League Two Gillingham (2) v Rovers (0)

[Rockford's Love Child]

I’d agree that we’re stronger defensively, but if any of the back four are missing lacking in cover. Jameson while overall
not a terrible player, seems to have a mistake in him almost every game. My original remark was, assuming we were at budget limitation, rather than loaning in two young wide players, we could have done better making one of those loans a young defender. Always a gamble as to whether overall they’d be any better than Jameson but it would give a choice.

However, NAPOs remarks about the budget have made me wonder. The three names they list would likely cost more than Saunders, unclear if we’d have still bought Harvey had one of those deals gone through. So there would still have been some money in the kitty to put towards bringing in another defender.

For all our attacking failings in this game, if we’d defended adequately would have come away with a point.

I think you are splitting hairs to be honest. The big issue at the club is the lack of goals and the inability to sign decent centre forwards. If our goalscoring record was better there would not be the same pressure on the back four to keep clean sheets week after week after week. Any replacement for Turnbull and Davies, particularly a loanee, is unlikely to be as good as them given the wider budget constraints.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

In the absence of further investment which seems unlikely then the development model has to stay and be a success as there is no realistic alternative.

I do think there will be a change of manager in the summer and it will be interesting to see who comes in. There will be several departures in the summer and hopefully the first focus will be bringing in a decent striker and we may have to take a gamble on someone like the striker at Chester as another option

We are not going to sign a decent centre forward without substantial spending, as even non League players that have real potential will be in demand and will cost money. We have taken 'gambles' on Glatzel, Mumbongo, Saunders etc and we have seen how that has worked out.

If the recruitment is similar next season to this season, with the budget reduced again, I fear for us if Mellon goes. The squad is alarmingly weak in several areas and we could well end up in a relegation battle.

Despite what some people like to believe, Mellon's replacement probably won't be as good as him. Consider our current finances and Palios's track record of appointing managers.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I also don't think there is any lack of effort from the players, including yesterday. It is lack of ability that is the problem (in certain areas).

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Am I the only one who feels Jameson is becoming a bit of a scapegoat defensively? Giving an example close to home, my son watched the game with me and berated Jameson for mis-directing a header (that was my son’s opinion at least) Cogley did the same a couple of minutes later and my son said nothing. I did ask about why the inconsistency with his critique and he just said “Jameson is rubbish, everyone is saying it”. My son and I hear the negativity at the game when his name’s on the team sheet from those we talk to before the game and those around us in the ground; my son is also exposed to the same on social media. Sadly, I do think there’s a prevalent unconscious bias, possibly due to Jameson‘s admittedly poor first half in his first game, which set the tone in the minds of many and judgement becomes easy. I seriously don’t think he’s been too bad in most of the games he’s played since (he actually settled well in the second half of that first game, but legend has it that he had a terrible game).
it’s a defensive unit and responsibility and accountability needs to be shared; they’ve all made errors, it’s just that Jameson’s not Teflon coated and his just seem to stick; “wish the ball would” I hear some of you say (perhaps it’s supporters minds that need Teflon coating). I’m actually surprised Jameson wasn’t blamed for the first goal. Jameson put in a brilliant last ditch tackle in the box yesterday to prevent a clear opportunity and for all intents and purposes, looked like it was going to be put away, yet no mention anywhere on here or elsewhere; anybody else had done that and I have no doubt it would have been mentioned. His overall game yesterday was no worse than anyone else. This is not a pop at your post Boz, just incidental that I’m reading and posting now and have read comments here and elsewhere singling out Jameson; therefore I’ve become a little defensive (careful, I could get the call up if I’m too defensive!).
I just get the feeling in this case, many are looking for errors to fit their narrative; I know, by nature, we are all selective whatever our narrative.
If there’s anyone else out there who feels the same, perhaps we could set up a support group (for us, not Jameson!).
Lastly, I’m not Jameson’s agent or lawyer……..the case for the defence rests (I’m just off to take him up a coffee and some breakfast).

Jameson simply is not at the same level as the other centre halves and we concede too many goals when he plays. He has made individual errors, as for the second goal yesterday, but in general the defence is not as composed and organised when he is there compared to the partnership of Turnbull and Davies.

 

[Boz]

I think you are splitting hairs to be honest. The big issue at the club is the lack of goals and the inability to sign decent centre forwards. If our goalscoring record was better there would not be the same pressure on the back four to keep clean sheets week after week after week. Any replacement for Turnbull and Davies, particularly a loanee, is unlikely to be as good as them given the wider budget constraints.

