Mildenhall MOM? - Absolutely - here's why.

[Richard_Cadette]

I have already put my two pennies worth in on another thread about this, but seeing as it now has it's own thread, I shall add it again!

It was nice to see Mildenhall do everything that was expected of a competent League One goalkeeper, and no doubt the clean sheet, andhis overall performance will be a big boost for his confidence, and that can only be a good thing.

However, just because he did nothing wrong, or because he played with more confidence that he had done previously, does not mean he should be given the MOTM award. There were pretty much 10 others who did what was expected of them, and on that basis, you can't give all of them a MOTM award.

IMO, the MOTM award should have been given to Betsy - his performance, in the first half especially, was excellent, and his tenacity led to us scoring the only goal.

To bestow such an award on Mildenhall is to suggest we were under the cosh, and had it not have been for him, we may not have hung on - that is simply not true. Hereford were extremely poor, and threatened only on rare occasions, and as such, Mildenhall had little to do over the 90 minutes. Based on that, how can you possibly give someone MOTM?

I applaud him for his bravery, carrying on after he got injured, but that had everything to do with the fact we did not have a sub keeper on the bench - had we of done, Mildenhall would definitely come off.

Mildenhall needs confidence, fine, I am happy for the crowd to be supporting him, but saying he was MOTM, or giving him a 10 out of 10, is as I said before, patronising to him, and quite frankly, offensive to others who contribuited more to us winning than he did.

I guess one simple question would clear this up - If Daryl had been playing Saturday, would we be saying he was MOTN, and more importantly, would this thread exist? Not a chance.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I guess one simple question would clear this up - If Daryl had been playing Saturday, would we be saying he was MOTN, and more importantly, would this thread exist? Not a chance.

Not least because Flahavan is only a shotstopper, lacking Mildenhall's all-round game....

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I guess one simple question would clear this up - If Daryl had been playing Saturday, would we be saying he was MOTN, and more importantly, would this thread exist? Not a chance.

It's all about context, though.

If, in Darryl's first year, he'd had a shocker and been booed from the stands - who had all chanted for Mel Capleton (unlikely, but stick with me) - and then had done what Mildenhall did in the last game against Hereford (played solidly, pulled off an excellent save, kept a clean sheet, silenced the boo-boys, played on through pain and injury to help secure the win)... then yes, I'd expect exactly this sort of thread here.

Matt

 

[David Icke]

The reason that Mildenhall stayed on after his excellent save was largely down to Tilson. If your manager doesn't back you and you buy one like Mildenhall did then you think, bugga this I'm coming off. But if your manager is fully supportive of you then you tend to feel more inclined to die for the cause. So big up Stevie T. That's why he is a good manager.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

Not least because Flahavan is only a shotstopper, lacking Mildenhall's all-round game....

No, because had Daryl have put in a performance like Mildenhall did on Saturday, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. Perhaps more of a sign that we have replaced Daryl with an inferior keeper?

I'm not turning this into a Flavs V Mildy debate, there is little point, but I was merely stressing the point that his performance was so 'ordinary' for any competent goalkeeper, to suggest it was a MOTM display is to suggest he is not usually capable of performing to that standard.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

It's all about context, though.

If, in Darryl's first year, he'd had a shocker and been booed from the stands - who had all chanted for Mel Capleton (unlikely, but stick with me) - and then had done what Mildenhall did in the last game against Hereford (played solidly, pulled off an excellent save, kept a clean sheet, silenced the boo-boys, played on through pain and injury to help secure the win)... then yes, I'd expect exactly this sort of thread here.

Matt

That is arguably true (although I would have loved to have seen the crowd chanting Mel's name!!), but his performance should not be judged in context, it should be judged on a game by game basis, and as I said, his performance was about what was expected of a League One goalkeeper, and nothing more. It is making me sound like I am doing him down, which is not the case, but to give him that award purely on the basis that he has had a bit of a torrid time of late is unfair on others who have not been as bad, and yet still managed to contribute more to the victory than he did, that's all.

 

[Napster]

The reason that Mildenhall stayed on after his excellent save was largely down to Tilson. If your manager doesn't back you and you buy one like Mildenhall did then you think, bugga this I'm coming off. But if your manager is fully supportive of you then you tend to feel more inclined to die for the cause. So big up Stevie T. That's why he is a good manager.

An excellent point.

