Clements Bye | Page 3 | Vital Football

Clements Bye

Voldemort? Not heard that one before.
"He who cannot be named". Why is Matt being ultra cautious there? Has he had a ticking off?

Brad agreeing with the whole article suggests possible regrets but we are where we are and need to push on.

He and his team has done such a marvellous job to turn things round off the pitch, they just need to set the club up for success on it.

Undoubtedly, something is brewing.
 
While I wholeheartedly appreciate the efforts of the Gills YouTubers and Matt in particular, as well as the Galinsons' willingness to engage with the fans, I do sometimes worry about them getting swayed by listening to those with the most prominent voices on social media.

Compared to what we had before, the openness at the club is fantastic, but glasnost is a tricky business. Twitter and Facebook can be sewers, which is why many people binned them off years ago, and certain individuals - I think we all know who - apparently treat them like fiefdoms. Brad and Shannon are admirably open to conversation, but they need to know their own minds too.

Alternatively, to set all our minds at rest, they could come on here and tell us what they're having for lunch and where the Queen's Head is.*





*Four foot from her tail
 
Last edited:
GillsBluenose said:
Voldemort? Not heard that one before.
"He who cannot be named". Why is Matt being ultra cautious there? Has he had a ticking off?

Brad agreeing with the whole article suggests possible regrets but we are where we are and need to push on.

He and his team has done such a marvellous job to turn things round off the pitch, they just need to set the club up for success on it.

Undoubtedly, something is brewing.
Click to expand...
A lot of people were perhaps over critical of Matt's support for Harris at the time if his departure. It was possibly the first time he and others were critical of the Galinson's. I would guess that now he has decided to tread more carefully. Might be part of the reason he has stepped back from any further review and preview shows for the rest of the season.
The last thing any genuine Gills fan wants is Brad and Shannon to jack it in before they have really got the thing going. I do wonder if Kenny Jackett could be first out the door?
Before B&S decided what further action to take.
 
Last edited:
I saw his interview with Harris and NH was very personable and enthusiastic about the project. They obviously got on very well and I can understand why Matt may have been upset to see him go so shortly afterwards.

It's all in the past now, but understandable nonetheless.
 
Agree that Matt using the “he who must not be mentioned” line is because of the stick he got online when he kept backing Neil. He got no stick or censure from Brad that I can recall, just other fans. A bit like GBn gets on here.

As for Brads reply to Matt’s “ramblings, WOW! Can’t get more open than that. And it sounds like there will be changes.

I don’t for one minute think that Matt’s letter, or other social media criticism of our set up and on field lack of success is what has prompted Brad here. I think he can see what we all see and knows that things haven’t gone to plan this season. He’s said so himself on numerous occasions over the last few months.

I think the first change is the one already mentioned last week about moving to the data analysis method of recruiting. That mentioned not only the data but also “personnel”. I get the impression that Hess’ days here are numbered, especially as HoR. Maybe he’ll have another job title or simply move on.

Gonna be an interesting summer methinks (mehopes).
 
The big question is will we (BG) identify the actual problem or if in fact it's even down to just one individual. IMO its a collective failure on the football side.

Really not convinced it's just as simple as that.

On the football side one thing is for sure, your only as good as your recruitment. That's the first thing you have to get right. Then you need to work out if the rest is right.

Question is who does BG see as being responsible for our underperformance/failure.
 
Last edited:
As usual a good piece by Matt, but I don't get this cherry picking a set of results and then averaging that out over a season. All teams have good and bad spells, they also have injuries, some at crucial stages like we had with Dack. The season runs from August to May as far as I know it's never run from January to September.
Also didn't Brad say in December that they knew what the problems were and were in the process of fixing them.
 
I think any players who perform less than 6/10 (and not injured etc) should be made to attend a fans forum where they explain why they deserve earning a lot of money for doing very little.

That should sort them out.
 
Gills77 said:
I think any players who perform less than 6/10 (and not injured etc) should be made to attend a fans forum where they explain why they deserve earning a lot of money for doing very little.

That should sort them out.
Click to expand...
I think the players should have gone home on the supporters coaches after Harrogate.
 
chris who said:
A lot of people were perhaps over critical of Matt's support for Harris at the time if his departure. It was possibly the first time he and others were critical of the Galinson's.
Click to expand...
Not wishing to go over old ground, but it is relevant here.

My reason for supporting NH as our manager was for many reasons, which I suspect reflected Matt's views too.

1. We all agree (I think) that NH is a nice guy - and Clem is as well. Do nice guys always lose? Well, Evans had started to, as well - in any case, not really relevant.

2. By the time Evans went, we were a shambles IMO. It seemed to me that Scally was already "winding down", we were close to needing snookers to stay up in League One. Dempsey and Graham had gone and I was expecting a very underwhelming appointment of a keen non league boss to work with sub standard players. When Harris was announced my mood changed from depression to sudden unexpected optimism almost in an instant. I'll never forget that, despite being a plastic.

