Post-Match Thread and Ratings Southend United 0-2 Crewe

[EastStandBlue]

Jarvis has pace on his side and I've seen a few flashes from him... He hasn't had the opportunity to play alongside Corr yet, which in fairness also applies to Fairhurst, but the big man/quick man duo is a tried and tested formula.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Neither Jarvis nor Fairhurst offers anything different to Spencer or Crawford as far as I'm concerned and I'd far rather we were using our own resources than paying out for additional and unnecessary ones.

 

[twobob]

This would be the OS that keeps calling Mark Phillips "Matt" Phillips?

To me it looked 3 5 2 as JH & SC were "playing" (sic) in front of the back 3 for most of the while we persisted with 3 5 2/5 3 2. Whatever it was it didn't work!

Who told you it was 5 3 2?

 

[TravellingBlue]

Waited until all the suicide cases have posted their comments, rubbished our team, our manager and the board.

For god sake we lost a game of football. In my thirty years of following this team I can assure you I have seen worse and still supported worse. As it goes I thought Mr Sturrock got it all wrong yesterday. Wrong because after two or three really good performances where we played a very easy 4-4-2 with all players knowing their jobs and doing them he suddenly and from somewhere left field changed to a 3-5-1 and played two defenders who have had very little exposure so far this season.

Fundamental in building a strong and workmanlike team is getting into a routine. That routine seemed to be working and the performances were starting to come. To change it was imho wrong.

The lambasting and complete idiocracy of some of the statements on here are stupid to the extreme, having passion and a sense of belonging to Southend United is not. From what I get reading this board is that the defeat and woeful performance was down to Johnny Herd, Matt Paterson, Waide Fairhurst and Luke Prosser. Rubbish. If you start to blame the youngsters then there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole set up. Barker, Anthony Grant, Coughlan and Timlin should be the ones leading the team, encouraging the team and pushing the youngsters on. They failed to do this massively yesterday and that is where I think we have the problem.

Sturrock has not yet built the 'oneness' that is required in a football team. Yes we were missing one or two players yesterday that could have made a difference, but Bilel, Blair, Josh and Corr have all had shocking games as well, so don't think that because we are missing them we are playing below the required standard. Yesterday we were beaten fair and square by a well organised, well set up football team, who came to Southend and played football - did they play the long ball, no, did they try and play football, yes, did they play for each other, definitely.

I am as disappointed as any on here. To stop coming or supporting your team is your choice, but in my eyes disrespectful to all the loyal and faithful fans who support this team through the ups and downs. To blame the kids in the team is disgraceful and to post some of the rediculous comments unbelieveable. No one in a Southend shirt went out yesterday and intently wanted to play badly, some days it just happens.

I'll be at Bury again next week supporting my team.

 

[delr]

Waited until all the suicide cases have posted their comments, rubbished our team, our manager and the board.

For god sake we lost a game of football. In my thirty years of following this team I can assure you I have seen worse and still supported worse. As it goes I thought Mr Sturrock got it all wrong yesterday. Wrong because after two or three really good performances where we played a very easy 4-4-2 with all players knowing their jobs and doing them he suddenly and from somewhere left field changed to a 3-5-1 and played two defenders who have had very little exposure so far this season.

Fundamental in building a strong and workmanlike team is getting into a routine. That routine seemed to be working and the performances were starting to come. To change it was imho wrong.

The lambasting and complete idiocracy of some of the statements on here are stupid to the extreme, having passion and a sense of belonging to Southend United is not. From what I get reading this board is that the defeat and woeful performance was down to Johnny Herd, Matt Paterson, Waide Fairhurst and Luke Prosser. Rubbish. If you start to blame the youngsters then there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole set up. Barker, Anthony Grant, Coughlan and Timlin should be the ones leading the team, encouraging the team and pushing the youngsters on. They failed to do this massively yesterday and that is where I think we have the problem.

Sturrock has not yet built the 'oneness' that is required in a football team. Yes we were missing one or two players yesterday that could have made a difference, but Bilel, Blair, Josh and Corr have all had shocking games as well, so don't think that because we are missing them we are playing below the required standard. Yesterday we were beaten fair and square by a well organised, well set up football team, who came to Southend and played football - did they play the long ball, no, did they try and play football, yes, did they play for each other, definitely.

I am as disappointed as any on here. To stop coming or supporting your team is your choice, but in my eyes disrespectful to all the loyal and faithful fans who support this team through the ups and downs. To blame the kids in the team is disgraceful and to post some of the rediculous comments unbelieveable. No one in a Southend shirt went out yesterday and intently wanted to play badly, some days it just happens.