Simeu was a loanee and fairly decent, so who’s to say we couldn’t have loaned in someone of similar calibre? You have to accept that both goals conceded were down to poor defending and we didn’t seem to be put under as much pressure as say the Stevenage home game.

I don’t dispute that our main problem is a lack of goals. Saunders hasn’t been able to translate his undoubted energy into finding the back of the net, Burton and Mumbongo struggling and pre-injury Hemmings had been below par. It’s compounded by a lack of contributions from elsewhere on the park, only Hawkes of yesterday’s midfield has got on the score-sheet for us.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I think Simeu is the exception that proves the rule, although even his form had dipped somewhat prior to him leaving. The majority of EPL / Championship loanees we have had in recent years have been nowhere near the same level.

 

[Sparky]

I tend to agree that too much time is being spent discussing our defensive shortcomings. Yes there were errors yesterday, but overall we have a good defensive record. Much the same as last season.

The problems are at the other end of the pitch. Again, similar to last season. Unfortunately the best paid players tend to be those who can score and we can’t afford the relevant standard in that part of the pitch. But most teams would love to have our defensive record.

 

[Ian]

I do think there will be a change of manager in the summer and it will be interesting to see who comes in.

I think this will only happen if Micky decides to go. I honestly don't think MP would sack him. I'm not sure Micky would want another 'development' season though.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

The problems are at the other end of the pitch. Again, similar to last season. Unfortunately the best paid players tend to be those who can score and we can’t afford the relevant standard in that part of the pitch. But most teams would love to have our defensive record.

Again, we were told by the owner that we CAN afford strikers of the quality of Matt, Stevens and Keena. They chose elsewhere for other reasons.

Proof the pudding will come in the summer, when many more strikers of such ability will be available than were available in January.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Again, we were told by the owner that we CAN afford strikers of the quality of Matt, Stevens and Keena. They chose elsewhere for other reasons.

Proof the pudding will come in the summer, when many more strikers of such ability will be available than were available in January.

However, we did not actually sign any of the strikers you list. In any case, Matt and Stevens are not exactly pulling up trees at their new club.

Being 'able to afford' a good striker might mean making a significantly better offer than your rivals, to persuade the player to come for financial rather than personal reasons, which we were probably not in a position to do. If Stockport or Salford had wanted those players, they probably would have offered the financial inducements to get them.

We can only really judge the club on the strikers that actually arrive, and in the last three years they have not been good enough.

 

[Sparky]

Again, we were told by the owner that we CAN afford strikers of the quality of Matt, Stevens and Keena. They chose elsewhere for other reasons.

Proof the pudding will come in the summer, when many more strikers of such ability will be available than were available in January.

Interestingly since january, I don’t think any of Matt, Stevens and Keena have done particularly well. Walsall are struggling and none of the three have pulled up any trees.

Neither has Saunders of course, nor nevitt

Good strikers are hard to find

 

[Ian]

Crewe scored four the other day and still Nevitt is yet to register a goal for his new club despite making 11 straight appearances.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

The fact, worth repeating yet again, is that Palios says we CAN afford the necessary quality up front.

The fact we lack the necessary quality up front is therefore not down to budget.

 

[bigmart]

I think this will only happen if Micky decides to go. I honestly don't think MP would sack him. I'm not sure Micky would want another 'development' season though.

His contract is up in the summer so it wouldn't be a sacking

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

The fact, worth repeating yet again, is that Palios says we CAN afford the necessary quality up front.

The fact we lack the necessary quality up front is therefore not down to budget.

Which begs the question, why have not we brought in the necessary quality since Vaughan left ? I am not sure Palios has said we have the funds to bring in the quality required to win promotion. If he did, I must have missed it.

If what you say is correct, it is strange that our recruitment of strikers in the last three years has been so appalling. As Palios has stated, recruitment involves several individuals of whom he is one, so your comment would be an indictment of those running the club.

I don't blame Palios by the way. I think your statement is incorrect and we don't have the resources to compete for the best strikers at this level.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

It is worth noting, that even when we signed Vaughan he came here for personal reasons and took a substantial pay cut when leaving Bradford.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Why have not we brought in the necessary quality since Vaughan left then ? I am not sure Palios has said we have the funds to bring in the quality required to win promotion. If he did, I must have missed it.

If what you say is correct, it is strange that our recruitment of strikers in the last three years has been so appalling. As Palios has stated, recruitment involves several individuals of whom he is one, so your comment would be an indictment of those running the club.

I don't blame Palios by the way. I think your statement is incorrect and we don't have the resources to compete for the best strikers at this level.

Very good. This “indictment” is something Palios has already admitted to, with the ”unbalanced squad” for half a season (..and counting).

