Post-Match Thread and Ratings Southend United 2 -0 Northampton Town

[Jam_Man]

Agree with every word,

Phil has his formula and he ain't it changing it for anyone which is his right and so everyone has their choice in attending or not .Personally I am having a mini break from the Hall for my own sanity.

He has changed it numerous times though.

We have played 4 different systems and a multitude of different line ups.

 

[mrsblue]

He has changed it numerous times though.

We have played 4 different systems and a multitude of different line ups.

The only time I have seen Phil play 2 genuine forwards up front was the televised game v Oxford where we were breathtaking and I was gutted to have missed that game,Every other game I have seen is our lone forward has absolutely no chance of doing anything.

Corr is never the lone forward and it's cruel watching him lose his will and temper.

Phil IMO has done not much during his tenure and frankly his style of football is dull laborious and boring.

 

[onceknownasrab]

He has changed it numerous times though.

We have played 4 different systems and a multitude of different line ups.

PB has as much as possible played with one man up top and again where possible that man is Corr. Its not that Corr is playing with his back to goal that is the problem. Its how deep he is. Back to goal in or around the box is no problem and allows the lay off for an effort. Back to goal 30 or 40 yards out means a lay off to someone and then further play to get it to the point of scoring, often a cross, and your main heading man is way behind play.

As I said before, I am sure some of it, is to accommodate the fact that Corr would be offside far more often if he played further forward.

PB has had a long time to redress this situation. He can play shorter, faster guys and reduce high crosses but when he has done that it proved his front men were not up to muster or he could have got another tall, target man who can lead the line higher up. The latter should have been the option long ago because even if you are a Corr fan or not it is insanity not to have cover for him.

Remember that in persisting with Corr it means that PB's choice of formation is built around the one player because if Corr is not on the pitch the tactics have to change, meaning we cant play PB's first choice tactics.

Corr is not good enough (anymore, if ever) to have the formation based on him. End of.

 

[Jam_Man]

The only time I have seen Phil play 2 genuine forwards up front was the televised game v Oxford where we were breathtaking and I was gutted to have missed that game,Every other game I have seen is our lone forward has absolutely no chance of doing anything.

Corr is never the lone forward and it's cruel watching him lose his will and temper.

Phil IMO has done not much during his tenure and frankly his style of football is dull laborious and boring.

He has played 442 and 352 this season as well, but no two strikers isn't clearly something he favours, or he might have signed some :smile:

Oxford we were good, but that was helped by Oxford being managerless and in terrible form and in free fall, not purely because we had two up front. We went on great from after that match and had reverted back to one striker after all.

The point I was making was that Phil has tried plenty of systems so to say he wont change things isn't right, he has been criticised on here for changing things too much recently.

If his football is dull laborious and boring (which it certainly can be sometimes, to an extent) how did you ever manage to sit through a Sturrock game?

 

[mrsblue]

PB has as much as possible played with one man up top and again where possible that man is Corr. Its not that Corr is playing with his back to goal that is the problem. Its how deep he is. Back to goal in or around the box is no problem and allows the lay off for an effort. Back to goal 30 or 40 yards out means a lay off to someone and then further play to get it to the point of scoring, often a cross, and your main heading man is way behind play.

As I said before, I am sure some of it, is to accommodate the fact that Corr would be offside far more often if he played further forward.

PB has had a long time to redress this situation. He can play shorter, faster guys and reduce high crosses but when he has done that it proved his front men were not up to muster or he could have got another tall, target man who can lead the line higher up. The latter should have been the option long ago because even if you are a Corr fan or not it is insanity not to have cover for him.

Remember that in persisting with Corr it means that PB's choice of formation is built around the one player because if Corr is not on the pitch the tactics have to change, meaning we cant play PB's first choice tactics.

Corr is not good enough (anymore, if ever) to have the formation based on him. End of.

Way I see it too so well said.

Opponents can easily stop whatever we are trying to do (I still don't know what Phil is actually doing)which is cover Corr job done.

Hartlepool and Northampton were horrible games and being honest I have seen far too many during the last 20 months.

 

[Jam_Man]

PB has as much as possible played with one man up top and again where possible that man is Corr. Its not that Corr is playing with his back to goal that is the problem. Its how deep he is. Back to goal in or around the box is no problem and allows the lay off for an effort. Back to goal 30 or 40 yards out means a lay off to someone and then further play to get it to the point of scoring, often a cross, and your main heading man is way behind play.