I'll be at Bury again next week supporting my team.

someone with some sense & perspective at last!!

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

So glad I didnt renew my season ticket. Any manager who plays 5 defenders at home should be shot! Wtf is Hall doing on the bench, seems to be the only player who can run at opponents and get the ball in the box. Madness. Things must be bad when Blair Sturrock is looking like one of our most important players.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Waited until all the suicide cases have posted their comments, rubbished our team, our manager and the board.

For god sake we lost a game of football. In my thirty years of following this team I can assure you I have seen worse and still supported worse. As it goes I thought Mr Sturrock got it all wrong yesterday. Wrong because after two or three really good performances where we played a very easy 4-4-2 with all players knowing their jobs and doing them he suddenly and from somewhere left field changed to a 3-5-1 and played two defenders who have had very little exposure so far this season.

Fundamental in building a strong and workmanlike team is getting into a routine. That routine seemed to be working and the performances were starting to come. To change it was imho wrong.

The lambasting and complete idiocracy of some of the statements on here are stupid to the extreme, having passion and a sense of belonging to Southend United is not. From what I get reading this board is that the defeat and woeful performance was down to Johnny Herd, Matt Paterson, Waide Fairhurst and Luke Prosser. Rubbish. If you start to blame the youngsters then there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole set up. Barker, Anthony Grant, Coughlan and Timlin should be the ones leading the team, encouraging the team and pushing the youngsters on. They failed to do this massively yesterday and that is where I think we have the problem.

Sturrock has not yet built the 'oneness' that is required in a football team. Yes we were missing one or two players yesterday that could have made a difference, but Bilel, Blair, Josh and Corr have all had shocking games as well, so don't think that because we are missing them we are playing below the required standard. Yesterday we were beaten fair and square by a well organised, well set up football team, who came to Southend and played football - did they play the long ball, no, did they try and play football, yes, did they play for each other, definitely.

I am as disappointed as any on here. To stop coming or supporting your team is your choice, but in my eyes disrespectful to all the loyal and faithful fans who support this team through the ups and downs. To blame the kids in the team is disgraceful and to post some of the rediculous comments unbelieveable. No one in a Southend shirt went out yesterday and intently wanted to play badly, some days it just happens.

I'll be at Bury again next week supporting my team.

After having read the majority of depressing posts on here over the last twenty-four hours.............................Thank you for that! I assure you that I have now taken down the noose from the ceiling and returned the chair to the dining room table..........having put all of those kind of thoughts out of my head. To compound my misery this weekend, I am feeling bloody rough, having contracted some kind of a gastric bug. Anyway, after a visit to the Docs, I'm sure that I will be performing better by next weekend..........................and I am sure that will be true for the Blues as well!

 

[Kris]

I actually thought we did OK first half. Crewe started the better but we had a 15-minute spell where we pinned them right back and should have scored twice in that time. Ifs, buts, maybes, etc. The second half was utterly dire, however. Admittedly Crewe deserve credit because they played some really good football - I sometimes wish Dario Gradi could have been England manager - but we were just clueless, even when we changed back to 4-4-2. Grant and Clohessy were the only players to come out with any credit. Timlin had a pretty good 1st half but epitomised the team as a whole after the break, continually giving the ball away in ridiculous areas, even when he was under no pressure.

Nevertheless, like YB, I'm not panicking because we were missing some key players - most notably Simpson, Sturrock and Corr, as well as Easton - so we're not going to be as woefully one-dimensional as that every week, especially if Hall is given a decent run and Zabooub gets fully fit. We're not going to challenge at the top end of the division but we'll be OK.

 

[shrimpercats]

For goodness sake, none of the so-called youngsters quoted by TravellingBlue was exactly straight out of the youth team. Jarvis and Crawford, yes - and I haven't a clue why Sturrock signed Jarvis. Prosser and Fairhurst had plenty of first team experience before they arrived here and Paterson and Herd have also now played a lot of games for the Blues, albeit not as regulars. They have to earn that right, but if they're good enough they should be turning in competent performances. More to the point, only Paterson was playing out of necessity - there was absolutely no need to bring Prosser and Herd into the team.
The very least we should expect from young players wanting to make their mark is 100% commitment and endeavour. If anyone saw that from either Paterson or Fairhurst they were watching a different game from me.

 

[Kris]

Just to clarify, was in and around the tunnel area before the match with the POTM and queried the team line up when I heard those named, I was told that it was a 5-3-2 starting with two wing backs, so not a 3-5-2 as some are saying.

