• 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 Utd 1-2 Cambridge Utd

It's not just about having seasoned pros up front performing to a high standard on a regular basis. Our seasoned pros in other positioned are not performing on a regular basis. JD is a prime example. Again his performance was full of flaws. Bad displays of discipline. Trying to con the referee unsuccessfully to get free kicks. Another stupid dive in the middle of the pitch that gave possession to Cambridge and resulted in a dangerous attack. He's a liability too often.
Agree....at least 3 in front of him for a start, bloke is a slow liability. Look at that ridiculous hatchet job he done on that bloke for his Country, ball was nowhere in sight. As for that ridiculous dive last night, embarrassing. Nasty little rat ars e cause he can’t keep up but another M.M favourite so he’ll stay a regular!
 
This is what my Cambridge supporting mate wrote:-"The wind won it! We got two nice goals, mind. Now we're top of the league!!"

I had to agree they were the better side in the second half and looked like they'll be there or thereabouts at the end of the season.Pity we didn't get a second in the first half though.
 
Immobile, can’t jump, not quck enough to get shots off, apart from that......

I am genuinely intrigued by the way he covers ground and fails to get off the ground when challenging for a header, i don;t think if ever seen a player quite like him. Has he been coached that way ??
i know he is a young lad which makes it even more intriguing, as he gets older he will be even slower across the pitch and less likely to get off the ground in aerial challenges.

He rarely runs channels , rarely gets beyond the back line and rarely wins his duals with CB's .

What do others on here think his strengths are ?
 
Agree....at least 3 in front of him for a start, bloke is a slow liability. Look at that ridiculous hatchet job he done on that bloke for his Country, ball was nowhere in sight. As for that ridiculous dive last night, embarrassing. Nasty little rat ars e cause he can’t keep up but another M.M favourite so he’ll stay a regular!

I've never been a massive fan of JD (even when he was first signed) but I certainly don't think he's one of MM's favourites in that he plays no matter what. He was one of the few experienced players available at the start of the season so MM had to go with them as there were only kids otherwise and am sure he wouldn't play so much if Macca was fully fit and able to play Saturday-Tuesday-Saturday on these heavy pitches.

Could see JD dropped/rested/rotated on Saturday IF Macca is fit enough to start.
 
Can't agree with this at all. Firstly, contact was essentially shoulder to shoulder I think. Even if not, only reason Hart 'took their player out' was because their player bottled a 50/50 ball. You can't legislate for that, and certainly shouldn't be penalising the player who's brave enough to go for a 50/50 ball in a contact sport. Game's gone.

Disagree, and that's the point. There are differing opinions. The ref. is entitled to his opinion. If he saw it differently then that's up to him. I don't think this is such a bad decision. Certainly I've seen much worse where I simply can't understand where the ref was coming from. On this occasion I can see that he had a point.
 
Immobile, can’t jump, not quck enough to get shots off, apart from that......

Last night he was only guilty, arguably, of one of those.

This is a thread for the Cambridge game - not season to date. And last night I saw Acquah run, win headers, pass and shoot. He wasn't spectacular, and he wasn't awful.

I still think we need a 'big lump' centre forward to lead the line, I don't think that player is Acquah. But credit where's its due - he did ok in last nights game.
 
I thought my question was obvious

Not really. I think you've interpreted "took him out" to be reckless, but that's not how it was meant. I simply meant he went into their player.

Moreover, Alan McCormack took one of their players out right from the 2nd half kick off and wasn't booked.
 
I’m not gonna do ratings. But I am going to defend Acquah here. In the past this season I have questioned his seemingly low interest. He’d look lethargic from the get go and never break out of a jog.

Particularly in the first half last night he had upped his game. He was pressing well, they all were, and he was being a real nuisance. To me his inclusion in the starting lineup made total sense to introduce the likes ANG & RHF on the hour.

He had a good scoring opportunity as well where he reacted quickly to a loose ball on the edge of the box.