 

[Jam_Man]

I was merely stressing the point that his performance was so 'ordinary' for any competent goalkeeper, to suggest it was a MOTM display is to suggest he is not usually capable of performing to that standard.

Totally agree, people are going overboard.

He had very little to do and whilst he did that ok its hardly a man of the match performance.

People are only doing it as he got injured and thankfully he only had a shot and pass pack to deal with when hurt.

He deserves a pat on the back for staying on but nothing more.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

I guess one simple question would clear this up - If Daryl had been playing Saturday, would we be saying he was MOTN, and more importantly, would this thread exist? Not a chance.

No, because Darryl would have let in at least one of shots, due to not being tall enough, and we would all be bemoaning how we only picked up 1 point when it should have been all 3. :)

I see where you're coming from RC, and under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But Saturday wasn't normal circumstances, for all the reasons that FBM so eloquently stated.

 

[South Bank Hank]

To bestow such an award on Mildenhall is to suggest we were under the cosh, and had it not have been for him, we may not have hung on - that is simply not true. Hereford were extremely poor, and threatened only on rare occasions, and as such, Mildenhall had little to do over the 90 minutes. Based on that, how can you possibly give someone MOTM?

Based on that, no. The point is that those who consider him their MOTM are NOT basing it on those things but on other contributions and notably his refusal to let Revell take over in goal which may well have cost us the game. He wasn't my MOTM, but I'm amazed it's become such an emotive issue when a person's MOTM is simply their own personal opinion anyway.

 

[OldBlueLady]

No, because Darryl would have let in at least one of shots, due to not being tall enough, and we would all be bemoaning how we only picked up 1 point when it should have been all 3. :)

I see where you're coming from RC, and under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But Saturday wasn't normal circumstances, for all the reasons that FBM so eloquently stated.

Exactly right, and the point I was trying to convey on the original ratings thread.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Based on that, no. The point is that those who consider him their MOTM are NOT basing it on those things but on other contributions and notably his refusal to let Revell take over in goal which may well have cost us the game. He wasn't my MOTM, but I'm amazed it's become such an emotive issue when a person's MOTM is simply their own personal opinion anyway.

And bearing in mind that Dan Harding was given the official MOTM on the day anyway.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

No, because Darryl would have let in at least one of shots, due to not being tall enough, and we would all be bemoaning how we only picked up 1 point when it should have been all 3. :)

I see where you're coming from RC, and under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But Saturday wasn't normal circumstances, for all the reasons that FBM so eloquently stated.

I disagree that Daryl would not have saved those shots 100% - Shot stopping, after all, is his forte, in fact, his only forte according to some on here.

It doesn't matter what the circumstance surrounding the game on Saturday, you can only judge Mildenhall on his performance, and nothing else. His performance was fine, no problem whatsoever, but he simply wasn't the best player on the park on Saturday, it's as black and white as that.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

Based on that, no. The point is that those who consider him their MOTM are NOT basing it on those things but on other contributions and notably his refusal to let Revell take over in goal which may well have cost us the game. He wasn't my MOTM, but I'm amazed it's become such an emotive issue when a person's MOTM is simply their own personal opinion anyway.

It can be based on nothing else apart from his performance over the 90 minutes on Saturday. His refusal to allow Revell to replace him on Saturday was indeed a brave one - one which could have been ill judged if his injury had prevented him from making a routine save, or in fact, if by playing on increased the length of time spent on the sidelines.

It is a discussion forum, so often issues which some may think trivial become immotive. I didn't think it was that big a deal personally, I said in the original Match Report thread I didn't agree with people saying he was MOTM, and others clearly feel the same - clearly there is a divided opinion - Nothing wrong with that, a discussion forum is open to any topic SUFC related.

 

[A Century United]

That is arguably true (although I would have loved to have seen the crowd chanting Mel's name!!), but his performance should not be judged in context, it should be judged on a game by game basis, and as I said, his performance was about what was expected of a League One goalkeeper, and nothing more. It is making me sound like I am doing him down, which is not the case, but to give him that award purely on the basis that he has had a bit of a torrid time of late is unfair on others who have not been as bad, and yet still managed to contribute more to the victory than he did, that's all.

