Excellent In Many Areas But Room For Improvement In Others

We can forgive Jones for the exaggeration, but I doubt many Addicks would agree with him that against Orient we were “excellent start to finish”. In some aspects of the game, as against Wigan, we were indeed bloody good, very encouragingly so. We know and appreciate that the focus on clean sheets and working hard when out of possession doesn’t sit easily with free-flowing attacking football. As long as we’re winning/not losing there will be no (or few) complaints. But within these parameters looking at areas where there is room for improvement is not being negative, I’ve no doubt that Jones and his staff are doing the same.

First, our set pieces were lousy. Everyone identified before the season began our need to score a decent number from them and we now have Mitchell, Jones, Gillesphey and Ahadme to utilise. But on Saturday we wasted a succession of corners (didn’t clear first man, one put behind for a goal kick, one easy for the keeper) and gave no impression that we had worked on training ground routines to improve our returns in this area. Yes, Jones did score at Wigan but that was from a corner cleared and the ball put back into the mix, which their defender made a pigs ear of. Welcome, but not exactly what we had in mind.

Coventry has made a good start to the season, we need him to continue in that vein. But his corners were poor (as was Small’s one). We had nine corners against Orient, six against Wigan. That’s 15 and really no return. I don’t know why the delivery has been poor, but either Coventry improves in this area or someone else takes them. And a bit of invention to (hopefully) confuse defenders would be welcome.

Up front Jones’ plans have been affected by Godden’s injury, hopefully now over. We are not, currently, blessed with many options up front, as Ahadme/Aneke effectively amount to one player (perhaps in some game Chuks will come on to partner Ahadme, which in particular circumstances could bully teams into submission, but that’s not happened so far), leaving Campbell and Godden as the partner options and Kanu available (and Leaburn not). So far we haven’t had to chase a game, or try to break down a massed defence, but right now we don’t have real options, just replacements – which is not to say Campbell, Godden and Kanu are similar, they each have different attributes, but they are all competing for the same spot and two of them are still learning the art.

What do we know about Ahadme? Strong, will do a good job of holding the ball with his back to goal, and a threat in the air in the box if given the service, as demonstrated by his effort late in the first half, which would have gone in had he not bounced up for their keeper. What do we know about Campbell? Always going to be a danger with the ball at his feet and running at players or between the lines. No sign yet that he knows how to feed off Ahadme or read situations inside the box to poach goals, while his natural inclination is still to move wide when looking for space, which tends to separate him from Ahadme. Godden we expect to provide those abilities.

So some simple rules to follow perhaps. If you’re looking to send it long aim it at Ahadme. He will expect it and then it’s up to Campbell to get closer to him, to take a chance on him winning the ball or to anticipate a second ball. It’s primarily up to the wing-backs to deliver good crosses for Ahadme to feed off, but if it’s a fast break he will probably struggle to get there in time. For Campbell it’s either to feet or between the lines, but here too if he gets on the end of such a ball others are going to be hard-pressed to get to him to support quickly enough. He will probably have to do it on his own. Godden may find space but unless inside the box will most likely look to hold it up, so the midfielders need to support him.

Our goal on Saturday from open play wasn’t the result of a fast, incisive break, but was reward for pressure and the willingness of midfielders to get forward in support. The ball forward was mundane, but Aneke ensured that it stayed in the danger area. Coventry read the situation and made the second key intervention, then Berry added the third by moving on to the ball and getting his shot away.

So what might this all say about forward combinations? For sure Ahadme and Campbell is not a match made in heaven and for me doesn’t get the best out of either. Ahadme and Godden look better suited, or if not why not have Campbell and Kanu together? They I think could work well together, although we would have to forget about the long ball in the air. I’d keep Ahadme and Aneke as a possible pairing if we are losing. Campbell coming on against a tiring defence might work well, as long as it’s not a massed defence. Hopefully Leaburn is not too far off being available, although clearly he will need to be nursed back. Then we would have more options.

This all assumes that nobody new comes in. We know that players have to leave before that’s possible; we’re also pretty sure that if bids come in Ness, Fraser and Taylor, perhaps Edun (although Edwards’ injury adds uncertainty on that front), would be allowed to go, possibly Asiimwe and/or Mitchell(Z) also on loan. Presumably Potts is still an option to bolster the defence, while hopefully a work permit enables Dixon to be brought into the squad for consideration.

