I wonder why results were so inconsistent in those years? Presumably this applied to other teams as well. Maybe less attention was paid to stifling the opposition back in the day.
It's a good question. Sandy MacFarlane still had all the forwards he used at the end of the 1931-32 season to lift Charlton out of the relegation zone and finish 10th in the league. Their highest finish ever at that point. Yet a few months later the team plunged back into the drop zone and stayed there, costing MacFarlane his job. Almost every newspaper account I've read tells of Charlton's front five being unbalanced, wasteful, fragmented. Only Cyril Pearce scored well. He almost bagged more goals than the rest of the team combined. Sort of the Alfie May of his time. This was a strangely interesting era in football, as it seems every team played the same formation just as they had for decades; Two backs Three halves Five forwards (including the wingers) with one centre forward. It seems that it just did not occur to anybody to play other systems. In a way this meant there was a more level playing field. Perhaps more simply came down to the quality of individual players against their opposite numbers. And the quality of passing and movement off the ball. Always remembering the often appalling pitch conditions. And no substitutes (for injuries or tactical reasons) - which also favoured financially poorer teams against richer ones, who could have afforded to bring on quality substitutes to change the course of games, as they all do today. Football in that era was no place for delicate players. Everyone had to be as tough as old boots. In the end though, the demise of MacFarlane was a blessing in disguise, as it paved the way for the appointment of one of the greatest managers in our history, along with one of our best ever trainers.
No excuses, Lardy, the forum needs you. After all you've put into it over the years you are very highly valued, só please come back tout suite.