They are essentially the same formation; it just depends on who is winning the midfield battle. For example, if we'd had the lion's share of possession in central midfield yesterday, Herd and Clohessy would have been able to take a position further up the pitch for more of the game without having to track back quite as much. What happened yesterday was that Crewe dominated possession and were able to get their full-backs (their spare men due to our formation) forward at every opportunity and double up with their wingers, which pushed Clohessy and Herd right the way back. So yeah, it became more of a 5-3-2 than a 3-5-2 but the intention was to outnumber Crewe in midfield and allow Clohessy and Herd to take up roles as wide midfielders rather than wide defenders.

I've played as a wing-back for four different teams and it's bloody hard work when the opposition are dominating because you have to track their winger while at the same time monitor their full-back as he overlaps (assuming they are playing 4-4-2).

Playing 3-5-2 yesterday was madness. It's not a system you can just switch to, it requires a lot of work on the training ground, and at this level it rarely works anyway because players aren't technical enough. To bring the best out of the system you need three central defenders who are comfortable on the ball and able to bring it forward well enough to pull the opposition's midfield out of shape and make the extra man count. Yesterday it was hopeless because our central defenders simply hoofed it forward, meaning Crewe's defence outnumbered our attack 4 to 2 and their full-backs were able to capitalise and run freely forward, pushing Clohessy and Herd right back as mentioned above.

Hopefully Sturrock will see sense and consider it a one-off. We've seen enough in recent seasons to conclude that 4-4-2 is the tried and tested formation at this level

 

[Up the Shrimpers]

. To stop coming or supporting your team is your choice, but in my eyes disrespectful to all the loyal and faithful fans who support this team through the ups and downs.

I'll be at Bury again next week supporting my team.

Do you really mean that? What you are saying is that all 8,500 home fans that used to come to see us play in the Championship should still be coming every week no matter what division we are in or how well we are playing. Never going to happen is it, not at this club & not at the majority of lower league clubs either.

I suppose as I have not been to an away game yet this season I'm being disrespectful to all you loyal fans that go to every home and away game.

I think we are doing well to still get 5,000+ home fans, but apart from the loyal ones that can do every game we should all be ashamed.

 

[Medway Blue]

They are essentially the same formation; it just depends on who is winning the midfield battle. For example, if we'd had the lion's share of possession in central midfield yesterday, Herd and Clohessy would have been able to take a position further up the pitch for more of the game without having to track back quite as much. What happened yesterday was that Crewe dominated possession and were able to get their full-backs (their spare men due to our formation) forward at every opportunity and double up with their wingers, which pushed Clohessy and Herd right the way back. So yeah, it became more of a 5-3-2 than a 3-5-2 but the intention was to outnumber Crewe in midfield and allow Clohessy and Herd to take up roles as wide midfielders rather than wide defenders.

I've played as a wing-back for four different teams and it's bloody hard work when the opposition are dominating because you have to track their winger while at the same time monitor their full-back as he overlaps (assuming they are playing 4-4-2).

Playing 3-5-2 yesterday was madness. It's not a system you can just switch to, it requires a lot of work on the training ground, and at this level it rarely works anyway because players aren't technical enough. To bring the best out of the system you need three central defenders who are comfortable on the ball and able to bring it forward well enough to pull the opposition's midfield out of shape and make the extra man count. Yesterday it was hopeless because our central defenders simply hoofed it forward, meaning Crewe's defence outnumbered our attack 4 to 2 and their full-backs were able to capitalise and run freely forward, pushing Clohessy and Herd right back as mentioned above.

Hopefully Sturrock will see sense and consider it a one-off. We've seen enough in recent seasons to conclude that 4-4-2 is the tried and tested formation at this level

Spot on. Playing that sort of formation at home was madness anyway, but as I said in an earlier post, he is expecting too much of these players. These guys are playing League 2 football for a reason. They are not technically gifted enough to:

1) Play in a formation like that, or;
2) Deal with chopping and changing tactics all the time.

At this level of football, any manager with a brain should know that he's far better off fitting a formation to his players rather than trying to fit his players to a formation. Only in the upper echelons of the league will you find players who can adapt to just about any formation that they're asked to play. Not in League 2. Keep a nice, simple 4-4-2 and let the lads go out there, enjoy the game and express themselves rather than slap on the tactical shackles.

Moreover, as you said, the STYLE of football that he has them playing was not right for the FORMATION. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Crazy. I see a lot of people complaining that the players were passionless yesterday. Sturrock himself said it. Well I think people are confusing passionlessness for cluenessness. The players were clueness, not passionless. They didn;t know where they were or what they were doing because their manager's stupid tactics confused the crap out of them!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Spot on. Playing that sort of formation at home was madness anyway, but as I said in an earlier post, he is expecting too much of these players. These guys are playing League 2 football for a reason. They are not technically gifted enough to:

1) Play in a formation like that, or;
2) Deal with chopping and changing tactics all the time.

