'Promising Signs' For Sure, But Flip Sides Too

Don’t think you need to be a rocket scientist to agree with the ‘promising signs’ noted by Ben Garner following the Swansea game. Equally, I’d suggest that each of them had a flip side too.

I didn’t watch the Welling game, but no question that the two players from the Swansea match who most enhanced their credentials were Wollacott and Morgan. It’s worth adding that the key threat from us was that Blackett-Taylor was able to go past his marker at will. A little improvement with the end-product and he will be a major force this season, especially as it would appear that he and Sessegnon look as though they will enjoy being paired up. Also, I’d say that Clare is looking more comfortable and effective in the right-back slot, even though we hope he won’t have to continue to fill in for too much longer.

Now the other side of the coin. Wollacott did indeed pull off some excellent saves, especially when bailing out his defenders for their misplaced passes gifting Swansea openings in our final third. Perhaps they just felt obliged to balance things up after their two guys had handed us the lead in very similar fashion to Sarr/Phillips at Wembley. He looks a very accomplished shot-stopper, seemingly able to read well the likely shape of the attempt on goal from the way the guy shapes up. What we found out nothing about on Saturday, however, was his ability to deal with balls in the air and the related skill of commanding his box, organising the defence. Swansea didn’t test him on that front, but pound to a penny if he starts next Saturday Accrington will.

Then Morgan. He had an outstanding first half, directing the play from a deepish position. If one of our weapons is going to be finding CBT early in some space he is perhaps the best we have for spraying the ball around (although I’d say Forster-Caskey comes into the reckoning). But in the second half Swansea changed their shape, made changes to personnel, and we found ourselves under the cosh, especially as the bench was, to put it mildly, lightweight and experimental. In that situation the crying need was for Dobson (or a younger Pratley) to do the dirty work and help us get the ball back and relieve pressure. In other words Morgan has yet to show that he has all the attributes needed to be effective playing in front of the back four – and the recent speculation that Garner might not rate Dobson and he could move on (adding to similar rumours about JFC, Gilbey and indeed Morgan) may need to be tempered by a better appreciation of that side of the game if we are to be competitive.

What else? In addition to the goal given away to Kilmarnock, on Saturday playing out from the back almost cost us twice, once when Inniss made a mess of turning back towards goal and the pass to Wollacott, then an awful pass out of a tight spot from O’Connell. I don’t buy the ‘these mistakes happen, part of playing that way’ line of argument. If playing that way costs us one or two goals a game it has to produce two or three a game to be justified. And that remains to be seen.

Having opted for two separate, strong teams to start against Welling and Swansea it was hardly surprising that the subs for both games were for the most part just out of nappies (Chin and Kanu did get to feature in both games). It will of course be different on Saturday, when we will be playing the 18-man squad game.

So, who starts? I think the only names you’d say are pretty much nailed on are Clare, Sessegnon, Stockley and Blackett-Taylor. That leaves the choice of keeper (MacGillivray or Wollacott), the two central defenders (from Inniss, O’Connell, Lavelle, and Elerewe), the three central midfielders (from Dobson, Morgan, Forster-Caskey, Gilbey, McGrandles, Fraser, and Payne), and the third widish forward (Leaburn, Kirk, Jaiyesimi, Kanu). So essentially there are 17 competing for seven available starting places, with seven of them to be on the bench – ie just three of the contenders do not make the squad, perhaps four if Garner feels he needs another full-back option in the mix for the bench (Clayden, Chin, Ness), as without Egbo we are stretched in that area.

The actual choices for centre-back and midfield are really down to combinations as at this stage you would not say anyone is nailed on. For what it’s worth - and this is personal opinion for a game way at Accrington rather than any attempt to predict who BG will go for – this is my choice:

MacGillivray, Clare, Sessegnon, Inniss, O’Connell, Dobson, Forster-Caskey, Fraser, Blackett-Taylor, Stockley, Leaburn.

Subs:  Wollacott, Clayden, Lavelle, Watson, Gilbey, Jaiyesimi, Aneke (if fit – and how many times will we add that this season? – and if not Payne).

More Musings On Options

This is probably the most frustrating time of the year. The games have started, albeit with the emphasis on fitness, the start of the new campaign is in sight (just a few hot, sweaty days and one more friendly to get through) – and as usual there’s still nothing that can be said with confidence about our chances of promotion or who is going to form the backbone of the team/squad for the season ahead.