3. In the first half of 2022-23, I admit that it was hard to defend actually being bottom of the table, despite the lack of any quality in the summer signings. Even then, I accepted that NH might be sacked but I asked the question - who would be doing a better job and want it? and didn't get many suggestions.

4. We turned it round in the second half of 2022-23 and both NH and the players must take credit for that. I think statistically Priestfield became more of a fortress than it had been for many years.

5. Because of the Galinson's takeover, I accepted that once we were safe, they may appoint a new, more dynamic manager with new ideas. They would certainly be able to attract a bigger pool of candidates by then, and they were entitled to make their own choice, Instead, they (seemingly) decided that NH was their man.

6. Then, after sitting on top of the division with a 100% record after 4 games, and then continuing to have a good home record with one exception (Colchester), NH was sacked after his first bad spell when we had only dropped below the play off positions on goal difference.
If the replacement had been picked and arrived a few days later, I would maybe have seen the reasoning but it became clear that we didn't even have one candidate let alone a succession plan.

7. We now know that even adding a player that creates a lot of chances (Hutton) using these wonderful "statistics" we are still a dull watch and don't score goals although we now concede a few more.

I really feel for SC as it seems to me that this was always going to be the wrong first job for someone who is not used to making the decisions or being autocratic when he needs to be.

It is the famous phrase "a steep learning curve" and he may come out triumphant or sink, if given the chance to continue. I like him and wish him well but Gills will always come first, above him, NH or any manager.
 
GillsBluenose said:
Not wishing to go over old ground, but it is relevant here.

My reason for supporting NH as our manager was for many reasons, which I suspect reflected Matt's views too.

1. We all agree (I think) that NH is a nice guy - and Clem is as well. Do nice guys always lose? Well, Evans had started to, as well - in any case, not really relevant.

2. By the time Evans went, we were a shambles IMO. It seemed to me that Scally was already "winding down", we were close to needing snookers to stay up in League One. Dempsey and Graham had gone and I was expecting a very underwhelming appointment of a keen non league boss to work with sub standard players. When Harris was announced my mood changed from depression to sudden unexpected optimism almost in an instant. I'll never forget that, despite being a plastic.

3. In the first half of 2022-23, I admit that it was hard to defend actually being bottom of the table, despite the lack of any quality in the summer signings. Even then, I accepted that NH might be sacked but I asked the question - who would be doing a better job and want it? and didn't get many suggestions.

4. We turned it round in the second half of 2022-23 and both NH and the players must take credit for that. I think statistically Priestfield became more of a fortress than it had been for many years.

5. Because of the Galinson's takeover, I accepted that once we were safe, they may appoint a new, more dynamic manager with new ideas. They would certainly be able to attract a bigger pool of candidates by then, and they were entitled to make their own choice, Instead, they (seemingly) decided that NH was their man.

6. Then, after sitting on top of the division with a 100% record after 4 games, and then continuing to have a good home record with one exception (Colchester), NH was sacked after his first bad spell when we had only dropped below the play off positions on goal difference.
If the replacement had been picked and arrived a few days later, I would maybe have seen the reasoning but it became clear that we didn't even have one candidate let alone a succession plan.

7. We now know that even adding a player that creates a lot of chances (Hutton) using these wonderful "statistics" we are still a dull watch and don't score goals although we now concede a few more.

I really feel for SC as it seems to me that this was always going to be the wrong first job for someone who is not used to making the decisions or being autocratic when he needs to be.

It is the famous phrase "a steep learning curve" and he may come out triumphant or sink, if given the chance to continue. I like him and wish him well but Gills will always come first, above him, NH or any manager.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of that mate.

The "cherry picking" of stats that Matt used is basically NH's record from when BG turned up, and he actually had some money to spend and invest in his own side.

His PPG this season alone, if extrapolated over a whole season (which may not have happened obvs) would have seen us in the autos at the moment. His PPG from when the Galinsons arrived would also have seen us in the autos last I checked...

My concern is that BG has gone for the American style/premier league style of running a sports club, where you have a front office in charge of getting the players in, and a head coach who's solely in charge of managing and organising that team.

The reason for my concern, is it just hasn't been done very often in the lower leagues, and do we honestly know whether Kenny Jackett or Andy Hessenthaler are actually competent enough for these jobs which, before they arrived, were both largely unproven in (I'm not sure if KJ had even been a DOF before).

