Post-Match Thoughts On Formations & Players

Nobody’s going to disagree with Nathan Jones’ post-match comments, including “it was as poor as we’ve been”. He, his staff, and the players have a week on the training ground to get things sorted, but is there anything useful that the rest of us can contribute, while acknowledging that the decisions and outcomes will be down to those who know vastly more about football than we do? No harm in trying.

First, the formation. Just why have we switched to a back five as the first choice option? For me there are only two reasons to play a back three/five with wing-backs. One, that you have real wing-backs available, players capable of getting up and down quickly and be comfortable both attacking and defending. Two, that you are up against it and want to park the bus. Sometimes that’s better done with a 4-4-2 but that’s another matter. I’d suggest that the former does not apply in our current situation and there was no good reason to go for the latter at Burnley or Watford.

Last season we struggled to secure a pair of proper wing-backs to play the formation. Experiments with Campbell and Apter were a (predictable) failure, Bree was able to play the part but he was recalled, Edwards worked well with TC in front of him going wide, but he got crocked. We ended up bringing in Clarke and Chambers in the January window, adding Fevrier (a true wing-back who I liked) for good measure. At the end of the season we allowed all three to return to their clubs, signed McNamara, a genuine full-back, all of which pointed to us being happy to switch to a back four.

It should have no effect, but I can’t help wondering if the sudden return from injury of defenders – Ramsay, Koumetio and Edwards – has influenced thinking. It has resulted in us, even without Burke and the unfortunate Sichenje, able to choose four or five from McNamara, Ramsay, Jones, Koumetio, Bindon, Bell, Edwards and Mesik. A back four and you have to choose between McNamara and Ramsay (or Mesik too), Koumetio and Bindon, and one from Bell, Edwards and Mesik, given that Jones is a nailed-on starter. I don’t see anything wrong with that, having good cover for each position.

Last season we played 3-5-2 (or 5-3-2 if you prefer). This time around we’ve gone to 5-2-3. And I don’t understand this either. Coventry and Skipp are coming in for a good deal of criticism, but the fact is that with 5-2-3 they are getting outnumbered when teams break forward in numbers and in possession they are quickly pressurised. Cardiff, Stoke and now Watford did that, steamrollering the defensive midfield and exploiting a poorly organised back line, in particular the spaces between the wing-backs and central defenders. That shouldn’t happen but is, with a confused look about us.

The fact is (IMO of course) that if you play with wing-backs, even though you don’t have the players for the formation, the last thing you want is a front three when two of the three expect to do their best work out wide. Against Watford Mesik was doing the wing-back role, getting forward to good effect, but that squeezed the space that Campbell would normally expect to move into. As a result not once did we see TC out wide with the ball at his feet looking to take on the defence, which has been our most potent attacking threat this season. Just the once, when moved to right-side wing-back, was he able to take on and beat for pace his opposite number.

As for the defensive midfield two, there has been disruption. Chalobah was excellent before his injury. That left Coventry, Ouma, Mwamba and then Skipp was added as Docherty (and Coady) were rejected. Ouma has looked accident-prone and there is speculation that we are looking to terminate his loan early. Mwamba is clearly a prospect, Skipp is no mean player. But the two in the formation in front of defence are not able to provide any coherent link to a front three. The play out from the back is too slow to utilise the wing-backs, especially when they are natural defenders.

In short, I find the return to a back three/five to not suit the players we have and to greatly reduce attacking options. Wing-backs who are really defenders, two in front of the defence getting overrun in and out of possession, and an isolated front three with little service and no space to operate in. Going to a back five and sticking with two in central midfield has (IMO) compounded the problem. Last season we had three, albeit with one (Carey) playing a more advanced role. Add into that mix a main centre-forward who currently can’t buy a goal – the headed chances against Burnley and Watford should have gone in – and you have, quite frankly, an impotent mess.

We started the season assuming as forward options, once Dykes opted to go somewhere else, Leaburn and Mbick as the big guys, Kelman and Godden as the goalscorers. Kelman got injured and is only just coming back, Godden is still out injured, and Mbick looks like a player asked to play at a higher level on his return from a long-term injury. Leaburn has done all that could be asked of him largely on his own, except put the ball in the net. There’s no easy answer to all this, except perhaps to go back to three behind the front man and bear the main responsibility for creating and putting away chances, as Grant did when fed by TC against Bristol City.

Let’s not pretend that the 4-2-3-1 we started the season with has worked like a dream. We won the first three thanks to coming from behind at home to Derby, eeking out a one-goal win at home to Preston (two teams which have struggled so far this season), and had one magnificent backs-to-the-wall victory, at West Ham, helped by an overhead goal from a centre-back and a last-minute missed penalty. We struggled to link up play and in particular to find the right guy to play in the middle of the more forward three. We understandably started with Carey, but the role places an emphasis on coordinating play between the three, picking the right passes, rather than powering forward on your own. We tried Grant in the central role but that didn’t work. Jones has been reluctant to try either Knibbs or Rankin-Costello in the role. Perhaps it is now time to try (with Carey ready from the bench depending on the state of the game). One cliché is that the fastest eight individually do not always produce the fastest boat. If Knibbs is viewed as too lightweight then go for Rankin-Costello.

Another cliché is that every good team knows its strengths and plays to them. Right now we have lost sight of our strengths. Grinding out clean sheets served us well last season but I don’t think the answer right now is to pack the defence. Burnley scored twice with goals from around the edge of the area, Watford could have scored far more than two.