I’m guessing but would imagine that Jones would be very happy if Ness and Asiimwe are sold or loaned (I’d much prefer the latter for both), possibly Mitchell(Z) too, and Potts is brought in (plus I’d expect that elusive ‘No.1’, even though Mannion has done nothing wrong as yet). That could see him replace or compete with Gillesphey, with one of them plus Edmonds-Green the back-ups. If Edwards is sidelined for a while presumably Edun stays (or goes and is replaced) in support of Small, with Ramsay and Watson competing on the other flank. We had no central defender on the bench on Saturday, I’m not sure why.

Similarly if Fraser and Taylor can find other clubs that would facilitate new signings. Fraser is still a good player and if he leaves it will be with some regret that we didn’t get the best out of him regularly enough. Taylor may well be too, just haven’t seen enough of him to form any sort of opinion. But if they are both out of the picture we only have Anderson competing with Berry for the third midfield spot. If they stay surely we have to make use of them as injuries and suspensions will take their toll.

As for being taken over by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Abdullah, seems the rumours are quickly being quashed. It isn’t something that I’d want for our club, irrespective of the financial implications (including the possibility of the club buying back The Valley). But with no insight and no knowledge of the individuals concerned I’d assume any concrete interest would not be dismissed out of hand by our current ownership consortium. The club was packed up for them as an investment opportunity, not a lifetime commitment. If they can be provided with a decent return right now rather than the uncertain prospect of better in the future I’d expect them to at least stop and think about it.

Clean Sheet And One Opening, Good Enough

So, after the midweek unlamented early goodbye to a meaningless (for us) cup competition it was back to the real stuff. Nobody needed reminding that having beaten them on the opening day at The Valley last time around Orient went on to have a far more satisfying season than us, so there would have been no grounds for complacency, with their opening day defeat at home to Bolton no clear guide as to their prospects. What we got was in many respects a repeat of the Wigan game as we doggedly kept a clean sheet and that provided the scope for us to take all three points having scored with our only effort on goal which seriously tested their keeper. Much more of this and ‘1-0 to the CAFC’ could become the mantra for the season. With no complaints.

The team showed one change from Wigan for the starting line-up, with Berry coming in to start in midfield and Anderson dropping to the bench. There was the welcome appearance of Godden among the subs, although with both Aneke and Kanu also included – would we really need three replacement forwards? - it looked like Jones was taken a chance defensively, with Edmonds-Green left out of the squad, ostensibly wing-backs Watson and Small providing the only defensive cover, with presumably one of them filling in if a central defender was injured. By the same token Anderson was the only replacement option in midfield. It would be the usual 3-5-2/5-3-2, perhaps providing a contrast with Orient’s anticipated 4-3-3, just as Wigan’s 4-5-1 had given us problems especially in midfield. A chance perhaps also to say welcome back to Sean Clare, perhaps also Pratley and Jaiyesimi, who were among their subs, although Clare was to prove the villain of the peace.

The first half was a pretty even affair with neither side fashioning any clear-cut opening. If anything Orient had the better of the slender opportunities, with a couple of shots blocked and one saved by Mannion after Gillesphey had slipped. Campbell undoubtedly caused them problems with his pace, but with no sign of any understanding with Ahadme or indication that he is learning the art of finding space and anticipating possibilities inside the box when out of possession. Ahadme in stoppage time had probably our best effort, heading a cross goalwards but with it bouncing down and back up to enable their keeper to gather it comfortably.

So the result was a competitive, quite lively encounter short of moments of quality to unlock two determined defences. At the break we’d had 58% possession and six attempts on goal, with two on target, against their four and one, but if anything they’d looked marginally the more likely to score.

The major incident of the half involved two players who had been having their own personal battle from the start: Clare and Edwards. The ball was knocked out of our box and Edwards ran for it pretty much in a forward direction, Clare coming in from his right. It was a loose ball, there to be competed for, but Edwards got there first and played it on, only for Clare’s challenge to come in just after. No question about the foul, no question a card, but yellow or red? Some Addicks were clear it should have been red. For me yellow was probably right, but Clare could have had no complaints if he was off. Really a case of whether his challenge was rash, whether studs were showing. As it was the person who left the field was Edwards, stretchered off. To say we hope the injury does not prove serious is a massive understatement.