At this level of football, any manager with a brain should know that he's far better off fitting a formation to his players rather than trying to fit his players to a formation. Only in the upper echelons of the league will you find players who can adapt to just about any formation that they're asked to play. Not in League 2. Keep a nice, simple 4-4-2 and let the lads go out there, enjoy the game and express themselves rather than slap on the tactical shackles.

Moreover, as you said, the STYLE of football that he has them playing was not right for the FORMATION. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Crazy. I see a lot of people complaining that the players were passionless yesterday. Sturrock himself said it. Well I think people are confusing passionlessness for cluenessness. The players were clueness, not passionless. They didn;t know where they were or what they were doing because their manager's stupid tactics confused the crap out of them!

Why were we worse when we switched to 4-4-2 then?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Moreover, as you said, the STYLE of football that he has them playing was not right for the FORMATION. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Crazy. I see a lot of people complaining that the players were passionless yesterday. Sturrock himself said it. Well I think people are confusing passionlessness for cluenessness. The players were clueness, not passionless. They didn;t know where they were or what they were doing because their manager's stupid tactics confused the crap out of them!

Is this actually a word? :unsure: Don't you mean "clueless" and "cluelessness"? It's a bit of a mouthful in any case!

 

[Onion_Bag_Dave]

Is this actually a word? :unsure: Don't you mean "clueless" and "cluelessness"? It's a bit of a mouthful in any case!

He had to invent a word, as it was a whole new level of clueless.

 

[Cricko]

Lack of passion , now where have I heard that before ? Oh yes, last year when the previous players were not getting paid.

Anyone know if Martin is up to his old tricks again ?

Surely not.....as if RM would not pay current staff, or owe any companies overdue bills for over 1 year...honestly next you will be telling me he issues cheques and then bounces them to ex management teams..

This could never of course happen in RonaldWorld.....:joke:

 

[Smiffy]

Surely not.....as if RM would not pay current staff, or owe any companies overdue bills for over 1 year...honestly next you will be telling me he issues cheques and then bounces them to ex management teams..

This could never of course happen in RonaldWorld.....:joke:

What on earth are you insinuating. How very dare you.

 

[Cricko]

What on earth are you insinuating. How very dare you.

Hmm are you trying to Brush things under the carpet?

 

[fbm]

I have only read the first 4 pages of this thread before just giving up. Usual moans, usual crap.

Let's keep it in perspective.

We've had some pretty decent away performances and after the last home game v Lincoln, Sturrock was concerned about the home performances. We had 5 regular first teamers out. He probably decided to try and counter Crewe's formation as well as try something a bit different as well.

And these guys are pro footballers. At this level it is a lot more tactical than the "4-4-2 and let them play with freedom" comments that some on here are spouting. No, it isn't Champions League but any pro should be able to make a switch from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3, 3-5-2 or whatever. I for one admire Sturrock for trying something different.

As for the game, it was dire and depressing.

Morris - 6 - At fault for the 2nd I think, couple of dodgy kicks.

Clohessy - 7 - MOM - one of few to come out with credit
Prosser - 4 - Did well in the air but poor on the deck, both with and without the ball. Can't see him playing again unless there is no-one else available.
Barlker - 6 - Not a good day at the office for him.
Coughlan - 5 - Committed, ok, not much more. Distribution poor.
Herd - 4 - Offers a long throw and nothing else.
Grant - 6 - Not his usual self but not as bad as others.
Timlin - 5 - Combined the absolutely superb with the totally inept in a proportion of about 30/70. It was the spin turn, two superb determined tackles and a sublime pass that gave him a mark as high as a 5.
Soares - 5 - Simply not the same player that turned out at Barnet.
Paterson - 5 - No service but not a huge amount of desire
Fairhurst - 4 - Missed an absolute sitter at 0-0 but I do think there's an element of someone like Roy O'Donovan about him - i.e. we don't play to his strengths.

Subs
Hall - 6 - An improvement when he came on
Crawford - 6 - Tried hard but against Crewe's defenders he was never going to get anywhere
Jarvis - 5 - Not on long but did nothing

 

[Medway Blue]

Is this actually a word? :unsure: Don't you mean "clueless" and "cluelessness"? It's a bit of a mouthful in any case!

Yes, "cluelessness" is what I meant, as opposed to "cluenessness". Typo!