Team v Rochdale | Page 3 | Vital Football

Team v Rochdale

Dale 8 shots on target Gills 0 according to sky. We have hit 6 off target though to Dales 1.

Where do we go from here. Just one place above the relegation zone now.
 
I remember going to Rochdale the other season and leaving when the third went in. Good to see we’re still getting thrashed by Rochdale.
 
Well we wanted goals. Sounds like we were in the game. Is it just a case of waiting for a few things to click to turn things around?

It’s the risk you take. Peter Taylor went for nil nil and often got nil one.

If we turn some of those nil ones to an odd win or draw but also get spanked a few times surely that’s a step up.

Or maybe on the budgets we have to work in recent seasons trying to play expansive football is just plain naive?

Not sure what I think at the moment.
 
Yes, same as last season. SL, are you Ade in disguise? Ok, that's too harsh. Concerned for the bloke now after last week's meltdown.

Fatty Evans will feast on our defence next week.

It's going to be a tough season to put it mildly.
 
Maybe Martin, hess or Waggie were not as bad as we thought lol.

But why have we gone from all out attack with pace back to this crap?
 
We're just not organised without the ball and are so easy to score against. It wouldn't be so bad if teams were beating us by worldies, but they're shit simple goals to stop just by doing the basics.

We've had all week to work on a system, shape, set up and formation and we end up with this result, and this was the 'response' game.

Starting to fear that SL just can't get us organised, functional and playing a style that can be effective without us being porous. Having problems at both ends of the pitch is a massive concern IMO.
 
We looked very bright in the first half, but the defence let us down by going AWOL, heads dropped and that was that. The second half was painful to watch.
 
Just got back.

The performance wasn't as bad as last season; despite the same scoreline!

Credit to Rochdale. They had two tall wide men in Abraham and Andrew who won a lot of long ball and played in Henderson and Gillam to good effect all game.

The latter two worked really really hard. Defending from the front and chasing down every ball.

They also put a tall mobile centre back on Eaves so our inevitable long ball was completely ineffective. Eaves was completely isolated and cut a lone figure up front.

We were second best all over the park. Whilst the defence will be called out for giving away 3 goals, for me the problem is the 3 in central midfield. They are all too similar and don't get forward at all and don't provide enough protection to the defence. They also don't work hard enough without the ball.

I'm not sure where we go from here. We will be in a relegation battle all season i reckon and it doesn't seem we have the players up for the fight. Very concerning
 
Oh dear, well beaten in the end, a display that will leave plenty of people scratching their heads. Because, we started pretty well and it seemed that putting O`Neil up front, wide and level with Eaves, was going to work. Gills were dominating in the first half-hour, Parret was getting well into the game, then a couple of dreadful defensive lapses cost us dearly. And, that was it, game over. A really poor defensive display by the Gills - we really really missed Zak. He holds us together at the back and today, without him, we completely fell apart defensively.

Second half, we were just not in it.

In our own half, we won very little, if anything, in the air. On our right Wilbraham won everything against Fuller and neither of our central defenders put in a performance anywhere near good enough. And yet again, in a game where the ref was clearly happy to allow a physical game, we were physically dominated in most areas of the pitch. Much of the attention Eaves got seemed to be on the wrong side of fair but elsewhere, we simply struggled to compete, increasingly yielding more and more possession to `Dale. The exception for us was Parret. He was my MOM. He proved difficult to separate from the ball and he defintely made a positive difference to our midfield. The rest of that department went AWOL in the second half and we only looked livelier when List came on.

Eaves, Parret and List aside, this was a dreadful performance.
 
markinkent said:
List is probably a bit unlucky not to start BUT the prospect of him and Hanlan running at tired legs in the second half is quite nice.
Click to expand...

Surprised that Hanlan wasn't given much more time on the pitch. Including time added on, he must have seen about 10 mins max.
 
Hmmm I think Hanlon was rested as hes played a lot of minutes for a young lad - well that was the intention.
Im not sure the Ehmer Lacey partnership is working. Lacey looks good on the ball and plays it out which we did well for the first 15 mins or so and we should have been 2-0 up. I think the big difference is when we had the early chances v Accrington and Burton we took them and yesterday we didn't. This allows us to play a bit. We struggle if we dont score in the first 30 mins overall. I think Eaves was bullied all game by their centre half. So if the ref is going to allow fouling tough up and do it back don't make it easy for him. Byrne and Reilly were weak for me and strangely for Reilly he was quite poor in the tackle and sat off and was slow to come across to cover the wing at times.Parker wasn't really in the game so if these 2 aren't scoring where are the goals coming from ?
We started 433 and were doing well then it seemed to change to the diamond at one point for 10 minutes or did I get this wrong ? and then back to 433 when that wasn't working.
I still think when everyone is back we will be ok but we are shipping a lot of wasted points now
 
Just seen the goals. Awful defending; The 1st two goals were just weak defending, where they powered through our powder puff defence. The last goal was just schoolboy defending. When the cross came in, their guy was on the edge of the area to bring the ball, totally on his own. He then crossed it in for their guy to score, again totally unmarked.

I can only assume we're missing Zak more than ever!
 
kettners said:
Hmmm I think Hanlon was rested as hes played a lot of minutes for a young lad - well that was the intention.
Im not sure the Ehmer Lacey partnership is working. Lacey looks good on the ball and plays it out which we did well for the first 15 mins or so and we should have been 2-0 up. I think the big difference is when we had the early chances v Accrington and Burton we took them and yesterday we didn't. This allows us to play a bit. We struggle if we dont score in the first 30 mins overall. I think Eaves was bullied all game by their centre half. So if the ref is going to allow fouling tough up and do it back don't make it easy for him. Byrne and Reilly were weak for me and strangely for Reilly he was quite poor in the tackle and sat off and was slow to come across to cover the wing at times.Parker wasn't really in the game so if these 2 aren't scoring where are the goals coming from ?
We started 433 and were doing well then it seemed to change to the diamond at one point for 10 minutes or did I get this wrong ? and then back to 433 when that wasn't working.
I still think when everyone is back we will be ok but we are shipping a lot of wasted points now
Click to expand...

To be honest Kettners, I don't think we were playing a system at all. For quite a lot of the time, we had 3 at the back because Garmeston was level with the midfield "line". And Parker was on the right (which isn't his best position), but again level with the midfield "line".

This led to us having 3 at the back, but biased to the right with a hole behind Garmeston! And Parker was so far from Eaves that they could only communicate via mobile phones.

I've said before (last season) that Garmeston is either good as a left back, or good going forward. He seems (to me) to not be able to combine the two. Personally I'd have him concentrate on the defensive position as he's got the makings of a damned good left back, but only an average winger. And Parker needs to be a lot closer to Eaves and more on the left than right.

However, in defence of the two I've mentioned, I have no idea what the midfield were doing. Generally they were so close to the back 4 (3?) that at times we seemed to be playing a 9-1 formation to be honest. Or a 7-2-1 with Parker and Garmeston in front of the back 7 (but again with the hole behind Garmeston). Then when the midfield did go forward, they didn't get back quick enough, usually due to expecting "the other guys" to do it.

Not sure if I've got managed to get over to people the level of disorganisation. I have no idea what was going on. Don't the players understand what they are supposed to be doing? DOn't they "buy in" to their instructions? Doesn't Lovell communicate to them well enough?

I have no idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.