The second half was equally tight and short on goalmouth action, but we were more in the ascendency, with Orient perhaps increasingly inclined to view a goalless draw as an acceptable outcome. The question whether Clare could be induced into getting another card, or being caught out not wanting to make a challenge, became whether or not substitutions by either side – with plenty of knocks and tired legs with an early kick-off and a game so early in the season – might make the difference. Orient made theirs earlier than us (Small replacing Edwards notwithstanding) and for a while it seemed their fresh legs might swing the balance as we tired, especially up front.

In the end Jones waited until the 75th minute before Aneke and Godden were introduced, for Ahadme and Campbell. Chuks of course was involved in mauling contests from the off, Godden looked more likely than Campbell to be able to read a situation and take advantage. But the game was going into stoppage time, with both managers having been shown yellow cards, before the deadlock was finally broken, thanks to us having midfielders ready to take a chance and get forward. An ordinary ball forward was competed for by Aneke and it dropped for Coventry to take a touch to the side. That was probably with the thought of getting a shot away himself, but instead it ran for Berry, who had got ahead of his marker. He calmly planted it low into the corner past their despairing keeper.

After that it was to the corner flag at every available opportunity, but we saw out the eight minutes of added time without alarm, to for the second Saturday running to win a game that undoubtedly last season we would not have done. It’s inane to say that clean sheets make all the difference, but my word not having to chase the game and having the luxury to be able to wait for an opening and for one to be enough is nice. For that we can thank the back line, and those in front of them. One thing that struck me was that Mitchell was shouting and pointing at those around him, showing the kind of leadership we have been missing – and which Steve Brown has been despairing of. We’ve yet to show that we can win in style, I still think Jones got away with an unbalanced bench, but all those thoughts can wait, let’s enjoy the moment.

Club Screws Up With Daft 'International Supporters Day' Date

Nobody likes posting something negative about the club. But in its recent treatment of and evident attitude towards the International Addicks the club has behaved abysmally. Whether this reflects just ineptitude and lack of thought/consideration or a conscious – but misguided - decision to embark on a particular approach, one which would fly in the face of the goal to get more bums on seats for the coming games, I can’t say.

All Addicks will agree that the priority is to get more people into The Valley for games. We all want to see a packed house supporting the team, creating the sort of atmosphere many young supporters will not (yet) have experienced. It is for sure a chicken and egg process involving fuelling and feeding off success on the pitch, with the club expected to do all it can to attract back those who have stopped attending games and fresh supporters.

In that context, the branding of 16 home games this season as ‘themed’, which the club says allows it to “promote various causes and engage with supporters of all ages through a number of off-pitch activities”, is in principle positive. But the fact is that through its actions one of those themes, International Addicks Day, which has been run for the past couple of years and has been a great success, thanks to the efforts of the club but also the incredible enthusiasm of those heading up the IA groups, has probably been destroyed.

With no consultation with the IA groups, someone in their wisdom has decided that this season’s ‘International Supporters Day’ will be the home game against Barnsley, on a Tuesday evening (4 March). Who, for heaven’s sake, decided that a midweek fixture would be suitable for international supporters to travel to the UK to embrace? Some of us do work you know. No other themed game is a midweek fixture (the only one not a Saturday game is set for Friday 18 April, Easter weekend). So the club has basically chosen to rank all the other 15 themed games, including new creations as ‘Christmas Spirit Day’, as more important than International Addicks Day. It has gone out of its way to select the most difficult game for overseas supporters to attend, or does it just not care? Is this stupidity or plain mean?

Nobody's asking for any special treatment, just a little appreciation and consideration. To say that this is a slap in the face for all international supporters is an understatement. It indicates the club cares nothing about its overseas fan base. And it isn’t just insulting it’s short-sighted. Sure, International Addicks are not going to fill The Valley week in, week out. But in addition to spending a disproportionate amount on travel to watch games (and on getting club merchandise shipped overseas) they spread the word about Charlton, help foster a positive image of the club, and add what for any enlightened club would be considered a valued element to the support base.

It is worrying that this is not the only example of the club’s poor attitude to international supporters, which really means in turn a callous attitude towards all supporters. Communication over the future of CATV, an issue obviously of particular interest to us living overseas, was terse and curt. Perhaps efforts were made behind the scenes of which I’m not aware, but it left a bad impression, as does certain other recent examples:

https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/98362/clubs-disappointing-treatment-of-swedish-addicks.

The only reasonable response to this is what looks likely to be adopted. The club can quite frankly shove its planned International Supporters Day. Instead, the International Addicks are designating the Saturday 16 October home game against Wrexham as International Addicks Day. This game has been designated by the club as the annual ‘Red, White and Black Day’, a longstanding and entirely praiseworthy event. We International Addicks will be pleased/proud to stand alongside the initiative on the day, to help promote it and support it, while at the same time celebrating International Addicks Day with our own events and activities organised around the game. Just what happens on 4 March nobody cares (and if nobody turns up and the club then drops International Addicks Day as a theme next season we will know for sure what was the intention). .

All that said, mistakes are made. The club has ample time to accept it has screwed up, apologise to the IA groups, and to at least change the International Supporters Day to a Saturday game. I don’t think anyone’s holding their breath, which is regrettable in itself.

Mixed Performance, Perfect Result

Ahead of yesterday’s game some things we knew: the shape – and bar one or two choices or late injuries the composition – of the team, that we would be competitive etc. But unlike last season, when we went into the first game at home against Orient quietly (arrogantly?) confident of victory, little suspecting then we would end up well below them in the league, our standing after the first game proving to be our highest for the whole season, nobody could be confident in the result. After all, what did we really know about Wigan? About their new signings, their expectations, even their formation? Happy to admit, personally not much, the bookies have them pencilled in for mid-table.

That we ended up with the same result/scoreline as a year ago was the outcome of some stout defending, including superb last-gasp interventions by Ramsay and Edwards in particular, and a goal curtesy of some poor defending on their part and an excellent finish by a central defender. Without the ball we were excellent; with it we were poor. Whether that was down to the clash of formations or some deficiencies on our part will only become clear after some more games. Probably a mix of both. You can’t say we were lucky to win. They may have had 65% possession and 13 shots on goal to our four, but they had only one on target, failing to take at least two clear-cut opportunities. I’d say if the game was played 10 times we would have won three times, lost three times, with honours even four times. So while we obviously embrace a splendid victory and take the positives, let’s not get carried away.

The contrast was provided by Wigan’s 4-5-1 and our 5-3-2/3-5-2. Wigan were bold in the sense that, as Peter Shirtliffe perceptively stressed, they were content to risk two against two at times and to get their full-backs forward. The result was we were usually outnumbered in central midfield and, with three centre-backs covering one forward, not able to do much with the possession we had, not being able to build through midfield and rather giving the front two just scraps to feed off. You would have thought that Campbell might have exploited the space available with his pace to get in behind, but that didn’t happen. In general I thought we failed to move/operate as a unit, with the available centre-backs and wing-backs not getting forward sufficiently to cause them problems. When we lost the ball we harried, covered, tackled, chased very well. Perhaps the conservative approach when we had the ball was all part of the plan, but I think we could have done more, which probably would have involved earlier and more substitutions since as it was many were out on their feet at the end.

With Godden still unavailable the starting X1 just about picked itself, the only decisions being to stick with Anderson over Berry in midfield and Ramsay and Edwards as the wing-backs over Watson and Small. As the three missing out were on the bench, along with the change of forwards and defensive cover, there were no last-minute surprises.

We had our best chance of the first half inside the first 10 minutes as a long ball was taken well by Ahadme and laid off for Docherty inside the box. He tussled well for it but the ball didn’t sit and he couldn’t get a shot away. Otherwise the contest was even, tight, the play generally messy and low on quality. The closest Wigan came to opening the scoring was a shot from distance which took a wicked deflection, one which on a bad day might have seen it fly into the net rather than behind for a corner. They also had a late free kick and a shot just over the bar but with Mannion having it covered. They had the bulk of possession but had done little with it, we struggled to get anything going offensively.

The second half was developing not necessarily to our advantage as Wigan’s substitutions seemed to give them fresh impetus. And they had three close calls in the period before 70 minutes were up. First, a ball into the box exceptionally found a guy in space, but he scuffed his shot on the turn from a very good position. Second, their main influencer Aasgaard took a ball well inside Ramsay and advanced into the box with just Mannion to beat. For some reason he hesitated for too long and Ramsay was able to get to him with a very well-time and legal challenge to snuff out the danger. Third, a cross from their left to the far post looked set to be headed home from close range only for Edwards to manage to get his head to it first.

There’s no doubt that during this spell Wigan were winning on points. If they’d scored they would probably have taken the points. We were creating nothing – a poor pass was intercepted and played on to Campbell, but his shot from a tight angle was easily saved. In that context our first changes came rather late, on 72 minutes, with Aneke and Kanu replacing Ahadme and Campbell, plus Watson coming on for Ramsay. Chuks always has an impact and, while not changing the course of the game, did help to balance things up.