As I said before, I am sure some of it, is to accommodate the fact that Corr would be offside far more often if he played further forward.

PB has had a long time to redress this situation. He can play shorter, faster guys and reduce high crosses but when he has done that it proved his front men were not up to muster or he could have got another tall, target man who can lead the line higher up. The latter should have been the option long ago because even if you are a Corr fan or not it is insanity not to have cover for him.

Remember that in persisting with Corr it means that PB's choice of formation is built around the one player because if Corr is not on the pitch the tactics have to change, meaning we cant play PB's first choice tactics.

Corr is not good enough (anymore, if ever) to have the formation based on him. End of.

The way I see it is Corr fits the way Brown wants to play, not that Brown plays so that Corr can play that role.

Not sure how he can play further up, pretty sure he would be flagged even more offside than he does (which is too often) because the defenders dictate where he can lead the line from.

Certainly agree we should have had an alternative to him though and does sound like we were looking in the window.

 

[mrsblue]

He has played 442 and 352 this season as well, but no two strikers isn't clearly something he favours, or he might have signed some :smile:

Oxford we were good, but that was helped by Oxford being managerless and in terrible form and in free fall, not purely because we had two up front. We went on great from after that match and had reverted back to one striker after all.

The point I was making was that Phil has tried plenty of systems so to say he wont change things isn't right, he has been criticised on here for changing things too much recently.

If his football is dull laborious and boring (which it certainly can be sometimes, to an extent) how did you ever manage to sit through a Sturrock game?

Under Sturrock I watched us put 4 past Torquay and Cheltenham and several 3's against various,I can handle dour football if we actually score a few but under Phil he doesn't seem interested in scoring many at all.

 

[Jam_Man]

We certainly did, we scored a lot of goals in his second season, but even in our winning streak people were on here complaining about it.

Is that all you measure football by though purely goals scored?

I thought from what you said earlier wanted beautifully played football?

Sturrocks brand did get a lot of goals that one season when we went on that long unbeaten run yet when we got found out that season we went on a terrible run, won just 5 games in 17 in over 3 months and he was far more one dimensional than Brown. There were so many games we won where we only had one or two shots each game, far duller than Saturday.

We also played one up front pretty much exclusively, yet that is what you criticise Brown for. He was even put under pressure to play 442 which he did revert to the next season, which ultimately led to him losing his job.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

PB has as much as possible played with one man up top and again where possible that man is Corr. Its not that Corr is playing with his back to goal that is the problem. Its how deep he is. Back to goal in or around the box is no problem and allows the lay off for an effort. Back to goal 30 or 40 yards out means a lay off to someone and then further play to get it to the point of scoring, often a cross, and your main heading man is way behind play.

As I said before, I am sure some of it, is to accommodate the fact that Corr would be offside far more often if he played further forward.

PB has had a long time to redress this situation. He can play shorter, faster guys and reduce high crosses but when he has done that it proved his front men were not up to muster or he could have got another tall, target man who can lead the line higher up. The latter should have been the option long ago because even if you are a Corr fan or not it is insanity not to have cover for him.

Remember that in persisting with Corr it means that PB's choice of formation is built around the one player because if Corr is not on the pitch the tactics have to change, meaning we cant play PB's first choice tactics.

Corr is not good enough (anymore, if ever) to have the formation based on him. End of.

The formation isn't based on him, but Corr keeps on retaining his place as he's been better (and the team's been better with him in) than Coulthirst, Barnard, Weston, Jason Williams, Isaac Layne, Don Cowan, Craig Reid, Jamar Loza, Seedy Nije, Cauley Woodrow, Freddy Eastwood, Elliot Benyon, Neil Harris, Caolan Lavery, Gavin Tomlin and anyone else I've missed.

 

[mrsblue]

We certainly did, we scored a lot of goals in his second season, but even in our winning streak people were on here complaining about it.

Is that all you measure football by though purely goals scored?

I thought from what you said earlier wanted beautifully played football?

Sturrocks brand did get a lot of goals that one season when we went on that long unbeaten run yet when we got found out that season we went on a terrible run, won just 5 games in 17 in over 3 months and he was far more one dimensional than Brown.

We also played one up front pretty much exclusively, yet that is what you criticise Brown for. He was even put under pressure to play 442 which he did revert to the next season, which ultimately led to him losing his job.

