Southend goals

[Withdean Wanderer]

So are you saying Wilkins has made excuses?

JESUS.

I am saying that he's NOT HAD TIME to make excuses, nor to accept the blame for anything!

 

[1066gull]

JESUS.

I am saying that he's NOT HAD TIME to make excuses, nor to accept the blame for anything!

Christ. I was just have a discussion with you. Mate.

 

[fatboy]

f*** sake

 

[fatboy]

Butters stayed with his man for the first goal - whoever was supposed to be arking at the back post was at fault - and perhaps the keeper should have done better.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

No, not at all. I didn't go to the game, and I only had half my attention on the radio. He may have been nowhere near the goal, let alone the ball, for all I know when the ball hit the net x 3. My point is what the hell is Wilkins playing at throwing on a bloke who hasn't played all season, and is coming back from a reasonably serious injury at a time when:

1) The game is tight
2) We are DEFENDING a corner
3) He cannot possibly be match fit after such a lay off
4) Southend are a better team than us, hence are likely to provide not the most comfortable of returns

Now it just seems a totally ludicrous moment to put Butters on. It simply wasn't the right time, you cannot expect a player to return to such a vital position after an absence into such a high pressure situation and to still win the game 1-0. Also, we were 3-1 up against 10 men with 20 minutes to go on Saturday. Surely to GOD that was the time to give him a gentle run out. He could have strolled around against Orient, knocked the ball around a bit, and got back into action the easy way. Compare that to the situation we found ourselves in tonight, and I am shocked at that substitution.

As I said, I don't know who was involved in the goals tonight, but I do feel that substitution by Wilkins may have cost us. It's his first black mark in my book of judgment on him

I think Wilkins made a good call to bring on a central defender on when we are 1-0 up with five to go and they have brought a third forward on to go for it.

Tanks main asset is in the air and we have corners and other crosses likely to be pumped in the box during this stage of the match, who better to deal with these?

He must have been fit enough for 5 mins of football or he would not be on the bench.

Have you been drinking?

 

[Albion Dan]

and perhaps the keeper should have done better.

Oh no here we go...............

 

[fatboy]

Oh no here we go...............

Obviously if Henderson was playing he would have thrown so many toys from his pram that the striker would have been put off and missed.

 

[TonyW]

So you are a mind reader now. Wilkins would "think" better than McGhee? And you know that McGhee would blame others, whereas Wilkins says f*ck all on the subject and so get's away with it?

Christ, you could be a rich man with skills like that

You don't have to be a mind reader to know that MM would have blamed someone else. You just have to able to hear. Good Riddance to bad rubbish

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Ha ha, I wish I had been drinking!

As I have said about ten times, I am not questioning the person involved in this substitution (Butters). From everything I can tell, he did nothing wrong. I am instead criticising the decision to mess around with the back four, who had obviously done so well until that point. I don't care if it was John Terry coming on, you just don't disrupt a defence at that stage of a tough game.

So if they had scored that goal without that substition would you be saying why didn't he put on Tank or someone who can get a head on it?

I think he done what any logical Manager would have done in this stage of the game when you have a massive ball winner on the bench.

I do take on it is a difficult for a defender in particular to join a game when you are expecting to be under the cosh for the last 5 but Tank or John Terry would still be able to apply themselves this late on as second nature.

If he had bought on a young defender let's say Rents i may agree with you.

It is just one of those games and i am sure the lads will be up to get some revenge on Carlise.

 

[Easy 10]

Its all well and good to sit here and look at the subs and then the minutes of the goals in hindsight and draw all our conclusions from that, but none of us sitting in front of a computer really know how things were panning out up there. I'll be interested to see the opinions of some fans who were actually there to see what they made of it.

Wilkins won't have made changes for the sake of it. Southend made a change on 80 minutes bringing on Hooper for Campbell-Ryce in an all-or-nothing attempt to rescue the game. Five minutes later, Deans brought on Butters presumably because the changes Southend had made were putting us further under the cosh, and he wanted an extra physical presence in the box for the final onslaught. Unfortunately it HAS all gone tits up in the last few minutes, but I'm not going to slate or defend Wilkins based purely on the stats, cos without having actually seen it for ourselves, we're all just making assumptions.

