviews as a defensive central midfielder. It’s not his fault that subsequently being played wide(ish) right left him peripheral. With Buyens coming in will Cousins be able to get back into the role that he was performing so well?

I even don’t mind acknowledging that Peeters came across well in his press interview. He seemed intelligent, sensible, grounded, and ambitious, actually answered questions rather than giving predictable, bland replies. At least he knows the score when it comes to what’s expected of him and how things will operate with the owner. A pleasing first impression.

Does this all sound that I’m going soft re Duchatelet, even perhaps warming to the ‘vision’? Not a bit of it. One of the problems of history is that for every true visionary (ie those that really thought out of the box and changed the world – and are remembered and revered for it) there are a million who believed themselves to be of the same ilk. Nobody remembers them. One of the problems of being opposed to our owner’s ‘vision’ for the club is that you lay yourself open to the charge of being resistant to change, stuck in your ways, refusing to embrace ‘new concepts’. I don’t believe that’s true, at least not in this case. The vision, as I understand it, simply has no appeal and involves too great a compromise of the club – and this coming from an open European federalist (with certain conditions). Rightly or wrongly I regard our club as degraded by being part of a consortium, the ultimate goal for which remains entirely open to speculation. It’s not (for me) the role that a football club serves. I have absolutely nothing against Ghoochannejhad; equally I am absolutely indifferent to the fact that he has played and scored in a World Cup. He is a loan player passing through.

So all good things comes to an end and one day the World Cup will be over (for the record I’m rooting for Colombia or Costa Rica but publicly am duty-bound to back France; I know which side my bread’s buttered). So eventually do bad things. One day Duchatelet will no longer own our club. Unless by then I’m kicking up daisies I’ll still be around, whatever state/division we are in.

Oh Eddie, Your Country Needed You

Oh, we can talk about and bemoan the fact that England don’t (yet) have the cohesion and precision in the final third or a defence that doesn’t cough up at least a few good chances against decent opposition. But if there’s one player we needed last night, who I’m sure would have made himself available if asked, it was the inestimable Eddie Youds. I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that Suarez would have enjoyed such a pain-free and ultimately rewarding evening if Eddie had been out there.

If the game is ultimately about playing to your strengths and doing your best to nullify the opposition’s strengths, there was surely a case (albeit one that doesn’t stand the test of the Corinthian spirit) for testing out that knee and the temperament early in the game, take a card for the team just to put in Soares’ head that when he gets the ball there might be more pain coming. But who in the England team was ready and willing to take the responsibility? I don’t care if Gerrard and Suarez are best buddies, a bit of roughing up in an unthreatening area might have helped the cause.

My favourite memory of Eddie (aside from the stories I was told by a mate who frequented a watering hole graced by his presence) was a home game against Arsenal at The Valley. Now I think most people would accept that Bergkamp could play a bit and that evening for the first 20 minutes or so of the game he led us a merry dance. Perhaps Eddie was a bit jaded, the bones creaking a bit, and nobody was cutting off the supply to Bergkamp. So it was time to put a stop to the nonsense. Stayed on his feet but a raking tackle from behind with what looked like a side order of studs down the back of the leg, followed by a shrug of indifference (that may be poetic license). Eddie got the appropriate lecture from the ref. Bergkamp lasted another five minutes or so before deciding this was a contest he didn’t have the appetite for and hobbled off. I don’t even remember the final score, but job done.

My French partner Suzanne will have none of this. She will still hear no criticism of Zidane for his head-butting of Materazzi, viewing his act as a noble response to unacceptable provocation rather than him having been conned into doing exactly what Materazzi wanted him to. Me? I don’t think I’m amoral but actually love the mental side of sport, the sledging in cricket, the way that Brian Moore used to wind up the French in every scrum. If an opponent has mental weaknesses they are there to be exploited in the same way as physical/technical deficiencies. It’s then up to the ref to decide whether the rules of the game have been breached (and if so to what extent).

All I can say in response to Suzanne’s moral outrage is let nobody pretend that the great Bobby Moore didn’t know about this side of the game and could take care of himself (and others when necessary). The facts that he also looked angelic and was a world-class defender helped his cause. Jack Charlton was just a little more obvious with his little book of names. Nobby Stiles I don’t think bothered to write them down as everyone was a legitimate target.