Ben Garner reportedly commented that he wants a further two or three signings to “complete his squad”, hopefully before the season starts, talking in terms of one or two key positions where we need “a little bit more depth”. That language suggested fine tuning and cover rather than game-changing incomers, but that’s just trying to read between the lines. There is still plenty of scope for the big picture to change – and the comments were made before confirmation of the signing of ‘attacking midfielder’ Jack Payne.

Just as important as the arrivals are whether there will be others leaving. If the rumour mill is to be believed any of Davison, Forster-Caskey, Gilbey, Morgan, or Kirk could depart, presumably on the basis that Garner hasn’t been overly impressed with what he’s seen, while there is always the possibility of bids coming in for others, such as Stockley. Given that, assessing how players perform in the friendlies, whether this or that combination might work, seems a rather pointless exercise, at least ahead of the Swansea game, when presumably we will be going with what Garner considers to be our strongest available squad.

So at the risk of a rehash of previous remarks, here’s my take on how well we are set up as things stand, on the basis of an 18-man squad for each game and a 4-3-3/4-5-1/4-1-4-1/4-3-1-3 set-up (they are basically all the same with slight tweaks).

In goal we don’t know whether MacGillivray or Wollacott will be considered first choice. From what I’ve seen so far, it’s MacGillivray for me. But then I really don’t care if a goalkeeper can pass the ball well. What worries me about Wollacott is that he does not seem to command his area, being reluctant to come off the line for high balls and not obviously directing those in front of him. I don’t think MacGillivray was especially strong in those areas last season either, but did seem to take the criticism on board. Either way, can we please avoid alternation. Every team needs a first-choice keeper as differences in style only confuse the defence. Of course who is first choice can change.

At full-back, with the injury to Egbo and with Sessegnon struggling to get game time under his belt, so far we’ve seen more of Clare (plus Ness) and Clayden in the two spots than might have been expected. The former may do a job filling in but presumably isn’t seen as a lasting option for the position, the latter certainly impresses going forward but defensively looks a little raw (he is after all billed as a midfielder). As things stand it is an area of concern.

Central defence does seem well covered with Inniss, Lavelle and Elerewe joined by O’Connell, plus the versatile Clare being another option if necessary. Just which two get the starting berths is not clear, but for me if he’s fit Inniss starts, then you select whichever of the others complements him best. Central defence isn’t the area of the pitch where you expect to make tactical changes during a game and with two replacements available we will need to be unlucky with injuries and suspensions to be short on this front.

The central midfield three is now perhaps overloaded, with the incumbents – Dobson, Forster-Caskey, Gilbey, Morgan and Fraser – joined by McGrandles and now Payne. Nice to have the numbers but it’s hardly surprising that there’s speculation of a departure. That may depend on another club coming in for one of them of course and on the players’ attitudes.

Up front, we are struggling with square pegs and round holes. With Stockley, Aneke and Leaburn coming through we are covered for the central spot. Yes, I know Leaburn is getting time playing wider and Chucks played deeper when he came on at the weekend, but I don’t think this is more than experimentation. Aneke is a powerful force, one which is wasted as a ‘No.10’.

When it comes to who plays either side of a central forward we do, I think, have problems. We have three wingers – Blackett-Taylor, Jaiyesimi and Kirk – and a central forward who may or may not stay with us, ie Davison. Nothing wrong with playing a winger in one of the roles, perhaps even both if we adopt more of a 4-5-1 (and rely more on 'goalscoring midfielders' getting into the box). But if it’s more a front three I think we are at least a man short, one who can play inside and out and will contribute goals. Of course the name that springs to mind is Washington, but that’s history now. Not really the three wingers we have (I still think CBT should be told to just run the flank in the opposition half as most teams will not be able to handle him).

Strangely enough, a player who would (IMHO) fit the bill would be Leko. I appreciate he didn’t pay off last season, he may not be interested in coming back. But his career is at something of a crossroads going into the final year of his contract at Birmingham and apparently not likely to feature in their plans (which might mean a bargain price – and a permanent signing would be a clearer statement of intent than another loan spell). We had discussions (ie differences of opinion) last season about whether he should be played as a winger or second forward. But now, I suspect he could thrive as one of a front three – and contribute the goals we need from that position. Nothing more than idle speculation, but if it isn’t him I’d suggest the need is for someone of that style, whether or not Davison stays.

Pre-Season Indicators

Two pre-season friendlies in (three to go, starting with Colchester tonight) and what have we learnt? Very little about the new players for sure, too soon to tell. But at least so far it would appear that Garner’s preferred set-up – whether out of inclination or assessment of the resources available, which are bound to shift further before the window slams shut – is 4-5-1/4-3-3, whichever way you wish to describe it.