So my advice, for what it is worth, is abandon the back three/five. We don’t have the wing-backs to make it work. If we stick with a back three/five, we need to have a midfield three, not two, they are getting overrun. If we go with 5-3-2 bite the bullet and accept that it means no place for Campbell or Grant, with Carey brought back to a more natural role as he played last season (if his confidence has not been shot). Alternatively, go for the 4-2-3-1 with either Knibbs or Rankin-Costello in the centre of the three. Whether Leaburn needs a rest and whether Mbick or Kelman might start instead is another one for Jones and his team to look at and decide.

Added to all of this, we do need every player to play their hearts out against Norwich (and beyond of course). A week to get ready, no excuses.

 

Dispiriting Defeat

A six-day jolly around the UK (Givry-London, London-Whitehaven, Whitehaven-Burnley, Burnley-London, London-Givry) meant I was able to be at The Valley for the Bristol City game and at Turf Moor for the midweek clash with Burnley. Both games had pluses and minuses, both could have gone either way, but ultimately they meant two more added to the list of games without a win. That set up today’s game, against opponents seemingly on the ropes and probably low on confidence. This had all the hallmarks of one we needed to win, to stop the run, to show the ruthlessness necessary to thrive in this division.

Win? We came away beaten and our tails very much between our legs after a performance right out of the worst of last season. Played ugly and lost, to a team which didn’t match our expectations – although we seldom pressured them sufficiently to find out why they have conceded so many of late. They had a game-plan and stuck to it, breaking quickly and with numbers. We degenerated into a mess with curious substitutions and if Watford could shoot straight would have lost by more.

Ahead of the game there was uncertainty about the team/squad Jones would select, driven not least by whether we would revert to the 4-2-3-1 system or go with five at the back as against Burnley. It proved to be the latter, with Mesik rewarded for his glorious last-gasp strike with a start in place of Bell, with McNamara the right-side wing back and Ramsay, Jones and Koumetio the central three. Coventry and Skipp would be the midfield pair and Campbell, Leaburn and Grant as a kind of front three. So pretty much as you were, with the formation leaving a defensive bias and Knibbs, Carey and Rankin-Costello (he not in the squad) to bide their time, while Kelman and Mbick, plus Alli out wide, were the options from the bench.

We began the game sloppily, poor passes and miscontrol giving away possession and encouraging Watford. Rather out of the blue we almost took the lead on eight minutes. Moving out of defence Koumetio created space and played the ball wide for Mesik. He delivered an excellent cross to find Leaburn in space. But he finished like someone very low on confidence in front of goal, heading wide when he really should have scored. How different the game may have turned out if he had.

That moment was the exception to the rule in the first half as we allowed a succession of Watford chances and ended with McNamara, Skipp and Campbell all on yellow cards (followed early in the second half by Coventry), Skipp going on to test the ref’s patience with further fouls. On 14 minutes the shot from another player cutting inside drew a good save from Okonkwo; on 21 Ramsay misjudged a ball forward only for their guy to shoot wastefully wide from a good position; on 26 minutes it took a perfectly timed flying challenge from Koumetio to prevent what looked a probable goal; and on 29 a simple one-two put another Watford player in, his effort saved by Okonkwo.

We did get more of a foothold in the game later in the half, with a scuffed effort from Campbell after a corner was headed out turned only just wide by Koumetio; and on 46 minutes Campbell might have done better when let in by a Watford mistake. But at the break you felt that Watford had nullified our threat with their 5-3-2 formation, with Campbell and Grant barely in the game, and made use of their extra man in central midfield to create more openings. The stats at the break showed they had 53% possession with eight efforts on goal, three on target, against five and one for us. Bottom line was we had to play better.

Jones kept the formation unchanged for the start of the second half, but replaced Skipp with Mwamba, with a possible red card for the former probably in his mind. The game continued in a similar fashion, although we did have another chance to take the lead. On 53 minutes Leaburn got the better of his marker on the right and took the ball on. His low cross was delivered just behind the incoming Grant, who was unable to control the ball and put it away. And in the next minute it was almost Watford as a break saw them with three on two. The guy was played in on goal but put his shot wide. It proved to be a temporary reprieve as Watford did finally score on 57 minutes. One of theirs was allowed to advance unchallenged into the box. His shot was parried by Okonkwu but only into the path of their forward who scored.

Going behind sparked a triple substitution by Jones on 61 minutes with Knibbs, Carey and Kelman replacing McNamara, Coventry and Grant. We kept to the three/five at the back but with Campbell moving to right wing-back, while Kelman joined Leaburn up front and we were left with a midfield three of Knibbs, Carey and Mwamba. Basically both defensive midfielders had been replaced – and it showed.

Watford dropped deeper but continued to pose a threat on the break. From our free kick on 68 minutes (after Jones was clearly elbowed in the face, one which VAR would have had a good look at) they went up the other end. Okonkwo blocked the first effort and another put the rebound over the bar. We huffed and puffed and created a scramble or two, most notably on 78 minutes as Alli, who had replaced Campbell, was pulled back and the resulting free-kick went in to the mix. Ramsay almost got on the end of it, finally Kelman did, but his effort from close range was blocked by their keeper on the line and then cleared.

On 81 minutes it took a late challenge by Ramsay to prevent Watford scoring again, then Okonkwo made an excellent save from a flicked header at the near post from a corner. On 84 minutes Watford missed another, while our afternoon was summed up by a horrible Carey shot. In five minutes of stoppage time Mwamba picked up a yellow and then Watford finally finished things off as a pass inside caught us out and their guy chipped Okonkwo to put, for them, the icing very much on the cake.