I wouldn’t be against seeing him up front with Akinola again. I like a big man-little man partnership
Me too, as long as one of them is a different player to Emile.
I'm sure he's a nice bloke. The one you might even by a beer, but this season has become as traumatic as any I can remember in 50, and he ain't helping.
It's one of those where I wished I had access to detailed stats: passes, shots, interceptions, tackles, headers won, that sort of thing.
How well do you think he would do, percentage wise?
 
A more positive line up is a bit of a silly thing to say if you actually watched the game.

Regardless of the formation if you've got two 'wing backs' attacking, two forward attacking and a midfielder or 2 you've still got 5 or 6 men attacks.

4 4 2 - 5 or 6 men attacks

4 5 1 - 5 or 6 men attacks

Last night was not a negative line up, we could have been out of sight at half time. What on earth was negative about that setup, pressing high and hard, playing football in their third and creating chances.

Is it the numbers in the 'formation' that were negative?

We had 8 defensive outfield players starting, which is and we were lucky if we had 4 attacking at any one stage, so based on your formations above, I would have loved to have seen 5 or 6 attacking.

Most of our chances, if I recall, were from set pieces
 
I am genuinely intrigued by the way he covers ground and fails to get off the ground when challenging for a header, i don;t think if ever seen a player quite like him. Has he been coached that way ??
i know he is a young lad which makes it even more intriguing, as he gets older he will be even slower across the pitch and less likely to get off the ground in aerial challenges.

He rarely runs channels , rarely gets beyond the back line and rarely wins his duals with CB's .

What do others on here think his strengths are ?
Look at his running.
Anyone who's done a modicum of athletics will know about movement and force travelling in the same direction to improve cadence.
His shoulders rock, and it's wasted energy.
That bulk is going to cost him in the future.
Think of Premier League strikers. Do any have Emile's physique?
If you want a closer comparison look at Heskey running compared to Acquah. The former's is still more compact and effective.
That's something our Acquah CAN improve, and I wonder if anyone's spoken to him about it.
 
Seeing some criticism of the system we used which doesn't make much sense to me based on how the match played out. Sure, before the game the lineup and shape might have been a bit of a concern, but at the end of the day we had:
  • Akinola shot saved when through on goal.
  • Dieng put a free header straight at the keeper from a yard or two out.
  • Acquah through on goal but stopped by a great last ditch block.
  • Akinola hit the post in the 2nd half.
We probably created more good chances in this match than any other this season, so is the shape really 'defensive'? Not really. We had wave after wave of attack in the first half.

Sure Cambridge were certainly better in the 2nd half, but I think on the whole we created more chances than they did and the only real difference was that they were more clinical on the day. And to be able to say that when playing a team at the top of the table shows just how far we've come as a team.
 
Not sure why some people are treating a defeat to Cambridge as a disaster. Actually thats a lie, the real reason is we won the previous 4 games at home and haven't lost any of the '6 pointers'.

Which means the MM out brigade have had to suffer in silence, whilst the team they claim to support have greatly improved. At least we can now compete. Lockdown must be harder for these people than the rest of us....So don't be to harsh on them.

Most of us who actually watch the games can see with our own eyes that when the likes of Reeco hobble off 2 games in a row. He is likely to be rested on the Tuesday, rather than dropped as some on here are claiming. Especially when our manger hints at the obvious on Monday.

Credit to the MM out brigade claiming that your selection would have thrashed Cambridge is a free hit. Conveniently forgetting that we put 27 balls into the box v Grimsby and didn't score.

As for the game we were excellent in nearly all areas for the first 45. What impressed me most was our work off the ball because we pressed as a team. Their mistakes were forced by us and that includes Acquah wether you like him or not. Yes it was disappointing not to have a 2-0 lead at H/T but you don't create good chances against a top 3 side without winning the ball in the first place.

As for the second half....Well you have all been their on Sunday morning, defending the wind in the second half. Pork chop Hill is my personal favourite. If you weren't playing you must have watched friends or family etc. If not why are you on here?

The worse thing that can happen is an early goal for the oppo. Your plans of lets not concede for the first 10/15 are straight out the window and they almost steal your confidence and energy. Even a 3-0 lead looks shaky at that moment.

Yes Hart should have done more to be goal side for the 1st and seemed unaware that even though he was a marking for the second. That there was a spare player behind him, so in ideal world he would call Hobson or Dieng and they would all shuffle over one. having said that we had just cleared a corner and marking is always random after a corner.

