Post-Match Thread and Ratings Southend United 1-1 Rochdale

[Jack_23]

Really is like playing with 10 when Jack bridge plays. Genuinely don’t know what he brings to this team anymore , been so poor for way too long

 

[Medway Blue]

Some truly astonishing posts on this thread. I'm all for differences of opinion, but genuinely not sure what game some people were watching.

Feels sometimes like some just can't bring themselves to see positive performances, unless they result in a win.

Some could maybe do with reading this NLP report, which was pretty close to bang on the mark, and which definitely doesn't paint the picture of an awful, negative Southend performance, or of a top performance from a far superior Rochdale team.

The wonders of a neutral opinion from an observer who has no stake or interest in the "Maher in/out" argument.

Eyes down ....

View attachment 35720

Personally, I wouldn't have considered us lucky to win, and that's not an observation based on the final 15 minutes.

Rochdale looked (and are) a decent team, but they had one decent chance (the missed open goal) that I can remember other than the goal that we gifted them through an individual error. Other than that, Hayes didn't have a save to make, and I don't think we were ever second best at any stage.

Up until their goal, it looked pretty even to me. After the goal, I felt that we edged it, and that our general play deserved more than snatching late draw. We pressed well, we were on the front foot again just as we were against Halifax, and we had a handful of decent chances of our own. All that let us down was quality in possession in the final third.

I was a bit miffed at first by the change to the starting 11, as my instinct was to stick with the one that won and played well on Tuesday. There is definitely an argument that perhaps we should focus on ourselves more and not change to suit the opposition, but football is different. It's a much more tactical game these days. It is what it is. I get why the change was made. Rochdale press high and are quite compact in the middle, and I think we'd have been in danger of being overrun in there with just 2 CMs.

The substitutions came at the right time. I still think we were on top, but tiring and starting to run out of ideas for how to break down a very well-drilled and well-organised team. The substitutions changed that.

Lots of people giving Bridge a kicking. He's undoubtedly not having the success he's had in the previous few seasons, but he is double-marked and crowded out of games. I don't think we have a better option in that position, and I think we're a better team with Bridge in it. He gets us moving forward. We need to find a way to get him more space out there, like Fonguck used to do out there.

Coker pressed well, but was otherwise anonymous.

Husin taking a kicking too. He frustrates me in possession sometimes as he can be sloppy and liable to concede possession, but he is great and so intelligent out of possession, which doesn't get picked up on enough. He presses, harries, hassles and, crucially, is brilliant at closing off the opposition's passing lanes in a way that none of our other central midfielders really do.

Taylor was on the sloppy side. I love the guy to bits, but need him to be better and a bit more forward-looking with his possession and passing out of defence.

Morton was a bit sloppy at times too, but his vision and range of passing is brilliant.

Kendall's touch really let him down. He's excellent at playing on the shoulder and running in behind, and he did it several times yesterday, but he keeps stepping/tripping on the ball, or leaving it behind.

Bonne was fantastic when he came on. Held the ball up, ran the channels, and made such a nuisance of himself.

KAF is a funny one. He's one of those players who I feel looks like he offers more than he does simply because he runs around a lot. He made a couple of good bombs forward today though.

LCP looks mustard. Exactly what we've been missing out of midfield. I feel like he's the player who can make the 3-5-2 much more effective, linking midfield to attack.

Lastly, to anybody who keeps saying we play a 5-3-2, have a look at the below. Completely invalidates the post from whoever it was yesterday who posted a photo taken from the West Stand, which showed our wing backs back in line with the 3 CBs at that one point in time, and claimed it was evidence that we play with a back 5. Look at the average positions of Bridge and GSM, and tell me again that it's a back 5.

 

[bazzashrimper]

Really is like playing with 10 when Jack bridge plays. Genuinely don’t know what he brings to this team anymore , been so poor for way too long

He gets the ball and the other team put 2 men in front of him. It creates space elsewhere.

I haven’t checked myself, but I’d guess our points per game are better when he plays vs when he doesn’t.

 

[bazzashrimper]

Some truly astonishing posts on this thread. I'm all for differences of opinion, but genuinely not sure what game some people were watching.

Feels sometimes like some just can't bring themselves to see positive performances, unless they result in a win.

Some could maybe do with reading this NLP report, which was pretty close to bang on the mark, and which definitely doesn't paint the picture of an awful, negative Southend performance, or of a top performance from a far superior Rochdale team.