It was still rather out of the blue when we took the lead on 80 minutes. An Edwards long throw was cleared and Watson’s ball back in looked rather aimless. But their keeper’s decision not to come and collect it seemed to cause confusion and left to head clear unchallenged their central defender made a mess of it, sending the ball sideways. It bounced past a couple and ran through to Jones, still up front for the throw, who hit it low on the turn into the net, a finish Super Clive would have been proud of.

Then just a case of whether or not we could see out the final 15 minutes. And with a couple more good defensive headers, plus a curled shot-come-cross from their left which went just wide, we did. Berry came on late for Docherty, while Mitchell somehow managed to stay on his feet for the duration.

It’s an excellent result to start the campaign. That there’s still ample scope for improvement is clear, perhaps involving one or two additions to the squad. The Carabao Cup game on Tuesday night is an unwanted distraction, one for Jones to ponder whether or not to send out Team B (I would). The two home games to follow, against Orient and Bolton, will be the ones that matter. Of course a year ago we followed an opening day 1-0 victory with four defeats on the spin and our first managerial sacking of the season (Holden). We expect shall we say something different this time.

As Encouraging As Wimbledon Was Not

Well that was altogether more encouraging than last weekend, although whether that was a reflection on us (both the approach and the line-up) or the opposition – just why Portsmouth wanted to play us of all people is a mystery to me – we will only find out in the weeks ahead after contests against varied opposition. But when your front two both score, albeit with considerable assistance from their keeper, you keep a clean sheet having restricted the opposition to literally just a couple of dangerous moments, and you pretty much dominate the game, it would be churlish to pick holes. While a week ago we struggled for positives (for me just Edwards and Mannion) this time around there were no negatives and some fresh encouraging signs, not least for me the performances of Coventry and Ahadme, both of whom might have been under a little pressure.

The game itself was of secondary importance. Campbell in his new role showed an ability to find space to open the scoring, after good work from Anderson and an excellent pass from Edwards, although nobody questions that their keeper should have done better. He might have had a second in the first half but skied his shot on the turn in space inside the box after Ramsay had laid it on for him. The second came early in the second half as Ramsay this time threaded a ball down the right side to Campbell. Their keeper this time must have thought he might get to it first as he left his box, only to get nowhere near the ball. Campbell went around him and provided a cross for a stooping Ahadme to head into an empty net.

We might have scored more, especially with Aneke not converting a header when well placed, Kanu’s shot saved, and other close-run things. By contrast, Portsmouth had one moment in the first half when a guy somehow retained possession and advanced on goal only to blaze well over the bar, and one in the second when Ahadme was dispossessed in a bad area and their guy cut across the box and saw his shot saved. I really can’t remember another moment when we were seriously threatened.

Can we attribute a better performance to changes in personnel? That is of course for Jones to ponder and draw his own conclusions. The only change in defence was Ramsay starting instead of Watson as right-side wing-back, the clear indication being that the Jones, Mitchell(A) and Gillesphey central three is Plan A, with Edmonds-Green, Mitchell(Z), Potts if he joins us, Ness if he stays with us, and others likely to have to wait for their chance. Ramsay did provide more of an attacking threat than Watson had done at Wimbledon, while Edwards had another very impressive game. Small may have been assuming he would be first-choice on the left side, but that may prove not to be the case. And with Ramsay, Watson and Asiimwe to choose from on one side, Edwards, Small and Edun on the other, we are amply covered as things stand.

The change in midfield was Anderson starting instead of Berry. Whether or not that was a factor, there was more zest in this area than a week ago. But for me the big difference was a more pronounced performance/contribution from Coventry, who tackled and covered well and in addition to keeping things moving played one or two perceptive balls forward which caught Portsmouth out. We expect big things from him, need him to have a big season.

Up front the starting change was Campbell in for the unavailable Godden. But for me the focus of attention was Ahadme. We’ve apparently paid a lot of money for the guy and hadn’t seen much to date, with it obviously far too early to draw any conclusions, especially as against Wimbledon he was introduced at half-time only to be withdrawn after 77 minutes. Yesterday he looked much more effective, doing good work outside the box and looking an arial threat inside it. I actually sent a message to our Addicks group during the game saying Ahadme looking better, be good to see him score. And he duly did a few minutes later.