It was a depressing afternoon. We chose what was in essence a defensive formation (as at Burnley as McNamara and Bell/Mesik are not natural wing-backs, although Mesik did get forward well), supposedly keeping things tight, against opponents we thought would be worse than they proved to be (but hardly worldbeaters). We failed to impose ourselves on the game and were caught on the break by passing and movement so often it was embarrassing. We needed to score first but didn’t take the best chance of the first-half, or another early in the second. Then having gone behind we made changes which left us even more open – and confused me at least. Who thought that bringing on both Knibbs and Carey would work (one or the other would have done)? And Campbell as right-side wing-back?

The only positive for me was another excellent display by Koumetio. Jones will have a lot of thinking to do before Norwich come visiting next Saturday. Top of the list is surely that playing with wing-backs and having a sort of front three with Campbell and Grant stymied for space is not playing to our strengths. Not once today did TC have the ball at his feet on the left wing while Leaburn's lack of a goal is looking increasingly a burden. Why have we reverted to five at the back from the start? Is it the result of suddenly having more defenders back and available (such that some have to be dropped)? We badly miss Chalobah back fit to partner Coventry. All is not well and needs sorting out before this becomes an outright crisis.

 

Plenty To Ponder During The Break

For sure we don’t want to overreact, but equally all of us, including Jones, were disappointed by Saturday’s display. And one of the main reasons for that is that Cardiff played the same formation as us and gave us an object lesson in how to utilise it, forcing us to change our shape. They took more risks than us, with a greater focus on attack and covering defensive vulnerabilities by playing the game in our half, had a player in Moylan who orchestrated the game in the centre of a three behind a bullying centre-forward, and caused the sort of havoc through passing and movement in the final third that we hoped to see from us this season.

Stoke might have been down to an exceptional combination of circumstances, but we have now conceded seven in our last two away games, even though our goalkeeper has been excellent, and kept clean sheets but failed to score in our last two home games, albeit with poor key refereeing decisions going against us. would hope to see from us. Ship goals and lose away and can’t score at home is not exactly a happy combination – but equally we shouldn’t overlook the opening three games, when we came from behind to beat Derby at The Valley, pulled off an outstanding win at West Ham with a mix of dogged defence and goals, then found a way to beat a stubborn Preston.

The three weeks off gives the opportunity to get more of the injured – Mannion, Ramsay, Koumetio, Chalobah and Godden - back into shape, that list having already been shortened with the return of Kelman and Edwards. It gives Jones and his team the time – which has been in very short supply of late – to work on the training ground. And it gives those of us removed from the action, with no idea how things are working behind the scenes, to throw in their sixpennethworth on what might be done to be in the best situation once the games come thick and fast again.

Defensively, having Ramsay back will be a big bonus, but the two we have really missed have been Koumetio and Chalobah. Bindon has been thrown in at the deep end and has had to play a lot of football in a short space of time. But the fact is that he and Jones together has looked far less comfortable as Jones and Koumetio – and the game is about partnerships in key area. Just why Bindon and not Jones was having to deal with Cardiff’s physical centre-forward I don’t know. Perhaps the feeling was that Jones would be better placed going for the loose balls, against a lone forward but others getting forward quickly around our box, but that didn’t work. Pointing any blame at Bindon is neither fair nor useful, he and Jones had no time to work on building an understanding.

Similarly Skipp came in right at the end of the transfer window and was quickly thrown in as Chalobah picked up an injury, which we know is going to happen given his track record. Irrespective of Skipp’s abilities we have missed Chalobah’s ability to sense danger to the defence and act to head it off. He has a calming, reassuring effect on those around him. In terms of the defensive midfield pairing, Coventry and Chalobah looks very good, but Coventry and either Skipp, Ouma (who looks raw, does good things but has an unsettling effect as he appears prone to a mistake) or Mwamba, who has not featured of late, even Rankin-Costello, is less obvious.

The positives have been Okonkwu, McNamara and Mesik, plus incomers Koumetio and Chalobah before they got injured. McNamara is another who has had to play a lot, but aside from his tendency to get on the wrong side of referees has been very good. Equally Mesik has been required to play in a number of positions across the back line and hasn’t let anyone down.

The obvious answer to outright defensive problems is getting Ramsay, Koumetio and Chalobah back available. With them, and despite losing Sichenje, we are well covered and capable of switching to a back five as and when: McNamara/Ramsay, Jones and Koumetio/Bindon/Bell/Mesik, plus Mesik/Bell/Edwards. With Coventry and Chalobah, with Skipp, Ouma and Mwamba available, we should be covered there – and there’s no point thinking now that Docherty or Coady would provide better defensive cover.

Before turning to the forward players, there has to be criticism of our playing of the ball around the back. It is laboured and lacks conviction. The back line seem as if they are supposed to try to knock it around, but passes are too slow, too safe (so too often by the time the ball reaches another he is being closed down), and almost inevitably end with a lofted ball forward for Leaburn to battle for. Surely we ought to be able to play through the lines better than we are currently doing. And after aimless passes and the ball knocked long, the opposition is set and waiting. Everyone has to work harder to move the ball better out of defence – or if we are going to end up lofting it forward it is better done sooner than later and the three behind Leaburn more alert to second balls.

