Gillingham loanies

Well we brought in 6 loanies so far this season. How have they done.
Medley. Well he has been very hit and miss. 5/10
Coyle. Looks like a good finisher but not played very often in league.6/10
Drysdale. Similar to Medley hit and miss.5/10
Eccles. I think been good mostly. Had best game against Rochdale. 7/10
Robertson. Similar to Eccles had some good games especially against Rochdale 7/10
O Conner. Don't think has been as good as last season yet, still not sure what is his best position. 6/10
So question is can we offload any of these back to their clubs in January and possibly get new loanies. They are all young so consistency was always going to be hard.
For me I would try to let Medley and Drysdale go back if possible. This would depend on who replaced them though.

 

I couldn't even have told you who we had on loan with our patchwork quilt team, and rating them is even harder, because none of them have had a fair consistent run out or they have been shoved from position to position around injuries and sending off match bans.

You could have stuck @alwaysright in goal and @grumpygit up front, while @itstimupnorth was behind the scenes buying the club for one peppercorn, personally I think he paid too much. Me...ah I'm just the guy at half-time that prods the turf with a fork, it's quite satisfying.

Anyway more seriously, I think Medley is ok, he's not going to set the world alight but he does what's asked off him, and personally I don't think that position is as a CB. While Robertson or Robinson as I normally wrongly call him, makes his presence felt on the pitch, and don't think I can ask for much more than that. Coyle as you state, good finisher, needs more opportunity, but the gaffer prefers the big boys. On that note, I would build the team differently, and Coyle would get a fairer shout, alongside the likes of Graham, once he's recovered from his injury. I can't really add much more than that for now. Basically no one has done badly, but no one has performed to an extent that makes me say, we defo must keep them, but out of the six, Coyle and Medley I'd like to see more of them. I'll leave the hoof ball boys to the real man in charge.

 

gioblues may have seen more games than brb - and certainly gives an accurate assessment ( although I wouldn't be quite so kind towards Medley ! ) Drysdale has been more of a disappointment when he has been given an opportunity - so both can go !

With regards to the others - they ( and the team in general ), have not been helped by the tactics that have been deployed -- either on instruction or by 'default.' The performance against Rochdale illustrates that Gills can play on the floor. We can pass ( fairly quickly ), and move - thus creating goal scoring chances ( without relying on Graham. ) Dempsey, Robertson, Mc Kenzie. MacDonald, Coyle - ALL can play a bit, and can convert 35 -40% possession into reasonable chances to win games ( with midfielders chipping in with a fair number of goals ).... It won't always work - but it's a damned sight more acceptable than the ball just being hoofed straight to the opposition.

nb - to brb - I would prefer to be upfront on the left --- in my 'day' I was able to put in crosses on a sixpence - and 'assisted' with loads of goals.
ps - I haven't got a problem if you want to 'fork' the pitch !

 

Hmmm...

I said; none of them have had a fair consistent run out or they have been shoved from position to position around injuries and sending off match bans.

You said; they ( and the team in general ), have not been helped by the tactics that have been deployed -- either on instruction or by 'default.'

So considering both of our remarks are similar, why do you single Medley out?

In my opinion he's been affected by the same situation that has been applied to the rest of the team. Afterall you may have watched more games than me but you still managed to get confused on O'gilvie's ability, which was wrong.

And as @The Gills PegLeg would vouch, I'm 'alwaysright' about players!

nb; as for putting crosses in on a sixpence, we went decimal five decades ago

please log in to view this image

 

brb
Medley was awful v Doncaster ( admittedly the rest of them weren't much better )
O'Gilvie hasn't been too bad on the rare occasions that we have played on the grass -- other than that ( and for the MOST part ), I am not impressed with him. I believe that if we used tactics as at Rochdale, there may be better players who would force O'Gilvie out !

as for pre- decimalisation - it might have been the last time that Mr. Scally put any of HIS own money into the Club..... yes, I know that Mr. Scally didn't join us until over 20 years after 'New' money


it wasn't 5 decades ago ; 15th February 1971 ( NOT 5 decades - YET ! ) ..... I can't help being alwaysright

 

I suppose my idea of a team set up is certainly different to the gaffers. That's not saying he's doing anything wrong, it's just not my preferred approach. Those sort of tactics only worked under MadDog, but that's because he brought in players that knew how to deliver it with great effect. The Peter Taylor method is stained on my brain for life, I'm sure PT killed off any sense left in my head, basically he bored the hell out of me. In my ideal team I would use O'gilvie, Medley along with the likes of Dempsey, Graham and Jackson to great affect and it wouldn't be in defence (except Jackson), with Coyle being the young fresh legs up front. In defence that's where your big boys should be, or those with an experienced head such as Fuller. Tucker does ok, he just needs some guidance. Basically we'd be the Leeds United of L1 if I was in charge, either that or thrown in the looney bin by the fans.

 

Anyway, where's @gioblues gone, we've kept his thread warm for him.

 

Thought said everything in my post

 

I'm not sure what to say here, we are looking at young players who come cheap, they are not used to the physicality of playing in a real league where points matter.