For me, as things stand Ahadme is the variable which largely determines whether or not we have effective striking options. On paper if you say we have available to choose from Ahadme, Aneke, Godden, Campbell, Kanu, Leaburn hopefully soon, perhaps Hylton if he joins us all might seem well (especially with Casey and Mbick coming up on the rails). The alternative assessment is that Aneke still presumably can’t last more than 60 minutes, Leaburn will be coming back after a long lay-off and will need time, Kanu is still developing, Campbell is a converted winger who will still be learning the art of what to do inside the box. On that basis, while Godden we can assume is a reliable half of a partnership, if Ahadme struggles the options suddenly look less compelling. Ideally we want to have a forward partnership, replacements from the bench for the same set-up, plus alternative options if we need to change the shape/style. Absent a match-fit Leaburn and assuming only half a game from Chuks, plus the ever-present injury risk, and Ahadme is crucial. So I was hugely encouraged by his display yesterday.

With six substitutions made after the hour and a further four before the end, there was the opportunity for almost everyone to get involved (Asiimwe and Hylton the only outfield players in a squad of 24 not to get on the pitch, while I thought it was a little churlish not to give Maynard-Brewer some minutes, we may after all need him). And nobody had a bad game. Let’s be glad about that, and the fact that we don’t seem to have picked up any fresh injuries (and Godden’s absence seems to have been down to protocols over head injuries).

There are still questions over a few of the positions to start next Saturday at Wigan. But you’d probably say seven names are, if fit, nailed on to start (Mannion, Jones, Mitchell, Gillesphey, Coventry, Docherty, Ahadme), two more, the wing-backs, are a matter of spoilt for choice, leaving just the third midfield spot (Berry or Anderson) and the second forward position (Godden, Campbell, Kanu) to be chosen. That’s about as settled and promising as I can remember at this point in the calendar (without going overboard and keeping in mind that a week ago we were deservedly beaten by Wimbledon).

More Expected In Weeks Ahead

And what did we learn from yesterday? Not the yardstick for the season ahead of course, things still being experimented with, reshuffling through the game etc. But to say that JJ would be the happier of the two managers at the end would be an understatement. His side had limited us to a couple of decent opportunities, scored a couple of goals that would look good from their perspective, and won the game, albeit with the help of some agricultural challenges not especially in the spirit of the game, with our players taken out unceremoniously when danger threatened, them safe in the knowledge that the referee was keeping his card in his pocket.

Let’s start with the positives. Aside from no obvious injuries picked up I’d say only two. Edwards looked very good as the left-sided wing-back, albeit more for his defensive work than getting forward. He nullified the threat from their erratic but lively winger (the contrast being obvious when after a breakdown from a corner that guy found himself up against Campbell and skinned him on the outside to lay on their opener). The only qualifier here is that in that position he is competing with Small, who replaced him late on. Good to have competition for places for sure, but it means one of the two warming the bench, perhaps being alternated for and during games (while Edun came on yesterday in a midfield role). On the other flank we started with Watson and replaced him late on with Asiimwe (with Ramsay also coming on but playing in a more central position).

The other one for me was Mannion. He had no chance with either of their goals, no other serious attempts on goal to deal with, but looked assured when it came to dealing with high balls and had a calm assurance about him. The qualifier here is that any thoughts of him being an established first-choice keeper would seem to be dependent on whether, having confirmed the departure of Isted (who goes with all best wishes, for us he just never really nailed down the position and like Hector and Thomas has paid the price for last season’s collective defensive failures), we end up signing Bergovic. If we do, that would mean two positions for which we are very well covered.

That only leaves nine. And here we turn to negatives. We began the game with a midfield trio of Coventry, Docherty (who was captain) and Berry. Wouldn’t be surprising if they were viewed as the first-choice combination. Collectively they were disappointing. Through the first half they did you might say gradually establish an ascendency in terms of possession after Wimbledon’s bright start. Just that we looked ordinary and one-paced. Very little was done with the possession other than rely on Aneke winning a physical battle to produce something (which after a poor start he managed to do). Might be a case of three guys learning how to play together and with understanding will come improvement; might also prove to be a case of the boat going faster with not necessarily the quickest individual rowers (Jones contrasted the performance with that against Palace but that was with a different midfield).  On that matter judgement has to be reserved. The changes late in the game saw Taylor, Edun and Anderson introduced, with little time for anyone to impress, while Fraser was a notable absentee.