Meanwhile, we continue to wait. For (hopefully positive) outcomes regarding Morrison and Poyet and confirmation of new signings. And to the best of my knowledge we still wait for the board to deliver on its pledge to hold meetings with supporters groups. I hope that we won’t be informed (or just left to conclude) that ‘with pre-season coming up and so much to be done regarding player ins and outs there still just isn’t the time, even though we want to, even though we want to communicate, even though we so value the wonderful supporters of this great club …..’

Playing The Odds

Seems these days people can’t even pass comment on our unappealing new kit without being accused of being a Duchatelet apologist or a serial moaner, or even worse some sort of inane ‘glass half-full/half-empty sort of a bloke’. Perhaps best to stick to what we know and what from that we can reasonably infer. Suffice to say that the exceptional level of criticism of our new owner isn’t down to a number of us having some collective attack of the moaning minnies, it’s because what is happening is unprecedented, an experiment which may or may not work (even if we were able to agree on a definition of what constitutes it working from our perspective as fans). Perhaps that’s bound to polarise opinions.

We know that Bob Peeters is our new ‘head coach’. We all of course hope that he proves to be a blinding success, but let’s park that for a minute. None of us were surprised that the new guy is Belgian. So unless Duchatelet had some change of heart when it came to the terms offered to the head coach, ie dropping the elements that Sir Chris clearly found unacceptable, the appointment was a matter of selecting a Belgian prepared to accept these terms (on a one-year deal). I don’t know how many ‘candidates’ these parameters leave you with, but it isn’t being unduly negative to point out that the pool of talent meeting the criteria has to be significantly smaller than without such restrictions.

We know that Katrien Meire was quoted on the club site as saying that Jose Riga was a “very serious candidate” for the post but that “with a number of strong candidates we had a difficult decision to make to choose between them”. We also know that Peeters was quoted on the club site as saying that “the owner contacted me and asked if I was prepared to take the job”. The Red Robin rather beat me to it in highlighting what might appear to be something of a contradiction here. My dictionary definition of ‘candidate’ is “one who applies to be chosen for an office, position”. If we feed in what Alex Dyer said in his interview with the South London Press about how players since the takeover were selected, what is reasonable to infer is that aside from Riga all other ‘strong candidates’ were totally unaware that they were being ‘considered’. It’s reasonable to state that in the real world they were not candidates at all.

I have absolutely nothing against Belgians and really don’t care that Peeters played for Millwall. It isn’t a Dennis Wise situation. But to say that Peeters’ task looks a tough one isn’t being negative. He will have to get the full support of players old and new who will at least suspect that he didn’t choose to sign them and who may not have a free hand when it comes even to picking the team. I hope he has the character to achieve this.

I don’t mind admitting that, irrespective of the circumstances of his appointment, I did Riga a disservice in dismissing him as a ‘yes’ man when he came in. He did as good a job as anyone could have done, by harnessing the team spirit and by largely (but no, not completely) ignoring the players dumped on us in January. In her statement of thanks to Riga Meire noted that “he faced an extremely difficult job in keeping our club in the Championship, having to do so with a number of our young academy players”. Just how does that square with previous comments from the board to the effect that ‘we knew we had to strengthen the team in January’ and the fact that we sold three first-choice players that month? If the board want us to be positive can we please stop being fed obvious b/s.

For a sense of perspective on Riga, he didn’t ‘save us’ from relegation but made a very important contribution to that end, as did the players. Perhaps his best decision was to listen to Dyer (if the contents of his interview are to be believed, and I have absolutely no reason not to) saying that there was enough in the dressing room to avoid relegation and to make decisions that have ended up enhancing his personal reputation as a manager (it will be interesting to see how he fares at Blackpool, if that goes through). Whether these decisions – and a feeling that he was more his own man than I hastily concluded – ended up ruling him out of staying at Charlton only one person knows (and it isn’t Riga himself).

On the playing/staff front, we have seen Hamer and Dervite take up what were obviously better options for them than we put in front of them (they, along with the other departures – and of course the rightly revered Colin Powell – go with our best wishes). We wait to see whether Morrison and/or Poyet will stay. We’ve also seen enough reports/comments to suggest that an attempt to sign Barnsley’s O’Grady have foundered on wages. It’s not unreasonable to infer from this that, in line with the stated Duchatelet goal of getting us to (or as close as possible to) a breakeven financial position asap (and possibly linked to this the supposed vision that we are merely moving ahead of the curve when it comes to an FPR-driven adjustment in Championship finances) we are offering deals to players that compare poorly with at least the bulk of Championship teams, which at least suggests that as and when these players have alternatives they will be inclined to take them.