The wonders of a neutral opinion from an observer who has no stake or interest in the "Maher in/out" argument.



Personally, I wouldn't have considered us lucky to win, and that's not an observation based on the final 15 minutes.

Rochdale looked (and are) a decent team, but they had one decent chance (the missed open goal) that I can remember other than the goal that we gifted them through an individual error. Other than that, Hayes didn't have a save to make, and I don't think we were ever second best at any stage.

Up until their goal, it looked pretty even to me. After the goal, I felt that we edged it, and that our general play deserved more than snatching late draw. We pressed well, we were on the front foot again just as we were against Halifax, and we had a handful of decent chances of our own. All that let us down was quality in possession in the final third.

I was a bit miffed at first by the change to the starting 11, as my instinct was to stick with the one that won and played well on Tuesday. There is definitely an argument that perhaps we should focus on ourselves more and not change to suit the opposition, but football is different. It's a much more tactical game these days. It is what it is. I get why the change was made. Rochdale press high and are quite compact in the middle, and I think we'd have been in danger of being overrun in there with just 2 CMs.

The substitutions came at the right time. I still think we were on top, but tiring and starting to run out of ideas for how to break down a very well-drilled and well-organised team. The substitutions changed that.

Lots of people giving Bridge a kicking. He's undoubtedly not having the success he's had in the previous few seasons, but he is double-marked and crowded out of games. I don't think we have a better option in that position, and I think we're a better team with Bridge in it. He gets us moving forward. We need to find a way to get him more space out there, like Fonguck used to do out there.

Coker pressed well, but was otherwise anonymous.

Husin taking a kicking too. He frustrates me in possession sometimes as he can be sloppy and liable to concede possession, but he is great and so intelligent out of possession, which doesn't get picked up on enough. He presses, harries, hassles and, crucially, is brilliant at closing off the opposition's passing lanes in a way that none of our other central midfielders really do.

Taylor was on the sloppy side. I love the guy to bits, but need him to be better and a bit more forward-looking with his possession and passing out of defence.

Morton was a bit sloppy at times too, but his vision and range of passing is brilliant.

Kendall's touch really let him down. He's excellent at playing on the shoulder and running in behind, and he did it several times yesterday, but he keeps stepping/tripping on the ball, or leaving it behind.

Bonne was fantastic when he came on. Held the ball up, ran the channels, and made such a nuisance of himself.

KAF is a funny one. He's one of those players who I feel looks like he offers more than he does simply because he runs around a lot. He made a couple of good bombs forward today though.

LCP looks mustard. Exactly what we've been missing out of midfield. I feel like he's the player who can make the 3-5-2 much more effective, linking midfield to attack.

Lastly, to anybody who keeps saying we play a 5-3-2, have a look at the below. Completely invalidates the post from whoever it was yesterday who posted a photo taken from the West Stand, which showed our wing backs back in line with the 3 CBs at that one point in time, and claimed it was evidence that we play with a back 5. Look at the average positions of Bridge and GSM, and tell me again that it's a back 5.

View attachment 35728

Agree with every word in this post

 

[Medway Blue]

He gets the ball and the other team put 2 men in front of him. It creates space elsewhere.

I haven’t checked myself, but I’d guess our points per game are better when he plays vs when he doesn’t.

@Yorkshire Blue posted a stat the other way that showed our PPG (or something of that ilk) is a decent chunk higher when Bridge and Husin have played.

 

[bazzashrimper]

@Yorkshire Blue posted a stat the other way that showed our PPG (or something of that ilk) is a decent chunk higher when Bridge and Husin have played.

I think they were both missing vs sittingborne and Maher got grief for bringing them back two games later

 

[IloveShrimp]

Sound like a chap behind me in the West Stand who was either shouting for our player to shoot every time they got within 40 yards of the opposition goal or couldn't understand why a player may need to play a backwards pass when they were surrounded by three opposition players

Yep I heard him, what a nob!

 

[Shrimper]

Sound like a chap behind me in the West Stand who was either shouting for our player to shoot every time they got within 40 yards of the opposition goal or couldn't understand why a player may need to play a backwards pass when they were surrounded by three opposition players

There was an idiot in the West near me as well, whenever a cross field ball didn't work you'd just hear "**** BALL"

This isn't the PL mate.