Up front Aneke and Godden as a pair worked well enough, after – as the ever insightful Steve Brown pointed out – Chuks focused less on how to bully their defenders and more on how to use the ball and make something happen. They combined to produce the first half’s only effort of note from us, which ended with the latter shooting over from close range. I’m mystified why Ahadme – who appears badly in need of game time, currently doing a passable imitation of Tedic – was brought on at the break and then taken off with the mass changes on 77 minutes. By then Campbell had replaced Godden, continuing the experiment of using him in a central role. He did cause them problems but also failed to convert our one second-half chance when he got through on the keeper. Kanu brought energy and directness when he came on, while trialist Hylton was the only unused outfield substitute.

With no sign that Jones is considering Mbick or Casey as ready for first-team selection, Leaburn still a way from returning, we seem to be shaping up pretty simply with a big(ger) guy and a partner, the former being a mix of Ahadme and Aneke, the latter Godden and Campbell, Hylton if he signs, with Kanu something between the two. You assume that Ahadme and Godden are the chosen pair, just would be good to see them open their account for us.

Defensively we began with a trio of Jones, Mitchell(A) and Gillesphey, replacing them late on with Ramsay, Mitchell(Z) and Edmonds-Green. Wimbledon’s second goal came just after the replacements and was a classic case of three central defenders standing still and occupying their areas, allowing one forward to make a well-time run between them and into the space behind. That had echoes of last season. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the starting three being the way things pan out for early in the season. There was still no appearance from Ness. Have to assume when Jones says “we need to move one or two on” that Ness and Fraser are at least on the list.

Previously I suggested that if you had to pick a starting X1 right now (and not including trialists) it could be: Mannion, Small, Ramsay, Gillesphey, Mitchell(A), Jones, Coventry, Berry, Dochety, Ahadme and Godden. Subs would presumably include Isted/Maynard-Brewer then a selection from Watson, Edun, Asiimwe, Ness, Mitchell, Anderson, Campbell, Kanu, Aneke. For yesterday Jones went with eight of my starting choices, the two wing-backs being different and Aneke starting rather than Ahadme. The wildcards arising are whether Edwards is accommodated and Mannion is supplanted by a new signing. The concern is that we played most of the game yesterday with something close to what would be viewed as first-choices and looked ordinary, seldom threatening from open play or set pieces. Even though it was an inconsequential pre-season friendly we – and Jones – will expect more in the weeks ahead.

Progress Report

So, what have we learnt so far? For sure this can only be an interim assessment as there’s bound to be a good deal more transfer activity, both in and out, before a ball is kicked in earnest and the transfer window closes. But you have to say so far on balance it’s positive, not uniformly but on balance.

First thing we’ve learnt is that any doubts about the formation now that Jones is able to shape a squad have surely been dispelled. When you have one genuine winger left, are not linked with any potential wide signings, and are in the process of trying to convert that one winger into a central forward, plus have stocked up on centre-backs and wing-backs, it’s safe to say it’s going to be 3-5-2/5-3-2 as Plan A for the foreseeable future.

In goal so far Mannion has come in and neither Isted nor Maynard-Brewer have departed, while another signing continues to be speculated. The duties in the friendlies to date have been shared equally between the three, and the starting berth may simply go to the man in form, but it’s fair to assume that Mannion has not been brought in to play second or third fiddle to the two others. Another one signed and presumably Isted or Maynard-Brewer will be encouraged to find pastures new.

For the wing-backs, we currently have available (in no particular order) Edun, Watson, Small, Asiimwe, Ramsay and Edwards (of course Edun and Edwards could feature in other positions). For two starting berths and at least one place on the bench (or two first choice and two back-ups) that’s plenty, presumably Small and Ramsay are the first choices. Whether Watson and/or Edun would be content to wait for their chance only they know, perhaps Asiimwe could go out on loan to further his development. As things stand we’re well covered.

For the centre-backs, having let Thomas and Hector depart we have available from last season Jones, Ness, Gillesphey, and Edmonds-Green, to which have been added Mitchell, Edwards (if he plays in a back three) and the returning Mitchell. If trialist Potts signs on we would probably move from well covered to overloaded and one or more could be given a nudge, with all best wishes. As mentioned elsewhere, the relative absence of Ness from the friendlies so far points to him, but he still has potential and is only 22; I’d rather see him out on loan (he needs game time not having been able to reproduce his best form last season post-injury) than sold (and same goes for Mitchell if he’s not in the squad). Presumably Mitchell will be looked on as the new defensive leader and cornerstone, leaving Jones to work out the best combination for the other two slots.