Added to that, we are too happy to be defensive, getting everyone behind the ball when out of possession. Of course players have a job to do and need to cover, it’s rather that having moved into a defensive shape we appear too happy to stay in one. Nobody getting close enough quickly enough to Leaburn. We have to stretch the opposition more than that.

I was mystified by changes made and not made on Saturday. If Jones didn’t make the call, somebody on the pitch in the first half needed to tell someone else to just stay tight to Moylan, he was causing us way too much damage. Somebody to say 'OK, you're Rodney Marsh, I'm Peter Reeves'. The change to a back 3/5 at the break was a reasonable response. What didn’t make sense (to me) was that we moved Grant alongside Leaburn and asked Campbell to go back to playing wing-back. I thought we’d moved on from that. Mesik and McNamara as wing-backs, put Campbell alongside Leaburn (in any event TC would do his main work down the left flank), and get Carey on – because we had abandoned the midfield 2 and 3 and he’s the best player we have at supporting the front two in that formation, as we saw last season. Instead we had a midfield of Coventry, Ouma and Skipp, which helped shore things up at the back but gave us no forward impetus. Carey did get on the pitch, as did Kelman, but then in a kind of 4-4-2.

And as for being overly defensive, we seemed to have given up on the game with plenty of time left. Yes, we were 3-1 down and didn’t want to concede a fourth. But we were up against a team which had not won all season. I don’t care how dominant they had been, Moylan had been shifted out wide and then withdrawn with perhaps 10 minutes still left. If we had got one back to 3-2 surely their nerves would have been jangling and who knows? Instead we had all 11 back for their corners. Surely it was worth trying something in that final period, to make them worry about us. Leave Campbell and Kelman on the half-way line. They would have to cover them. It’s called taking the initiative.

As for the personnel, the switch of Grant to the middle of the forward-looking three was worth a try but hasn’t paid off. For that position it seems we have Grant, Carey, Knibbs and Rankin-Costello. I don’t know how Knibbs is doing in training, but if he’s ready give him the job, with a view to bringing Carey on for him on the hour, to take better advantage of tiring opponents. If Knibbs is still out in the cold (and if he is why pick him as a sub?), the best option for me could well be Rankin-Costello. That central guy has to knit the three together, it requires speed of thought and the ability to pick the right pass.

Finally, the fact that Leaburn has yet to score is irrelevant. He has been instrumental in goals and hasn’t missed much that’s come his way. Playing all game trying to fend off centre-backs and do something with the ball is a task he is carrying out well, but it is a very tough ask when you are the only outlet for a lofted ball – and it’s too predictable. Leaburn is perfectly capable of running into channels for balls to his feet, but that requires the ball being brought out of defence and into midfield. At some point Kelman and/or Godden are going to be required to plough the lone furrow and there will be even less point in lofted balls forward. We need (IMO) to aim higher and to be braver on the ball. I thought at the start of the season we had that in mind, but it has slipped away over the past four games.

More Dispiriting Than Stoke

Last one before the extended break. Every team in the league wants to win their match, to go into the period feeling good. For us, a win would cement an excellent start to the season (four wins and only one defeat), a point would be OK but would mean three consecutive draws, a defeat would mean a record of 3-3-2 for the first eight but no win in five. All against a team which has struggled so far on its return to the Championship with no win to date but four draws themselves in seven - and with the stats showing they’ve created a considerable number of chances but converted few.

Well, we were beaten. Badly. I found it more dispiriting than Stoke. You could write that one off as a combination of poor refereeing, bad luck, errors, and just one of those days. This time we were lucky to get away with conceding only three. Their set-up, in particular their number 10 Moylan, caused us all sorts of problems in the first half – and we did nothing to try to close him down. That the game was still a contest at half-time was down to poor finishing, excellent goalkeeping, luck, and Campbell taking a good opportunity. We did change formation for the second half and for a while seemed to be competing, only to concede again, Moylan hitting a screamer after not being closed down.

Behind all that, we were too often poor in possession, struggling to control and pass the ball. In that area Cardiff gave us a real lesson. They had weaknesses of their own, with a vulnerability in defence that we too seldom exploited. Even then, at 3-1 with perhaps 10 minutes to go you felt if we just get another it could be interesting. Then our lack of ambition was evident in all 11 back for a corner and everyone getting behind the ball when out of possession. Had we given up on the game? Perhaps we had. We deserved nothing and the game will give Jones the Boss a great deal to ponder over the next couple of weeks.

The team was unchanged from Portsmouth. A back four in front of Okonkwu of McNamara, Jones, Bindon and Mesik, with no sign yet of a return for Koumetio, Mesik continuing to get the nod ahead of Bell, and increased competition on that side with the very welcome return of Edwards, among the subs. Coventry and Skipp would be the defensive midfield pairing, with Ouma among the subs (but not Mwamba or the still injured Chalobah) as well as Rankin-Costello. The three further forward of Campbell, Grant and Alli meant Carey and Knibbs still waiting their turn, with Nkeng another option but again no place for Apter. Up front it would be Leaburn again with Kelman on the bench.

As often the case recently, we started the game brightly, looking the better team. But that only lasted until the seventh minute, when they scored. It has to go down as an error by Jones (the Player). A ball forward to their guy and Jones committed himself to an interception, as he had in the first game against Derby. He didn’t get there and effectively took himself out of the game. The ball went through to another, who played the pass to Moylan, Jones’ guy, now unmarked, who shot well into the far corner.