Either way they were both great first touches, unstoppable finish for the 1st and undefendable for the second. That move with low hard cross is obviously something Cambridge work on as the nearly scored a 3rd with the same move.

When we hit the post 2mins later, you got that feeling that that would be it. When your a goal up with the wind its an easy game to play and Cambridge showed us how to see a game out in those conditions. Lets not forget recently, we have been just as good in seeing games out without a wind.

I thought the ref was 10x better than Saturdays. He knew the difference between contact and a foul. Harts challenge was fair in my world and he was clearly looking at the ball. Ref was going for the second yellow but again good professionalism by our lads. Hart stays down and that buys 'calm time' for Macca and White to make the ref come up with the right decision...No way did Hart deserve two yellows on the night.

On a positive note that might actually unite us all. If we are all moaning that we should have beat Grimsby away and Cambridge, then we wont be going down.....End of.
 
Last edited:
Winning yes, but not with a goal margin that the performance deserved. A more positive line up would have put Cambridge to the sword. A big opportunity lost.

Of course that's always easy to do against a team up the top of the division. How stupid of me

3 at the back with wing backs, 3 in the middle and 2 strikers is hardly a negative line up. In fact it's a rather positive and fluid line up unless you are old school and think it's 5 at the back at all times
 
Last edited:
You are also guessing at my preferences! "Smaller/Faster"... And your guessing/assumption.is incorrect... Why play Halford at the back when he was found out in that position against Barrow and increases the time on the ball of Hobson when he is not a ball playing defender? Why start with JD and not give Kyle Taylor the minutes on the pitch who is more of a threat going forward than JD. JD can always come on and try to protect score lines. I would have started either ANG or Hackett-Fairchild instead of Aquah just based on current and recent performances.

So to summarize my preferences are not just "smaller/faster" but are also a more positive line up at home against a team that we want to gauge ourselves against based on our recent good form and their justified position in the league.

A missed opportunity in my opinio...

How come you aren't managing Liverpool or Man City? I always thought Mourhino was the special one
 
Seeing some criticism of the system we used which doesn't make much sense to me based on how the match played out. Sure, before the game the lineup and shape might have been a bit of a concern, but at the end of the day we had:
  • Akinola shot saved when through on goal.
  • Dieng put a free header straight at the keeper from a yard or two out.
  • Acquah through on goal but stopped by a great last ditch block.
  • Akinola hit the post in the 2nd half.
We probably created more good chances in this match than any other this season, so is the shape really 'defensive'? Not really. We had wave after wave of attack in the first half.

Sure Cambridge were certainly better in the 2nd half, but I think on the whole we created more chances than they did and the only real difference was that they were more clinical on the day. And to be able to say that when playing a team at the top of the table shows just how far we've come as a team.

Doesn't fit in with the anti MM agenda though, he can't be given any credit
 
I know we can't play like Brazil for 90 minutes every week but we do seem to be a team of one-half. If we're not winning by half time we're unlikely to be by the end. Maybe too reliant on the quality to come from the old legs in the side maybe? Certainly suffering from K Taylor being out recently who's obviously quaility and young. whatever it is MM needs to sort it out. even when winning its all in the first half, with us generally clinging on for the second half. Stat man MM needs to do some analysing and work out what the problem is, I'm sure if we could play in the second half like we do in the first we'd fly up the table.
 
By your own admission you didn't watch the game @Shrimpet steve but you've managed several ultra critical posts of Emile Acquah's contribution. You are entitled to your opinion on players, and we get that you don't rate the lad, so how about broadening your feedback on a game you didn't watch to cover the actual game? Just a thought.
I was planning and looking forward to watching the game until I saw that starting lineup and that's what changed my mind! I've seen acquah play alot this season and
at both the live games we could attend.If I had watched the game last night I would still be saying hes not good enough because hes not just not good at football! I was following the reports on sky sports and I know we should have killed the game off in the first half when we had the wind and that akinola should have scored more! But dont worry I'm definitely getting the Mansfield game Saturday.
 
Back
Top