My concerns then, are who is actually responsible? Was NH buying the players in the summer given he was the manager, to play his way? Was NH buying the players in the previous Jan, where it seemed it was just a case of "we badly need decent players, get him if he's available, we'll work it out later" which was needed and kept us up. And then also, who was in charge of the recruitment in Jan 2024, when a few lads came in and a few were moved out, I assume on Clemence's wishes, again following the stats possibly blindly. The Nicholls move confused tf out of me, he's moved to a side who's getting promoted, after being one of the main reasons we stayed up last year.

It's also worth bearing in mind, we have been unlucky too, Hurtado looked amazing, and if he hadn't got injured, he'd have really made a difference later on in the season, but alas, that's football.

It's all just very strange indeed, and for me, we either need to decide to stick or twist now, and commit to whichever one.

1. Stick with the current set up, and basically make sure they're on the same page with the kind of football they want to play, and highlight the players they want to do that - which may include moving on guys in the current squad who aren't necessarily suitable for that style, even if they are half decent footballers.

2. Twist - for me, get rid of the DOF. My fear is that "old football guys" like KJ, are just so good at surviving in this industry, and talking a good game, that those who aren't as experienced in football, like the Galinsons, will happily defer to their "good judgement". In industry, where people want and can have 10-20 careers within an company, this is a good thing. In football, where turnover is high, for me it's not.
 
Last edited:
GillsBluenose said:
6. Then, after sitting on top of the division with a 100% record after 4 games
Click to expand...
I wish people would drop this.

-Stockport were all over us.
-Sutton are near bottom and had a goal disallowed.
-Crawley missed a penalty

We then lost 2-0 to Grimsby and 3-0 to Colchester, both in bottom 4.

It was obvious at the time those first 4 results were flattering. Good teams don't fluke 1-0s.

Our record against bottom 4: W2, D3, L3. 9 points from 24?! Awful.

Only the bottom 5 have a worse goal difference.

We were in playoff contention for so long only because this league has been stupidly close. Recently we've had a reality check.

In terms of financial efficiency we probably wasted the most money (unless Salford or NC spent a lot?).

And it's best I don't comment on our management choice.
 
MedwayModernist said:
2. Twist - for me, get rid of the DOF. My fear is that "old football guys" like KJ, are just so good at surviving in this industry, and talking a good game, that those who aren't as experienced in football, like the Galinsons, will happily defer to their "good judgement". In industry, where people want and can have 10-20 careers within an company, this is a good thing. In football, where turnover is high, for me it's not.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.

I think this was a bit of a nice earner for someone with very little effort required.
 
MedwayModernist said:
1. Stick with the current set up, and basically make sure they're on the same page with the kind of football they want to play, and highlight the players they want to do that - which may include moving on guys in the current squad who aren't necessarily suitable for that style, even if they are half decent footballers.

2. Twist - for me, get rid of the DOF. My fear is that "old football guys" like KJ, are just so good at surviving in this industry, and talking a good game, that those who aren't as experienced in football, like the Galinsons, will happily defer to their "good judgement". In industry, where people want and can have 10-20 careers within an company, this is a good thing. In football, where turnover is high, for me it's not.
Click to expand...
Whether I agree with it or not, if we really are going down the data driven, statistical road of recruitment, long term dyed in the wool football people like KJ and AH are not likely to be the right people to lead it IMHO.

No point in being half in and half out. I actually almost wonder whether James King, being a modern agent, might have been more suited?

I don't even know whether Joe Comper worked under Wagmi at Crawley or moved on before their involvement but if they did cross, he may have made a connection with someone who could come in, hopefully with a less eccentric approach than being obsessed with heights and ages, like in the Nichols transfer to us.
 
Gills77 said:
I wish people would drop this.

-Stockport were all over us.
-Sutton are near bottom and had a goal disallowed.
-Crawley missed a penalty

We then lost 2-0 to Grimsby and 3-0 to Colchester, both in bottom 4.
Click to expand...
I take it you mean the away game, Gills77. I don`t remember it that way at all. We played a great midfield game and deservedly won. Hasn`t happened often this season, admittedly. But we were good at Stockport and looked solid, bided our time and slotted a winner. One of my favourite games of the season.
 
LancsGordoRoad said:
I take it you mean the away game, Gills77. I don`t remember it that way at all. We played a great midfield game and deservedly won. Hasn`t happened often this season, admittedly. But we were good at Stockport and looked solid, bided our time and slotted a winner. One of my favourite games of the season.
Click to expand...
They also didn't score against us at their place last season when we had about 5 players injured or ill as I remember. They also didn't score at our place this season, so I think I am right in saying they have scored 1 goal in their last 4 games against us.

Crawley may have missed a penalty but they have since beaten us with ease at Priestfield and have surged to the play offs, so I would humbly suggest that they were a difficult opponent.

And as for Sutton have a goal disallowed, was that a referee error or was there good reason for disallowing it? And hadn't they gubbed Notts Co 5-1 just previously so would have been brimming with confidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.