However, having said that - if he's made defensive changes in the run-up to defending a corner, that is never a smart move.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

But McGhee isn't our manager, so it's a bit irrelevant really. I wonder what Alan Mullery would have done......

Nothing wrong with mentioning a guy who was our manager two weeks ago! Aids is a pain in the ass usually, but he's said nothing I disagree with here. MM had his favourites, and his less than favourites. Kuipers was someone he had scapegoated before (and the only one who hadn't been shipped out)

 

[Stumpy Tim]

So if they had scored that goal without that substition would you be saying why didn't he put on Tank or someone who can get a head on it?

I think he done what any logical Manager would have done in this stage of the game when you have a massive ball winner on the bench.

Sorry MB, you're wrong. I manager Dunbar Rovers 4th team, and even I know you don't make a defensive change at a corner. Even if Reid had a slight injury you put him on the post. It's a real no-no and Wilkins got it wrong.

Having said that, I rate Wilkins & I'm 100% behind him for the job. But he did get this one wrong

 

[jakes right boot]

Ifelt the team was unbalanced after Loft was brought on and we then went under the cosh more.
With hindsight Wilkins should have just made one sub (Hart because he was limping)

 

[London Irish]

Nothing wrong with mentioning a guy who was our manager two weeks ago! Aids is a pain in the ass usually, but he's said nothing I disagree with here. MM had his favourites, and his less than favourites. Kuipers was someone he had scapegoated before (and the only one who hadn't been shipped out)

But what has this got to do with anything that happened tonight?

 

[Lander]

So are you saying that Tank was at fault for the goals then?

It wasnt big boys fault, it was wilkins for bringing him on at the complete wrong time!

tank didnt really do much today, but i think he will enjoy his dinner tonight which will consist of pizza as i saw the coach driver put bout 15-20 boxes of pizzas on to the team coach

 

[London Irish]

So if they had scored that goal without that substition would you be saying why didn't he put on Tank or someone who can get a head on it?

I think he done what any logical Manager would have done in this stage of the game when you have a massive ball winner on the bench.

I do take on it is a difficult for a defender in particular to join a game when you are expecting to be under the cosh for the last 5 but Tank or John Terry would still be able to apply themselves this late on as second nature.

You are spot on. Southend tried 3 gameplans tonight:

No1 - they tried to pass through us mainly through Gower and Maher and Eastwood, after some promise early on, we frustrated them. So then they tried:

No2 - give the ball all the time to Campbell-Ryce to run through us. Bless him, Kerry stood tall when Tilson switched him over to his wing. We scored, so it was then last chance saloon and:

No3 - pump long ball into their front men and hope. Made sense to take a little man off and put Butters on. He defended his man Sodje OK but someone else wasn't doing their job, a defender or the keeper, hard to say, it was a very scrappy goal.

Good substitution by Wilkins but just desperately bad luck. We played well tonight and deserved extra time at the very least.

 

[Mustela Furo]

A few points ...


I'm not sure that we were defending a corner at the time of the substitution - I thought the corner came soon after.

Tank was not to blame for any of the goals - in fact I don't think anybody was at fault for goals two and three and as for goal one it was a brilliant corner and someone slipped their marker (unsure who I was partially sighted by a huge great pillar)


The substituion was made undoubtedly for the reasons already commented on this thread - they had three up and Butters was going to be more of an asset than Reid, whose greatest strengths are going forward. hence the call, which I believe was the correct one even though they still ended up coming back into the game

 

[Stumpy Tim]

A few facts ...


we were not defending a corner at the time of the substitution - corner came soon after.

Tank was not to blame for any of the goals - in fact I don't think anybody was at fault for goals two and three and as for goal one it was a brilliant corner and someone slipped their marker (unsure who I was partially sighted by a huge great pillar)


The substituion was made undoubtedly for the reasons already commented on this thread - they had three up and Butters was going to be more of an asset than Reid, whose greatest strengths are going forward. hence the call, which I believe was the correct one even though they still ended up coming back into the game

The report I read said the sub was when the corner happened. That's the only problem I have with the sub personally

 

[Mustela Furo]

Yes - having reviewed it you are correct.

However, given that you need big strong headerers of the ball to defend corners, would you not want a big "guy" in there rather than a little "paul"?