It is probably better to say 4-3-3 as the intention seems to be having two attackers either side of the main forward rather than two wingers complementing a central midfield trio. But it’s a matter of degree and Blackett-Taylor wasn’t able to feature against Dartford. So you have two from either the wingers - CBT, DJ and currently Kirk – or from the ‘other’ forwards – Davison, Leaburn, possibly Kanu – with Stockley and Aneke alternating as the main forward.

If you want contrasts/comparisons I’d say it looks more like Chelsea when they had Drogba flanked by Robben and another (Duff?) than an outright 4-5-1, such as that adopted by Spurs when they had Hoddle and Ardiles in midfield, Galvin on one flank, and effectively told Allen his one and only job was to get on the end of balls into the box. Both work, depending on the players.

Since the end of last season, and especially with the release of Washington, the assumption has been that we need to sign another forward, a goalscorer. That still seems to hold good, but if Garner thinks that Leaburn and/or Kanu are ready to play a material role in the coming campaign perhaps the chequebook won’t be necessary. Either way, the odds have lengthened on us signing an outright poacher and adjusting the formation to suit him.

The defence has been filled up with fresh additions (Egbo, O’Connell, Sessegnon) and we appear to be well covered for the three midfield spots. Dobson, Forster-Caskey, Gilbey, Morgan, Fraser, McGrandles to compete for the slots as things stand, assuming that Clare is now viewed as a defender. Does seem harsh on him as he is unlikely to be needed as a centre-back and would presumably be behind the two new full-backs in the pecking order. But up to him to make his case for a starting spot, which I’m sure he’s doing.

For sure the rule to allow five substitutions from now on, whatever the pros and cons, does change the nature of the game. It becomes an 18-man squad and a 16-player game, so just who gets the nod to start games is less of an issue than it was. Right now the only shoo-ins would seem to be Stockley/Aneke up front (the assumption being both would feature in a game to replace each other), everything else seems to me to be down to developing partnerships in key areas. If I was picking a first-choice starting X1 right now it would be: MacGillivray, Sessegnon, Egbo, Inniss, Lavelle, Dobson, Forster-Caskey, Fraser, Blackett-Taylor, Stockley, Davison – but reserve the right to completely change my mind as we learn more about some of the new guys and assess fresh comings and goings.

One thing we did learn from the Kilmarnock game is surely be smarter when it comes to playing it out from a dead-ball situation. The opposition know we want to pass it and, as Kilmarnock did for their goal, cut off each and every short outlet. Surely if that happens it’s not beyond the wit of one or more of the front three to drop a little deeper to make themselves available for a slightly longer pass out from the keeper. That keeps the opposition guessing and could provide a useful springboard to attack. Some may say if we play it out from the back we have to live with the odd error resulting in a goal. Can’t agree, I’ve never been in favour of gifting the other side an advantage because of tactical rigidity. It was amusing in the Spain kick-about that second time around when Wollacott saw options in front of him closed down (again) in frustration he kicked it long. Stockley flicked it wide to Fraser, who ran down the left, crossed, and we almost scored.

One other notable feature for me was that if we play possession football at the back the player who looked most comfortable was Inniss. He has the confidence to do it as he knows full well he isn’t going to be brushed off the ball. Just hope, like all Addicks, he stays fit and available.

Cause For Concern Off The Pitch?

For sure we welcome Conor McGrandles to The Valley, along with Eoghan O’Connell, Mandela Egbo and Joe Wollacott. We hope they all go on to become Charlton legends, while wishing all the best to Jason Euell, who earnt that accolade. Still gaps on the pitch to be filled for sure, along with the potential for some more to depart, but the spate of arrivals does help to focus attention on the new campaign and a fresh approach, as will watching a pre-season kickabout in Spain tomorrow.

On another front, should we, the supporters, feel justified in having concerns over the latest off the pitch developments – the sacking of Brian Jokat at COO after only around six weeks and the apparent dismissal of a number of club staff, including supporters liaison officer Dan Burke - or should we be shrugging our shoulders and concluding how the club is run from day to day is none of our business?

I guess the simple answer is if you believe fans are stakeholders, it has to be the former, at least ahead of any further information from the club. We are supporters because we care and that emotion can’t be switched on or off at random, either by ourselves or by the club. So these matters do concern us. Alternatively, if our role is to turn up and sing and dance, as Duchatelet wanted, go for the latter.