Sturrock had a simple game plan which was give it to the wingers where they cross it and Corr tucked them away,And I witnessed many fantastic displays from us.

Sturrock's downfall IMO was his first season was just too good and many thought we would steamroll this league the following season,ok we faltered but he still got us to Wembley.Sturrock should have been given one more season IMO.

Phil's 13 game run without any win was truly bad as he constantly did the same thing with the same outcome it was madness.Phil lost me during this period as I realised he had no plan B.

 

[Jam_Man]

Sturrocks plan was to bang it into the channels and hope the wingers managed to get it or that Moshni won it. There was a reason many called it Hoof Ball.... I think your memory might be affected a little by nostalgia as the season we did well Im not sure how Corr tucked them away being injured all season. When it worked it was great from a results perspective, but when it didnt it was 10 times worse than anything I saw Saturday, which after that winning spell it happened a lot and Sturrock certainly never had a plan B.

Brown has played at least 4 formations this season, so had a Plan B, C ,and D :smile:

 

[Ricky Otto]

Sturrock had a simple game plan which was give it to the wingers where they cross it and Corr tucked them away,And I witnessed many fantastic displays from us.

Sturrock's downfall IMO was his first season was just too good and many thought we would steamroll this league the following season,ok we faltered but he still got us to Wembley.Sturrock should have been given one more season IMO.

Phil's 13 game run without any win was truly bad as he constantly did the same thing with the same outcome it was madness.Phil lost me during this period as I realised he had no plan B.

His 1st season we finshed 13th, the second was the good one but IMO the football wasn't great and Brown's is better. I thinkl Sturrock had fair time and I'd give phil the same, if we were in the same position in his 3rd season as Luggy was then i'd understand a call for change. At the moment he has every chance of surpassing Sturrock's 3 seasons and overall I enjoy watching Browns football more. Each to their own though, can't agree on everything

 

[leeblue]

His 1st season we finshed 13th, the second was the good one but IMO the football wasn't great and Brown's is better. I thinkl Sturrock had fair time and I'd give phil the same, if we were in the same position in his 3rd season as Luggy was then i'd understand a call for change. At the moment he has every chance of surpassing Sturrock's 3 seasons and overall I enjoy watching Browns football more. Each to their own though, can't agree on everything

We actually had a real raging debate when we were top of the league under sturrock, the football was awful and was indeed hoofball as many on here agreed at the time, the question was style or results, I said it then and say it now only results matter when looking for promotion. I think a telling factor was the attendances didnt really change much even though we were top.

 

[mrsblue]

His 1st season we finshed 13th, the second was the good one but IMO the football wasn't great and Brown's is better. I thinkl Sturrock had fair time and I'd give phil the same, if we were in the same position in his 3rd season as Luggy was then i'd understand a call for change. At the moment he has every chance of surpassing Sturrock's 3 seasons and overall I enjoy watching Browns football more. Each to their own though, can't agree on everything

Yes you are correct but I never count his first season because he had nothing no squad low budget so 13th was unexpected as I thought we would be in deep poo poo.

 

[Ricky Otto]

We actually had a real raging debate when we were top of the league under sturrock, the football was awful and was indeed hoofball as many on here agreed at the time, the question was style or results, I said it then and say it now only results matter when looking for promotion. I think a telling factor was the attendances didnt really change much even though we were top.

Yeah I agree to an extent, if Sturrock had continued that form then I think most would have tolerated it to go up, I think most recognise it is harder to play actractive football in league 2, though not impossible. I think a change of style or change of manager would have been wanted after promotion though. I'd have been sceptical as to whether Sturrock could do that but I wouldn't have thought fat sam could have done it at West Ham and he seems to be pulling it off.

As it transpires Sturrock didn’t keep that form up and we didn’t get promoted, why suffer the bad football if we can’t go up in 3 seasons?

 

[Ricky Otto]

Yes you are correct but I never count his first season because he had nothing no squad low budget so 13th was unexpected as I thought we would be in deep poo poo.

I was happy with the 1st season but if Ron is to be believed he had a substantial budget to bring in those players and he also had a team of his own with very little inherrited that he needed to move on or accomodate, I know there are all kinds of mitagating circumstances but I think you should consider both sides to the argument and stats are stats, if you start taking some out for mitigating circumstances you don't paint a true picture. Every manager can argue difficulties, you can't just strike stats out.