v Charlton Athletic (a) - 27/9/25

[lraC]

4 hours ago, Aqualung said:

I haven't seen Southampton, Bristol City or Middlesbrough play yet but I'm convinced that this seasons championship quality is very poor. 

Charlton were better than our shite but still poor and those that think Birmingham are the second coming should think again. 

Bang average league this year but we will still do well to stay up. 

Im not going to rip into some players yet but I'm not convinced that both oashi and morishita should be starting together. Oashi and Gueye for me. 

Tavares should stick to opening bat and bore the pants off us and Kargbo..... Well... He's an imposter of a footballer. Laughable. 

I watched the Wrexham V Derby game yesterday and both were very poor too.

I think Wrexham have spent in the region of £35m too but you couldn’t tell. 

[Torgeir]

10 hours ago, riverholmes said:

Gestede has said that Tronstad will be leaving at the end of the season, apparently, to go back to Norway or near. It seems the club will keep him to try and avoid relegation until then.

Yeah, shocking. I don't trust Gestede after he's repeated that lie about Tronstad a couple of times.

[John]

Thoughts from the match:

Underestimated how much Charlton like to press aggressively — made it even harder for us to create anything when we did have possession.

Still not sure on Miller. He puts a shift in, but he looks a bit unsure on the ball and slow to react.

Awful free kick from Pickering, especially given it was in a decent position.

Poor change at half-time — had no impact and we got worse.

Overall, we weren’t mobile enough on the ball and found it difficult to create much at all. We’ve got no balance with nobody on the left attacking wise.

Would be tempted to start Gudjohnsen up front on Tuesday.

[Kjell]

10 hours ago, riverholmes said:

Gestede has said that Tronstad will be leaving at the end of the season, apparently, to go back to Norway or near. It seems the club will keep him to try and avoid relegation until then.

Gestede has also banned LT from Ewood Park in our 150th anniversary.

I suggest not to trust a single word coming out of his mouth.

[Jimmy612]

Two enormous home games coming up this week. Have to hope for a minimum 4 points. After the international break it’s 6 games in 21 days, playing Coventry, a rejuvenated Sheff United, Southampton, Leicester, Bristol City and then the 150th game vs Derby! That’s a bit of a nightmare run in my opinion, and is followed by Preston, which is never easy.

By 21st November I think we’ll have a very good idea of how this new team can deal with the intense demands of the championship, and that’s before we even speak about the brutal Christmas schedule. 

[M_B]

7 hours ago, booth said:

Yes, did VI stick him at full back?

If the answer is yes, you sir need a hobby.

Out of necessity, yes.

Got to admit, I'm surprised I'm having to explain the difference between starting a player in a position, especially a "utility" player like Hickman, and having to move him out of necessity.

Just assumed we'd moved on from there. 

[Parsonblue]

Agree with everything that Arbitro said about yesterday.  Charlton is never my favourite trip but yesterday was probably one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while.  Quite simply we we bullied by a team who wanted it more, that  had a clear game plan and who had players who knew how to exploit our many weaknesses.  I couldn't believe that this was the same team that played so well at Watford the other week.

Today was the sort of game that cried out for the type of leadership that Travis gave you on the pitch.  We needed a leader on the field who was prepared to do battle.  For all his footballing qualities, Cantwell is not that sort of leader and he disappeared for large parts of the game.  Indeed, some of his passing was way off yesterday.

I accept that these players are new and still adapting to the Championship, but we can't afford too many more of these sort of performances.  I'm looking for a huge improvement against Swansea.

 

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, M_B said:

Out of necessity, yes.

Got to admit, I'm surprised I'm having to explain the difference between starting a player in a position, especially a "utility" player like Hickman, and having to move him out of necessity.

Just assumed we'd moved on from there. 

It wasn't out of necessity. We had McLoughlin on the bench who should have come on with Miller (who we signed primarily as a right back) moving to right back. Bringing on Tavares made us much weaker in midfield and Gardner-Hickman was given a real schooling by Campbell.

Whilst that poor decision from Ismael didn't actually cost us the game It certainly made us so much weaker in the second half.

[Tomphil2]

Tavares is the most casual limp disinterested player iv'e seen here in a long while and that's saying something.

Piss poor. as is the head coach keep trying to get a tune out of him and dragging the team down even more seemingly trying to justify his signing.

He clearly isn't suited to what they want him to do.

After watching about 20 mins of Travis yesterday for Derby this lad is as big a downgrade as you can get.

[arbitro]

11 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Tavares is the most casual limp disinterested player iv'e seen here in a long while and that's saying something.

