Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Plymouth' started by sensiblegreeny, Mar 27, 2018.
4-0 Lameiras 88mins.
We improved our goal difference to plus 4.....unfortunately so did Charlton.....they do have a game in-hand although 2pts behind.
Not to be honest the best I've seen from PAFC this season but FAR too good for Southend.
By enlarge, back to our miserly best in defence with the return of Sonny Bradley and Lameiras twinkling his way past people at will. Wish he wouldn't do it in his own final third though.
Carey has a poor first 30 minutes but ended up scoring 2. The second took a generous deflection but was justified by the glorious passing that led up to it.
Taylor led the line with courage and verve although looked for a moment as though he might be sent over after aerial clash number 704 led to Southern mobbing the ref.
A very well deserved score line.
MoM - team spirit. Such a militant performance all all-round.
The scoreline says it all so no need for a match report as such. Argyle were far too good for Southend and to be fair Southend were a fairly poor bunch despite their improved form of late. The scoreline could have been almost anything. Don't think Taylor was that close to being sent off. I know the Southend players tried their best to influence the Ref but it never looked like he was going to show a Red. The lino flagged for the foul and to be honest from where I sit I had no idea what was supposed to have gone on. The Ref didn't even speak to the lino. Not surprised Taylor was subbed because S outhend were trying hard for the second yellow on him and the match was won anyway.
Solid in defence apart from a few blips. Solid in midfield generally throughout and halfway decent up front almost throughout with one or two glaring misses that could have easily been more goals. MOM for me was Lameiras who was everywhere and always wanting the ball. Agree with notdistant though that sometimes he just needs to make the simple pass and not try the spectacular. Carey cocked up his hattrick himself trying too hard for me. He is like Lameiras because he tries the spectacular too often when the simple would do. Now comes the run of games that will decide the end of season programme. What a trio of games. Scunthorpe followed by Peterborough followed by Portsmouth.
Very good day at the office and hopefully the weekend results will continue into tomorrow.
I obviously have have a slightly different perspective. I thought we we outstanding today, as we have been all week. Lameiras was a joy to watch and should have been motm. Carey did okay(!) . Could /should of been 5 or 6 .Delighted to see sonny back.
For the first time in 15 months I have 3 days off.
Your perspective seems about the same as mine lyndie so not sure what was slightly different. Outstanding would have been 5 or 6 so not perfect obviously. Whole team did a job today and nobody much could go home unhappy. Oh hang on this in Janner land so maybe that isn't quite true there is bound to be a few.
I'm not carping either Lyndhurst but against better teams, giving the ball away unnecessarily is potentially fatal. Both Lameiras and Vyner overplayed on a couple of occasions, although you can't criticise them for lack of ambition.
Overall, it was a cracking performance, which as Sensible says, could easily have been 6-0 if the penalty had gone in and Songo'o had got a touch at the far post. On top of that was all the other good approach play that could have led to something.
I presume BTW that Southend's attempts on goal statistic was the one that flew over the bar at 150 feet and landed in Row T of the Barn Park End! Got to feel sorry for that ball boy!
Matthews did make a save where he parried a fierce shot back into the path of an opposition player who kicked air instead of the ball and it was cleared. That was on target and the only save I remember him making all game.
Out of curiosity I just looked up the stats as you had mentioned them. According to the Beeb stats they had 12 shots of which 4 of them were on target. My reaction to that is ??????????. It must include attempts that rolled along the ground at one mile per hour and Remi put his foot on before dispatching it down field. We apparently had 14 attempts which if they did have 12 seems around half of the true number.
They didn't though, did they ?!. .........well they did for us
They had 2 real chances I think - the Remi Matthews parry that you've mentioned above Sensible and a low surface-skimming cross from the Grandstand side that was just missed by one of them at the far post. That's it.
You weren't so chufty a few weeks ago on your board though were you Wooperts. You didn't even have a matchday thread when you were losing and most of you were crying into your keyboards thinking any chance of promotion had gone. Couple of wins and up you pop. Best of luck to your lot if you make it. We are quite happy if we stay in this division this season and anything else is a bonus. I won't be crying into my cocoa if we don't manage the playoffs. Typical of a Naval Port though, Pompey coming up the rear to make a splash.................
I was watching the goals and stuff on various outlets and meant to ask a question of others before now. If Edwards got a straight Red card earlier in the season for supposedly "preventing a goal scoring opportunity as the last man" why did the Southend player who brought Grant down not even get booked? He was clearly the last man and he clearly prevented a goal scoring opportunity so why nothing. Didn't change the outcome of the game but might have affected the goal difference at the end of the season which can be worth a point.
It is the clear as mud new 'double jeopardy' guidance on fouls in the box . I think, from memory that if it is just a foul in the box (regardless of whether it is a goal scoring opportunity or not) then it it a penalty and possible yellow. If it is a dangerous or reckless challenge in side the box then it can still be a red card and a penalty, and if it is outside the box and denying a goal scoring opportunity then it can still be a red. In the situation on Saturday the ref got it correct.
Ok so Edwards was sent off because????????????????????????? His challenge was neither dangerous or reckless. All he did was what the Southend player did. He didn't even get a yellow and Edwards got a red. I can't understand what the difference was and even having had a discussion about it after the event I still don't get it now. Nor could any of my group either.
I think it was more likely that the ref was wrong for the Edwards incident, though to be honest I cant remember the actual circumstances of his sending off, Thank fully it feels like that was a long time ago.
Just looked it up and Ry Edwards has been sent off twice this season - 12/9/17 v Blackpool (2 Yellows) and the time you are refering to on 18/11/17 v Oxford. Having refreshed my memory , the double jeapardy rule is all about intent to play the ball (Law 12 s 5). So, on Saturday their player was considered to be attempting to play the ball , hence no sending off; but V Oxford the ref decided that Ryan was not attempting to play the ball, hence the sending off. I remember it now as there was some debate at the time whether we should appeal the red card, but as we couldnt prove that the ref had made a 'clear and obvious' mistake, there was no point.
Well that makes no sense as I remember the Edwards incident, not that that is your fault Lyndhurst.
As I remember it, the incident too place at the junction of the 6 yard box and the goal line i.e. the attacker was not in a realistic position to score, being at a very narrow angle. Neither was he in much of a position to make a killer pass. That being the case, why would any defender simply bring the attacker down with no attempt to win the ball? It makes no sense.
Grant on the other hand was hauled down with only the keeper to beat in the centre of the goal. The defender didn't play the ball but had every incentive to stop Grant getting a shot off, as witnessed by the fact we missed the penalty.
I tell you, this game is going to the dogs!
I can't see it either notdistant. It's just arbitrary dependant on what the Ref had for breakfast that day. The non decision wasn't even mentioned on pasoti that I saw although I don't read it all. I would have thought somebody somewhere would have mentioned it. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference now.
I agree entirely - it is down to what the ref thinks at the time so it is rarely worth challenging the decision. It is all about intent or rather what the ref thinks the intention is. It is impossible to prove that the ref assessed the situation wrongly even if everyone thinks they did.