I will go for Medley as he is the one who has been criticized, He is a nightmare at CB, because he has the tendency to try playing football on the 18 yard line instead of going for the hoofball., if he loses possession oop's.
On the other hand at left wingback, he gets forward well and puts in some good crosses, 2/3 years time and he might be on MOTD

 

Seeing it's Christmas - I'll be a bit more charitable....
brb mentions O'Gilvie being used in a more 'forward' role -- and that's where he is more beneficial ( but I'm not sure if he is ahead of others in my 1st eleven )
Medley is NOT a centreback ( at least, not good enough - even to be in a Gills team )
Much of the 'wrong' that has occurred may have been down to the wrong tactics from Evans (( or, at least too many times when the same tactics failed and were not changed. ))
We won't always succeed with the tactics used at Rochdale - but - we have seen the same tactics used against us by very ordinary opponents - who have made us look stupid. There are plenty of 'ordinary' teams in L1... there is no reason why the aforementioned tactics shouldn't be effective -- AND, a damned sight better viewing.... and might bring some unexpected success ----- if people remember - when Wycombe came to Priestfield, they had been undefeated, and looking good. We played good football that day, and fully deserved to win - against a very 'ordinary' side - who went on to gain promotion - despite only being capable of ordinary football......
Please Santa, can you give a gift to The Gills - to play 'ordinary' football.

 

You're right about Medley, which was what I was trying to say in my own little very long winded way. Medley is crap at CB, but on the wing he's ok, which is why I think the lad should be given a chance.

 

Oh....don't get me started on Wycombe.

Ok, I'l say it as it is, they should NEVER have been promoted, and they've performed exactly how I expected them to in the Championship, hence why they are bottom!

 

brb -
But - Wycombe were promoted!.. Admittedly via a dubious decision --- a decision that was on offer to all sides in L1 --- all the 'ordinary' sides in L1.... a decision that exposed just how very ordinary are most sides -- so no reason why Gills shouldn't be successful in L1...
... However, survival in the Championship is a different matter - being made more difficult each year with the amount of parachute payments for half the league in a space of two or three years....
... I'm afraid that Gills would be likely to struggle.

 

I would allow them 2 seasons to stabilize before expecting a top 3 finish.

 

I wouldn't give them 2 seasons before expecting a bottom 3 finish

 

We don't want all these negative vibes, I will campaign to have you sacked and demand a new manager.

 

And that is exactly why we shouldn't get promoted (unless a billionaire fairy godmother meets Scally's financial demands).

 

Well since praising Eccles and Robertson as being best two loanies both have been poor. Is it them or manager tactics ?

 

@alwaysright @grumpygit

please log in to view this image

 

brb - thank you for the 'bait.' .....I don't profess to being an expert football manager - but can give my opinion - based on much observation.

Over its' entire history, Gills have had little ( only modest ) success. Financial constraints have dictated the quality of player recruitment. The outcome is that - invariably, Gills have attracted players who ( for the most part ), are not going to excel and elevate the Club into the upper reaches of the football pyramid....... Too many teams have players that are better than Gills............... so - how do we compete ? - Well, before we discuss tactics, I will remind everyone that - because of the quality of our recruitment, Gills probably won't be able to compete at anything more than League 1 --- or for not very long in the Championship.

Tactics - I am unsure if any manager - or their tactics, will achieve much with the 'quality' of our squad. Tactics will have to be deployed according to the relative ability of the players - if we have any hope of gaining a point(s) from matches.

For several years - and far too often ( for my liking ), Gills have played 'hoofball' - usually to a lone striker- whereby the midfield is 'bypassed.' It is awful to watch - and seldom successful. I believe that 'hoofball' invites the opposition to have three centre backs - who can easily deal with our lone striker......which is why we don't score often when we use a 4-5-1 formation... This allows the opposition greater possession and to have the luxury of extra midfielders - to deploy in their 'passing' game - thus put our defence under pressure. Eventually the lack of possession, and constant defending, will lead to concession of a goal..... So, 4-5-1, whilst useful in certain individual situations - such as defending a lead with a few minutes to go - is not a tactic that is to be trusted if we hope to not lose - let alone win many games

When Gills set up as 4-4-2, it gives the team a better chance to score ! The extra man upfront doubles this chance ! Scoring goals will still be dependant on player ability - so I still never expect miracles... 4-4-2 also means that the opposition ( usually ), have to adapt - probably by also using an extra defender - at the expense of a midfielder - thus reducing their effectiveness in that area of the pitch...... which gives Gills a better chance to compete in midfield - and - (hopefully), relieving some pressure on the defence if we have more possession of the ball.....Over the years, I believe that a 4-4-2 formation has given Gills more success than any other set up......... and, of course, the success of any formation is still dependant on the overall ability of the players --- so, whilst I don't expect huge success with any formation, I believe that 4-4-2 gives Gills a better chance of not losing. ..... And, of course, 4-4-2 surely is a better set up if all we're going to do is lump the ball !.... (( perhaps we should give 4-2-4 a go ))

Currently, Steve Evans has often started with 3 centre backs. This is not working ! Our wing backs have not got the quality or pace to be effective when going forward - and when possession is lost, they ( especially Jackson - the well known 'fart-in-a-trance' ), are unable ( or unwilling ) to get back to defend. I understand that 3 centre backs will allow for more personnel in midfield - but - why do we than still hoof the ball, instead of passing it ?? -- Is it because the midfielders are not good enough ? Is Evans relying on quantity of numbers in midfield - rather than quality ? - but - strangely enough, Gills seem to become a little more competitive in games when Evans changes to a 4-4-2 formation ---- mind you, by then, too often. we may be chasing the game............ So - it greatly saddens me every time we start with 3 centre backs, or with just 1 upfront - because the same scenario evolves - inasmuch that we look too vulnerable at the back - a situation that doesn't get addressed until we are losing.

I continue to remind you that any formation is dependant on the limited ability of our players. I can understand and appreciate that - according to the prevailing circumstances, the formation may need to be different - but -I believe that Evans is using (( often starting with )), a formation that is not best suited to the limited abilities of the players, and the team as a whole........

.... Like I said - I am no expert - but - all of the above is mu opinion.