Just because I like a good moan.................... doesn't mean that I always enjoy having to do it ! It hasn't escaped my notice that ( the lovely man that he is ), Steve Lovell spends a lot of his time with his arms folded - and very quiet ! I never see him venting his spleen, and spitting fire. I am not suggesting that he should grab any under-performing player, drag him off the pitch and insert a rocket of appropriate length - but I would like to see Lovell display any passion he may have for the Club........ I do not agree with a public humiliation of individuals (( however much it may be justified )) - but I can't help noticing that most of the 'successful' clubs have managers who are very vocal -- Ferguson, Klopp, Conte, Mourinho, etc - even Steve Evans, to name just a few. What have we had at Gills in recent years - Mr.Lovell ( lovely man ), Mr. Pennock ( lovely man ), Mr.Edinburgh (man), Mr. Stimson, even Mr.Hessenthaler's last stint -- ALL of them spent a lot of time doing an impression of statues -- instead of throwing some hairdryers onto the pitch.......... at the moment all I see is the players being pampered with all the carrots they can eat. I don't see any stick** ! edit ** I only got six of the best once -- I made sure it didn't happen again.
Well with Evans turning up Saturday he needs to show a bit of Hessy passion, handbags on the touchline will at least distract from the football.
Pegleg, sadly, I am unsure if MA could bark loud enough for our players to hear - but at least he would have tried. With the lack of quality that the team is showing, I fear relegation is more certain than not
I'm not sure that the quality isn't there. I rather feel that the problem lies in the coaching and tactics. In other words, quite close to where we were this time last year. Don't all jump on me - I make this judgement after seeing just one game rather than the many that most posters on this forum will have seen. But yesterday I did see some quality. Unfortunately it wasn't all the players, and not for all the game, but I'm not sure I was watching round pegs playing in round holes.
Coaching and tactics? Garmston made a feeble attempt at a tackle for their first goal, having been on the wrong side of a player then just gave up running when he failed. The 2nd goal Garmston stood statuesque offering little. The 3rd goal Garmston slipped leading to the goal. I don't mean to pick on Garmston as they were all as bad, Eaves first effort that was never going in, yet he ignored the players who were in a better scoring position, that's why he might score a few but has a terrible record for goals to shots ratio and assists. The midfield don't get back and defend enough (as other team do) with their first goal yesterday why was Ehmer so high up the pitch from a goal kick, had the first ball been defended by a midfielder, Ehmer would have been in place to defend the second, Ehmer should be banned from moving more than 30 yards from the goal, then he might be in position occasionally.
Why does this keep happening. Each time that we end up playing poorly under the last few regimes it's always been due to the same reason. Our midfield not supporting the defence enough and Ehmer taking it on himself to try and bridge the gap between defence and midfield often leaving him massively out of position. I don't want to pick on Ehmer specifically but under Pennock, Edinburgh and Taylor this all became an issue of the midfield not supporting the defence and Ehmer taking it on himself to do it all. Is it just the quality of the midfielders not putting the shift in? I just can't yet my head around why this keeps occurring and then leading to the inevitable sacking of a manager/coaching staff.
I think we have two problems, Ehmer likes to get forward but is slow to get back, our midfield take the title seriously, they don't go forward and don't go back. Most opposition teams lose the ball and start to close down/defend immediately, our players wait like statues to see what's going to happen before committing themselves to run back into defensive positions, by the time they've made their mind up the balls in the net.
This is interesting and i should say i like Garmston. I wasn't there so am relying on video footage. On initial review i laid some blame quite heavily on Garmston. However, then i read itstimupnorth's opinion on the star player thread and he was at the game, and it appeared itstimupnorth gave him a good review. Therefore i think to base a fair opinion we maybe need to see the whole game, rather than clips that a cameraman has taken. Trying to give Garmston benefit of doubt, via someone that was actually there But fantastic discussion, hope i haven't rudely butted in. Just wanted to share that angle on things.
I have to be honest and say I wasn't there, I did listen to the radio commentary, followed on GFC twitter feed and on the BBC live text feed, also watched extended highlights. All of the above seemed to indicate Garmston getting beaten on far too many occasions, if however itsimupnorth was there then he will have a better all-round opinion of the game.
