Gillingham analysis

[Bergen Blade]

I won't focus too much on the goals, as that's been covered well already, but let's look at our shape and formation and why it became such a difficult game for us.


Our starting formation was a normal 4-4-2, like this:

Long
Freeman Collins McEveley McFadzean
Woolford Basham Baxter Murphy
Adams Sharp​

We got off to a poor start, where Gillingham were all over us and pressed us high up the pitch. The ball didn't stick up front and just came back again and again. This put us under pressure and Gillingham won a few set pieces, from which they looked very dangerous. They got their early goal following a long throw.

We wanted to play it short from goal kicks, but with their aggression we had to avoid it. Long's clearance was blocked after Freeman returned a short goal kick and he started kicking it long after this. Problem was that every long ball came back immediately, as their defenders were all over Sharp and Adams. After 11 minutes I don't think Murphy had touched the ball, and two minutes later Adkins changed our formation, matching their diamond, like this:

Long
Freeman Collins McEveley McFadzean
Baxter
Basham Woolford
Murphy
Adams Sharp​

This helped a little in terms of avoiding them running straight through us as we matched them man for man centrally, at least in numbers. However they kept being very aggressive and were still first to most second balls and their athletic full backs were overlapping and putting a number of driven crosses in. Our full backs were too deep to stop these crosses, our not-so-wide midfielders were too central. In terms of their chances, most came from set pieces though.

Second half

Sammon came on for Baxter at the break, with us changing to this odd looking shape, though basically still a diamond:

Long
Freeman Collins McEveley McFadzean
Basham
- - - Woolford - - - Murphy
Adams - - - - - - - - - -
Sammon Sharp​

We had some early pressure, before they starting breaking again. Reed and Scougall came on, meaning we finished playing like this:

Long
Freeman Collins McEveley McFadzean
Basham
Reed Scougall
Murphy
Sammon Sharp​

Collins headed in their third goal from a corner, which was won following a great run by their impressive young midfielder Osadebe.

Gillingham finally looked a bit more tired and started defending deeper. With our narrow formation we failed to penetrate, although we had a better spell ten minutes before the end. Just before full time they scored a brilliant fourth.



Summary

People are too hard on individuals. We came with a game plan, but looked shocked by their aggression and appetite for the game. They got an early goal which further helped their morale while it ruined ours. We made a tactical change, which didn't help much. Instead, it created more problems, upset our shape which we worked on in pre season, and we never really regained our composure. Our midfield was our main problem.

In hindsight, against their diamond I would have changed to 4-5-1, like this:

Long
Freeman Collins McEveley McFadzean
Adams Basham Baxter Woolford Murphy
Sharp​

It would have given us a trio centrally, while also having wide midfielders who could have helped our full backs and stopped some of the crosses. On the attack we would of course have sacrificed a striker, but I think that was necessary to get into this game.

Of course set pieces would have remained a problem, but maybe there would have been fewer of them if we'd coped defensively as a team and had a better shape about us. People may cry out for two new centre halves, but they weren't the main problem.

Spoiler: Boring notes from the game

Gillingham notes

• Starting in regular 4-4-2
• Ball not sticking up front, Gillingham more aggressive and looking dangerous at set pieces
• Early lead after throw in
• Trying to play out short, Gillingham won't have it
• Long clearence hit their player
• Murphy not seen the ball yet, 11 mins
• Gillingham first to every second ball, gets it out wide, crosses comes in
• Back four looking ok in open play. Midfield struggling.
• 13 mins - switch to diamond, same as their's
• 16 mins - decent move, Sharp shoots wide. Freeman run, Basham through ball
• Centre halves nothing wrong so far
• Gill defence exceptionally aggressive, outmuscling our players
• Just can't get our passing going. Struggling to get things going even from throw ins
• Gill continue to cause havoc at set pieces
• 28 mins Freeman shot side netting
• 30 mins Baxter almost reaching JM with through ball
• Few chances apart from set pieces. G chip after throw in
• Long's kicking poor.
• JM tries to run, but is stopped and not getting help from ref
• Gill full backs getting crosses in
• Long misses cross, McFadzean gives a corner. Goal from corner. Freeman losing his man.
• Looking all over the place in midfield, can't close them down

