fbm
Blue tinted optimist⭐🦐
So we have had debates on whether Mildenhall was a good keeper or not, better than Flahavan or not and now whether he was MOM against Hereford or not.
Well, I can sort of see both sides here. Often you hear someone talk about a "Man of the Match" performance and this is where a player absolutely runs the game and is head and shoulders above everyone else. Obvious really. Mildy wasn't in that category.
But it is for instance possible for a striker to score a hat trick but not actually play very well. So would the striker get the MOM award if the team were to win, say 3-2 (with the winner coming in the last minute)? I would say that he probably would, because his contribution to the game was such that he clearly won the match for his team. (Contrast this to Luther Blisset who got 3 for England against Luxembourg once when we won something like 9-1 but he was fairly poor and pretty lucky with at least one of his goals)
For me, the MOM is about the entire circumstances of the game and the result as much as the actual individual perfomance.
Mildenhall has had a torrid few weeks prior to Saturday. Whilst tall, he has often fumbled and not been as commanding as he should be. He has had the boo boys on his back and there have been calls from everyone at the club for the fans to lay off him. His confidence was on the floor.
So going into the Hereford match it was quite simply a game that could make or break his season.
After just a few minutes Hereford had a free kick which was pumped into the penalty area. Mildy came quickly off his line and claimed it, probably 13 or 14 yards out in a way Flahavan never would have done. That is a long distance for a keeper to come and was a brave decision, given the circumstances. If he had spilled the ball or been beaten to it by a striker then everyone would have been on his case.
But he didn't. He claimed it safely and securely... i.e. he did what he had been brought in to do. Nothing spectacular about that... except when you consider his state of confidence and then you realise what a brave decision that was to make.
Throughout the game his handling was safe and assured. It was easily his best game for the club. Good saves don't have to be spectacular... because of the height difference a routine diving save for him would have been a spectacular full length one for Darryl. There was one full length one on the deck in the first half that Darryl simply would not have reached.
He got better as the game progressed and the save he made when he got injured was very good indeed.
And then, with no sub keeper on the bench, he decided to play on, albeit in obvious pain, because a half fit proper keeper is preferable to one who has never played there.
That alone elevated him to hero status. If the x-rays had revealed a break (and they thought at that time it was broken), he would have been renowned for "keeping a clean sheet with a broken leg" and would have gone down in SUFC folklore.
But if he had gone off and been replaced with Revell, then the whole team tactics would have changed. We would have defended deeper, Hereford would have adopted a "shoot on sight" policy... we may well have dropped 1 and possibly all 3 points.
As it was all Hereford knew was that his foot was injured... no-one knew the extent of the injury AT THAT TIME... and we were able to hold a higher line.
In my view, although not a spectacular (in the flamboyant sense) performance, he wore his heart on his sleeve, was prepared to die (metaphorically) for the club - incidentally, isn't that the sort of player we all want down here? - and in my view last Saturday Steve Mildenhall was the figure whose actions and perfomance most influenced the result.
Therefore, in my opinion, he was a worthy MOM recipient - even if he wasn't flying around the goal and keeping the visitors at bay single handed.
Well, I can sort of see both sides here. Often you hear someone talk about a "Man of the Match" performance and this is where a player absolutely runs the game and is head and shoulders above everyone else. Obvious really. Mildy wasn't in that category.
But it is for instance possible for a striker to score a hat trick but not actually play very well. So would the striker get the MOM award if the team were to win, say 3-2 (with the winner coming in the last minute)? I would say that he probably would, because his contribution to the game was such that he clearly won the match for his team. (Contrast this to Luther Blisset who got 3 for England against Luxembourg once when we won something like 9-1 but he was fairly poor and pretty lucky with at least one of his goals)
For me, the MOM is about the entire circumstances of the game and the result as much as the actual individual perfomance.
Mildenhall has had a torrid few weeks prior to Saturday. Whilst tall, he has often fumbled and not been as commanding as he should be. He has had the boo boys on his back and there have been calls from everyone at the club for the fans to lay off him. His confidence was on the floor.
So going into the Hereford match it was quite simply a game that could make or break his season.
After just a few minutes Hereford had a free kick which was pumped into the penalty area. Mildy came quickly off his line and claimed it, probably 13 or 14 yards out in a way Flahavan never would have done. That is a long distance for a keeper to come and was a brave decision, given the circumstances. If he had spilled the ball or been beaten to it by a striker then everyone would have been on his case.
But he didn't. He claimed it safely and securely... i.e. he did what he had been brought in to do. Nothing spectacular about that... except when you consider his state of confidence and then you realise what a brave decision that was to make.
Throughout the game his handling was safe and assured. It was easily his best game for the club. Good saves don't have to be spectacular... because of the height difference a routine diving save for him would have been a spectacular full length one for Darryl. There was one full length one on the deck in the first half that Darryl simply would not have reached.
He got better as the game progressed and the save he made when he got injured was very good indeed.
And then, with no sub keeper on the bench, he decided to play on, albeit in obvious pain, because a half fit proper keeper is preferable to one who has never played there.
That alone elevated him to hero status. If the x-rays had revealed a break (and they thought at that time it was broken), he would have been renowned for "keeping a clean sheet with a broken leg" and would have gone down in SUFC folklore.
But if he had gone off and been replaced with Revell, then the whole team tactics would have changed. We would have defended deeper, Hereford would have adopted a "shoot on sight" policy... we may well have dropped 1 and possibly all 3 points.
As it was all Hereford knew was that his foot was injured... no-one knew the extent of the injury AT THAT TIME... and we were able to hold a higher line.
In my view, although not a spectacular (in the flamboyant sense) performance, he wore his heart on his sleeve, was prepared to die (metaphorically) for the club - incidentally, isn't that the sort of player we all want down here? - and in my view last Saturday Steve Mildenhall was the figure whose actions and perfomance most influenced the result.
Therefore, in my opinion, he was a worthy MOM recipient - even if he wasn't flying around the goal and keeping the visitors at bay single handed.
Last edited:
