Southend game - View from the sofa

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Well it was crap but you know what we have been much worse this season. I said that via text to a few mates who sent me mocking texts. I honestly answered with that was one of our better performances of recent times! We have been much, much worse in many games. Still saying that we still were pretty woeful. We played as three separate departments, actually scrap that it seemed like 6 or 7 or even 11 separate departments.


Started the game slowly and Basham committed a stupid foul and booking but game was scrappy and gradually we came into it and had a spell where Flynn nearly scored and Sharp had a few decent efforts. Then we conceded a ridiculous goal. Utterly stupid. We gave it away twice in quick succession via Adams and then Flynn. Then Coutts played a horror ball to Hammond who compounded it by chopping his man down. The free kick saw Whiteman asleep and then Long made a real rick of it and then as we stood about they poked it in. No way a foul and I think many players appealed hoping it may deflect away from the numerous mistakes many made in lead up. Long never had it under control. It was poor keeping but don't discount the numerous errors beforehand. We then scored a good goal with for once some clever play as we saw they had put a lot in the wall and we outnumbered them in the box. Good delivery and good header. Game on. However, rest of half very little happened. Long nearly fluffed another one and they had a few half chances but overall 1-1 was right. We had done ok in spells and actually had a fair bit of the ball in midfield. It was not a disaster but still not sparkling.


Second half began scrappily but we had two big chances. Adams did really well and then just made wrong decision at the end. All those criticising I would say he made it with a very good run and without the run; there is no such chances. He should have done better and then on the cross was off balance after the initial chance. Then the big moment. Bad mistake as their centre half did his Neil Collins impression but Sharp with so much time seemed obsessed with trying to lob it. He could have taken it down and gone round him, drilled it across him. Of course if it lands it, we say it is a great finish but he missed by quite a bit. It was ridiculous for him to be so laid back and try something like that when in the clear. He worked really hard and was one of our better players, as he has all season but he has missed a lot of good chances too. Tonight's was guilt edged and to not even hit the target was awful. Just because it was Sharp does not mean he does not escape criticism. This was as bad a moment as the errors on the first goal.


After this they gained confidence and the lad scored a cracking goal but as with Crewe's first, he had all the time in the world. Done let him come inside and then line it up. This was all after another Hammond giveaway. No chance for Long. Great goal but we never seem to score goals like this. We never shoot from outside the box.


After this I thought we were pathetic to be honest. Performance has not been awful - mediocre but after this it descended into the players feeling sorry for themselves and they looked they gave up. Flynn and Coutts may have been sat on my sofa. Mind you they would not have wanted to get near anyone. They were 10 yards off every Southend midfielder second half. We did not la a glove on them and the time and space they had was embarrassing. No one put a tackle in, no one seemed to bother. They just went through the motions. Subs came on; the formation went all over the shop but we did not look like scoring until the late Adams chance which although decent was a narrow angle and did hit outside of the post. I would not even class that as a bad miss.


We finished the game with a random formation with players playing all over the shop and no one quite sure where. As someone said on another thread it was like one of those Championship manager games where you just think sod it and shuffle the players all over and play 8 strikers!


The third goal was taken well but a simple punt out; suppose we were chasing the game but Done again badly exposed. He is not and never will be a defender. Class finish and showed composure our strikers did not have. 3-1 flattered Southend but they probably shaded the game just and were more clinical. I also felt second half they put in more tackles, ran around more and looked more interested generally.


United - No one expected us to follow up Saturdays less than convincing win with a performance or back to back wins. No one was thus surprised by another disjointed mish mash performance. We were in the game for the most part but still looked poor in many aspects, namely passing, tackling, closing down and shooting. Defensively we were sloppy and so many sliced clearances or wayward headers and they could have had more goals really but for Long towards the end. The game does change on the chances and Adkins will use that as his latest excuse. He is right. Sharp or Adams score easier chance than the Worrall one and it is a different game. However, this covers up so many deficiencies. Is it me or does every team seem to have 9 or 10 quicker players than us. We look like we are in quick sand. We are so languid all over the field.


