The fbm report - Carlisle

[Up the Shrimpers]

Once again the ref stopped the game for an injury to an opposition player whilst we were about to launch an attack, it was not a head injury & surprise surprise the player was o.k.

Same thing happened at Walsall last week although that one was even worse as we were charging forward at the time and Walsall had ages to put the ball out of play themselves but carried on playing, but as soon as we got the ball launched the attack the ref stopped the game!

Was funny that we nearly scored from the drop ball pass back early on in the first half, ref wasn't pleased about that either. I guess if it had gone in then we would have allowed Carlisle to 'walk' the ball into our net.

 

[Mr. Benedict]

Another good report here FBM. Agree with most of your ratings as usual. Our link up play at times was excellent but we didn't really threaten in the final thrid today. I guess after all the talk of our scoring streak that was bound to happen... :p

 

[Andyhsufc]

In terms of Bailey, the second one where he went down holding his face was a bit questionable (from the east stand) and he should cut out the divng/simulation from his game otherwise he will just get stupid bookings

 

[loz]

the one thing i'd take issue with here is Hooper's rating. For me, he was incredibly frustrating yesterday. On the one hand there were some lovely touches and awareness, and he did a good job of holding the ball up at points showing some impressive strength. However his decision-making skills seem way off, especially when he's in or around the box. Would often take far too long to pick out a pass or shot, and sometimes seemed obsessed with trying those dinky little layoffs (which he usually underhit) when there were easier options on. An encouraging performance, but (to use a 06-07 season retro phrase) the end product isn't there yet. It may just be that he needs more games, but he needs to learn quickly if he's to be the effective partner for Leon that he clearly has the potential to be.

 

[mike101]

Who was the east stand clapping a few minutes before kick off ?

 

[Mr. Benedict]

Who was the east stand clapping a few minutes before kick off ?

That'd probably be Martin Jol I reckon, there's another thread about his apprearance at the game on here as well.

 

[Beefy]

Best performance of the season fbm?... Cant see that myself.

In terms of some of the football that we played it was one of the finest performances I've ever seen from a Southend side - right up with Brentford & Yeovil in 05/06. But, as loz said, the end product just wasn't there and after half a dozen flicks and first-time passes the move would break down on the edge of the box. In 90 minutes our three best chances all came from deadballs and one of them was a drop-ball!

If we play like that and manage to turn the posession and tricks into goals then no team in this league will be able to live with us. If we don't then we're in trouble because we leave ourselves open on the counter.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The Ref – Mr Whitestone – 7 – Possibly some of you will think this was high but I didn’t think he did a lot wrong. Making unpopular decisions doesn’t make him a bad referee. He played advantage extremely well and the game flowed as a result.

I thought the referee had a very poor grasp of what constitutes advantage. He hauled back the team he'd awarded the free-kick to on a number of occasions which in my eyes penalised the attacking team far more than the defending team who had committed the foul. His whistle continually punctured a game in which two teams tried to play football and yet he somehow managed to produce 8 cards in a game with a handful at most bad tackles. This petty whistle-blowing continually took momentum away from the attacking team, moreover he prevented the game from flowing by continually preventing the quick free-kick and allowing the defending side to get men behind the ball and organise themselves. He turned the game, which in my opinion should have been a very easy one to referee, into a far more stucatto affair than certainly we, if not both sides, wanted it to be and should have been.

 

[Beefy]

I completely agree with Yorkshire Blue. I think there was one freekick in the first 15 minutes of a game between two decent, fair, attacking teams then somehow the referee completely lost the plot. It should have been the easiest afternoon that he would have all season, as it is he decided to make himself the star by continually blowing his whistle and stopping the game from flowing at all. We didn't lose because of him, but he certainly helped to put a stop to the flowing football that we were trying to play.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

the one thing i'd take issue with here is Hooper's rating. For me, he was incredibly frustrating yesterday. On the one hand there were some lovely touches and awareness, and he did a good job of holding the ball up at points showing some impressive strength. However his decision-making skills seem way off, especially when he's in or around the box. Would often take far too long to pick out a pass or shot, and sometimes seemed obsessed with trying those dinky little layoffs (which he usually underhit) when there were easier options on. An encouraging performance, but (to use a 06-07 season retro phrase) the end product isn't there yet. It may just be that he needs more games, but he needs to learn quickly if he's to be the effective partner for Leon that he clearly has the potential to be.

Hooper is all style and very little substance. His fancy flicks rarely came off, and if they did, he'd get the ball back and then only lose it again. We created virtually nothing in a game where we dominated possession.

I'll get flamed for saying it, but I think we'd have done a lot better with Harrold up front. We played all our football along our back 4, with Harrold in the side I think we would have retained possession in the final third better and played football 30 yards higher up the pitch. With Harrold up front we would have bought McCormack and Bailey into play in better positions. Since Harrold has been dropped, its noticeable that these two haven't been able to get forward as well as in the earlier part of the season when they were getting into some great positions. We might have also given possession to Gower and Black in better positions. Whilst both saw a fair bit of ball, there were very few occasions where they were given good attacking ball, too often the ball to them was either deep or slow.

Finally, I think Saturday demonstrated what I was saying a couple of weeks ago about the importance of movement. We had the width with two wide players, but we lacked the movement. I'd happily sacrifice one of the wide players to get Maher back in the team and get McCormack and Bailey making runs from deep.

 

[Beefy]

And this is where we disagree... I still don't see why you think width and movement are mutually exclusive. There was plenty of movement early yesterday between the front six but the moves kept breaking down when one of them would try one party trick too many. We look a far more balanced side with Maher out of the team and were the two wingers playing at anything like the level that they are capable of then we'd have that level of movement that you are looking for - just look at Gower last season and the number of late runs he made into the box compared to yesterday when he managed it once, miscontrolled it and got flagged for offside anyway.

McCormack and Bailey are the form players in the squad, they were arguably the best players on the pitch yesterday and one of them will be wasted on the wing just to bring Maher back in. He's the most static player in the squad anyway so that's hardly going to help the team's movement.

There is an arguement to be made for Matt Harrold to come back into the side, but then I've always thought that he adds more to the attacking unit than he is given credit for.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

And this is where we disagree... I still don't see why you think width and movement are mutually exclusive. There was plenty of movement early yesterday between the front six but the moves kept breaking down when one of them would try one party trick too many. We look a far more balanced side with Maher out of the team and were the two wingers playing at anything like the level that they are capable of then we'd have that level of movement that you are looking for - just look at Gower last season and the number of late runs he made into the box compared to yesterday when he managed it once, miscontrolled it and got flagged for offside anyway.

McCormack and Bailey are the form players in the squad, they were arguably the best players on the pitch yesterday and one of them will be wasted on the wing just to bring Maher back in. He's the most static player in the squad anyway so that's hardly going to help the team's movement.

There is an arguement to be made for Matt Harrold to come back into the side, but then I've always thought that he adds more to the attacking unit than he is given credit for.

I never said width and movement are mutually exclusive, I only said that movement is more important than width. There was some movement yesterday, but not nearly enough decisive movement to unsettle Carlisle's well-organised defence. Our midfielders didn't get ahead of the ball, or make late surges into dangerous areas, our forwards didn't drag their markers out of position. Our open players were inevitably behind the ball rather than in front of it, and that makes it a lot harder to open up a team.

 

[Beefy]

Ok. But how does bringing Maher back in stop that from happening? You last raised this point after the Tranmere game in which Maher started.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Ok. But how does bringing Maher back in stop that from happening? You last raised this point after the Tranmere game in which Maher started.

IMHO playing Maher releases Bailey and McCormack to get forward more.

 

[Andyhsufc]

Why not push Bailey out onto the wing as he can play there and that would allow us to bring Maher back in and still keep our two in from players playing in familiar positions.


Black Macca Kev Bails

 

[Hooly]

The Ref – Mr Whitestone – 7 – Possibly some of you will think this was high but I didn’t think he did a lot wrong. Making unpopular decisions doesn’t make him a bad referee. He played advantage extremely well and the game flowed as a result.

I've always said that I spend too much time on the internet looking at SZ (as has my better half). I haven't agreed with quite a few of your ratings over the last couple of games but marks like that it makes life easier as I can add to my ignore list. To rate that referee so highly is laughable as the one decision he got right was probably the booking of Hammell. As someone said he'll end up in the Prem as he has good whistle tone & hand/arm actions.

Advantage & flow were the 2 words mostly missing from his performance along with consistency. The 3 words mostly missing from his performance were advantage, flow, consistency & rapport with the players. The 4 words mostly missing from his performance were etc etc............. He booked Bailey for simulation, I couldn't tell from my angle in the SU as to if this was right, but then simply waved up to his feet the Carlisle player who dived no more than 5 minutes later. That was only the most mistyfying of many incomphrensible or or downright unneccesary decisions. I'd hate to be at the Boxing Day game he officiates at after his mum gives him a new whistle for Xmas. I refereed for several years & might have been **** but at least I was consistently ****.

I think your reports, which I used to look forward to reading, have recently acquired Alan Green like delusions of grandeur. :confused: The worrying thing is that if waggy really gave the ref a 1, which was much closer than your 7 my ignore list may return to the same number as I might have to reinstate herhimit.

 

[fbm]

I think your reports, which I used to look forward to reading, have recently acquired Alan Green like delusions of grandeur. :confused: The worrying thing is that if waggy really gave the ref a 1, which was much closer than your 7 my ignore list may return to the same number as I might have to reinstate herhimit.

And I used to think that you were one of the more sensible posters on SZ.

What a pity that you seem to have decided that because my opinion differs from yours (and most others it has to be said) I am worthy of being ignored.

Well, I have news for you mate. I don't write my reports for you. I write them for the whole SZ community and as long as there are people prepared to comment on the reports then it means they are being read. I write the report of the game as I see it and without having seen or heard any comments or interviews about the game.

This means that what you get is my take and only my take on it.

Obviously there will be people that sit in different areas of the ground and with different and opposing views to mine. Thats great - it's what the forum is for. If we all had the same view it would be pretty boring.

And why would you want to ignore anyone? That indicates that you think they haven't got anything worthwhile to say. Even the most controversial and ill-informed poster on here will chip in with a good point or two occasionally.

And you say I have delusions of grandeur...

Jeez.

 

[Welly7]

SOUTHEND CRUMBLE TO THE CUMBRIANS

Gower – 6 – Better second half but not on song. Needs to be rested I think.
Black – 7 – Some of his crossing was not up to standard. It was good to see him get a whole game and he has undoubted class.

Geneorus marks for these two today. Both as poor as each other.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

I have to take exception about your rating for Collis - I thought he was totally at fault for their goal. He got caught completely in no mans land, and had no need to challenge for the original ball, and was nowhere near his goal when the guy walloped into an empty net.

Perhaps he wouldnt have been able to stop the shot, but had no need to get involved when the ball got played in and after that happened, his confidence took a bit of a knock.

RC, please watch the goal again and tell me where Collis was at fault !

 

[sufcintheprem]

RC, please watch the goal again and tell me where Collis was at fault !

BB's right, I can't see what more you wanted him to do. Marking both strikers might have been an idea.

He didn't challenge for the original ball and the ball was lashed in from around the same distance as the penalty spot. It's actually quite a decent goal but we still should have had someone near Garner as he lashed in.

Also still don't really understand how Gower was at all to blame for it either.