 

[WestyReturns]

Lastly, to anybody who keeps saying we play a 5-3-2, have a look at the below. Completely invalidates the post from whoever it was yesterday who posted a photo taken from the West Stand, which showed our wing backs back in line with the 3 CBs at that one point in time, and claimed it was evidence that we play with a back 5. Look at the average positions of Bridge and GSM, and tell me again that it's a back 5.

View attachment 35728

I was the one who posted the photo of 5 at the back when Rochdale had the ball in their edge of their own area which happened many times in the first half. Second half was different. Can you filter your stats to show where our players were with or without the ball and first and second half positions? Otherwise just like my photo you can use the stat to suit your own argument. However I'm not sure what tactic that image would refer to as a formation? Maybe you could tell me what it would translate to?

FYI Spurs Pedro Porro heatmap shows him in Man U's final third most of today.....he's still playing right back!

 

[kentblues]

Not quite sure if it would work but possibly Hopper with Bonne alongside him?

It would. Bonne could easily play wide in a three. Has decent pace and excellent movement. Don’t pigeon hole him as a target man- he isn’t- rather he has been the only player who could play that role post Cardwell

 

[PIERS]

He gets the ball and the other team put 2 men in front of him. It creates space elsewhere.

I haven’t checked myself, but I’d guess our points per game are better when he plays vs when he doesn’t.

He does. But by the time that ball is recycled round to gus. He no longer has anyone on him

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Not quite sure if it would work but possibly Hopper with Bonne alongside him?

They could play together but we’d be screwed by the second half.

Some truly astonishing posts on this thread. I'm all for differences of opinion, but genuinely not sure what game some people were watching.

Feels sometimes like some just can't bring themselves to see positive performances, unless they result in a win.

Some could maybe do with reading this NLP report, which was pretty close to bang on the mark, and which definitely doesn't paint the picture of an awful, negative Southend performance, or of a top performance from a far superior Rochdale team.

The wonders of a neutral opinion from an observer who has no stake or interest in the "Maher in/out" argument.



Personally, I wouldn't have considered us lucky to win, and that's not an observation based on the final 15 minutes.

Rochdale looked (and are) a decent team, but they had one decent chance (the missed open goal) that I can remember other than the goal that we gifted them through an individual error. Other than that, Hayes didn't have a save to make, and I don't think we were ever second best at any stage.

Up until their goal, it looked pretty even to me. After the goal, I felt that we edged it, and that our general play deserved more than snatching late draw. We pressed well, we were on the front foot again just as we were against Halifax, and we had a handful of decent chances of our own. All that let us down was quality in possession in the final third.

I was a bit miffed at first by the change to the starting 11, as my instinct was to stick with the one that won and played well on Tuesday. There is definitely an argument that perhaps we should focus on ourselves more and not change to suit the opposition, but football is different. It's a much more tactical game these days. It is what it is. I get why the change was made. Rochdale press high and are quite compact in the middle, and I think we'd have been in danger of being overrun in there with just 2 CMs.

The substitutions came at the right time. I still think we were on top, but tiring and starting to run out of ideas for how to break down a very well-drilled and well-organised team. The substitutions changed that.

Lots of people giving Bridge a kicking. He's undoubtedly not having the success he's had in the previous few seasons, but he is double-marked and crowded out of games. I don't think we have a better option in that position, and I think we're a better team with Bridge in it. He gets us moving forward. We need to find a way to get him more space out there, like Fonguck used to do out there.

Coker pressed well, but was otherwise anonymous.

Husin taking a kicking too. He frustrates me in possession sometimes as he can be sloppy and liable to concede possession, but he is great and so intelligent out of possession, which doesn't get picked up on enough. He presses, harries, hassles and, crucially, is brilliant at closing off the opposition's passing lanes in a way that none of our other central midfielders really do.

Taylor was on the sloppy side. I love the guy to bits, but need him to be better and a bit more forward-looking with his possession and passing out of defence.

Morton was a bit sloppy at times too, but his vision and range of passing is brilliant.

Kendall's touch really let him down. He's excellent at playing on the shoulder and running in behind, and he did it several times yesterday, but he keeps stepping/tripping on the ball, or leaving it behind.

Bonne was fantastic when he came on. Held the ball up, ran the channels, and made such a nuisance of himself.

KAF is a funny one. He's one of those players who I feel looks like he offers more than he does simply because he runs around a lot. He made a couple of good bombs forward today though.