I actually felt for the front two who had no service and had to create most of chances themselves and even ones Adams missed he made. Sharp of course had the big chance but he worked hard apart from them. I thought McGahey and McEVeley looked sloppy all game. Basham started badly but got better as the game went on. The two wing backs had poor games, Done especially. Coutts and Hammond started ok but faded oh so badly and second half they were abysmal. Coutts especially. Did he actually touch the ball? Ditto for Flynn. As we have so many times this season we got overrun in midfield, they had acres of space and this invited pressure. The defence were not great but with no pressure on the ball then they are always struggling and know chances will come. We are such a soft touch in the middle and one paced at that. The priority for me is of course some defenders but a couple of quick, dirty (yes dirty) midfielders in the summer who will intimidate, cover ground and actually start to give us a chance in games.


The season is done. It has been for weeks, months and maybe since opening day. It was probably done when Adkins decided to keep faith with most of the crap who had failed previous few seasons. Now we start thinking for next season. I would not play any of the free agents (none to be kept for me aside Long at a push - McEveley and Flynn sealed their fate for me tonight in a must win, big game - they revered to the crap they have been most of SUFC career) and none of the loan players. Not sure on Calvert Lewin, Reed or Whiteman. Reed has had plenty of chances and not taken them. However those 3 and some other kids deserve a go now. They at least will be here next season even if only fringe/back ups. Coutts and Hammond should not even be considered. Their lack of effort is disgusting. I watched both of them barely jog back numerous times tonight. Coutts once fell over and just laid on the floor as they broke. Did not even try and get up. Hammond scored but was at fault for both goals partly and offered another performance of nothingness. Two players who are done. Finished. Their legs have gone. Even someone who does not know much about football can see that when other players constantly run beyond them time after time.


Now McCabe has a decision to make. I really am split and am a bit on the fence but leaning more towards a change. Those who say we keep sacking managers and look where that has got us etc do annoy me a bit. We keep sacking managers as they have been rubbish. Some of the appointments on the surface, Clough, Blackwell, Adkins all were praised by many - I include myself. Some have been poor and even seemed questionable, Adams, Wilson, Clough, Robson. However, despite the sale of Murphy and maybe he has not had funds he quite would have wanted, he has been allowed to bring in players on a lot of money. Sharp, Hammond, Sammon etc all will be on some of top wages in the division. I'd wager they all might be in top 10 of all players. Brown's point about us having a budget four times the one he had at Southend is startling when you look at respective sides. There was hardly anything between the sides and most of quality came from them when it mattered.


He has failed in everything he has done. Signings, selection, formations, coaching, performances and results. His job is to get the best out of his staff and his players. To motivate them and inspire them and ultimately to get results. If he cannot do that then to show a blueprint, an infrastructure moving forward. He has not done that. I cannot think of one positive, other than the fact he has started to move on the dross - 9 months too late. Would I feel confident he can mould us into a promotion side? Am I confident he can get the right players? Sadly, no on both counts. That means McCabe may have to roll the dice. If he does not and we keep him and it starts badly then what do we do. Wait another season, wait 3 or 4 more transfer windows was it Phipps said? Every other 'big' club has managed to turn it round and get out of this division, first, second or third time of asking. Leeds, Forest, Weds etc. Even Wolves and Wigan. Straight back up. No problems at all. We have not done it due to ultimately mismanagement from above but I am startled how badly Adkins has done. He cannot offer any kind of argument if he is fired at the end of the season as he has failed spectacularly. To be below Burton, Gillingham, Walsall, Southend, Port Vale, Rochdale etc is unacceptable. I do not buy the attitude of 'we are a league one side that is who we are and we need to accept it'. It's this laughable negative attitude that sees us failing. We need to think we are bigger than those clubs and go out and attack these sides and get our great supporters behind us.


So I suppose I am talking myself into another change. The alternative worries me more than twisting again. I think to be honest more fans outside of SUFC (not that I give a damn) would be more surprised if we did not sack Adkins based on the performance this season. I think his days with Southampton and Scunny are a long time gone and he has failed as much as he has succeeded now at four clubs. McCabe will watch the closing weeks carefully. Whilst I am advocating us playing youngsters and shaking it up; I know that could lead to more defeats (know they may not do much worse but there are always games like Oldham and Crewe where average Joe's like Flynn turn it on - if we do not play them we may not win such games) and ultimately lead to Adkins going. If we say lost next 3 on bounce which I think is very possible looking at the games then we would be around bottom 6 or 7 and Adkins would probably move him on. So whilst season is over in terms of us achieving anything, for Adkins the next 7 games may decide his job. In reality it is the previous 39 that should have decided his fate.



Southend- Very ordinary side. Outside of Adams runs and thrusts and Sharp's hard work and some decent efforts, I thought Worrall and Payne were the best two players on the field. They probed, ran with it and showed some good skill. They were nowt special but better than what we had. I felt for front two who had no service and had to create most of chances themselves and even ones Adams missed he made. Sharp of course had the big chance but he worked hard apart from them. They had a few clubbers at the back. Honest journeymen. Much like ours but always waiting for a mistake. They obliged and we missed. The lad up top Barnett is a journeyman and had had less success than a Sammon type. Yes, seriously. Still he caused us problems just by working hard. They had a number of quick, nimble players who just got stuck in and then ran at us. We did not have any of that aside from Adams. Slow, immobile, clumsy crap. 3-1 did flatter them but they scored two great goals so in that respect deserved the win. They won't go up. Brown is a poor manager for me who has nearly as many soundbites as Adkins. He took them up but not sure he is better than a lower league manager. He has a better fake tan supplier though. However on that evidence you would say they have a brighter future and more chance of going up the right way out of this division than us.


Long 6/10 - Weird. He made two good saves second half and one save which he nearly pushed in. He caught a few and punched a few others. However he had a few other dodgy moments and his handling was a bit erratic. The goal was poor. He should have held it or pushed it out. It was stupid and then he should have been up quicker or reacted better and thrown his body at the ball. It was a poor mistake and showed why I still have doubts over him long term as there always seems to be a mistake in him. Badly left exposed though so many times. Little chance on other two goals.


Whiteman 5/10 - Sure he is young and not sure he is a right back or right wing back but he looked out of his depth I felt tonight. Adkins fault for putting him there when he surely should have played Flynn there and the kid in midfield. He was poor often defensively and got beat for pace and trickery a few times. On the goal he was caught ball watching. Second half he continued to be slow to react and his passing/clearances were not great. Kept going but showed he is not a defender. Adkins will say he was a wing back but both him and Done had to defend more than attack so were more like full backs in a 5.


Done 4.5/10 - As above. Not a defender. Done well at the Lane and got opponents turning the other way so not had to defend. Today he was never at the races defensively. He made our goal with a nice free kick and had a few runs forward but at the back he never got to grips with Worrall. He was badly at fault on second as he let him run away from him twice and never got close to him as he shot. I felt a number of other occasions he was left exposed as they attacked down this side too. No help from others but one on one at the end showed he is simply not a natural defender. With Adams and Sharp clearly future up top, not sure where he fits in. He tries hard and never hides but another that not sure about his future at the Lane.


McEveley 5.5/10 - Worst performance for some time. He was clumsy from the off and made numerous mistakes slicing it out or up in the air. He gave away some silly fouls and often was sluggish in chases with the strikers. I felt he looked like a players that sadly is on his way out. He did not hide and another who has earned some respect for not giving in this season. I personally think we need to move on from the likes of him. He has done well since Xmas but was poor tonight.


Basham 6/10 - Started game badly with stupid booking and then gave away a few other fouls and second half thought he might go off with some really silly decisions when chasing back. However had a few lung bursting runs from his own half and did not hide. His touch and passing is wretched though. Another very ordinary player who lacks pace and mobility and mostly ability. Tries hard and one of few cannot label as going though motions but that still does not mean he is good enough. I remember when he played first 3 or 4 games for SUFC I felt he was not good enough and sadly 2 seasons later not sure I have seen much to suggest otherwise.


McGahey 6/10 -Might have been our best defender of a bad bunch. He was steady enough and I recall least amount of mistakes from him than any of the others. He made a few blocks and clearances. Still does not impose himself on the game and unsure he is someone we should be keeping.


Coutts 4/10 - Early on he made a few decent little passes and linked well but he often does that in games and then starts to hide, fade, fall to the deck and look a spent force. Today was no different. He did alright first 20 minutes or so but then pretty much non-existent. He stands 10-15 yards off his man and then simply does not or cannot run back when players break off from him. Awful ball in the build up to free kick to first goal. A passenger and one we need to shift on.


Hammond 4/10 - He scored! A few neat and tidy passes and break ups early but then he gave away a free kick early on and was lucky not to be booked. Then another free kick. Led to the goal. Scored a good header but then gave away another pass that led to the second and then like Coutts disappeared. Still interested to see what he offers and as the Sky commentators said what makes him seem underrated? Like Coutts, simply not got legs or mobility anymore. Never seen a player go to ground so much or make as many niggly fouls as he simply does not have legs to run alongside players. On the ball he cannot do much other than odd sideways pass. McCabe has to stop Adkins signing him if he remains as manager. There can be no debate.


Flynn 3/10 - As bad as the above two; maybe worse. Did he even play? Not sure he even got his short dirty. He had a really good chance that he missed early on. Took some dreadful set plays and crosses and generally was the Flynn of most of his United career; non-existent. Was he even on the field second half. Another soft touch who lets players have the ball, does not get close and then when on the ball cannot wait to get rid of it, again rarely forward. Must be released in the summer. Odd good game against dross like Oldham should not see another contract. He will end up back in Scotland or League Two surely. Adkins said of him tonight: “Thought Ryan Flynn was superb at times” Is he on Jose's tablets?


Sharp 6/10 - Overall I would give him higher as he had 3 or 4 great efforts on goal and worked extremely hard. Held it up well and linked with Adams when he could. Still it will all be about that chance; a shocking miss. He seemed to have too long but had made his mind up long before instead of doing what he normally does which is shoot across the keeper or just inside the near post (seen him do both). The fact ball bounced up seemed to make his mind up but was a high difficulty of skill to execute or certainly higher than what he could have done.


Adams 7/10 - Our best player as Holloway alluded. Missed a good chance but he made it. Ran with the ball, always attacked. Looked different to anything else we had. Sure he made some poor final decisions but he always wanted to turn the defence. Ask Brown which United player worried him most and I would guess it would have been Adams. Still a lot of maturing and to learn the game but one of our (only) bright spot for next season. Unless we sell him (not saying he is ready for a higher league but clubs take chances on raw talent like him).


Subs:


Calvert Lewin - Showed more than he has in other games which is exactly nothing. One run and curled shot over and won a few headers. Least put himself about but he looks incredibly raw and seems unsure where to run to or stand; even on corners.


Sammon - Perpetual Motion said Birtles. I can think of two other words to describe him. They begin with F and S respectively. He came on and erm....did he even come on? Still at this point we had a 2-1-2-2-3 formation so he was probably playing left back.


Woolford - Nice sleeve (tattoos).


Good night. God bless.

I agree with most of that but would mark Basham lower and Flynn higher. I thought Flynn was average rather than awful, and I certainly wouldn't put him as worse than Hammond or Coutts on last night. His better moments were generally in and around their box. I can see why he was kept there rather than switched to right wingback, as he does have goals in him, but sadly last night puts another question mark next to him on the contract front.

Hammond and Coutts could be summed up by their contribution to the first and second goals. Hammond gifting possession with a long pass forward on the 2nd. For the first, Coutts (the guy that's apparently one of our best passers) messed up a simple short pass, which was followed by a standard Hammond foul for the free kick they scored from.

Big miss from Sharp, who other than that I thought was one of our better players along with Adams. It really was a carbon copy of the chance he scored from at Colchester – quick thinking from Long to launch it early, and I'm assuming Sharp hadn't realised just how much time he had and perhaps thought if he tried to take a touch a defender may have caught him. Even so, he's got the skill set to sink it over the keeper in that situation – Ports scored a similar type of lob in his first season with us. I never thought that 4 years on that season was going to be our highest finish in that period...
 

One of us is reading this wrong.
it says; His hand and any surface(e.g. the ground, own body).

It's in the semantics: the goalkeeper is in control of the ball when it's between one hand and the ground but the interpretation document states that he cannot be challenged "when he has gained possession of the ball with his hands". Not an easy area but would anyone have argued if Attwell (there's a clue there - he's clueless) had disallowed it?
 
One of us is reading this wrong.
it says; His hand and any surface(e.g. the ground, own body).


When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent.


Like i said i think this clause confuses the matter.
 
When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent.