I think there’s sometimes a temptation to think that when a company is both owned and run by the same person this means that person can do pretty much what he/she likes. Not true. Being a director of a company carries with it defined responsibilities – and in addition to being the shareholder/owner TS is a director. The two roles are separate even if occupied by the same person and entail different duties.

General responsibilities of a director include that you must act “in the company’s best interests to promote its success” and in doing so take into consideration (among other things) the “interests of its (the company’s) employees” along with the “impact of its operations on the community and environment”, the company’s “reputation for high standards of business conduct”, and the “need to act fairly to all members of the company”. Perhaps pertinently, a director’s responsibilities also include avoiding conflicts of interest. The guidelines state that “you must avoid situations where your loyalties might be divided. You should consider the positions and interests of your family, to avoid possible conflicts”. The IoD adds that directors are also responsible for “accounting for the company’s activities to relevant parties, eg shareholders”.

Now I’ve no idea what was behind Jokat’s departure. But his arrival (first announced on 23 April with him to start in May) was hailed on the club website by TS as “a really important addition to the club”, someone who would “lead on all our business activity” and “help drive us to becoming Premier League-ready on the business side”. Fair enough. But silence as regards his departure after a few weeks and the reasons behind it is at best not good enough.

Same applies to the staff more recently let go. Whether or not correct procedures were followed, regulations adhered to, the absence of any official information will only serve to fuel discussion and rumours over whether or not the club is being run in an appropriate manner.

And my main point is that it would appear that the Charlton board – not TS as owner of the club - is not meetings its responsibilities if these extend to keeping stakeholders (and not just shareholders) informed and if supporters are considered to be stakeholders. And it’s all rather counter-productive as supporters groups meetings are coming up and questions will be asked. There will need to be responses then, which will be made public.

We’ve been through the worst of regimes, years when Duchatelet and Meire showed nothing but contempt for communication with the fans (it took place but did not extend to any material issues, let alone amount to supporters having any valued input). TS has made himself open and accessible to fans, makes appearances which are appreciated. But that openness cannot be turned on and off at his own discretion. We want our club to succeed in every area (especially as not succeeding in an important one kind of works against success in others).

RIP Graham Tutt

Just a few reminders of better times. Deepest sympathies to his family and friends, RIP Graham Tutt.

More Musings On Incomings/Outgoings

There’s no point whinging (yet) about the absence of players coming in, although if we were seriously in for Tucker and he opted for MK Dons it is obviously disappointing as presumably his choice was based on perceptions of ambitions/expectations as well as just money. Equally I’m not entirely clear if Purrington’s departure was down to a failure to agree terms on a new contract or Garner not fancying him – or both. And if the speculation that Gilbey is deemed surplus to requirements and the possibility that Kirk will still end up back at Blackpool, at the moment the squad is still contracting, creating more spots in need of filling.

For the record, a quick check on the club site and the first team squad now numbers 14, of which just three are defenders. Gilbey is still pictured – but Kirk is not, neither is Davison. Eight are midfielders (including Clare), with a goalkeeper and two forwards. And in case you think this paves the way for the U23s to step up, their squad as per the club site currently numbers six, including two goalkeepers.

On Tucker, with Inniss and Lavelle the only two current clear options – hopefully Elerewe can be considered a third (Barker doesn’t seem to be on the verge of first-team consideration), while it remains to be seen whether Clare will revert to midfield – we do need another for central defence, whatever formation we adopt. One problem here is that no doubt both Inniss and Lavelle will consider themselves first-choice (as and when they are fit) but we have yet to see whether they can play together as a pair. We’ve lost Pearce (from the playing staff, great to see him staying on in another capacity) and Famewo (presumably, can’t see the logic in him spending a third season with us and he seemed to have become a little disenchanted towards the end), plus Clare if he’s back to midfield and Gunter and Purrington as options in a back three/five.

With Purrington gone, following Mathews and Gunter out of the door, plus Soare and Castillo, pretty much the entire defence is basically to be assembled. That could be a plus for a new manager, enabling him to get in the guys he wants, but on balance right now it has to be a concern. When Sir Chris put together a new team which ran away with this league, we were able to cherry-pick. That’s not possible now. Compete yes, cherry-pick no, as we are not the relative attraction for the third flight that we were back then, even if talk that having Garner in is helping attract players.