LCP looks mustard. Exactly what we've been missing out of midfield. I feel like he's the player who can make the 3-5-2 much more effective, linking midfield to attack.

Lastly, to anybody who keeps saying we play a 5-3-2, have a look at the below. Completely invalidates the post from whoever it was yesterday who posted a photo taken from the West Stand, which showed our wing backs back in line with the 3 CBs at that one point in time, and claimed it was evidence that we play with a back 5. Look at the average positions of Bridge and GSM, and tell me again that it's a back 5.

View attachment 35728

Excellent post.

Where did you get that graphic from?

Biggest takeaway from this is just how attacking Noor was. Look how much further forward he was than his replacement, KAF. He was further forward than Hopper!

 

[IloveShrimp]

The thing with how good Bonne and LCP looked when they came on, is subs can often make impressive impacts....would they look that good from the start?

I've been a big advocate of Bonne's since he came, and am desperate for him to do well. That's two games in a row where he has had a great impact, and he works so hard as well, hopefully people are seeing that.

No problem with Kev changing the team - we had/have 4 games in 11 days, so some legs do need a bit of a rest sometimes. What I did have a problem with was the fact that both Coker and Husin looked poor yesterday and should have been hooked earlier. Even Morton had problems with passing in the 1st half as well, so the whole of midfield got over run pretty easily in that half of the match.

Kendall is still raw and needs some work on control. He has the energy and the balls to run, but his control so often lets him down. And decision making. Maybe have a word with our Freddy and see if he can come in and give him a bit of coaching because I don't think there's anyone on our coaching staff can help.

I thought the defence actually worked hard against a very disciplined Rochdale side, and I'd have picked Nathan Ralph as my MOTM.

Was in the same box as @shrimperjon and the "Hand of God" goal was bang in line with us - we had no idea that it was hand ball! Looked perfectly good to us! Funny how much angles matter.

Most of our subs made a difference when they came on, I love KAF's energy, and I think it's great to have that on the bench to frustrate tired oppositions....does it work so well from the start? I'm not sure.

I will say that Rochdale looked a very well drilled side, their energy far outweighed our boys' - the way they surged both forwards and back in numbers put ours to shame somewhat, so, perhaps some stamina work might help improve that aspect for us.

Hayes - 7, didn't have much to do
Gus - 7, Duracell bunny
Taylor - 7.5
Goodliffe - 6.5
Ralph - 8
Bridge - 7
Coker - 6
Husin - 6
Morton - 7
Kendall - 6.5
Hopper - 6.5

Subs:
Bonne for Hooper - 8
LCP for Coker - 8
KAF for Kendall - 7.5
Walker for Husin - n/a

On to Tuesday, under the lights, and hopefully, a much better performance.

I agree with most of this. However when I was taught football it was drilled into me that when tracking back you should always pick up an opposition player on the way, our lads hardly ever do this leaving unmarked players with loads of time and space.

I thought before the subs our build up was still slow thus allowing Rochdale to get all their players behind the ball.

I think that based on this showing unfortunately it looks like both Hopper, and Bridge's legs have gone, also that both Coker and Husin were outclassed, out muscled and out fought, although Noor did have a couple of bright moments.

I agree with your marks except Hopper, Coker and Bridge were 5's at best.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

I didn't want to mention this again as I have posted this before so I shall say my bit & then log out ........

........even if we have 5 at the back "only at certain times" that means there is one less player in another part of the pitch compared with a back four.

For me that means there is either space in the midfield for the opposition to exploit or attacking players come back ........... to me that still suggests a more defensive position than is needed.

Just a point of view from an old dinosaur.

 

[wiggy]

Just re watched the whole game,,,,,thought we played ok but one thing stands out.....how the hell was Morton ever left out? Class act that puts in fantastic balls to get on the end of!

 

[1966 and all that]

I like the way Bonne, after the own goal, told KAF (I think) to retrieve the ball and put it back on the centre circle so as to maintain the momentum (which nearly paid off). In fact, I would much prefer our players to celebrate the old fashioned way even if they go a goal up, just to show the opposition, psychologically at least, that we intend to get more.

 

[Boreham Blue]

I think it will interesting to see what happens when Miley returns.

