So, then: another away day, another point picked up and another game in which the prospect of a goal for either team barely reached the realm of remote possibility. It’s difficult to know what to say about this game without sounding repetitious. As at Anfield and Villa Park, we played a version of the ‘passing game’ which killed the contest completely – our ponderous and cautious use of the ball meaning the game never became stretched and both teams were invariably well set enough to snuff out the other’s attacks with ease.
Jimmy Bullard in particular seemed to want three or four touches every time he received possession – usually one yard away from one of our defenders, whom he liked to pass it straight back to, and often whilst Johnson or Dempsey would be making enterprising runs into space up front. By the time our midfield did work the ball towards them, the space had long gone. For all our possession, we failed to create a single chance of note – two decent but optimistic long-range efforts from Davies and Dempsey being the closest we came. Stoke had the one real opening when, on the half hour, Cresswell curled a shot over having been slipped through by the impressive Fuller.
As for the infamous throw-ins, Stoke’s first came on about ten minutes. Forward went the big defenders as the crowd chanted ‘Rory’s gonna get you…’ and the boy Delap prepared to launch his missile. As the Fulham fans held their breath, he took his run up and promptly spilled the ball a matter of yards in front of him – the most delightful of anti-climaxes. His shoulder injury was aggravated and it was left to Sonko to take over chucking duties for the rest of the game, against which Schwarzer and our defence coped admirably. Brede Hangleland was again an absolute class apart throughout – by far our man of the match.
In the second half, there was a period when the game threatened to be overshadowed by the performance of the referee – the already infamous and unfortunately pretty incompetent Stuart Atwell. He could easily have awarded us a penalty twice in the first half, but had soon exasperated both sets of supporters with a succession of bizarre decision, to the point where ‘You’re not fit to referee’ was sung in unison by home and away sections alike.
With the atmosphere increasingly restless, there was suddenly a flashpoint between Paintsil and Fuller, the former falling to the ground theatrically after their heads came together. Atwell simply did not know what to do – neither punishing Stoke’s player for a head-butt or ours for ‘simulation’, but the home fans had their own opinion and Paintsil inevitably had his every touch booed thereafter. His reaction? To revel in the attention, demanding possession and twisting and feinting to ridiculous excess whenever he received it. Soon, we won a throw in on the right hand side and were treated to the wonderful sight of our hero nonchalantly (and with no little skill) juggling the ball along the touchline as, just yards from him, thousands of fans screamed torrents of abuse. Brilliant stuff.
But that was as entertaining as it got. As a collective, the team now seem to be stuck in something of a rut. The passing ethic is in principle a good one but it relies on the occasional risk being taken – an attempt to beat a man, a difficult first-time pass being tried – and at the moment our play is far too conservative to really threaten our opponent’s goal. Against Stoke, there was no reason to be cautious – if we’d opened the game up slightly I’d have backed our players to score more goals than theirs. It seems a shame that the management and players don’t have the confidence or ambition to ‘go for it’ a little more – perhaps that will come. In the meantime, watching Fulham away can be pretty dull and frustrating stuff.




John Pantsil’s dive was disgraceful. It was a deliberate attempt to get a fellow professional sent off. Completely out of order. Don’t blame a weak referee, it was embarrassingly calculated. He had time to think about his actions.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Comment by Steve Vajda — December 14, 2008 @ 1:32 pm |
I agree, the dive made me cringe… especially since I’ve really cottoned to Paintsil as a player for his work ethic and personality.
But, that personality shone through during the sideline juggle… pretty brilliant stuff, like you said. Sad as it is, that’s the highlight of the match.
Comment by El Steve — December 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm |
Thanks for that, especially the insight into JP’s reaction afterward, which does sound fun.
As for gamesmanship/cheating (take your pick), it’s easy to smile along with attempts to gain penalties, on the basis that everyone does it. But tacky antics like this one are abnormal, and good job too. Unless R.Fuller had been getting away with murder prior to the incident itself, there’s no mitigation. Had he?
Comment by b+w geezer — December 14, 2008 @ 8:49 pm |
I’m not condoning Paintsil’s antics – indeed if one of their players had done the same I’m sure I would have been screaming abuse just as Stoke’s fans were. But he is massively in credit as far as I’m concerned, and yesterday I was just grateful that someone was doing something to make the match worth travelling to. It was, in my opinion, needlessly tedious stuff against limited opposition (after all, they lost their biggest weapon after just ten minutes) so a bit of entertainment from one of our players came as welcome relief. Perhaps JP himself was getting bored and wanted to liven things up.
Comment by JamieR — December 15, 2008 @ 1:03 am |
I saw Simon Morgan collapse in a heap when the opponent clearly never made contact with him and succeed in getting the guy sent off. I also am old enough to remember Mark Pearson famously do the same to Ian St John.
It’s not a new thing and not confined to unethical foreigners.
It seemed to me that Fuller’s movement towards Pantsil and the slight head contact that came from him merited at least a yellow which would have been his second.
Did Pantsil massively overreact? Yes and very unconvincingly. But there was at least contact.
