The old cliche goes that football is often a game of two halves. This wasn't a game of two halves but it was absolutely a team of two parts. Part one goes from minute one to 78. Part two goes from minutes 78 through to 90. Part one was pretty pleasing on the eye. It showed the same reoccurring theme that I've been banging on about all through pre-season. That is to say, players who play as a cohesive team unit with a clear plan on how to unite going forward and break down the opposition. This was yet another game which we saw this improved tactical mentality and it's a vast improvement on previous Argyle sides in which we've looked nothing more than a collection of reasonably talented individuals. Yet again, more risk taking and more off the ball movement were also very positive signposts as we played out a pretty enjoyable first 78 minutes of the match.
Adams is certainly right about one thing in his post-match interview. We gave their keeper a lot more work to do than McCormick had to do from them. Gillingham didn't look like the side that had just beaten Sheffield United 4-0 at all, I have to say. They seemed fairly content to sit back and hope to nick a win from a couple of quick goals on the counter. Which, in the end, they did but that was more down to our failings than their genius. More on which later. The long and short of it was that we dominated the game up to an including our goal. Not total domination. We did not, in my view, play quite as well as we did in the Wimbledon match or in certain pre-season games. But we did put some good fluid football together and by the time Tanner's EXCELLENT strike hit the roof of the net (full credit to Boateng and Mellor for their excellent part in the build up too) we were deserving of our lead. Gillingham's best chance previously to this stage was their disallowed goal from the free-kick. I'm still not quite sure of the particular details surrounding this new interpretation of the offside rule- so I cannot say with any certainty whether I think the goal should have been disallowed or not. But what I do most definitely think is that it was an incredibly soft free-kick given against Tanner in the first place. So the point still stands, we were deserving of our lead. A well-rounded and competent performance up until that stage which was rounded off by a fine goal.
Then when we finally did score a goal, everything began to go wrong. Pretty drastically so. And I don't just mean the two goals we conceded. Some of you may know I'm friends with one of the earlier contributors to this thread in real life but as it happened I didn't watch the game with him on Tuesday. But when we spoke on the phone shortly after, we both came to the same conclusions. Argyle bottled what should have been an easy enough task of seeing the game out against an unspectacular visiting side. It wasn't just the goals we conceded that I'm annoyed with. It wasn't even merely the manner in which we conceded them that bugged me. It was the way in which our entire mentality changed simply because we'd gone into the lead. We immediately retreated en masse a good ten or fifteen yards back down the pitch. We completely invited Gillingham onto us. All of the excellent work that we had done in terms of high pressing and pressuring the opposition up until 1-0 completely evaporated. We literally decided to set up camp and say to Gillingham 'come on and have a go at us.'
Some will say that it's the inevitable consequence of going into the lead. Well, maybe, to an extent. It may be inevitable that we drop slightly deeper. But even in the few minutes before Gillingham equalised I noticed several occasions where their players had far too much room to run and move with the ball in our half of the pitch. You sometimes have to drop deeper to counter an insurgency but you do not drop THAT much deeper. Some have also argued that it was tiredness and not a change in mentality. Well, I don't really buy that either. Tiredness is a gradual process and if we had started to drop deeper slightly over the second half I would understand that. We instead literally decided to drop deep all of a sudden upon going 1-0 up which to me proves it to be a mental issue.