I suspect we might see

Hayes
Gus Harry Goodliffe Ralph Bridge
Miley Morton
LCP
Hopper/Bonne Kendall

I do wonder though if this would best suit our strength

Hayes
Gus Golding Goodliffe Ralph
Miley Morton
Bonne LCP Kendall
Hopper

Won’t happen as 4 at the back is not the way it seems

 

[* ORM *]

Yep I heard him, what a nob!

Someone needs to get hold of Leeboy and muzzle him

 

[shrimperjon]

Some truly astonishing posts on this thread. I'm all for differences of opinion, but genuinely not sure what game some people were watching.

Feels sometimes like some just can't bring themselves to see positive performances, unless they result in a win.

Some could maybe do with reading this NLP report, which was pretty close to bang on the mark, and which definitely doesn't paint the picture of an awful, negative Southend performance, or of a top performance from a far superior Rochdale team.

The wonders of a neutral opinion from an observer who has no stake or interest in the "Maher in/out" argument.



Personally, I wouldn't have considered us lucky to win, and that's not an observation based on the final 15 minutes.

Rochdale looked (and are) a decent team, but they had one decent chance (the missed open goal) that I can remember other than the goal that we gifted them through an individual error. Other than that, Hayes didn't have a save to make, and I don't think we were ever second best at any stage.

Up until their goal, it looked pretty even to me. After the goal, I felt that we edged it, and that our general play deserved more than snatching late draw. We pressed well, we were on the front foot again just as we were against Halifax, and we had a handful of decent chances of our own. All that let us down was quality in possession in the final third.

I was a bit miffed at first by the change to the starting 11, as my instinct was to stick with the one that won and played well on Tuesday. There is definitely an argument that perhaps we should focus on ourselves more and not change to suit the opposition, but football is different. It's a much more tactical game these days. It is what it is. I get why the change was made. Rochdale press high and are quite compact in the middle, and I think we'd have been in danger of being overrun in there with just 2 CMs.

The substitutions came at the right time. I still think we were on top, but tiring and starting to run out of ideas for how to break down a very well-drilled and well-organised team. The substitutions changed that.

Lots of people giving Bridge a kicking. He's undoubtedly not having the success he's had in the previous few seasons, but he is double-marked and crowded out of games. I don't think we have a better option in that position, and I think we're a better team with Bridge in it. He gets us moving forward. We need to find a way to get him more space out there, like Fonguck used to do out there.

Coker pressed well, but was otherwise anonymous.

Husin taking a kicking too. He frustrates me in possession sometimes as he can be sloppy and liable to concede possession, but he is great and so intelligent out of possession, which doesn't get picked up on enough. He presses, harries, hassles and, crucially, is brilliant at closing off the opposition's passing lanes in a way that none of our other central midfielders really do.

Taylor was on the sloppy side. I love the guy to bits, but need him to be better and a bit more forward-looking with his possession and passing out of defence.

Morton was a bit sloppy at times too, but his vision and range of passing is brilliant.

Kendall's touch really let him down. He's excellent at playing on the shoulder and running in behind, and he did it several times yesterday, but he keeps stepping/tripping on the ball, or leaving it behind.

Bonne was fantastic when he came on. Held the ball up, ran the channels, and made such a nuisance of himself.

KAF is a funny one. He's one of those players who I feel looks like he offers more than he does simply because he runs around a lot. He made a couple of good bombs forward today though.

LCP looks mustard. Exactly what we've been missing out of midfield. I feel like he's the player who can make the 3-5-2 much more effective, linking midfield to attack.

Lastly, to anybody who keeps saying we play a 5-3-2, have a look at the below. Completely invalidates the post from whoever it was yesterday who posted a photo taken from the West Stand, which showed our wing backs back in line with the 3 CBs at that one point in time, and claimed it was evidence that we play with a back 5. Look at the average positions of Bridge and GSM, and tell me again that it's a back 5.

View attachment 35728

Great post James

 

[shrimperjon]

Just re watched the whole game,,,,,thought we played ok but one thing stands out.....how the hell was Morton ever left out? Class act that puts in fantastic balls to get on the end of!

Absolutely spot on this. I’ve been saying all season he is so under rated by many. How he hasn’t won more MOM awards is beyond me but sometimes people like James don’t get the recognition and a lot of his work goes unnoticed. He is easily one of the most skillful and forward thinking players we have and always trying to be progressive in his play. Doesn’t always come off and gives the ball away at times but least he tries. Would be in my top three POTS to date