First, bear in mind his stated aim is to be challenging for promotion. That’s a relatively modest aim, and notably a lower aim than actually achieving promotion.

His comments about budget and strikers were crystal clear. Taken in the context of his stated aim of challenging for promotion, he clearly shouldn’t be interpreted meaning we can compete for “the best strikers at this level”. But we sure as hell can, and should, be bringing in better than we’ve had this season. The three January bids he named would further endorse that.

It‘s glaringly obvious for a few years that the recruitment side hasn’t been as effective as it needs to be, both before and after the change in direction, and not just for strikers. Being kind, that side of the club is perhaps a work in progress. Still. It’s also glaringly obvious that, partly (but not entirely) as a consequence, the manager has again had to resort to pragmatism rather than “goals goals goals”.

But, of course, blaming the budget can be a convenient cop out, a way of giving the recruitment team and the manager a free pass for the failings of the season.

Yes it’s a top half budget so therefore, in theory, a top half finish is all that can be expected. But, besides a small number heavy hitters, the differences in budget amongst the chasing pack needn’t dictate where you finish. What does make the difference - and what has led to relative paupers such as Morecambe, Cheltenham, Cambridge, even Sutton, etc outperforming us in recent seasons - is shrewd recruitment (including the right characters/leaders not just technical ability), under the right manager, and working to the right plan. We fail on at least two of those counts, and it doesn’t automatically require an increased budget to fix them.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Very good. This “indictment” is something Palios has already admitted to, with the ”unbalanced squad” for half a season (..and counting).

First, bear in mind his stated aim is to be challenging for promotion. That’s a relatively modest aim, and notably a lower aim than actually achieving promotion.

His comments about budget and strikers were crystal clear. Taken in the context of his stated aim of challenging for promotion, he clearly shouldn’t be interpreted meaning we can compete for “the best strikers at this level”. But we sure as hell can, and should, be bringing in better than we’ve had this season. The three January bids he named would further endorse that.

It‘s glaringly obvious for a few years that the recruitment side hasn’t been as effective as it needs to be, both before and after the change in direction, and not just for strikers. Being kind, that side of the club is perhaps a work in progress. Still. It’s also glaringly obvious that, partly (but not entirely) as a consequence, the manager has again had to resort to pragmatism rather than “goals goals goals”.

But, of course, blaming the budget can be a convenient cop out, a way of giving the recruitment team and the manager a free pass for the failings of the season.

Yes it’s a top half budget so therefore, in theory, a top half finish is all that can be expected. But, besides a small number heavy hitters, the differences in budget amongst the chasing pack needn’t dictate where you finish. What does make the difference - and what has led to relative paupers such as Morecambe, Cheltenham, Cambridge, even Sutton, etc outperforming us in recent seasons - is shrewd recruitment (including the right characters/leaders not just technical ability), under the right manager, and working to the right plan. We fail on at least two of those counts, and it doesn’t automatically require an increased budget to fix them.

Cambridge, Cheltenham and Morecambe were promoted in the Covid season when the bigger or wealthier clubs were cutting costs, so those examples are highly exceptional and not particularly useful. The top seven this season are big spenders. Without similar levels of spending, I doubt very much we can challenge them regardless of the talents of our manager (I believe our current manager is talented by the way). I think there is plenty of room for improvement in our recruitment process, but without an increase in the wage budget I doubt we can seriously challenge at the top end of the table.

I think you are taking some of Palios's pronouncements a bit too literally. He does have a tendency to over-promise on occasions and I interpret 'top half budget' as effectively 'mid-table', given that he has talked about a 'top third' budget previously. Mid table is exactly where we have been for the majority of the season. Which then leads to the question, 'is the manager under-achieving to an extent that warrants his dismissal, or suggests that somebody else would do significantly better with the same resources ?'. I don't believe he is significantly under-achieving.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Yes I’m in the seemingly minority that doesn’t believe the owner is a liar or a spin merchant. Well, not excessive spin!

We’re pretty much out of the playoff chase already, so we’ve failed to achieve Palios’ stated aim by some distance. I very much doubt he’ll blame the budget for that. What he does to address the situation for next season is the million dollar question (or, with our alleged budget, the hundred dollar question )

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Yes I’m in the seemingly minority that doesn’t believe the owner is a liar or a spin merchant. Well, not excessive spin!

I am not sure I have ever called him either of those things, but he does have a tendency to talk up our prospects to placate supporters, when dampening down expectation might be more sensible (if more difficult).

I am not sure reaching the play offs ever was a realistic aim this season.