Hi grumpygit, i did see it the same as you, i probably would have said exactly the same. It wasn't until i saw itstimupnorth's comments in the star player thread and later review, it threw a different complection on things. It's great to have good debate though.
Lovell's selections recently though certainly haven't helped matters. O'Neill as part of a front three? Parker/Wilkinson/List playing the number 10 role? Playing List on the wing when he publicly stated he would only play him as a striker to then publicly berate List. Pressure might be slightly getting to the Welsh Wizard.
One of the big problems I see is the defensive midfield role, or the lack of anyone to play that role, that is why I think we should try Fuller there. It might not work but he will give 100% effort and definitely won't be worse than those who have played there so far.
I've now had a look at the highlights, and have to admit that the evidence against Garmston on the first goal is a bit more damning than I originally thought. However I also agree that the midfield plays too high and doesn't cover back as they might. I don't know if the midfield are supposed to play as a line of 3, or whether there are supposed to 1 or 2 of them who are supposed to be more inclined to cover back in defence. If that is the case then the following is an incorrect analysis of the first 2 goals, because they didn't, so the blame would lie more with them. But anyway, as I see it from the video .. For the first goal I'd actually lay the blame more on Ehmer for missing his header. I'm sure that Garmston wouldn't have been expecting the ball to fall near him from that position, and Andrew was just a bit sharper and in an advantageous position. Lacey then missed a much more simple tackle which was still outside the penalty area, so he had the chance to be far more forceful in a tackle without the danger of giving away a penalty. If the initial header had been the responsibility of a defensive midfielder (which makes sense in the middle of the pitch) then Ehmer would not be stranded a third the way up the pitch leaving the rest of the defence vulnerable. Of all those involved I'd say Garmston, while not being absolved, was the least to blame. Second goal, again Ehmer is the most advanced but doesn't get a strong enough head on the ball. It drops to Rathbone who plays it forward to Gillam who pushes it forward to Henderson. At least Ehmer tried to get back to cover the goal line, and fair play to him on that one, but it was his initial failure to clear the ball that led to the goal. Garmston was marking Andrew and was right not to get drawn inside to the play. He's a wing back, after all, and if he'd have been any further back then he'd be playing all the Rochdale attack onside inside the penalty area. I'd say no blame to him on that one. Third goal, as I've mentioned in my memories, Garmston slipped. We've seen it before, we'll see it again. Because Lacey has gone over to mark Andrew, Fuller has been pulled too close to the far post and Andrew was clever (whether intentionally or not) to play a deeper cross as that's where the space had been created and Fuller hasn't got time to get to Abraham before he puts the cross in. After that it was just a very well taken goal. On Garmston's play generally, Andrew will be a handful for far better players than Garmston. In general I thought he kept him quiet - apart from the 3rd goal of course. He did also manage to get forward a fair bit, which when your job is to mark a pretty dangerous wide player is not always easy to do. No, he didn't have a perfect game, none of them did, but I thought that given the overall difficulty of the job facing him he did very well. Last night I heard part of a phone in to SL on Radio Kent who made all sorts of politically neutral noises about injuries and young players and that he was confident that we'd be alright in the long run (to quote a well known 1960's courtesan, well he would, wouldn't he). Last season he took Adie Pennock's rag bag squad of apparent misfits and used them to keep us up. This is now his squad. I think he's got the players, he just needs to get the tactics right.
Itsimupnorth, I did concede that with you being there your opinion was probably better than mine, part of my opinion was formed by the fact that Garmston has been the weak link in defence a lot this season.
The problem on Saturday was that no-one appeared to be playing the no. 10 role. O'Neill and Parker played wide just in front of the midfield 3, so Eaves was very much on his own. I'm not trying to pick a fight or blindly defend an opinion. It's just the way I saw it. Others probably saw it differently, but without knowing what the actual tactical intention was it's impossible to pass definitive judgement on players. The bottom line is that whatever the tactical plan was, assuming there was one, it didn't work.