Another period of relative parity followed, with Leaburn flicking it on for TC, who didn’t make the most of the chance, then Alli on the left (they had switched sides very early in the game) was played in by Docherty and his low cross was blocked. Until they scored again. Okonkwu had already turned a low shot around his post when a ball into our box was controlled by their centre-forward with his back to goal. He totally outmuscled Bindon, turned while protecting the ball, and before anyone else intervened was able to shoot home from close range, Okonkwu again having no chance.

On 28 minutes we got the lifeline. Bindon brought the ball forward and spotted the run of Campbell. He played the pass into the space and nobody was catching TC. He got to the ball and slotted it low under their keeper. Now, we thought, perhaps we can get more of a grip on the game and expose their back line. Instead the remainder of the first half turned into a series of gilt-edged chances for Cardiff, which they somehow failed to convert.

On 31 minutes a Cardiff guy was played in inside the box on their right side. He managed to get the ball past Okonkwu but it ran just wide of the far post, with a corner given. On 36 minutes a cross to our far post found two Cardiff players free. The ball was headed back but their guy muffed the shot from close range. On 42 mionutes we made a mess clearing our lines, guy into the box. He squared it for another, seemingly to tap into an empty net, but Okonkwu managed to get back and down to the ball to stop that happening. In between McNamara picked up a yellow card to tugging someone back, which through the second half meant he was treading a fine line with every foul.

At the break one thing was clear: if we carry on playing like this it could become a rout. The stats showed they had 58% possession and 10 attempts on goal, four on target, against three and one for us. We scored but otherwise their keeper did not have a save to make, while Okonkwu and inept finishing had kept us in the game.

Jones did make changes. Bell and Ouma came on for Alli (who had looked rather lost, especially after switching wings) and Bindon, which meant switching to a back three/five but actually replacing one of the central three. Mesik and Bell were either side of Jones, McNamara and Campbell now wing-backs, a midfield of Coventry, Skipp and Ouma, Leaburn and Grant up front.

For a while the change did confuse, or at least stymie, Cardiff. But Steve Brown as usual got it right on CATV by saying they would sooner or later work out where the spaces and opportunities would come from. Skipp picked up a yellow, putting him in the same boat as McNamara, with his foul resulting in a free-kick in a dangerous position, although the wall did its job. On 52 minutes we did fashion a chance as a throw was flicked on by Leaburn and played on by Ouma to Grant in space on our right side. He chose to shoot and found only the side-netting from a difficult angle, when a squared ball for TC seemed the better option.

At the other end Cardiff came close again as a cross to our far post eluded defenders but not their guy, whose decent header was saved by Okonkwu. And we were for one the right side of a poor refereeing decision as Skipp slipped and lost the ball in a dangerous position only to get awarded a very dubious free-kick.

On the hour we conceded another. Didn’t seem their most dangerous situation as Moylan moved onto the ball just outside the area. But he hit an absolute screamer, with enough curl to send it into the net off the post. That knocked the fight out of us and it was almost four on 68 minutes as Skipp and Ouma managed to mess up and their full-back took it on, skipped past a couple of static defenders, and shot powerfully against the base of the post.

On 69 minutes it was Kelman for Coventry, which meant another formation change, to a 4-4-2. And Kelman almost scored with his first touch. Grant found him with a ball through the middle. He got to it before their keeper but couldn’t get enough lift on the ball to clear him, instead the keeper’s face got in the way.

A goal back then and the closing stages might have been interesting, but it was not to be. Instead the game petered out. Edwards and Carey came on for Leaburn and McNamara and we seemed more intent on not conceding again than going for an unlikely rescue act. Edwards might have given away a penalty in stoppage time, with a clear tug on the guy’s shirt, but the ref deemed he had gone down too easily and gave him a yellow card. It really didn’t matter, nor did Mesik managing to pick a fight at the end, earning him (and the other guy) a yellow card.

The game exposed several vulnerabilities and shortcomings. Bindon against their big centre-forward was a mismatch, Skipp looks a good player but surely the role of the two in front of the defence is just to tackle, cover and win the ball back. It was hard to avoid the conclusion that Docherty could do that job better. Ouma looks prone to errors. Alli had a poor afternoon, Grant didn’t convince in the central advanced midfield role, and Leaburn’s struggles were in vain. Campbell was asked to play on the left of midfield, then on the right side, then wing-back, then back to left-winger as we changed formation. He must have felt that nothing had changed from last season. And through the first half at least we allowed Moylan to control the game, as if blinded by the fact that so far this season Cardiff had usually failed to take the chances they created.

The only positives were the return of Edwards (although not surprisingly he looked rusty) and Okonkwu. We surely have to get better at playing a 4-2-3-1, playing between the lines, passing and doing the basics better. If we can’t, the formation will not be working. Having more players back from injury will help for sure, but Jones needs to find the right mix if we are to turn around what is now three points in five games.

Bag Restrictions Not Required By New Legislation, Clubs Taking Cheap & Easy Way Out

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the new bag restrictions policy introduced by Charlton for games/events at The Valley - and it appears many other football clubs - is driven by convenience and a desire to save money, by taking the cheap way out, despite the inconvenience to supporters. The basic reason it appears – and just why Charlton and other clubs don’t acknowledge this I’ve no idea, unless it might expose that there are other options available other than restricting bag size to A4 – is compliance with The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, otherwise known as Martyn’s Law, which has received Royal Assent with new rules expected to come into force in spring 2027 (ie before the end of the current season).

Charlton restricts itself to commenting that the new bag policy is in order “to ensure the safety and security of entry of all spectators”. Brentford go into more detail, stating openly that new bag restrictions (ie the A4 rule) are in line with “incoming crowd safety legislation” which, the club states on its site, “requires Brentford to demonstrate enhanced, robust security arrangements”. It adds that “we must now tighten our bag policy to comply with incoming legislation and align with best safety and security practise across major UK sport and entertainment venues”. Chelsea are a little more vague, stating that “the bag policy is one of the measures we have in place for the safety and security of everyone attending our matches”.

So let’s be clear. The new legislation does not require bag restrictions. Clubs, such as Brentford, attempting to present new policies as required by the new legislation are quite frankly not being truthful. Note that Brentford actually give a dual reason for the change: first, to comply with new legislation (not true); second, to align with best practise (which is a choice, not a legal requirement, and the definition of best practise is of course subjective). Clubs are quite within their rights to imposes new regulations for entry to the venue, but it is a choice.

You get a clue to the real motivation from another justification for the bag restrictions. “Reducing the size and number of bags entering the stadium limits the opportunities for prohibited or dangerous items to be concealed and also speeds up bag searches, reducing queues for supporters”. Ah. So there is no legal requirement to reduce bag size, let alone to the absurd A4, but it is so that fewer staff are required to deal with bag searches and no special equipment is needed. It is common practise at many venues to put a bag through an X-ray scan or similar, to go through one yourself. But clubs don’t have the machines in place, don’t want to spend the money on them, don’t want to bring in additional staff to handle bags, and to be fair want to avoid what would probably be time delays getting into the ground. But there is nothing to prevent clubs from having a dedicated turnstile/entrance for people with bags, for these bags to be searched/X-rayed. Those wishing to bring in a bag accept it will take longer to get in with one.

If anyone doubts that Martyn’s Law doesn’t advocate/require bag restrictions, take a look through it yourself:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-terrorism-protection-of-premises-act-2025/terrorism-protection-of-premises-act-2025-statutory-guidance

A cursory look at the legislation is sufficient to determine that The Valley and other football grounds fall under its definition of enhanced tier premises, so it is right and proper that clubs look at the new legislation and what might need to be done to comply with it. The legislation is actually more focused on how venues deal with a terrorist attack than options such as bag restrictions. Relevant sentences include: the legislation requires venues to “have in place, so far as reasonably practicable, appropriate public protection measures that could be reasonably expected to reduce both the vulnerability of the premises or event to an act of terrorism occurring and the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an attack occurs there or nearby”; and “those responsible for enhanced tier premises or events must also put in place measures to reduce their vulnerability to terrorism. These may be implemented through people (such as training), processes (such as a bag search policy) or physical measures (such as CCTV)”; and “… for example, there is little point in arranging search and screening of bags at a main entrance, if additional entrances or exits elsewhere at the premises are open and can be accessed without bag checks in place”. So the legislation talks of a possible ‘bag search policy’, not a need for restrictions on bags, just for measures to deal with them.

OK, so let’s assume that Charlton want to impose this A4 restriction, because everyone else is doing it (which counts for nothing). What can be done to limit the inconvenience for supporters? It is accepted that most supporters do not want to take bags into the ground and are unaffected. But some are, both home and away fans.

Lockers? Hardly. If the objective is to make it more difficult for a terrorist you don’t provide the opportunity to anonymously put a bag in a locker. Bag storage areas? OK in principle, but for a start don’t charge for the service. Bloody ridiculous and offensive. Supporters are now asked to pay for the privilege of complying with a new restriction imposed at the whim of the club. And make it accessible to both home and away fans (which in practise means two different locations). Transparent bags? Also ridiculous and offensive to ask fans to pay for them. In any event these do not address the needs of a supporter who has a bag with him/her.

Why did I bother with all of this? Personal interest for sure. I’m planning a trip for October, to take in the Bristol City game at The Valley, go up north to visit a friend, then train back to Burnley for the away game at Turf Moor before back to London then France. That means I’d be carrying a small backpack, an easyjet-compatible one, for clothes and toiletries. In light of Charlton’s policy change I thought I’d better check what Burnley do.

Checked out the Burnley FC website and it states that ‘Small bags/backpacks – must be able to fit under your seat’. Great, I thought, my bag will comply with that. To double check I emailed, using the address provided. There was a prompt and helpful reply: “I can confirm that small backpacks are allowed at the Turf Moor, and we’d ask that you just store this under your seat”. All is well. Until the next day when I received another email, from a different person at the club. “We do not allow bags that exceed an A4 size”. I have sent another email to ask for clarification on which is correct. The second email added that “we offer a storage service where you can leave your belongings with us; however, you might find it difficult to move between this space and our away end, especially post-match”. So as much use as a chocolate teapot to someone hoping to get a supporters’ coach back to London. Pending clarification, seems my only option is to either not take my bag with me (ie try to wear the changes of clothes) or arrange to meet the Charlton coaches arriving at the ground (assuming there are some) and to put my bag on one of them for the post-match return.

I don’t add this to embarrass Burnley in any way, just seems that there is considerable confusion around the (possible) new restrictions. And I very much doubt if my case is unique. Are clubs really unable to deal with a supporter wishing to take into the ground a bag which will fit under the seat, one who is happy to have it searched/emptied etc?

Glass Half-Full Or Half-Empty After Another Draw?

