Yes, it was a welcome improvement. After the severe disappointment of Cheltenham and the humiliation of Wycombe it had to be. We weren’t outplayed, we didn’t lose, and in the first half we played positive, effective football going forward and would not have been flattered by a much larger lead at the break. Within a team which showed seven changes from Saturday, there was a good return from Purrington (and Matthews had a good game too), later a welcome one from Gilby, Pearce had a much better game, looking less rusty and working well alongside Lavelle, Watson was a calming influence in front of the defence, Lee was mobile and effective (and scored), Davison worked to good effect to link up and bring others into the play, and in the first half Blackett-Taylor destroyed them, going past his opposite number at will.
On the other side of the coin, once Gillingham tightened up and made a couple of changes at the break the game changed. We were fortunate not to concede a penalty early in the second half (I thought hands were raised to block a shot), did let in the equaliser after being caught napping again from a short corner, could easily have let in more (some desperate blocks, a fingertip from MacGillivray diverting a low cross to prevent a certain goal, then most obviously a shot from inside the box which cannoned back off the post), and - in contrast to the first half - once again players were looking to bring the ball forward but looked up and saw no viable options, no willing runners. Having terrorised Gillingham in the first half, Blackett-Taylor barely had a kick in the second.
We did have chances in the second half too, with their keeper pulling off two saves in quick succession, first to deny Davison what looked like a certain goal then to turn away Lavelle’s effort from the resulting corner. So I’d say in the first half we outclassed a badly organised Gillingham team, in the second we were matched by a more determined – but still pretty pedestrian – opposition who created more and better chances in that period. Nobody really doubted that overall a draw was a fair result; we look back especially on Washington’s first-half one-on-one and would have expected to run out winners if that had been converted, Gillingham will point to the one off the post and the penalty not given.
So it is progress, something to build on. Whether it means a formation (return to a back four) we will stick with is of course up to Adkins. The decision to drop/rest Stockley, either to give him a break or to oblige the rest of the team not to lump it forward in the air, worked overall, although I thought he was brought on too late in the game to replace an understandably tiring Davison. I’m not convinced by the argument that you should drop the big guy rather than those not following instructions, and this isn’t a new debate. I remember a similar one after the Premiership era concerning Iwelumo. But the fact is Davison was effective in the first half, and worked his socks off through the game. Presumably Adkins and the team will look at Portsmouth’s set-up and decide whether or not to stick with the change.
The avoidance of a fresh shambles and evidence of progress will at least keep at bay most of the calls for an immediate sacking of Adkins. I’m happy on that one, for now, to sit on the fence. We are rightly concerned by some of what appear to be glaring tactical errors and especially an impression of chaos. Perhaps injuries played a part, but I’ve no idea how players like Arter, Dobson and Souara react to being in the starting line-up on Saturday and not even on the bench for Tuesday. They, like us, perhaps have to show a little patience.
So far Sandgaard has only made two blunders: signing (and retaining) Schwartz and using (in a quote posted on the club site) the absurd phrase “the proof is in the pudding”. Just how and why have people started to use that combination of words? It is gobbledegook at best. The time-honoured phrase is of course ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. That makes sense, conveys a meaning, has purpose, like our first-half showing. ‘The proof is in the pudding’ by contrast is just a lazy way of trying to say something using fewer words and by doing so entirely losing the plot. Wycombe? We all hope that a third faux pas does not prove to be keeping Adkins. For that to be the case he needs to demonstrate continued progress towards shaping a now large squad into an effective team delivering results and moving steadily up the table. We had a good 15 minutes against Wycombe, a very good 45 last night ....
No comments:
Post a Comment