Second half

• Sammon on for Baxter. Bash holding JM and MW in front of him. Che roaming in the hole
• 4 mins chance after corner
• Some early Blades pressure
• More even. Dangerous Gill free kick after 12 mins
• Sammon losing every header so far, can't get up for them
• Again Gills are all over us, pressing very hard, leading to miscontrols and difficult passes
• Breakdowns for Gills who bombs forward with pace every time
• 18 mins, example of Gills corner where they manage to find a player who's marked by a small Blade, ie McFadzean, header wide
• 19 mins Sharp effort blocked/forced wide
• 23 mins, Reed and Scougall on for Woolford and Adams
• 30 mins, Gills now defending deeper
• Good work from Reed, good cross, JM went down
• 36 mins own goal by Collins. Gills got corner after great run by no 16 Osadebe
• 40 mins Blades chance, Murphy through
• 41 mins, another chance, best spell, few crosses from both sides
• Freeman protesting after obvious yellow card
• 48 mins, great long shot 4-0,

 

[secretchief]

Thank you Bergen. Question: where does this leave the 'Basham is best in midfield' argument, or is it more (as I think you are suggesting) about formations?

 

[WORKSOPBLADE]

Not sure how a change in line up would have stopped Long fluffing the first and staying on his line continually, so not assisting in defending crosses ??

Cannot protect McFadzean from comments as his tackling and control were dreadful.

Murphy had no passion and went down in tackle incessantly.

Basham was invisible and Baxter had no desire or urgency !

Agreed formation was wrong but all these issues were still apparent.

 

[Revolution]

Ah, the dreaded 5 in midfield.

The big problem with 5 in midfield is Billy Sharp. If he's going to be the loan striker in any formation, that's a problem, because he won't score goals.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Not sure how a change in line up would have stopped Long fluffing the first and staying on his line continually, so not assisting in defending crosses ??

Cannot protect McFadzean from comments as his tackling and control were dreadful.

Murphy had no passion and went down in tackle incessantly.

Basham was invisible and Baxter had no desire or urgency !

Agreed formation was wrong but all these issues were still apparent.

I think Long was fouled for the first, but the analysis was first and foremost of our shape and why it was ineffective in terms of changing the pattern of the game, despite what we tried. When our set up isn't working and players don't find any time on the ball you get panic passes like the ones that McFadzean, and many more, failed to control.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Thank you Bergen. Question: where does this leave the 'Basham is best in midfield' argument, or is it more (as I think you are suggesting) about formations?

Yes, more about our set up, and dealing with the pattern of play that happened from kick off. We had to find a way to get into the game, but our tweaks weren't effective this time.

 

[robbiez666]

Would this have potentially worked as a way combating them? Obviously we'd have needed to make 4 subs

Long
Freeman Basham Collins McEveley McFadzean
Reed Wallace Scougal
Sammon Sharp

 

[Barney]

What was the main problem if it wasn't the centre halves?

Genuinely interested because they were at fault for 3 out of the 4 goals.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

I think Long was fouled for the first, but the analysis was first and foremost of our shape and why it was ineffective in terms of changing the pattern of the game, despite what we tried. When our set up isn't working and players don't find any time on the ball you get panic passes like the ones that McFadzean, and many more, failed to control.

Having been there, I'd say we were ineffective in changing the pattern of the game not because of formation (although it contributed, especially after the first change) but because of tempo and work rate. We never got close to matching their tempo of passing or their work rate. The lad in midfield for them (didn't have a programme, but No.16 I think) set their work rate and the rest of the team followed. It was aggressive from the off and we struggled and failed to contain them from whistle to whistle.

 

[ziggy4001]

Think our lack of height in Midfield and at fullback doesn't help. It's clear the assemblage of Dwarves we currently have get bullied out of games when we face physical teams.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Ah, the dreaded 5 in midfield.

The big problem with 5 in midfield is Billy Sharp. If he's going to be the loan striker in any formation, that's a problem, because he won't score goals.

I think he scored a few goals for Doncaster in a 4-4-1-1 formation, but the suggested team would have been an attempt to get into the game with the XI that started the game, especially looking to make us stronger in midfield.

 

[pommpey]

I think he scored a few goals for Doncaster in a 4-4-1-1 formation, but the suggested team would have been an attempt to get into the game with the XI that started the game, especially looking to make us stronger in midfield.

One of the problems with him last time was our propensity to drop to a 4-5-1 with the reluctance for any of the central three to move forward to close the gap between them and Sharp. He ended up chasing balls into the channels and 'holding the ball up', Ashley Ward stylee.

pommpey

 

[Dkc]

Could it be that Gillingham have a very good team?

 

[BushBlade]

I don't understand why we were shocked by Gillingham's aggression and appetite for the game. That's what Edinburgh's teams are all about.

 

[Gavlar]

Could it be that Gillingham have a very good team?