Portsmouth at home. A club which has spent big in the summer and is, like us, looking to improve on last season’s standing in the Championship. They did the double over us last season and we played poorly in both games, so we undoubtedly owed them one, although there can never be bad feeling towards the club that came to The Valley as the opposition for that game and played their part by losing. They’ve had a mixed start to the season, two wins and three defeats, but won last time out. We just hoped before the game for, in order of priority: the points, a decent performance, a decent game of football (ie not another against teams prioritising keeping possession over scoring goals), no fresh injuries, some coming back from injury.

What we got by just about every measure a glass half full/empty. The game itself was pretty even, quite entertaining, we didn’t play badly, should have been ahead at half-time, having spurned the best chance of the game, then watched as Okonkwu pulled off the save of the game early in the second half. Another ref bottled another important decision as at the close Leaburn is bundled over from behind in the box, protests waved away. A point and a clean sheet’s no bad outcome, but consecutive home games without scoring and two points from them when we were looking for more. We have no choice other than to take it and concentrate on the positives, including being two points off the top after seven games with just one defeat (albeit a bad one) rather than four games without a win and just one goal score.

The most important issue for the team was whether or not Leaburn would be available (or risked) after his early departure on Wednesday night, and how Jones would cope if he was not. And the good news was that he did make the team, while Jones made just two changes from QPR. McNamara returned from suspension and at left-back Mesik was chosen over Bell, who took a rest on the bench. Jones and Bindon would continue as the central pairing. Coventry and Skip would start as the defensive midfield pairing while in the three further forward Carey was back among the subs with Grant given the central spot, Campbell and Alli the two wider positions. With Mbick missing out through injury, Kelman was back as a substitute, along with Brooks, Bell, Ouma, Mwamba, Rankin-Costello, Knibbs, Carey and Nkeng.

As in other recent games we started the brighter of the teams. Alli forced their keeper into a rushed clearance which dropped to TC, but he couldn’t bring it under control, Coventry and Skipp played in Campbell but his low cross was gathered by their keeper, Mesik won the ball and Grant played it on for Leaburn, whose shot from a wide angle was saved, and Leaburn tussled for the ball and got it out to Campbell, whose cross was cleared at the near post – all in the first 10 minutes. To be fair Portsmouth had one early moment, when a pass into our box found one of theirs inexplicably on his own, but he miscontrolled it and the chance was gone.

After that opening Portsmouth did enjoy a better spell. Okonkwu was forced to block a low cross from their right, a forward waiting behind. But we continued to create openings. From a short free-kick TC lifted a cross to beyond the far post. It was headed back by Bindon but nobody was on hand to get a final decisive touch. And on 30 minutes Alli played the ball on to Grant, who took a good first touch and got in a decent shot from a tight angle which their keeper saved. And the real chance came from the resulting corner as a TC cross dropped for Alli alone at the far post but he lifted his effort over the bar. That one should have been us ahead.

At the break we were winning on points but that doesn’t count for much. Seven efforts on goal, three on target, against two and one for them. We simply hadn’t scored and you felt that the first goal for either side would prove crucial.

That goal very nearly came for them as we started the second half sloppily. We failed to clear our lines and from the edge of the area their guy put in a very good shot headed for inside the far post. Okonkwu got down to his left to make an excellent one-handed save, and get up again in time to prevent a corner. After that for some time it was a case of nearly but not quite for both sides. With the hour up we were looking tired and Portsmouth were putting us under the cosh, but for some reason there were no substitutions from Jones, while Portsmouth were introducing fresh legs.

Biden slipped and lost the ball, to be bailed out by Skipp with a very timely tackle. Finally, on 74 minutes we did have a change, with Kelman replacing a spent Alli. No change of formation as Grant moved wider right. A poor McNamara ball inside was intercepted and Portsmouth broke, Okonkwu eventually making a decent save. And on 80 minutes a Portsmouth low cross from their right went just beyond their lunging forward. Just needed a touch.

After that we did finish strongly as perhaps we were chasing the game. A corner taken short to TC, who played it square for Skipp, who in turn passed left for Coventry, but his shot went over the bar. And the big moment of the final stages came on 86 minutes as Grant had a shot blocked and with the ball up in the air Leaburn was waiting, only to be bundled over from behind before it dropped. Just how Ouma could be penalised as he was against Stoke and nothing was given this time can only be explained by crap refereeing. And after three minutes of stoppage time that was indeed that.

No doubt Jones will accentuate the positives, quite rightly point to the fixture list and injuries, and poor decisions by the officials. My only quibble would be we made just one substitution despite players being exhausted. Bell was an option in defence, Mwamba, and why Carey wasn’t introduced I don’t know. We had Carey, Knibbs and Rankin-Costello unused (while Apter isn’t making the squad), while if Nkeng wasn’t ready to replace Alli what was he doing on the bench? Jones is paid to make these decisions and of course will have had his reasons. I just don’t yet know what they are.

Nevertheless, on to Cardiff and one more game before the extended break – although that can’t be the mindset for it, we will be against a team yet to record a win. Once that’s out of the way hopefully we will have more players back when it all resumes and can move up a gear.

Another Hard Night, But A Point

After around four days of licking our wounds, last night was as everyone agreed about bouncing back, showing a reaction, ideally getting the win but at least stopping any rot. At this stage of the season nobody can be sure about what ‘back on track’ looks like. West Ham took just two points from their first three games, including a famous defeat, yet before last night’s games sat at the top of the league. We aren’t sure whether to focus on three wins and just one defeat in five or one point from two away games and our own bubble being burst. A win and we could find ourselves back in first place, second at worst (given some not playing); a draw and it’s still a decent start; defeat and we’re getting gloomy again. What was not in doubt was that we would need a very good performance to beat a QPR side enjoying their own good start.

