• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Post-Match Thread and Ratings Southend United 0-1 Boreham Wood

Breakdown of their goal? Sublime pass from Brunt inside Clifford, who got back into a half-decent position, but not enough to prevent the pull-back, both centre-backs (who did not check their shoulders once) made the same run towards the six-yard line and were therefore powerless to block their onrushing player.

They weren’t powerless. Kensdale didn’t even dip his toe in the bath let alone slide and block the shot.

Some are even scapegoating Clifford but he was trying to stop the most dangerous option which was across the 6yd box to the near post.
 
They weren’t powerless. Kensdale didn’t even dip his toe in the bath let alone slide and block the shot.

Some are even scapegoating Clifford but he was trying to stop the most dangerous option which was across the 6yd box to the near post.
I agree with you but we constantly concede this type of goal. Down our left hand side, low cross into the box and bam 💥. High cross and a good chance Arnold gets to it but a low first time shot always leaves Steve wanting unfortunately.
I would be interested to actually know how many goals we have conceded in this manner.
 
I agree with you but we constantly concede this type of goal. Down our left hand side, low cross into the box and bam 💥. High cross and a good chance Arnold gets to it but a low first time shot always leaves Steve wanting unfortunately.
I would be interested to actually know how many qgoals we have conceded in this manner.

The fact is we don’t mark players tight enough regardless of low cross, high cross or even set pieces.

There were some shockers towards the end of last season and it didn’t improve in the friendlies. An NL blocker and a EFL standard organiser is the answer.
 
So according to CP the ball was in play for 36 minutes during the match. I knew they were taking the ****, but didn't realise just how bad it was.

For comparison I believe normal is between 55 and 60 minutes.
 
So according to CP the ball was in play for 36 minutes during the match. I knew they were taking the ****, but didn't realise just how bad it was.

For comparison I believe normal is between 55 and 60 minutes.

This isn't good enough, we pay money to watch football; I personally think we need to look at stopping the clock when the balls not in play - I know not everyone agrees, but it's fair and the only way to stop time wasting; works fine in rudgy
 
This isn't good enough, we pay money to watch football; I personally think we need to look at stopping the clock when the balls not in play - I know not everyone agrees, but it's fair and the only way to stop time wasting; works fine in rudgy

Think it's mooted that the game should be 60 minutes. Baring in mind we got 36 mins in 103 mins of match time (90 normal +6 mins 1st half stoppage + 7mins 2nd half stoppage) we would have needed another 67 mins of game time to get the remaining 24 mins in play. Full time would've been about 18:05!!!!!
 
Think it's mooted that the game should be 60 minutes. Baring in mind we got 36 mins in 103 mins of match time (90 normal +6 mins 1st half stoppage + 7mins 2nd half stoppage) we would have needed another 67 mins of game time to get the remaining 24 mins in play. Full time would've been about 18:05!!!!!

But if the clock was stopped, teams wouldn't bother with time wasting, so I very much doubt games would go on that long
 
Must admit ive never once thought about changing the timekeeping in football. But perhaps a rule could be bought in where the ref has to allow a minimum of 60 or 70 minutes of in play football per game?
 
Only 36 minutes of play shows how good Boreham Wood are at their chosen method, but gee it stifles entertainment. Reminds me of the Leeds United of the early 70s (they became much more entertaining later in the decade).
 
But if the clock was stopped, teams wouldn't bother with time wasting, so I very much doubt games would go on that long

The time wasting is just as much about disrupting the flow and rhythm of play as wasting time .. I’m surprised that there was only 36 minutes of the ball in play and find it hard to believe. However the hot weather may have had something to do with it. We need the stats of how long injury stoppages were, how long substitutions took and how long drinks breaks took. In the end he added at least 15 minutes onto the 90. What should it have been to cover those three things?

How much of the 36 minutes did we spend passing it around at the back without going anywhere?

The game actually ended at 17.02 which doesn’t leave an old man like me much time to get to Prittlewell for the 17.12.
 
Back
Top