Like i said i think this clause confuses the matter.
I see what you are getting at but surly that statement would open the law if it was meant that way. I think they are saying there is no difference between Hand and hands? I'll go ask Howard;)
 
We finished the game with a random formation with players playing all over the shop and no one quite sure where. As someone said on another thread it was like one of those Championship manager games where you just think sod it and shuffle the players all over and play 8 strikers!.

I thought exactly that, it was like being 2-1 down in a meaningless cup tie and you decide to throw your sub keeper on and stick him up front in a 2-1-7 formation. I can't imagine Mark Howard doing any worse than those who came on.
 
To keep a manager just because we can't keep sacking him is not a good enough reason. /QUOTE]

If the selection process gave me any faith whatsoever I would agree but we keep getting it wrong. What do we do, keep letting idiots select the next manager knowing one day they might just get it right? Those who talk about Warnock coming back are deluded. Warnock isn't so stupid as to touch us with a barge pole. We are so broken at board level only a desperate idiot or someone who wants to work 9 months for a 2 year pay out would join us. We are becoming mangerial career wreckers.

Fact is we should have kept Clough and let him at least finish the project. Better that than what we have done.
 
I thought exactly that, it was like being 2-1 down in a meaningless cup tie and you decide to throw your sub keeper on and stick him up front in a 2-1-7 formation. I can't imagine Mark Howard doing any worse than those who came on.

Last time keeper of ours took a shot at goal he put it over Wembley roof and sent it bouncing down the North Circular...
 
last time a keeper of ours took a shot at goal the RAF were scrambled
“Thought Ryan Flynn was superb at times” .. did he 'really' say that? i was holding on to make judgement on Adkins until the Hammond situation was resolved but if he said that.. <shakes head>
flynn has been crap ever since he arrived. he is lightweight, nesh and falls down all the time
 
And blame Billy Sharp for missing a sitter.
If J Mc gives away a ball that results in a goal , Folk are all over him. If Sharp misses a sitter he gets very little criticism. Here's a bold statement; if he'd done his joblast night we'd have won.
Now for the tin hat bit . How many times does JMc do it and how many times does Sharp? Remember those missed pens but not much more eh?

Gary Birtles seemed to think Sharp was absolutely brilliant - don't think I've ever heard a commentator/pundit lavish so much praise on a player.

Thought it was interesting the other week when one of the Radio Sheffield lot said something to Adkins about Sharp having scored 16 goals. Adkins replied "but he could/should(?) have had 26 or even 36". He's missed a lot of chances this season. It sounds contrary but for me he's one of our better players, he's one of the top scorers in the division but he was still a bad signing when you take into account his age and the amount we'll be paying him.
 
Gary Birtles seemed to think Sharp was absolutely brilliant - don't think I've ever heard a commentator/pundit lavish so much praise on a player.

Thought it was interesting the other week when one of the Radio Sheffield lot said something to Adkins about Sharp having scored 16 goals. Adkins replied "but he could/should(?) have had 26 or even 36". He's missed a lot of chances this season. It sounds contrary but for me he's one of our better players, he's one of the top scorers in the division but he was still a bad signing when you take into account his age and the amount we'll be paying him.

I was talking about Billy to my Donny-supporting Bro-In-Law on Sunday and he agreed that Billy has always been a 1 in 3 chances kind of striker.
 
When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent.


Like i said i think this clause confuses the matter.

The rules just confuses things on this one. The switch between hand and hands is odd in the statement. I think if a keeper has it like Andy Dibble did with Gary Crosby (goal given then - nowadays is disallowed) and it is in one hand but he has it in possession or even tosses it up to kick; then a free kick is given. So in theory does not even have to be in keepers hands/hand; just deemed to be in his possession. I think that is the key here probably more than the one or two hand argument.

If he had put his hand on it and wedged on it for 3 or 4 seconds and the striker came in and kicked it in then there may be more of an argument - you would reason though that he/a keeper would pull his arm around and get two hands on it to ensure he had proper control of it - in his clutch. He was on the floor dived towards it in desperation and thrust a hand to the ball. He put his hand on it for less than a second.

So the key for me was the time that elapsed between him putting said hand on ball and the striker kicking/tackling him. It was no time at all. Thus he cannot really argue he had control of the ball. Why he did not scoop it to his chest or just knock it away is beyond me. It was a poor error.

