Mildenhall MOM? - Absolutely - here's why.

[Richard_Cadette]

That's not what was said. If you re-read my original post it's several factors all coming together at the same time - the lack of confidence, the subsequent solid performance, the bravery and the consequences of what would have happened had he come off (which would have been a very easy option for him to take given recent events) which meant that, in my opinion, it was his actions that were most influential in us beating Hereford.

I agree Betsy played well and had his best game for the club. But I would love to know why you think others contributed more to the victory than Mildenhall. Did Betsy score? No. Did he make the goal? No. Did he make any last ditch tackles or goalline clearances? No. So it could be argued that whilst playing well, we may well have still won anyway. So what exactly did he contribute to the victory?

Incidentally, to qualify the above... if we had been 3 or 4 up I reckon Mildenhall would have come off, as he would if we had a sub keeper. At only one nil he took the decision, against medical advice, to play on for the benefit of the team in order to try and secure the result.

Because of that, Hereford didn't pepper the goal with long range shots or put dangerous crosses in under the bar. We were able to hold a higher line and keep them at bay. That is purely down to Mildenhall simply being there.

If anyone can therefore tell me how any individual contributed more to that victory then I'd like to hear it.

I am not going to repeat myself again, but I find it interesting that you feel Betsy did not set up the goal - Must be me, but I could have sworn that it was his tenacity on the right hand side to win, and then keep the ball alive, before crossing putting the ball into the middle?

I am more than happy with how Mildenall played - In fact, I am over the moon that he didn't concede or make any mistakes, but so what?

It's a game of opinions - Mine is thaty he was not the best player on the park, and as such, did not desevre the MOTM award. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[A Century United]

Because when you are judging something subjectively, you should not allow external issues or thoughts cloud your judgement, that's why. If we are to judge without prejudice, then we have to judge on what we see in front of us - is that clear enough for you? I may think you're a complete idiot, but if I allow myself to judge the content of your post based on such bias, than that is not particularly subjective is it?

Eh? That's the whole point of subjective, innit? And what is or isn't external to the argument is... errr... subjective, innit?

I read your posts carefully and in full. In my opinion, your original post went beyond agreeing to disagree and was telling those that thought Mildew was Mom that they were so mistaken as to be unreasonable (I think that is a fair summary of your "patronising" point). There have been several attempts (MtS, fbm, etc,) to debate with you, but, again in my opinion, you haven't debated their points but just repeated yourself, and made statements of opinion as if they were statements of fact.

Also, if you judge my posts on the basis that you think I am an idiot, it is entirely your right to do so, and it is indeed subjective. It would not, however, be particularly objective.

 

[Jam_Man]

RC and JM in "agreeing with each other on a Southend United related issue" shock... whatever next :)

I disagree.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

Eh? That's the whole point of subjective, innit? And what is or isn't external to the argument is... errr... subjective, innit?

I read your posts carefully and in full. In my opinion, your original post went beyond agreeing to disagree and was telling those that thought Mildew was Mom that they were so mistaken as to be unreasonable (I think that is a fair summary of your "patronising" point). There have been several attempts (MtS, fbm, etc,) to debate with you, but, again in my opinion, you haven't debated their points but just repeated yourself, and made statements of opinion as if they were statements of fact.

Also, if you judge my posts on the basis that you think I am an idiot, it is entirely your right to do so, and it is indeed subjective. It would not, however, be particularly objective.

If that is the case, then you have misunderstood my posts on here. I respect other peoples opinions as much as anyone, in fact, I am often sticking up for the minority on here by saying no matter how perverse their opinion, they are still very much entitled to air it using this medium.

I of course disagree, and because I disagree, would more than likely feel I was in the right - if I didn't, then my opinion would be the equal of others in this case.

I have done nothing but debate with regards to this subject - it often appears I am repeating myself, becase short of ignoring people who respond to my psosts, I don't feel as though I can say anything different. I have said on numoerus occasions that I concede that Mildy did nothing wrong, and that I agree with everyone when they say he played his part in a long overdue win, but my opinion still stands - the entire crux of this thread was with regard to Mildy being worth of a MOTM award, and I don't feel he was.

Others disagree, then thats also fine - I am not trying to make them change their mind, I am merely offering my view.

 

[Shrimper51]

I am not going to repeat myself again, but I find it interesting that you feel Betsy did not set up the goal - Must be me, but I could have sworn that it was his tenacity on the right hand side to win, and then keep the ball alive, before crossing putting the ball into the middle?

At the risk of being pedantic, it was Francis who put the cross in. I certainly didn't think he was MOTM :)

 

[Richard_Cadette]

At the risk of being pedantic, it was Francis who put the cross in. I certainly didn't think he was MOTM :)

LoL... You're quite right, I was guilty of some sensationalism journalism there for the sake of stressing my point! My mistake, credit must go to Francis, not Betsy :)

 

[AdamTheShrimper]

I wasnt at the game so cant comment on his performance. But its nice to hear people arguing over who was man of the match and not who the worst player was for once.

Agreed. I wasnt able to go to the game either but its good that Mildenhall had a good game.

 

[fbm]

Eh? That's the whole point of subjective, innit? And what is or isn't external to the argument is... errr... subjective, innit?