Midfield remains decidedly unclear given the decimation from last season. Although McGrandles has added to the departures and Henry effectively too, Fraser and Taylor are still with us, as are Coventry and Anderson. We’ve added Berry and Docherty, we continue to look at Bishop it seems, while Campbell is still listed as a midfielder (and again is the only genuine winger we have). For the three starting places you assume Berry will take one, but which combination from the others is a much tougher call. You’d expect Coventry to be one, but nothing’s clear-cut and in this area it would be surprising if there were not more transfer activity.

For the forwards, let’s not mince words. Selling May has left us materially weaker, which is no reflection on Godden’s abilities. Very few players will score 20 or more goals in this division next season and May, barring injury, is highly likely to be one of them, especially as he has gone to a club everyone assumes will be challenging for promotion. The exact balance of factors behind his departure (relations with Jones, Jones’ assessment of his abilities, family pressures, money etc) is subjective, fact is we have lost a nailed on goalscorer (and when he was at his best last season he was irrepressible).

We now number Godden and Ahadme as the two major signings and the expected starting pair, plus Kanu, Aneke (when available) and Leaburn (when finally fit), plus Campbell if he is used in this position. Discount Leaburn for now, assume that Aneke will continue to be used for 60 minutes max, and you are down to three, possibly four, two of whom are new to the club and have yet to show they are a natural partnership (on paper it looks good) and one being converted from a winger (and on that front you’d say Campbell makes the grade for getting in behind if given space but has yet to show he has or can develop a poacher’s instinct inside the box). Like last season, you would say if all were available and match-fit we would be strong, but that’s a bit ‘if’.

It's not surprising that transfer activity has tailed off over the past couple of weeks, as Jones and the squad headed for Slovenia and a chance for people to bed in as well as get up to speed. You’d say the bulk of the changes have been made, but there’s still ample scope in midfield and up front for an addition or two, perhaps this time a loan signing to potentially add some quality.

If you had to pick a starting X1 right now (and not including trialists) I’d suggest: Mannion, Small, Ramsay, Gillesphey, Mitchell, Jones, Coventry, Berry, Dochety, Ahadme and Godden. Subs would presumably include Isted/Maynard-Brewer then a selection from Watson, Edun, Asiimwe, Ness, Mitchell, Anderson, Campbell, Kanu, Aneke.

As for whether such a line-up would be good enough for promotion, you’d need to be much more in tune with the multitudinous comings and goings at other clubs than me to draw any conclusions. It’s reasonable to say the (almost) unbeaten run we went on late last season sets the tone for what Jones wants, a team that is bloody difficult to beat. We’ve not been that for some years, so that is clearly an important step in the right direction. By the same token that run contained mostly draws, ie we were competitive but no more than that. Whether we can compensate for the loss of May’s goals depends on how the new front two hit it off, whether we can work out how to score from set pieces, and whether some of the midfielders can make a meaningful contribution.

Pretty obvious conclusions but areas which you can’t say we have made changes to clearly address. Birmingham are going to be everyone’s favourites to win the league, Rotherham you’d put money on being in the top six. The bookies seem to currently have us 7th favourite to get promoted (which implies just missing out on a play-off spot). That you’d say is fair as things stand, but with the potential for Jones to get more out of the team/squad than others, with his standardised style of play, and for a little more tweaking in the market to shorten our odds.

Are we going to be pretty? Wouldn’t bet on it, but that is secondary to success. And success has to be promotion, not a promotion challenge, not missing out in the play-offs. Not because we have any divine right, just because failure equates to another season in a division in which our club cannot thrive.

As a final aside, Rak-Sakyi’s goal against us for Palace in the latest curtain-raiser does raise an interesting question. Just how many recent Charlton Players of the Year might score against us this season? Of course May is next up, Dobson appearing for Wrexham could make it all of the last three. Then you have Forster-Caskey, at Stevenage, to make it four. Going back another year and you have a long shot, if Phillips can launch one into our net (or take a penalty) for Rotherham. Then it’s the ubiquitous Taylor, now at Colchester; we could of course draw them in some cup. The same applies to his predecessor Dasilva, now at Coventry, and going back another year Holmes, now at non-league Farnborough). More likely would be Cousins (we’re now back to 2015/16 PotY, also 2014/15 for that matter), now with Cambridge. I think we can draw the line there, given that the 2013/14 winner was Poyet, now assistant manager for the Greek national team.