The rules do not help clarify matters but I still think goal was the correct decision.
 
Like many others, very frustrated again with the performance and result. A few observations to throw in :

1. Players playing the ball across our own 18 yard area from the full back position should be shot! That's schoolboy stuff, don't play it across your own area, if you're under pressure, knock down the line, knock it long, smash it into the stand if you have to, but whatever you do, don't knock it across the box - yet McEveley did it early on which resulted in Basham getting booked and then Hammond did it which resulted in their 2nd goal. Hammond's was inexcusable as Done had just won the ball, passed it to him under no pressure and he dollies it up across our own area.

2. Adkins solution to being behind - throw more strikers on - Nigel, the problem is getting quality balls to the strikers. Your solution only exacerbates our weaknesses in midfield and defence and therefore we spent the last 20 minutes desperately trying to get the ball let alone mount an attack.

3. Our two missed chances before their second goal changed the game. Che's was excusable as he had done really well to get into the position he did - it's just his decision making that let him down and some composure when he received the ball back and shot over the bar. Billy's miss was inexcusable. One on one with the keeper, you've got to hit the target at least and make the keeper work. I couldn't believe he tried to chip him. He had time to go round him and tap it in.

I despair, I really do.
 
I don't think the rules really come into it on decisions like that, because they're so complicated and vague. He clearly wasn't in control of the ball in the sense that the average person would think that to mean, at best he touched it at the same moment their player kicked it. Goal for me every time. I didn't really see why he was appealing. If it was the other way round and it was not given, we would be playing hell about it.
 
I think that is the key here probably more than the one or two hand argument.

If he had put his hand on it and wedged on it for 3 or 4 seconds and the striker came in and kicked it in then there may be more of an argument - you would reason though that he/a keeper would pull his arm around and get two hands on it to ensure he had proper control of it - in his clutch. He was on the floor dived towards it in desperation and thrust a hand to the ball. He put his hand on it for less than a second.

The laws of the game say nothing about timing.

The referee must have either thought a) the ball was not on the ground, and/or b) his hand was not in contact with the ball. Personally i think that was a wrong on both counts.
 

Like many others, very frustrated again with the performance and result. A few observations to throw in :

1. Players playing the ball across our own 18 yard area from the full back position should be shot! That's schoolboy stuff, don't play it across your own area, if you're under pressure, knock down the line, knock it long, smash it into the stand if you have to, but whatever you do, don't knock it across the box - yet McEveley did it early on which resulted in Basham getting booked and then Hammond did it which resulted in their 2nd goal. Hammond's was inexcusable as Done had just won the ball, passed it to him under no pressure and he dollies it up across our own area.

2. Adkins solution to being behind - throw more strikers on - Nigel, the problem is getting quality balls to the strikers. Your solution only exacerbates our weaknesses in midfield and defence and therefore we spent the last 20 minutes desperately trying to get the ball let alone mount an attack.

3. Our two missed chances before their second goal changed the game. Che's was excusable as he had done really well to get into the position he did - it's just his decision making that let him down and some composure when he received the ball back and shot over the bar. Billy's miss was inexcusable. One on one with the keeper, you've got to hit the target at least and make the keeper work. I couldn't believe he tried to chip him. He had time to go round him and tap it in.

I despair, I really do.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Spot on.


Actually that's utter bollocks - it was a lob and not a chip. You have no fucking clue whatsoever ;)
 
It was a lob, as the ball was not on the ground when he kicked it.

He should have just put his foot through it in the general direction of the goal.

HH
 
I've got nothing to add to what Deadbat has said, what he has written has echoed my own thoughts.

We need a clear out of most of these muppets. I'd keep Long, Brayford, Sharp and Adams for next season and a smattering of the rest of the young lads but the rest can go and fuck themselves, don't care where, but just as long as they are fucking themselves somewhere far, far away from Bramall Lane.

There can be no place ar Bramall Lane for the likes of Basham, McEveley, Flynn, Coutts, Hammond, Woolford, Sammon and the rest of their ilk. They have shown nothing to demonstrate they have anything like near the capability of getting out of this division.
 
Totally agree. Worrying that I fear Adkins will not see this sadly. I think he will sign Hammond and Edgar and keep Flynn and McEveley. We are stuck with Coutts and Woolford.