That, like the parameters restricting the choice of a new head coach, restricts the available pool of talent that we can compete for. The pool of course may end up being big enough to produce at least a competitive Championship team/squad. The signing of Zak Ansah may prove to be a case in point. I hope so.

All of this isn’t being unduly negative, as the result of some personal bias (anyone who actually did their homework on this blog – and I wouldn’t advocate it as I trust we all have far better things to do with our time – would find criticism from me of people leaving early, booing, howling at every misplaced pass etc and of me for giving far too generous player ratings as I just want them to be worldbeaters). As an Englishman (and Briton/European) and a football fan of course I’m looking forward to the World Cup. Weeks of solid footie on the box, bring it on. As for England, there are good grounds for optimism regarding prospects over the next four years, given plenty of developing talent, and of course I hope we do well in Brazil. Just suffice to say I’d want substantially better odds than 25/1 to put money on us to win the thing as just about every material factor argues against such an outcome. Can we win it? Of course it’s possible. Just highly unlikely – and believe it or not the outcome won’t be influenced by our level of optimism/pessimism pre-tournament. Equally, if I were a Derby fan I’d probably still be feeling gutted over the Championship play-off final but by now thoughts might be turning to the fact that there’s every reason to believe they will be there or thereabouts at the end of next season and that if promoted at the end of it they will probably be in better shape to compete in the Premiership than if they went up.

Bookies aren’t risk-takers; they only set the odds and offset in a fashion that delivers acceptable returns. Before Peeters’ appointment I printed out a few bits with a view to a post and never got around to it. One was that PaddyPower had us at 40/1 to win the Championship, on a par with Sheff Wed, Brentford and Birmingham and shorter odds than Millwall, Blackpool and Huddersfield (Rotherham hadn’t made it into the Championship then). SkyBet had us at 40/1 (only Blackpool at 66/1 were longer odds), and on 14/1 to get promotion (here too only Blackpool had longer odds). For relegation SkyBet had us at 9/4, the same as Millwall and Huddersfield (Blackpool were 13/8). Since then nothing has shifted. SkyBet has us joint-third favourites for relegation (with Huddersfield and Millwall with Blackpool and Rotherham the shorter odds).

The point isn’t that the bookies are geniuses and we’re sure to be headed for another relegation struggle, but rather that there isn’t, as yet, good reason to believe this won’t be the case. Peeters may prove to be an outstanding manager, we may retain the waverers and sign a clutch of good new players and have a great season. I hope for these things, but right now the evidence to support such hopes is absent.

Something else still absent. Lest it be forgotten, in late March Meire said in a ‘message to Charlton fans’ that “since we arrived at the club in January we understood the importance of interaction with Charlton supporters”, that “we (the board) are keen to meet with supporters to hear their views and discuss a shared vision for the future of this great club”, but also that “it is currently an extremely busy time”. I may have missed something, there may be efforts underway behind the scenes to convene meetings of which I am unaware. Otherwise each passing day without the convening of meetings – most obviously with the Trust but also other groupings, including the Royal Oak Group – only pushes us further in the direction of concluding that genuine communication to address fans’ concerns isn’t just not a priority but rather an unwanted inconvenience. No amount of staged interviews will suffice.

Finally (I’ve left this to last to ensure that anyone wishing to object had first to suffer the ramblings above), to those who feel qualified to cast judgement on who is and who is not an Addick, I’d like to state another two facts. First, I’ve been a Charlton supporter all my conscious life and nothing will change that, yet I don’t think for a moment that gives me any reason to talk in terms of who is or is not an Addick. Second, some supporters, however many (clearly I am one of them), felt disgusted and alienated by what has happened since the takeover.

We need more Addicks, not less. I’m tempted to think (not on the basis of any evidence it’s true) that one factor behind the previous owners’ evaporation of commitment to us was disappointment over the crowd size on our return to the Championship. We averaged 17,485 in the promotion season (with a high of 26,749). In the first year back in the Championship we managed an average of 18,499, despite higher away support and more attractive fixtures. Last season we averaged 16,134 (with a top attendance of 23,600), or 59.5% of capacity. I can’t say whether the new season ticket pricing arrangements will be the answer, but any efforts to increase attendance are to be welcomed (we can’t ignore the possible impact on floating fans of West Ham’s move). I just wonder why as things stand such efforts are not extended to address other facts.