Why on Earth not? Of course it should be judged in context. Taken in isolation, Lance Armstrong winning his first Tour is praisworthy but nothing more. In the context of his recovery from testicular cancer, it is one of the more remarkable and outstanding performances in the history of the Tour. The whole point is that Mildew has shown great character by rising above (sorry) the chants for Tich, and putting in a praiseworthy performance, capped by staying on the pitch when most would have gone off. Whether that is enough to merit man of the match is an entirely personal and subjective decision, but fbm has very articulately shown that it is not unreasonable to make that decision, and certainly not an irrational and patronising one as you have tried (and I may say failed) to make out.

:finger:

 

[Richard_Cadette]

Totally agree, people are going overboard.

He had very little to do and whilst he did that ok its hardly a man of the match performance.

People are only doing it as he got injured and thankfully he only had a shot and pass pack to deal with when hurt.

He deserves a pat on the back for staying on but nothing more.

RC and JM in "agreeing with each other on a Southend United related issue" shock... whatever next :)

 

[A Century United]

It can be based on nothing else apart from his performance over the 90 minutes on Saturday

WHY? You haven't given one argument to explain that, and just stating it doesn't make it so. Context informs EVERY debate.

 

[fbm]

but to give him that award purely on the basis that he has had a bit of a torrid time of late is unfair on others who have not been as bad, and yet still managed to contribute more to the victory than he did, that's all.

That's not what was said. If you re-read my original post it's several factors all coming together at the same time - the lack of confidence, the subsequent solid performance, the bravery and the consequences of what would have happened had he come off (which would have been a very easy option for him to take given recent events) which meant that, in my opinion, it was his actions that were most influential in us beating Hereford.

I agree Betsy played well and had his best game for the club. But I would love to know why you think others contributed more to the victory than Mildenhall. Did Betsy score? No. Did he make the goal? No. Did he make any last ditch tackles or goalline clearances? No. So it could be argued that whilst playing well, we may well have still won anyway. So what exactly did he contribute to the victory?

Incidentally, to qualify the above... if we had been 3 or 4 up I reckon Mildenhall would have come off, as he would if we had a sub keeper. At only one nil he took the decision, against medical advice, to play on for the benefit of the team in order to try and secure the result.

Because of that, Hereford didn't pepper the goal with long range shots or put dangerous crosses in under the bar. We were able to hold a higher line and keep them at bay. That is purely down to Mildenhall simply being there.

If anyone can therefore tell me how any individual contributed more to that victory then I'd like to hear it.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

Why on Earth not? Of course it should be judged in context. Taken in isolation, Lance Armstrong winning his first Tour is praisworthy but nothing more. In the context of his recovery from testicular cancer, it is one of the more remarkable and outstanding performances in the history of the Tour. The whole point is that Mildew has shown great character by rising above (sorry) the chants for Tich, and putting in a praiseworthy performance, capped by staying on the pitch when most would have gone off. Whether that is enough to merit man of the match is an entirely personal and subjective decision, but fbm has very articulately shown that it is not unreasonable to make that decision, and certainly not an irrational and patronising one as you have tried (and I may say failed) to make out.

:finger:

FBM has offered his opinion, in an equally articulate manner, as I have done - it happens to be different to mine, but is no more worthy or accurate.

I have never said that people choosing to award him their MOTM award was anything other than personal opinion, in fact, if you had bothered to read ALL of my posts on this subject, you will see I have said it is a game of differing opinions (This is not the first time you have been guilty of quoting me without reading everything I have written on a given subject).

I do, however, reserve the right to disagree with others views on certain aspects of a match, and in this case, I disagree strongly that Mildenahll was MOTM. IN MY OPINION I do indeed believe it patronising to award such an accolade on a professional goalkeeper who in essence did all that was asked of him, and no more.

By your own admission, you're not convinced that he was our best playeron the pitch, and so if that is indeed true, how is it not patronising to him to say he was?

I'm sorry, but if someone came up to me and told me I was the best and most important contributor to a piece of work, when I knew full well I wasn't, I would feel as though I was being patronised.

You may feel I have failed to make the point - I respectfully disagree with you. I'm struggling to think of another way I can say it to be honest, and if you can't grasp my point by now, then I guess you never will.

 

[Richard_Cadette]

WHY? You haven't given one argument to explain that, and just stating it doesn't make it so. Context informs EVERY debate.

Because when you are judging something subjectively, you should not allow external issues or thoughts cloud your judgement, that's why. If we are to judge without prejudice, then we have to judge on what we see in front of us - is that clear enough for you? I may think you're a complete idiot, but if I allow myself to judge the content of your post based on such bias, than that is not particularly subjective is it?