No

 

[metalblade]

I'd agree for the first goal Long was fouled by the Gills player backing into him but that is a result of piss poor defending from Collins and Jay Mac. Basic defending for a long throw get a defender in front of their man on the near post and also get one behind him to box him in you know that is where the throw will be aimed. If we had done that rather than our two centre backs holding hands and ball watching the Gills player would not have been able to back into Long who would have then taken an easy catch. First goal definitely down to poor marking and no one attacking the ball, Collins is the biggest fooker in there he should be making every ball his, that said Long should have done better with the situation which was not of his making.

 

[Bergen Blade]

What was the main problem if it wasn't the centre halves?

Genuinely interested because they were at fault for 3 out of the 4 goals.

Did you think our performance was good, apart from the conceded goals?


We man marked at set pieces. It wasn't Collins or McEveley's men that won headers or scored their two first goals.

 

[pommpey]

Did you think our performance was good, apart from the conceded goals?


We man marked at set pieces. It wasn't Collins or McEveley's men that won headers or scored their two first goals.

We could have played like Brazil, but if we let four goals in then Gillingham are Germany.

pommpey

 

[Kenilworth]

Completely disagree about the OP

This is the formation we adopted

Balls on the pitch






Balls left on the bus.
o
oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo
oo oo

 

[Barney]

Did you think our performance was good, apart from the conceded goals?


We man marked at set pieces. It wasn't Collins or McEveley's men that won headers or scored their two first goals.

The first goal was just a goal mouth scramble. It should have been taken control of by the leaders that are meant to be organising at the back. The centre halves. The second goal I accept wasn't the centre halves fault in particular as this was a standard marking procedure, but again a defence problem. Collins being at fault for the own goal for the 3rd. 2 out of the 4 instead of 3 as I previously said were at fault but in addition I do think the other 2 goals lacked leadership and organisation that would have proved valuable in both situations.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Yes, more about our set up, and dealing with the pattern of play that happened from kick off. We had to find a way to get into the game, but our tweaks weren't effective this time.

I've only seen the goals but your analysis of the game and your conclusions are very worrying.
Having played exclusively 4-4-2 all through pre-season, surely we should be trying harder to make this work rather than changing our system after just 13 minutes to try and counteract the opposition?
Are we going to get bullied into making these type of changes every match by teams working hard and pressing high up the pitch?
I think at this level, we should be capable of imposing ourselves on the opposition and forcing them to worry about us.
Not constantly moving players around, which sounds like it was ultimately self-defeating as you say our tweaks weren't even effective.

A few random thoughts based on match reports, interviews and your summary:-

1) If Gillingham were pressing up and preventing the ball being rolled out to a defender, surely the solution is for Long to turn their defence by either throwing it out wide for Murphy/Woolford or kick it long into the corner for Adams/Sharp to try and get onto? Did we try this or was it just booted aimlessly down the middle for Adams/Sharp/Sammon after they prevented our short goal kicks?

2) Adkins said before the match that their long throws were going to be a threat. What was done to counteract this? Did we have a man stood directly in front of the thrower to try and disrupt his throw? Did our best header make it his job to attack the ball before it dropped? (a la Shaun Murphy v Tranmere several years ago). Did other defenders make it their business to protect Long and prevent attackers getting right in his face?

3) If we had stayed at 4-4-2 and tried to get our own game going, surely we would have been better equipped to create and convert chances when Gillingham predictably started to run out of steam. You might well say that we would have been 2-0 behind by then if we hadn't changed but we were anyway, with all our best/creative players either off the pitch or playing out of position.

 

[metalblade]

It is quite simple not one person in that defence wants to take responsibility and when it goes wrong all look at each other, Collins especially has always done this, you might ask why doesn't the captain take responsibility well the captain is Jay Mac nuff said.

 

[Bergen Blade]

The first goal was just a goal mouth scramble. It should have been taken control of by the leaders that are meant to be organising at the back. The centre halves. The second goal I accept wasn't the centre halves fault in particular as this was a standard marking procedure, but again a defence problem. Collins being at fault for the own goal for the 3rd. 2 out of the 4 instead of 3 as I previously said were at fault but in addition I do think the other 2 goals lacked leadership and organisation that would have proved valuable in both situations.

The first goal was a long throw into the box. I presume our organisation for such situations has been arranged and worked on in training. I don't know who was told to help avoid Long having to wrestle with Norris before trying to punch the ball. I reckon Long did shout for it and that's why Collins and Basham didn't jump for it. In any case I think it should have been a free kick.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Could it be that Gillingham have a very good team?

