Past The Definition Of Insanity

Thanks (if that’s the right word) to some nifty baggage removal work and the astonishing (if not unique) experience of my partner Suzanne remembering where she parked the car at Lyon airport I was able to catch some of the first half of yesterday’s game on a mobile driving back, then all the second from the luxury of an armchair in front of the TV. Everyone knows what happened – fair bit to like about the first half, which was pretty even and quite entertaining despite their equaliser, before a progressive tailing off through the second half as we ran out of steam and lacked effective replacements, rounded off with the almost inevitable conceding of a second – so just a case of anything to be learnt and where do we take it from here.

We have learnt one thing at least, that the new owners, wherever they may be, are not ready to sack Appleton. If they were presumably he would have gone by now. It wasn’t a performance which absolutely demanded a change, even given the context of our recent results. He said the players had given him all they could and that sounded credible. When we heard that both May and Tedic had been added to the unavailable list we feared the worst, while of course hoping for one of those little football miracles. The things I’d quibble about are relatively minor and probably wouldn’t have affected the outcome.

Also, I’d suggest in the debate over Appleton too little weight is being given to the fact that he was appointed ‘head coach’, not manager. Some like to claim this is a more modern approach; really it’s just a different structure, nothing modern or progressive about it. It does mean that Appleton’s main task is to get the squad playing to its full potential. Given those missing through injury, he can’t really be hauled over the coals for the results – even though Holden was. And he was the choice of the new regime (we have to keep calling it ‘new’ because we don’t know how else to describe it) less than four months ago. If he were to go now not only is there little reason to believe another could do a better job in the circumstances (and we don’t yet need a ‘new manager bounce’ to stave off relegation, at least not yet), we would not be bringing in some ‘new broom’ as the replacement would presumably have no greater say in the choice of new signings for example than Appleton.

The downsides for the new regime of a change now are pretty obvious: yet another cheque to write (Appleton was given a two-year contract), another round of accusations that our club has become a laughing stock, and the door kicked open for others to be held responsible for this season’s failure. Again, Appleton was their choice, why should he go and not say ‘technical director’ Andy Scott and/or managing director James Rodwell? Similar reasons really. Scott and Rodwell are on the board of directors (accompanied only by two non-execs and a finance director). In turn they are answerable to the invisible Charlie Methven and his group of investors. Those investors will presumably be ready to accept that this season has been a failure and go again, ideally with greater understanding that avoiding another will require spending more money than to date. Whether they would accept another season like this one is an entirely different question.

The only reason(s) for Appleton to be replaced are if the regime consider that he is not the best coach we can get and (related) if he has ‘lost the dressing room’ – and I’d suggest the latter is pretty irrelevant as that dressing room will once again be very different next season. As regards the former, you’d have to say the jury is still out, although whether or not the new owners are qualified to judge is a moot point.

I do think, from my armchair and with my absence of any direct experience of the football world, that some of Appleton’s selections and tactics have been at least questionable, which could be contributing to our problems. For example, I’m glad Campbell(C) has been getting a run in the team. But he went from out of the squad for an extended period straight to starter in the No.10 role. You’d normally expect someone to have had a sub cameo or two before going straight in to start. Watson(L) has been dropped to the bench but then seen Anderson leapfrog him having been out of the squad for some time, similarly Tedic has been generally kept in reserve following the recall of Kanu. There’s a good reason why Kanu (and Elerewe) were out on loan, as part of their development, and they are being deprived that opportunity to develop, even if injuries have forced our hand. I can understand if some of this ‘in favour/out of favour’ has been having a demotivating impact on some.

Equally tactics and formation. For me there is one – very good - reason we play 4-3-3 (or however you want to describe it). It suits Blackett-Taylor. Last season it suited him and Rak-Sakyi. There’s a price to be paid as it doesn’t really help May, who has worked his socks off to try to make the best of being a lone, isolated central striker, widish right, or the No.10, or Kanu, or for that matter Campbell(T), who is struggling for confidence and being asked to take on a role more challenging than outright winger. It also works against playing with wing-backs as CBT is not one of them (and should never be asked to try).

OK. There’s no perfect formation, just best options for the players available. But why on earth if Blackett-Taylor is knackered (as Appleton says he was against Oxford) and has to be withdrawn, with probably more than 10 minutes left to play, do we stick to that formation, switching briefly Campbell(C) to the left and introducing Fraser? When we were increasingly on the back foot and desperately in need of either shoring up the middle or giving them something to think about with a switch to two up top? If that one was mystifying, the introduction of Casey for Kanu, in the final minutes, to operate on his own for crying out loud when we were behind at home, was almost cruel. What did Appleton expect him to be able to do? Just try something different. If Kanu had to come off, what about having Thomas, who was on for the injured Watson(T), play central defence alongside Jones and put Hector up front to accompany Casey and go long? It would have confused them. No idea if it would have worked, but things could not have turned out any worse (even if we had conceded another).

Appleton must have known we would be increasingly tied down through the game by Oxford, given their style of play, so why not have a plan to deal with tired legs rather than just replacing tired round pegs with fresh(er) round pegs? All of us watching the game were well aware that it would have been a point won had we been able to keep it at 1-1 as in the final 30 mins or so there was only one team likely to score again, the fact that it came via a wonder-strike was irrelevant. If that one had stayed out Oxford would probably have been more intent on looking for another in the final minutes.

So I’m disappointed in what we’ve seen so far from Appleton in certain respects, most obviously some seemingly erratic team/squad selections and what seems to be tactical rigidity when games are not going our way, usually the final 20 minutes (to be fair we have sometimes made changes when defending a lead which have not worked in terms of seeing out a game, nothing’s guaranteed). I hope in the weeks/months to come we see more evidence that he can be instrumental in turning us around. In the interim he deserves our support, as do the players during games at least, as we are in a tough spot and need backing. Just have to bear in mind that Appleton’s track record indicates he doesn’t tend to stick around for long, for a variety of reasons. Including caretaker roles we seem to be his ninth appointment since 2011.

And on that note, while the game is different now and such comparisons are unfair and misleading, Charlton Athletic has been in existence for not much short of 125 years. In that time apparently we have had 31 permanent managers (inc head coaches). Some 13 of them have been since 2013 and the arrival of Duchatelet; if you include Riga having two stints and caretakers, we have had 19 changes in that time. Even by modern standards that’s a lot. I’d say we’ve gone well past the definition of insanity.