‘Not good enough’

From Rotherham to Accrington - contrasting outcomes in successive away games - Gills Journal no. 72

A week after their resounding 4-1 victory at Rotherham, Gillingham suffered a disappointing but deserved 3-1 defeat at Accrington Stanley on Saturday. An early defensive calamity followed by two goals conceded from corners, told much of the story of an afternoon in which the Gills offered little attacking threat.

The contrast between successive away games could hardly have been greater. It remains difficult to know which version of Gareth Ainsworth's Gillingham is the more representative.

Ainsworth had, perhaps understandably, retained the starting eleven that had won so emphatically at Rotherham, with the return of Garath McCleary in place of Cameron Antwi on the bench the only change to the matchday squad, but there was little resemblance between the two performances.

The defensive mistake that gifted Stanley an 11th minute lead epitomised Gillingham's performance. An apparently innocuous ball into the penalty area seemed destined for former Accrington goalkeeper Ollie Wright. But Armani Little inexplicably intervened and diverted it away from him. Stefan Mols was quick to capitalise on the confusion, sliding in to force the ball into the goal.

It set the tone for an afternoon in which Gillingham never really asserted any control, playing into the hands of a home side whose energy and physical approach Ainsworth had anticipated.

Accrington doubled their advantage after 28 minutes when Mols turned provider, delivering a corner from the right which the lively Josh Woods headed home at the near post with little effective challenge from the Gillingham defence.

The Gills were given a lifeline just three minutes later. Little found Nick Freeman wide on the right. His first time cross was met by Omar Beckles, whose left foot touch deflected off Devon Matthews and past goalkeeper Luke Maldon. The goal was officially credited as a Matthews own goal.

It brought Gillingham back to 2-1 and offered the prospect of a second successive away comeback. Unlike at Rotherham, where they had recovered from a poor first half to win emphatically, there was to be no transformation after the interval.

Familiar failings

Despite the difficulties of the opening 45 minutes, and first half yellow cards for Harry Waldock and Little, Ainsworth resisted making changes at half time. However, three substitutions followed within ten minutes of the restart. The introduction of Ethan Coleman, Jack Daley and Tom Eaves made little discernible difference and in the 66th minute, Accrington restored their two-goal advantage.

It was a notably similar goal to their second. Another Mols corner from the right, another near post header from Woods and another failure by Gillingham’s defence to deal with a relatively straightforward set-piece situation.

Further changes, with Bradley Dack and McCleary introduced on 70 minutes, did nothing to alter the course of the game.

The shortcomings extended well beyond the goals conceded. There was little creativity through midfield., the forwards struggled to make an impression and Gillingham failed to establish any kind of foothold in the contest. Indeed, the statistics underlined Accrington's dominance. Stanley registered 21 shots to Gillingham’s six, with the visitors failing to manage a single effort on target. Accrington also won eleven corners to Gillingham’s one.

Ainsworth's post-match assessment was unequivocal. ‘Not good enough. We weren't good enough by a long chalk today.’

He acknowledged that Accrington had been stronger, quicker and more determined, winning the individual battles and repeatedly putting Gillingham under pressure. Particularly frustrating was that Stanley's approach, including their threat from set pieces, had been anticipated. ‘We didn’t look like getting back in the game and that was the worrying thing,’ Ainsworth added.

There were uncomfortable echoes of defensive frailties from last season, although the shortcomings on Saturday were by no means confined to defending corners. Ainsworth himself made the wider comparison: ‘I'm hoping it's a blip because that reminded me of some bad moments last season.’

Nor did he exempt himself from criticism, reflecting: ‘Maybe I've got to look at myself and say I got it wrong,’ in reference to his team selection and system.

Blip or warning sign?

Despite the defeat, Gillingham remain in the League Two play-off positions, dropping to sixth after 11 matches - almost a quarter of the season. They remain firmly in the promotion conversation, but the fluctuations between their best and worst performances are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Ainsworth's side remains something of an enigma. They have been capable of convincing victories at home against Tranmere and Bristol Rovers, and away at Rochdale and Rotherham. Yet, recent performances against Newport, York and now Accrington have offered a markedly different picture.

The underlying issue is consistency. Gillingham have shown what they are capable of, but not yet that they can reproduce it regularly.

Speaking after the game, Freeman was more inclined to regard Saturday as simply a bad day at the office. With 46 league games to negotiate, he suggested, there will inevitably be afternoons when performances fall short of expectations. He pointed to the previous weekend's comeback at Rotherham as evidence of the squad's collective spirit and capacity to respond.

With little time to dwell on Saturday's disappointment, Gillingham have an immediate opportunity to do just that. Port Vale visit Priestfield on Tuesday evening, followed by Grimsby Town next Saturday. ‘It's just about our resilience to bounce back now on Tuesday,’ Freeman said.

The coming week offers Gillingham an early opportunity to demonstrate that Accrington was indeed a blip rather than another indication that some of last season's problems remain unresolved.

David Tickner writes regularly about Gillingham Football Club on Substack. You can read, follow or subscribe for free at Gills Journal | David Tickner | Substack.