I think they were up for it in a similar manner that we've been for cup games against better opposition the last couple of years. I will be very impressed, and surprised, if they can keep that level of fitness/determination/work rate up all season.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I've only seen the goals but your analysis of the game and your conclusions are very worrying.
Having played exclusively 4-4-2 all through pre-season, surely we should be trying harder to make this work rather than changing our system after just 13 minutes to try and counteract the opposition?
Are we going to get bullied into making these type of changes every match by teams working hard and pressing high up the pitch?
I think at this level, we should be capable of imposing ourselves on the opposition and forcing them to worry about us.
Not constantly moving players around, which sounds like it was ultimately self-defeating as you say our tweaks weren't even effective.

A few random thoughts based on match reports, interviews and your summary:-

1) If Gillingham were pressing up and preventing the ball being rolled out to a defender, surely the solution is for Long to turn their defence by either throwing it out wide for Murphy/Woolford or kick it long into the corner for Adams/Sharp to try and get onto? Did we try this or was it just booted aimlessly down the middle for Adams/Sharp/Sammon after they prevented our short goal kicks?

2) Adkins said before the match that their long throws were going to be a threat. What was done to counteract this? Did we have a man stood directly in front of the thrower to try and disrupt his throw? Did our best header make it his job to attack the ball before it dropped? (a la Shaun Murphy v Tranmere several years ago). Did other defenders make it their business to protect Long and prevent attackers getting right in his face?

3) If we had stayed at 4-4-2 and tried to get our own game going, surely we would have been better equipped to create and convert chances when Gillingham predictably started to run out of steam. You might well say that we would have been 2-0 behind by then if we hadn't changed but we were anyway, with all our best/creative players either off the pitch or playing out of position.

1. The camera zoomed in a bit much to say for sure, but I think they had pretty much every one of our players covered for our goal kicks, so throws looked risky as well. Often it was a struggle for us to get going from throw ins, as they pressed so hard. Long did try to aim out wide as well, but we had no aerial strength and their full backs were strong and athletic as well. Maybe we could have tried pushing Basham a bit further forward, but he was sat deeper most of the time.

2. Nobody stood with the taker when they scored, no. I think Collins and/or Basham was supposed to attack it, but they probably left it because Long shouted that he'd go for it. As mentioned a few times my opinion is that Norris fouled him when he backed into him. In terms of our organisation I think someone should have prevented Norris from challenging Long.

3. I think a tweak was due to be fair, we looked like being seriously overrun, especially as nothing was sticking up front. Maybe a target man would have helped.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Maybe a target man would have helped.

It did for a while Bergs, but at that point we should have either gone back to the original formation and put Adams wide, or gone with just Sammon up front with two joining from deep. Instead we had a bizarre system that meant nobody was getting wide to get balls in, and when the ball did get to Sammon, they'd had time to double up on him.

 

[metalblade]

1. The camera zoomed in a bit much to say for sure, but I think they had pretty much every one of our players covered for our goal kicks, so throws looked risky as well. Often it was a struggle for us to get going from throw ins, as they pressed so hard. Long did try to aim out wide as well, but we had no aerial strength and their full backs were strong and athletic as well. Maybe we could have tried pushing Basham a bit further forward, but he was sat deeper most of the time.

2. Nobody stood with the taker when they scored, no. I think Collins and/or Basham was supposed to attack it, but they probably left it because Long shouted that he'd go for it. As mentioned a few times my opinion is that Norris fouled him when he backed into him. In terms of our organisation I think someone should have prevented Norris from challenging Long.

3. I think a tweak was due to be fair, we looked like being seriously overrun, especially as nothing was sticking up front. Maybe a target man would have helped.

Or 2/ Collins was ball watching ......... basic defending for long throws a man in front and behind the attacker on the near post and make sure A/ the ball don't reach him B/ make sure he don't impede your keeper. You can't pin it on Long by saying he probably shouted for it

 

[Fiery Blade]

If what Bergan says is correct then it is indeed worrying that we were out done, out thought and out battled and out manouvred by a run of the mill third division side !
After all the positivity exuded from Mr Adkins in the days before the game we crumpled because Gillingham wanted to win more than our players did !

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

If what Bergan says is correct then it is indeed worrying that we were out done, out thought and out battled and out manouvred by a run of the mill third division side !
After all the positivity exuded from Mr Adkins in the days before the game we crumpled because Gillingham wanted to win more than our players did !

Don't think they'll be run-of-the-mill Fiery. Top 8 for me and with a bit of luck on the injuries and transfer front outsiders for the play-offs.

 

[Fiery Blade]

Don't think they'll be run-of-the-mill Fiery. Top 8 for me and with a bit of luck on the injuries and transfer front outsiders for the play-offs.

Will note and return to the subject around Christmas - Think they are worth a flutter as outsiders ?