I read your posts carefully and in full. In my opinion, your original post went beyond agreeing to disagree and was telling those that thought Mildew was Mom that they were so mistaken as to be unreasonable (I think that is a fair summary of your "patronising" point). There have been several attempts (MtS, fbm, etc,) to debate with you, but, again in my opinion, you haven't debated their points but just repeated yourself, and made statements of opinion as if they were statements of fact.

Also, if you judge my posts on the basis that you think I am an idiot, it is entirely your right to do so, and it is indeed subjective. It would not, however, be particularly objective.

Actually in fairness to RC at least he is always articulate and although we don't always agree on things he normally does put his views across in a reasonable way, contrasting some who of late would probably seek to disagree with me if I said we beat Hereford 1-0 last Saturday.

I like differing opinions as it generates debate and discussion. It would be interesting to see if RC has changed his MOM candidate Betsy now that he realises it wasn't he who set up the goal.

And whilst I totally respect his right to his, or anyone else's opinion, I would still like to know what individual influenced the result more than Mildenhall.

Again, not seeking to alter anyone's view. Just qualifying why, when the actual goalkeeping performance was little more than Mildenhall doing "exactly what it says on the tin" (something I think we are all agreed on), it was an heroic enough effort to get a MOM from certain people above others who, admittedly, also put in a very good performance.

 

[BoyWonder2]

At the risk of being pedantic, it was Francis who put the cross in. I certainly didn't think he was MOTM :)

It was Freedman who got the assist with the ball into Barnard...

 

[SUFCFANS]

Sorry, but am I the only one who thinks Mildenhall shouldn't have carried on Saturday!?? The guy couldn't move - if a shot 2 foot either side of him came in they would have scored! Revell was all ready to come on - I accept he's not a keeper - but sure more use than an injured keeper who couldn't move!! Did you see the back-pass?? Almost a disaster!!

Don't get me wrong - a great performance up until then - but please don't risk the game just to be branded a hero!!

 

[A Century United]

Sorry, but am I the only one who thinks Mildenhall shouldn't have carried on Saturday!?? The guy couldn't move - if a shot 2 foot either side of him came in they would have scored! Revell was all ready to come on - I accept he's not a keeper - but sure more use than an injured keeper who couldn't move!! Did you see the back-pass?? Almost a disaster!!

Don't get me wrong - a great performance up until then - but please don't risk the game just to be branded a hero!!

On Friday 21st April 1972, in front of a crowd of over 17,000, we needed (I think) a point against Cambridge to guarantee promotion to the 3rd division. We took an early lead through that seasons top scorer (and joint player of the season) Bill Garner. Then our goalkeeper, John Roberts, damaged his shoulder making a save, and was stretchered off. Spud Taylor pulled on the green jersey, and what followed is exactly what fbm predicted would have happened on Saturday:

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.

We defended deeper, our defenders didn't trust Spud to collect crosses and balls into the box, mistakes were made and we lost 1-2.

That doesn't mean that history would have repeated itself, but Mildew staying on the pitch isn't quite as irrational as it might appear.

 

[Beefy]

I actually agree with pretty much everything that Richard_Cadette has said on this subject. Other than:

No, because had Daryl have put in a performance like Mildenhall did on Saturday, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. Perhaps more of a sign that we have replaced Daryl with an inferior keeper?

For me, Mildy's performance on saturday was the sort of standard goalkeeping display that any decent lower league goalkeeper should be turning in week in week out and for that reason I wouldn't have given him the MOTM award. However, it was also the sort of performance that we have rarely, if ever, seen from our former #1. Mildenhall commanded his box, he took several high balls early on and from that point Hereford pretty much stopped trying to launch anything into the box and instead (rightly) felt that they'd have more chance of opening us up by getting in behind the fullbacks.

We've clearly got someone in goal who isn't quite as agile as Flahavan is and who doesn't have quite the same safe paid of hands, but our new keeper brings other things to the side and I suspect that we'll miss him whilst he is out.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

Actually in fairness to RC at least he is always articulate and although we don't always agree on things he normally does put his views across in a reasonable way, contrasting some who of late would probably seek to disagree with me if I said we beat Hereford 1-0 last Saturday.

I like differing opinions as it generates debate and discussion. It would be interesting to see if RC has changed his MOM candidate Betsy now that he realises it wasn't he who set up the goal.

And whilst I totally respect his right to his, or anyone else's opinion, I would still like to know what individual influenced the result more than Mildenhall.

Again, not seeking to alter anyone's view. Just qualifying why, when the actual goalkeeping performance was little more than Mildenhall doing "exactly what it says on the tin" (something I think we are all agreed on), it was an heroic enough effort to get a MOM from certain people above others who, admittedly, also put in a very good performance.

Thanks FBM - and for what it's worth, without trying to sound like the mutual appreciation society, I enjoy reading your views on here, as they are always well written, coherent, and regardless of whether or not I agree on the content, are usually valid ;)

To be honest, I love debate about Southend - and it is always interesting when discussing issues with others who have differeing opinions to me - I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion about Mildy..... even the input from ACU :)

In answer to your question, no. I was not mistaken, just got carried away with Betsy's performance a little bit on Saturday - Must remember to stick to the facts :) I thought he had an excellent game personally, in the first half, most of all good things came via him, and although not directly claiming an assist in the goal, it was his sheer determination and guile that led to the goal.

I think I have said all that can be said on the subject, and rather than take up more valuable server space, I shall leave it there.