Midfield for us is less a case of a blank page, more a question of whether the ones are what Garner wants (and by implication are able and willing to fit his style of play). In the centre of midfield we have two players we know would be an asset to any team in this division: Dobson and Forster-Caskey. We also have Fraser, on whom the jury has to still be out as we’ve just not yet seen enough of him. And then there are Gilbey and Morgan. Neither can be considered as cornerstones of a team, but I’d say if the system suited Gilbey could easily be in a promotion-winning team (especially if he could score more goals) while Morgan still has the potential to develop (and would be more valuable if he could add more goals).

So depending on the formation I’d say that losing Arter, Watson, Lee (assuming he does not return) still leaves us reasonably well covered in midfield in terms of bodies, but probably lacking some real sparkle in terms of goals contribution. Scope for a signature signing here.

As regards the wide positions, Blackett-Taylor, if fit, surely has to play. He can terrorise the opposition. Jaiyesimi and Kirk have yet to show they can really cut the mustard, while Leko will presumably not be returning. Depending on Garner’s views on these two, there would seem to be a space for another wide man.

Up front you have to say it’s down to the formation. My suspicion, from what has been said, tends towards a 4-5-1. I don’t think you can play a high line and a pressing game, and pass out from the back, with a 3 or 5. The obvious danger in that regard is that the units become separated and disjointed, as demonstrated by the first 20 minutes of the final game against Ipswich. It wasn’t even difficult for them. With a back four you have a line which can (IMO) move more easily up and down the pitch, especially if we have five in midfield in front of them, hopefully dominating possession.

That would suggest Stockley and Aneke often being asked to play pretty much on their own, although with support from two wider attacking players and central midfielders getting into the box. I hope there’s room for flexibility and a complementary forward, to enable us to change things at times. Can’t see that being Davison but would love him to prove us wrong.

The absence to date of incoming players does at least offer the opportunity to say thanks and good luck to those who are leaving. First and foremost JJ, for obvious reasons, but also Washington, Matthews and Purrington. Washington played as he talked, intelligently and thoughtfully, in patches very effectively. These would seem to be players released less because of their outright abilities – Purrington was/is a perfectly capable full-back and adapted very well to playing wing-back, especially with his reading of the opportunity to get on the end of balls across the box (and there will of course always be that goal, not many players have scored for Charlton at Wembley, at least excluding penalties) - but doubts about whether they will fit for Garner. The same would be said of Gilbey if he goes.

What these departures also do is set the bar pretty high when it comes to replacements. The only reason for letting them go (and I hope the business over the leak regarding JJ did not influence the decision over Washington) is to bring in replacements who will prove to be better. TS has said he has high ambitions for Charlton. This is a point in time for that to be demonstrated. And a little good news in the near future would not go amiss, before our hearts sink once more with the release of Papa John’s and Carabao Cup fixtures.

Let's Hope Attacking Football Does Mean Winning

So, following the strange and as yet unexplained interregnum between the strong rumour (from a reliable ITK source) and confirmation of appointment, we can indeed now move on to the preparations for next season under a new gaffer, the said Ben Garner. Not everything’s settled yet as there’s no news on whether any of his team at Swindon will be coming with him, but it’s quite possible that talks are ongoing. Pointedly, there was no question on the subject put to either Garner, Thomas Sandgaard or Steve Gallen in the interviews posted on the club site, which suggests this remains a sensitive issue, but with the manager role settled this should not be any barrier to transfer activity.

What comes across strongly (to me) in the three interviews is the real depth of the ‘singing from the same hymnsheet’ mantra, beyond what might reasonably be predicted. While TS and SG talked about the selection process, what comes across as the key factor is the style of football he wants to play. That obviously struck a chord with TS, while SG talked in terms of it having become clear early on that BG was the first-choice candidate (from a ‘serious shortlist’ of around six, a shortlist of perhaps 10, perhaps 40 seriously considered applicants, and according to BG hundreds of actual applicants). So all three talked in terms of a style of play to be adopted at all levels, one followed by Swindon last season (which resulted in them topping the table on a number of measures – although those stats do tend to overlook that they conceded the most number of goals in the top 10).

So whatever the rights and wrongs, we do have an agreed starting point, one which will extend to the targeting of new players (and it was welcome on that front that SG in particular emphasised that the final word on a player would always be with the manager). If it all goes pear-shaped there can be no pointing of fingers, although success or failure in this respect does for sure depend on who is brought in to bolster the team.

This all leaves open the questions of what constitutes success (or failure) as regards next season, what playing ‘attacking football’ will mean in practise, what will be BG’s preferred formation, what are the key areas we need to strengthen, and who will be brought in.

TS was not surprisingly more circumspect than he has been in the past when it comes to objectives and success/failure. There is still the implied bottom line from what he said regarding wanting automatic promotion, while viewing a top-six finish as probably acceptable. But ‘progress’ and playing attractive football were also cited as objectives, which are rather less tangible.

On this front personally I have no hesitation in saying every season in this division which ends without promotion is a failure. Not because we have some divine right, not because of any harking back to a past era, but because of some facts. First, however it is tweaked the revenue base in the third flight is not going to be sufficient – unless supplemented by regular, significant player sales. This does of course beg the question whether we could be financially sound in the Championship, but the stadium would be full. Second, whatever style of football we play we will still face opposition which cares nothing for such niceties – and it is far easier on the pitch to drag an opponent down to a level than to raise one up. In this division we will still end up watching lousy football.

There are probably personal interests/prejudices involved here. I grew up with us playing through the Sixties in the Second Division. It’s where we belonged. Relegation changed all that, but first time around I could see it as a blip, second time I was away from London for most of that season etc. Promotion to the top flight was wonderful under Lennie and we enjoyed it all, but in our heart of hearts we didn’t expect it to last. Next time around under Curbs it was different again as we did establish ourselves – but we were still only ever one bad season away from that era ending. More recently we’ve been pulled more in the opposite direction and I loathe the idea that we might become accustomed to being a third-flight outfit.

So for me, in this division, attractive football is very much secondary to succeeding, which means promotion. If all goes well, there is no dichotomy. TS when questioned about the style of football (pressing, attacking) justified it by saying that in his opinion it gives the best chance of winning. I hope that proves to be the case. But drawing some supposed line between ‘old-fashioned’ and ‘modern’ football – the former involving hoofing it forward to a big lump, the latter passing from the back, keeping possession, and pressing hard as soon as the ball is lost – is simplistic. Fads in football come and go. The beauty of the game is that there is no optimum formation, no style of play which guarantees success. Every game is a contest and, whether you like it or not, the other side has its own agenda and plans, including one framed around how to beat us. The best strategy is knowing your team’s strengths and playing to them. One downside of our ‘new approach’ is that every other team in our division will know perfectly well our style of play. 

After all, when Barcelona has a genius in the form of Messi they adopted a style which suited him. It was wonderful to watch, because the guy could just do what seemed impossible. When Spain played in a similar style but had nobody to truly weave the magic in the final third, it was very, very boring to watch (even if it produced results).

Try another case. I remember watching Scottish Ladies play Hong Kong Ladies in a Commonwealth Games bowls match. The former, all middle-aged in prime, knitted outfits, spent ages setting up ends with considered precision. And then having been outplayed to a point the latter would launch a rocket down the middle and smash the end to pieces. Hong Kong Ladies won the game.

Don’t get me wrong, of course I’d rather see us win 4-2 than a ground-out 1-0. And much of what we saw last season was indeed painful. But I can’t remember the last time I went home depressed after a win – or vice versa. I suspect that back in the Championship I would be more inclined to be less focused on the result but can we please first get there, by whatever means.

As for players to suit the system, whether or not management likes it our main attacking threats right now are a guy who will score the bulk of his goals with his head and one whose main asset is power. In Stockley and Aneka we have players which, if fit, would get into any team in this division. And if Blackett-Taylor is freed from defensive duties (ie 3-5-2 is ditched) to just terrorise opposition defences we have potency in attack, especially if another forward is brought in (I hope I’m surprised by Davison and perhaps Kanu will progress quickly enough). But will these three work best if told to chase around and close down?

Behind them I’d say we currently have Forster-Caskey and Fraser, plus Dobson (Gilbey, Morgan, Jaiyesimi and Kirk may have roles to play but don’t appear to me at least to be core to the team). We’ve not seen enough of Fraser yet to draw any conclusions, but hope that he doesn’t prove to be a player liked by JJ but unable to fit into a new mode of play.

Let’s just not forget that, while Swindon had an impressive season, especially considering where they started from, they didn’t get into an automatic promotion spot, and lost in the play-offs, because they conceded too many goals. We obviously need to bring in new defenders (try telling Inniss his job is to press high and chase hard). Unless we get this area of the pitch functioning well, which means having players who are good at stopping the other team scoring goals, we are not going to win anything.

So let’s welcome BG, give him the support he deserves, and hope none of these differences in emphasis ends up mattering a damn as we storm our way to the title.