Piss poor. as is the head coach keep trying to get a tune out of him and dragging the team down even more seemingly trying to justify his signing.

He clearly isn't suited to what they want him to do.

After watching about 20 mins of Travis yesterday for Derby this lad is as big a downgrade as you can get.

Tavares looked miles off it yesterday as did Pickering.

What really grates with me is that last week there were two under 21 games and not one of the first team squad (who haven't had much game time) featured at all. If it was in Ismael's mind to start with Pickering then surely he should have at least got some competitive game time under his belt.

[Tomphil2]

5 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Tavares looked miles off it yesterday as did Pickering.

What really grates with me is that last week there were two under 21 games and not one of the first team squad (who haven't had much game time) featured at all. If it was in Ismael's mind to start with Pickering then surely he should have at least got some competitive game time under his belt.

I'll give Pickering a pass this time as he's understandably rusty but Tavares is a joke.

Good point about the U21's and it was something JDT's early revolution wove into the squad to keep players busy but we are now back to the casual hands on hips approach it seems.

Where is Gestede when it comes to this kind of thing ?  He's the boss of the football side of things so surely he can implement it.

Or is he too busy nursing his eggshell ego because someone has wrote a bad word about him.

[Hasta]

9 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Tavares looked miles off it yesterday as did Pickering.

What really grates with me is that last week there were two under 21 games and not one of the first team squad (who haven't had much game time) featured at all. If it was in Ismael's mind to start with Pickering then surely he should have at least got some competitive game time under his belt.

Forward planning. You can’t ’do away’ with the under 21’s if you keep using it.

[chaddyrovers]

43 minutes ago, arbitro said:

It wasn't out of necessity. We had McLoughlin on the bench who should have come on with Miller (who we signed primarily as a right back) moving to right back. Bringing on Tavares made us much weaker in midfield and Gardner-Hickman was given a real schooling by Campbell.

Whilst that poor decision from Ismael didn't actually cost us the game It certainly made us so much weaker in the second half.

Ismael want a right foot at right centre back and left footed at left centre back from his comments. 

I'm surprised he didnt go 3 at the back at half time or during the second half. 

Also Pickering started was a strange move by him. 

[KentExile]

53 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Tavares looked miles off it yesterday as did Pickering.

What really grates with me is that last week there were two under 21 games and not one of the first team squad (who haven't had much game time) featured at all. If it was in Ismael's mind to start with Pickering then surely he should have at least got some competitive game time under his belt.

Even Tyjon, Michalski, Montgomery etc who are getting no game time for the first team and are still age wise, U21 players

44 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Good point about the U21's and it was something JDT's early revolution wove into the squad to keep players busy but we are now back to the casual hands on hips approach it seems.

Where is Gestede when it comes to this kind of thing ?  He's the boss of the football side of things so surely he can implement it.

Or is he too busy nursing his eggshell ego because someone has wrote a bad word about him.

I think it's Adam Owen who is responsible for "alignment" between first team and the underage groups, but your point still stands, surely a few should be featuring at some point, the second U21 game last week was essentially the U18s, and a kid who had turned 14 earlier this month ended up playing 30 minutes from the bench, Rovers were 3-1 up when he came on, they lost 4-3

Edited 17 minutes ago by KentExile

[BankEnd Rover]

That was beyond a terrible performance. Charlton looked awful and we didn't lay a glove on them.

Not getting too upset over it as we've put in some decent performances over the last few games.

I'm still confident that Val isn't the man - Happy to be proved wrong but with all what's going on off the pitch we will be milling around bottom half all season.

[arbitro]

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Ismael want a right foot at right centre back and left footed at left centre back from his comments. 

I'm surprised he didnt go 3 at the back at half time or during the second half. 

Also Pickering started was a strange move by him. 

I know it's down to Ismael's thinking but in my view his rationale is flawed.

Some of the best centre back pairings I have seen at Rovers haven't been a left/right foot combination. Faz and Keeley, Nelson and Samba and Hyam and Baath. Ismael will use inverted wingers but at centre half he wants something different.

His logic is really flawed and contributed to our defeat yesterday in my view. It comes across as 'I know best' arrogance.

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I know it's down to Ismael's thinking but in my view his rationale is flawed.

Some of the best centre back pairings I have seen at Rovers haven't been a left/right foot combination. Faz and Keeley, Nelson and Samba and Hyam and Baath. Ismael will use inverted wingers but at centre half he wants something different.

His logic is really flawed and contributed to our defeat yesterday in my view. It comes across as 'I know best' arrogance.

The I know best, thats emanating from other areas of the club.

They are teaching the coach their traits.