We got a decent performance and a hard-earned point. For the second time in three games we were up against a side hell-bent on keeping the ball – and to that extent QPR, like West Brom, succeeded, enjoying 70%-plus possession. That kept us pinned back in our own half, kept our forward-looking players focused on defending and running around trying to close down their opposite number. But, also like West Brom, who did actually score a goal against us, QPR largely failed to turn dominant possession into goalscoring opportunities. For that they may point to injuries of their own, but one curled shot just wide, two dangerous low balls across our box, and a one-on-one resulting from our mistake is not much return.

We defended very well, even towards the end when a number were not surprisingly flagging, and might even have won but for a debatable offside, a penalty not awarded, and a blatant pull back not even punished by a free-kick (and yellow card). But truth be told we struggled through the game to keep and make use of the ball and were down to the bare bones in terms of available players, limiting our ability to freshen things up, especially once Leaburn did not return for the second half. And at the end I’d guess both teams and managers were, if not ecstatic, reasonably satisfied with the draw.

The team would again be about whether one or two more might be available and, if not, how to manage/shuffle a squad of 25 (with Burke not on the final list submitted to the EFL) reduced to in effect 17 with seven injured and another (McNamara) unavailable. While the team for Stoke included a large element of resting players (and we paid the price), two home games surely meant best available starting if they could walk. Jones opted for just two actual changes, really three in practise as McNamara would have been right-back but for his suspension, so Mesik continued in that spot, Jones, Bindon and Bell the other three. Coventry returned to partner Skipp as the defensive midfield pairing, Ouma back among the subs, and Carey starting again in the central position of the more forward three, Rankin-Costello dropping to the bench. On the bench there would be no place for Apter, with Laqeretabua and Nkeng preferred.

As at Stoke we started the game brightly. From an early corner Leaburn managed to get his head to the ball but under pressure put it wide, Campbell had a shot blocked having been played in by Leaburn. But as QPR settled into their game the balance shifted in their favour as we saw less and less of the ball, especially in their half. They were to win nine corners in the first half and from one of them a curler from the edge of our area went only just wide with Okonkwu probably beaten. But in terms of near misses that was about it, QPR’s cause not helped by their dangerous winger going off injured. And the pendulum did shift back at the end of the half.

On 38 minutes, with QPR pressing forward Skipp wrongfooted them and slide through a perfectly weighted pass for TC to spring onto. He didn’t need to take a touch before planting it beyond their keeper and into the net, only for the offside flag to cut short our celebrations. It was to say the least very tight, have to see yet more replays before any definitive answer is possible, but he may have been onside. And there was still time for the ref to not award us a penalty. We were applying late pressure, the ball bouncing around their box, and Mesik chased one down. The QPR defender slipped/fell/was pushed and went to ground and in doing so brought Mesik down with him. If no foul had been given against Mesik it was surely a penalty, however unintended. But we are not exactly getting the breaks from the officials at the moment.

So at half-time, although the stats looked poor, we felt a goal was possible and that would change the game. But a few minutes before the break there was a confusing episode as Rankin-Costello appeared stripped off and ready to come on. The assumption was it would be for Carey, but why make such a move so close to half-time, with such a change then surely likely to seriously damage his confidence. Rankin-Costello sat down again and the mystery was resolved when he came on at the start of the second half but for Leaburn, who had obviously picked up a knock.

Rather than opting for his only replacement, Mbick, Jones the Boss chose to change the formation, switching to a back three/five with Rankin-Costello and Mesik wing-backs, while Grant and Campbell would operate up front. The change really didn’t work (at West Brom switching to that set-up did help to get us a point). We looked vulnerable on their left side and did come under the cosh. On 55 minutes the first of two dangerous low crosses flashed across our box, only needing a touch, and on 61 minutes Bindon lost the ball and they played their guy in for a run in on Okonkwo. Fortunately he stood tall and managed to get a leg in the way of the eventual effort.

On 63 minutes we abandoned the formation change as Mbick replaced Carey. And back out left TC began to cause them problems. As they tired we had more joy on the break but were stopped by cynical fouls. Grant intercepted the ball but was held back. Amid all this QPR were still controlling possession but we covered well. They brought on three subs on 77 minutes to fresh things up, which did not bode well for the run-in as we were tiring too.

On 83 minutes the second of their dangerous crosses was drilled in, from the right, again nobody getting the vital touch. Muamba came on for Skipp and on 87 minutes on another day we might have had another penalty as a QPR defender’s upper arm blocked a shot, but it was from close range. Would have been very soft. Ali replaced an exhausted Campbell and in the first of three stoppage time minutes we might have won the game, only for the ref to bottle it again. Mbick broke well with the ball and played it through for Grant. He was obviously held back and couldn’t reach the ball, the ref doing nothing. The final act of the game was a corner for us, but it came to nothing and it would be a point apiece.

The injuries, fixture list, and officials’ decisions are doing us no favours at present. We will go again at home to Portsmouth on Saturday, hoping that Leaburn’s withdrawal was precautionary (Mbick is a great prospect but still returning from his lengthy injury) and that perhaps some of the other injured will be available. If not some of our number will end Saturday thinking they might be extras from ‘They Shoot Horses Don’t They?’.