Regarding a point of debate earlier in the thread, I don't think it's at all a flight of fancy to suggest that it is reminiscent of the Sheridan days. Yes, the point made by another poster is true that Sheridan's side rarely threw away 1-0 losses. But that was mainly down to the 3-5-2 formation often playing out as more of a 5-3-2 in practise. With that and the able assistance of Anthony O'Connor, teams were often unable to penetrate us no matter how deep we sat. But the point is, we still sat far too deep when we were winning even when we did keep the lead. Something Sheridan regularly himself noted in his post-match interviews. Even when we got wins he would often admit we sat too deep and that we did not react well to such pressure- it was very much a common negative feature of his era. I don't get why we reverted to this disappointing habit of dropping ten yards deeper when at Wimbledon we defended so stoutly high up the pitch. Still, it's a work in progress I suppose. However positive Adams was in his post-match interview though, I hope he was a little more severe with them behind closed doors. It's one thing not wanting to criticise in public and it's another to tackle the issue on the training pitch or otherwise. IF we go 1-0 up against Pompey today in the second half, I pray to God that we learn from it and do not immediately retreat into ourselves. Because the way we lost the Gillingham job, in that respect, was a bottlejob to my mind. I'll call a spade a spade in every case. I'm optimistic about the first 78 minutes and even more optimistic about the excellent Wimbledon win and the Adams reign in general. But we did bottle this one and it needs rectifying. As good as things have been so far, I think there's a danger of pre-conceived opinions coming into play when people are calling this a plucky defeat. Ultimately, we only have ourselves to blame for it. Now for player by player analysis and some more general observations.
McCormick-4. He just didn't do well. It happens sometimes. His handling and command of area which are usually excellent were well below par on Tuesday. The second half involved him completely dropping a ball when he had it in two hands following a cross. His kicking which is sometimes hit and miss was most definitely on the miss side of hit too often completely missing his intended targets. I'd maybe contend he could have done better for their second goal too: perhaps getting down at his post a bit quicker like he did for the famous Jack Stephens chance in the Swindon game last season. Nothing to worry about -he was his usual self at Wimbledon- but he most certainly had an off day.
Mellor-7. Most definitely one of the main bright spots from tonight's game. He was very assured working just behind an inexperienced Tanner on the right hand side. Defensively he looked a much cooler and more composed Kelvin Mellor than the chaotic version who we've seen at times in recent weeks. He managed to organise defensive duties well and link up well with the debutant in front of him. My only criticism would be that he didn't overlap often enough. When he did do so, he made a fantastic assist.
Nelson-7. A typically Nelson performance. Assured, communicative (despite what some people fail to observe, he's far more of an on pitch talker than he's given credit for) and didn't do much wrong. That's two of them in a row he's had now which shows he's well and truly adapted to four at the back.
Hartley-6. Sorry, I know people have their own opinions and all that. But I am amazed to see so many people on Hartley's case for this performance. Especially given that Sawyer who made just as a big a blunder as Hartley did has not come in for the same treatment. In fact, I'm really amazed that so many people would seek to drop Hartley from the side at all. There's a reason that Sheridan and Adams BOTH prefer him to McHugh. Managers make mistakes all the time. Two different managers making the identical mistake? Not so often. When Hartley is fit (i.e., when he's not having to take painkilling injections like last season) I think he is far and away the best defender at the club. Possibly even the best player at the club all round. Far far more than just a leader. He's composed, his movement is excellent and he's no slouch either. He's aerially dominant and wins almost everything on the round. His distribution is also very good in my view and possibly his most underrated quality. The only argument people seem to have against him is that he makes a lot of high profile errors. Well, this one error he made for their first goal (losing his man and letting the ball go through him) was pretty bad (which knocks him down to a high 6 out of 10 from an
but it's only one very rare error he made whilst fully fit. As with Reuben, I simply don't think you can judge him by the same standards when he's unfit. By and large when he is fit he rarely makes any errors and his general play outshines Nelson and McHugh. Let's see what the views are of him in 10 games time.
Sawyer-7. As with Hartley, a generally very good performance marred by one catastrophic error completely and utterly switching off for Gillingham's second goal. He gets a 7 because of his forward interchange which was improved from any other game I've seen him play this pre-season so far.
McHugh-7. Funny old performance from him really. It was like listening to a tape that kept buffering. The basic outline of it was all there: his defensive shielding, his ability to spot a pass, his willingness to jump into tackles. But it was as if certain bits of it buffered with no good reason. He'd tend to get his touch seriously wrong or scuff a pass a bit more often than he should. But on the whole he covered his defence well especially before we dropped deep. I think the CM experiment is worth continuing with. I both expect and hope to see him there against Pompey.