Comment by Tony Gilroy — December 15, 2008 @ 8:20 am |
Just seen the replay – yes Paintsil’s overreaction is stupid. I agree with Tony, though, that Fuller should still have been booked – he did move his head towards JP’s. JP should have been booked for being an idiot.
It seems this incident has become the story of the match now – on here and on TIFF – which is a shame, since I’d be interested to read people’s views on the performance.
Ah well, bring on Middlesbrough – and hopefully a goal or two.
Comment by JamieR — December 15, 2008 @ 9:41 am |
From the sound of it, the performance had a lot in common with the previous 0-0s. So what you call “ponderous and cautious use of the ball” wasn’t — as I’d surmised and as Rich went on elaborate for `The Times’ — designed to cope with [Torres and] the Villa speed-merchants. It’s just the away norm now, it appears.
Did we adjust our game at all in the absence of Zamora?
Comment by b+w geezer — December 15, 2008 @ 10:51 am |
What can you say about the match.
A tough place to go, we’re organised, do a job, take no risks, score no goals, get our point.
However tight the table we won’t go down playing like this,it’s a massive improvement on the last few seasons,it’s easy to understand why we’re adopting these tactics and Roy’s doing a wonderful job.
BUT.
It’s not really very exciting or interesting and doesn’t leave much to talk about.
Comment by Tony Gilroy — December 15, 2008 @ 10:58 am |
it is a very good way to play away from home, but sadly we lack the burning pace to do anything useful on the counter attack and the invention/desire to do anything unexpected with the ball. To score goals you need a numerical advantage in attack, and we just don’t commit numbers to our attacking moves. So away from home we’ll usually have two or three forwards trying to get something from five or six defenders in very limited space, which is hard to pull off.
We neither stretch the pitch vertically (on the counter, over the top) nor horizontally (wingers stretch opposing back fours), which leaves the poor forwards the task of battering through a narrow, compact defence, which – as we are seeing – is very hard to do.
Put another way, we are not hard to defend against.
Comment by rich — December 15, 2008 @ 11:13 am |
Aha, thanks guys for answering my call! :p
Indeed perhaps the point, as you say Tony, is that it just ‘doesn’t leave much to talk about’. So, in the void, Paintsil’s error of judgement has gained extra prominence.
Zamora was definitely a miss, in that AJ was isolated for large parts of the game. He really is a crucial player in our system, and does his job very well. Having said that, Clint (who played there instead) was one of our better triers. But he’s a different type of player.
I think my worry is that after four solid but conservative displays, I just hope the ‘anti-momentum’ (if such a thing exists) hasn’t built up too much. We need to be able to shake oursleves out of it and show a bit more ambition and energy next week.
Comment by JamieR — December 15, 2008 @ 12:50 pm |
I saw the game on Match of the Day (breach of the trades description act if you ask me) and watched the Paintsil incident. It was disgraceful and reminded me of the Brazil incident in the last World Cup. You should noted though that Fuller did square up to Paintsil, but it was Paintsil’s head that had the forward motion (check you tube). He was the one who intigated that, then he clutched his face….I think in shame more than anything else. Gamesmanship is a legal way to cheat and cannot be condoned. Going down in the area to get a penalty when there has clearly been no contact should be a sending off affair. Going down in the area where there is a threat on goal and a clear infringement needs to be treated as such. Trying to cheat by using illegal methods should be dealt with. If a city trader cheated to earn £20m, he would go to prison for a long time. Players who cheat, and the consequence is that a team stays in the Premiership earning at least £20m, are not treated in the same way. Why is that? Football is one of Britains greatest commodities, far more interesting than most of what comes of the UK. Fuller commented last week that he felt a touch and went down. Shearer and co agreed that the principal was correct, but I would prefer the ethos of the pre 90’s when players tried to stay on their feet. Although European competitions have done great things to our wonderful game, it has also brought us an embarrassing part of the game that should never have been adopted.
Comment by Kingston — December 15, 2008 @ 1:31 pm |
In a previous discussion, I raised the issue of why we bother playing 2 up front when we play away. The response I think (apologies if I’m wrong) was that there was no point playing another midfielder, as it would just clog up the midfield and cramp the likes of Bullard and Murphy. Lo and behold, Zamora gets injured and what does Roy do, puts in another midfielder rather than say Nevland. Logic? Discuss, as my history teacher would say. Why does Roy have such little faith in Nevland.
Comment by Mike H — December 16, 2008 @ 5:50 am |
Mike.
The club has always had 1 or 2 players that never get picked and the supporers don’t know why. I can’t think of a single example of such a player leaving the club and succeeding significantly at the same or higher level.
I like what I’ve seen of Nevland but Hodgson’s no fool and would use him if he thought he’d be likely to produce the goods. If he ever gets a run he might conceivably show that Roy was wrong but much more likely is that after a couple of games supporters would start to understand why he wasn’t getting games. They’d realise that he’s not the saviour just another decent player who can’t quite cut it at this level.
I suspect that he’s a similar standard as Heider Helgusson. Bringing him on with 15 minutes to go when we need a goal could be worthwhile but if AJ and BZ are still fit and relatively fresh then by taking them off you lose the better player.
Comment by Tony Gilroy — December 16, 2008 @ 8:27 am |