As you have said; they all need to go apart from those mentioned. It would not be about just releasing those out of contract (apart from Long) and not bringing back loanees but he has to transfer list or somehow move on Freeman, Scougall, McNulty, Coutts and Woolford.

The club needs to act with the released list but really need us to circulate above names and be doing it now. He'd have respect if he did that and told them they were free to find a club and then played some of kids between now and end of season.

I'd maybe keep Basham as a sub to cover defence/midfield but no way he starts on a team serious about promotion. As I say all those saying we cannot make so many changes or we cannot get rid of so many as it means we have so many to bring in. And? That has to be the main objective. Change as much as possible! It aint working.

Get as rid of as many of these set of losers as possible. Make Sharp captain, bring in one experienced thug in midfield who will kick some up in the air (someone who can still run - not Hammond) and a dominant alehouse at centre back; a Morgan type. The rest need to be young, hungry, fast players who will run all day and actually have no fear.
 
The laws of the game say nothing about timing.

The referee must have either thought a) the ball was not on the ground, and/or b) his hand was not in contact with the ball. Personally i think that was a wrong on both counts.

Maybe rules should have time specified or be clearer as major difference between a keeper putting his hand on it for less than a second and say 5 seconds. Still if he had his hand on it for more time, surely he would have brought other hand round to grab it. Thus implying he did not have control. Not sure any keeper can safely save they have it under control when they have one palm on it at full stretch. Surely it's game for anyone still at that point?

It is interesting though that I think 9/10 of refs would give a goal; maybe more and not one pundit disputed it. We can quote rules a lot (the obstruction when a player runs it out to get a goal kick and just blocks a man) but the interpretation is often very liverally applied. Makes it wonder why we have rules?!

I still do not think he had proper control of the ball at all and that is key for me.

Makes no excuse for the 6 or 7 errors in the lead up though!
 
Maybe rules should have time specified or be clearer as major difference between a keeper putting his hand on it for less than a second and say 5 seconds. Still if he had his hand on it for more time, surely he would have brought other hand round to grab it. Thus implying he did not have control. Not sure any keeper can safely save they have it under control when they have one palm on it at full stretch. Surely it's game for anyone still at that point?

It is interesting though that I think 9/10 of refs would give a goal; maybe more and not one pundit disputed it. We can quote rules a lot (the obstruction when a player runs it out to get a goal kick and just blocks a man) but the interpretation is often very liverally applied. Makes it wonder why we have rules?!

I still do not think he had proper control of the ball at all and that is key for me.

Makes no excuse for the 6 or 7 errors in the lead up though!

Spoke with someone at work who has just qualified as a ref - he says it should have been disallowed. 'Keeper is deemed in control of the ball if he has the ball between is hand and the ground as per the law. Even if for 0.5 seconds. Therefore the goal should have been disallowed.

The guidelines state:

"A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands"

It then goes onto clarify that control of the ball in his hands includes having the ball between hand and any surface - so it defines that situation as hands.

He says Attwell can only have thought that he didn't have it between his hand and the ground and the ball was loose - as for the pundits, they don't know the laws.

Whatever - it was poor goalkeeping to get to that situation, but it should have been disallowed.
 
You are maybe right but I do not think many refs follow the rules sadly. As I say no point in having them really. How many refs actually apply them or is that the issue - the referees interpretation of the rules?

The obstrucction rule when players barge into opponents and often not within playing distance to allow the ball to go out defenively is a classic example of this. They should be fouls according to the rules but are never given. It seems over the years the rules get applied by referees and then slowly becomes accepted. Does not make it right. It is like the foot up in European games/games abroad v UK? Is there a different rule book for Spanish league to say English league?!

He interprets he did not have proper control I suppose and I still agree. I think if it happened again at a game this weekend, most refs would give it and most pundits/fans/football people would accept it.

If it had happened other end we would have gone crazy if it had been disallowed. I have no major irks with Attwell giving it and would have been more surprised if he disallowed it.
 
You are maybe right but I do not think many refs follow the rules sadly. As I say no point in having them really. How many refs actually apply them or is that the issue - the referees interpretation of the rules?