Boateng-7. Again, one of the bright spots. One of the best players in our positive spells. He's just one of those players who's style of play is so enjoyable that it's almost worth the entrance fee. He can make stuff happen from deep in midfield in a variety of different ways, not just one. He can charge with the ball, he can play a Hollywood pass effectively or he can play a simple pass. He did all of them well at various times. One thing I am sure of is that the less defensive duties he has, the better his performance is for it. It increases the likelihood that he can undertake the duties he does have without messing them up. He needs to be the more attack minded of the two CMs.
Tanner-6. Funny old performance. A curates egg, like McHugh. On the plus side, a great goal. He also showed some very exciting movement with the ball that troubled their defence. He's one of those players who, even if his brain is all over the place, will frighten defenders with his close control and spiderish quality of movement. On the downside, his end product maybe wasn't quite what it should be in the assistive sense. Also, his defending was downright naive at times. See, dribbling the ball backwards in his own half whilst defending a 1-0 lead. I felt so sorry for the guy mind as he looked physically broken when Gillingham scored. He needs to learn fast though. The dark irony about playing fluid football so deep in our own half is that we looked simultaneously too committed and not committed enough to the new style of football as proposed by Derek Adams.
Carey-7. It's a low 7, mind. Even when we were having our good spell he flatted to deceive slightly. I said in my Wimbledon review how he plays like a Mata/Cazorla esque player who floats between the lines and who's game is solely based around his technical qualities and low centre of gravity. I stand by that analysis but in this game I saw a bit more why he's playing as low as league two level. He seems to relish in the 'small talented playmaker' image a bit too much to the extent that he pastiches it at times. It's a good quality for him to look like he's always got time on the ball. But sometimes he takes this to the extreme of holding on to it for too long before being challenged which is pretty careless of him really. If he had a bit more sturdiness and canniness, we'd either be getting a big fee for him very soon or he'd be taking us up the leagues. As it stands, he is talented but flawed. The reason I've given him such a high mark is (in spite of his carelessness) he was still involved in all our major attacks. He's a big player for us- so much play will go through him.
Wylde-7. A lot of people are saying he had an iffy game but I can't quite see it myself. He didn't do anything quite as spectacular as he did last Saturday but he was still a pretty threatening option from out wide. Made himself an outlet and linked up well with Reid and Carey on several occasions. He was just unlucky it didn't lead to a goal at any stage.
Reid-7 MOTM. A controversial choice for man of the match maybe but I genuinely do think he had a good game. I think he did more than the eye immediately sees. A lot of the reason why Carey, Tanner and Wylde were able to get into the game so much is because Reuben did more than the usual number 9 does in a 4-2-3-1 formation. When we were trying to create an opening, he would very often drop deep and force defenders out of their position which very often opened the space up for Tanner to make more effective off the ball movement into the penalty area. An indirect contribution can be as good as a direct one and this one certainly has to be given credit for. It's also not something that an injured Reid would have been able to do. His distribution was also excellent throughout.
Jervis-6. What can be said really? Got involved a lot very early in the game. Then got injured.
Brunt-5. Meh. He can have his good days where he's an effective wrecking ball. Then he can have days where he doesn't look like getting into the game if he's played all night. I'm still not a huge fan of his, I have to say.
Simpson-4. Unlike most folk, I thought he looked promising in pre-season. Right now though, at a competitive level, the guy simply is not fit. Please let's get him so before putting him on to defend a lead again. Painfully off the pace. Clearly a decent player in there somewhere though.
On the whole, a mixture of pleasing and disappointing. Broadly speaking I'm pleased with how we played as individuals. And even more so with how we played as a team unit. It makes the ultra-deep defending after going 1-0 up all the more baffling when we could have well and truly seen the game out. Ah well. Onto the big one later today.
Home 
Register 
Log in 
Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:52 pm