The obstrucction rule when players barge into opponents and often not within playing distance to allow the ball to go out defenively is a classic example of this. They should be fouls according to the rules but are never given. It seems over the years the rules get applied by referees and then slowly becomes accepted. Does not make it right. It is like the foot up in European games/games abroad v UK? Is there a different rule book for Spanish league to say English league?!

He interprets he did not have proper control I suppose and I still agree. I think if it happened again at a game this weekend, most refs would give it and most pundits/fans/football people would accept it.

If it had happened other end we would have gone crazy if it had been disallowed. I have no major irks with Attwell giving it and would have been more surprised if he disallowed it.

Have to disagree.

In terms of shielding the ball that winds me up too, why have laws and instructions on how to interpret them if you are not going to put them into practice? And as for control, he lost control of it but when the striker kicked the ball out of his hand he definitely had control of it again, even if for a nano second. I can understand how it was given as in the heat of the moment it could be easy to think he didn't have the ball in hand but, given the replay, he did and therefore it was 'no goal'. The fact that no one knows the laws or even agrees with the laws doesn't really matter in that regard.
 
Maybe rules should have time specified or be clearer as major difference between a keeper putting his hand on it for less than a second and say 5 seconds. Still if he had his hand on it for more time, surely he would have brought other hand round to grab it. Thus implying he did not have control. Not sure any keeper can safely save they have it under control when they have one palm on it at full stretch. Surely it's game for anyone still at that point?

It is interesting though that I think 9/10 of refs would give a goal; maybe more and not one pundit disputed it. We can quote rules a lot (the obstruction when a player runs it out to get a goal kick and just blocks a man) but the interpretation is often very liverally applied. Makes it wonder why we have rules?!

I still do not think he had proper control of the ball at all and that is key for me.

Makes no excuse for the 6 or 7 errors in the lead up though!

As a former keeper I translate the rules to be similar to those in rugby for tries. There has to be pressure on the ball to have it under control. Brom the way it shot out, even if Long's hand was on the ball, there wasn't any pressure.
 
Watched the whole game on tv having not been to a game all season and from my seat here's a few thoughts. Long was poor on their first goal, tho I understand those saying it was a foul and the multiple other replies. He has to command that situation more. I thought our defence was woeful all game, like all season. Felt sorry for the young lad at right back and Done trying to play left wing back. Midfield was poor tho I really thought with all the abuse Hammond has had he would have been worse, he was a lot better than I was expecting. Sharp looked class at times, esp in the first half, but that miss was criminal. Totally changed the game. I was pissed off that their bearded defender didn't get booked or sent off for multiple fouls on Che and gamesmanship, Deegan or something? what a wanker. the minute we let the second goal in we were defeated, no belief at all. We looked a poor poor side by the end. The substitutions were championship manager at its best, as has been said. As for keeping Adkins, I have no idea. I have no faith in him but I also have less faith in the board that they will get in someone better. Dark times to be a blade.
 
Mine is a view from the bedroom , watched it in bed with Mrs Beard who is a Villa fan (not much worth taking about in our house this season football wise !) her first comment was "they just don't look fit - that Coutts cant run and Hammond cant do anything !" And quickly followed up by " that centre half is useless(Mcgahey) all he does is lump it cross field out of play !" Couldn't really argue , that was followed up by "No wonder he doesn't want to go anymore this season (no.1 son) " Have resorted to taking my younger daughter ! At least she loves it !!!! As ever UTB
 
I think we should keep McEveley for another season, even if only as a squad player. Since Xmas he has been our best player (not saying much I know). Whilst he was poor yesterday, we shouldn't get rid on one performance. Also, we don't k ow who will be coming in over the summer, it isn't easy to build up a completely new squad. I think he should still have a role with us.
 

Gary Birtles seemed to think Sharp was absolutely brilliant - don't think I've ever heard a commentator/pundit lavish so much praise on a player.

Thought it was interesting the other week when one of the Radio Sheffield lot said something to Adkins about Sharp having scored 16 goals. Adkins replied "but he could/should(?) have had 26 or even 36". He's missed a lot of chances this season. It sounds contrary but for me he's one of our better players, he's one of the top scorers in the division but he was still a bad signing when you take into account his age and the amount we'll be paying him.

He's not a bad signing on the basis that he's the only reason we aren't in the bottom 6.

You think Adkins was capable of signing someone cheaper who scores even half these goals? I don't.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom