Second verse, same as the first

Roy’s latest communication, in which he proclaims Dickson Etuhu to be ‘ready’.  Very well.  Let’s see how he does then.  He has to play sooner or later, probably when Danny Murphy next gets a yellow card, so might as well use him in a hurly burly game like Stoke Away and save Murphy for the battles ahead.  Or not.  Who knows?  Maybe Leon Andreasen still plays football. But Dickson Etuhu is ready, and this is the main thing to take from today.

In other news… oh, what else is there?   I think I feel like Eddie Johnson at the moment soon after he arrived at Fulham.  It’s not great.   I’m beginning to wish I was a painter or a nurse or a carpenter or a singer or something else, but then even doing something artistically sensible isn’t always a guarantee of happiness either.   There must be a part of Eddie that wishes he was back scoring bucketloads for the Kansas City Wizards.

I finished Scott Fitzgerald’s “This Side of Paradise” this morning, which is a bad book but one that nevertheless captures a gigantic emptiness that resonates with me at the moment.  But I am also reading Justin Langer’s “Seeing the Sunrise”, which I had expected to be his autobiography when I ordered it.  No, it is a self-help book.   And amazingly enough it is quite interesting.  Justin is an earnest fellow and has learned much in his career as a professional cricketer, which he is now imparting to us the public in the form of a nifty little book, on the cover of which he grins happily but knowingly.  Langer may be an Australian cricketer, but also seems to think sometimes, so it’s a good read.   I shall get Steve Waugh’s book next and see where that leads me.

Football….   For the first time since Sunderland away last year I shall not be watching Fulham’s game in any way, shape or form.   Off to the folks’ to check in on them, which ought to do me the world of good.  The fresh country air, two amusingly happy dogs and the warmth of immediate family sounds like a good combination from here.

COYW, and watch out for those throw ins (which may be a decent motto for these challenging times).

Player Form

Oooh, here’s a good site.  It’s a very complete player ratings site, and a good one at that.   The sort of thing that ought to have been around forever, perhaps.

Here’s the Fulham page.  I like how they’re quite restrained, with 6 being a ‘doing his job’ rating, 5 being an off day, 7 being outstanding, and 8 supposedly ‘Maradona c.86′.  Which is reasonable, I think, and keeps things simple.   The spooky thing is that I agree with most of the ratings they have awarded over the course of the season, which is encouraging in some ways.

The mad thing is that you can check every team in the country.

Anyway, check it out.  I’ll be linking to it in the sidebar as well.

Keeping people happy

Roy talks about the Hangeland situation (video).  There wasn’t a Hangeland situation until we beat Spurs.  Hmm.  Until I saw the video I had assumed it was just Roy talking his usual sense.  This looks a little more ominous now.    A double blow would be the fact that our defence is so dependent on practice, on playing together in the same way over and over.  Any new player would be miles off on that front, which suggests we really do need to hang on to him until the summer so the reinforcements get time to learn the system.

He’s also quoted (not video) on the Bullard situation.   There has been a Bullard situation for some time, back in the summer when Bullard’s agent was trying to drum up interest from other clubs so as to force Fulham’s hand on contract negotiations.  Back then I heard from a couple of places that Fulham were prepared to let him go, effectively calling the agent’s bluff perhaps, but injury concerns scared teams off.   Now he has the England squad thing going for him and doubtlessly January will be an interesting time for us all.

“You don’t want to lose your best players. He has a year-and-a-half left on his contract, and I hope he stays,” said Hodgson.  “But I have to be realistic in that if a top player is in form and doing well then he will be coveted by the other clubs. I can’t give stonewall guarantee that we’ll be able to hold on to him. I hope we can, but we’ll have to wait and see what happens in the transfer window. I suppose the fact he’s getting international recognition has forced the contract talks along. In the beginning, he was asked to show some patience and wait until the end of this year.  Negotiations have opened up, and it’s an ongoing process. I’m sure that we’ll see a solution in the near future but I don’t want to be put on the spot over the time frame.   Hodgson has made his recommendation to Fulham’s board and is content to let them complete the talks with one of the club’s prized assets. We’ve discussed Jimmy, but there are complicated issues involved – finance and money. “The board knows my feelings on the subject and they know Jimmy’s feelings, so it’s up to them to sort the matter out.”

Which is – by necessity I suppose – a slightly less encouraging version of what he said about Hangeland.

Zoltan Gera is on the move:  to the right wing.

So far I played as a left-sided midfielder which is not really my cup of tea. Hodgson and I agreed that from now I should play on the right side

In his position I’m not sure that I’d be getting too picky, but as someone mentioned in the comments the other day, Dempsey’s probably equally effective on either flank so it might be that we do see Simon Davies rested and Gera reintroduced to the right wing.  Why not?

Nippy out

A fractured evening at CCN Towers, in which precious little has been accomplished.  In an attempt to wrongfoot winter’s black bile I’ve just been for a short run around the block, dodging discarded leaflets, a galaxy of vomit, the remains of a can of spilt white paint, and half a dozen pedestrians who were also out enjoying this most freezing of freezing evenings.   And now back for a quick catchup before disappearing for the night, in order to do it all again tomorrow.

This cracked me up.  I take back anything negative I might have ever thought about Tony Adams.  Good spot, WSC magazine.

‘I don’t actually like people,’ he says. ‘I’m a loner and if I had my way I’d just walk my dogs every day, never talk to anyone and then die.’

‘I’m going to quote Winston Churchill now. How about that! He said success is going from one failure to the next with the same enthusiasm. I’m not sure I want to experience failure too often but I like the sentiment.

‘I was ready to take this job and I would have been sickened to see someone else come in. I was actually ready to move and manage elsewhere and I’d asked Harry for help in that respect, with the contacts he has in the game and everything.

‘He was going to do that but then he just ups and leaves! And there was no guarantee that they were going to give me the job here.

‘But I was prepared for it because of the Newcastle situation with Harry last year. It came up then, a lot of the same thoughts and feelings. It was a bit of a mental dress rehearsal so when it came up again I felt very comfortable with the path I chose.

‘In the first few days I still had incredible self-doubt, although I think that’s human. I don’t actually trust anyone who doesn’t have self-doubt. But I have resources and I have a lot of faith in myself, my methods and my team. I’m walking tall at the moment. It feels like the right thing to do. Is this too deep for the Daily Mail?’

Splendid.

Here’s Roy on the subs’ issue, which I’m sure I read in the Times the other day but which has cropped up in the Mail when I looked for it:

Home boss Roy Hodgson, who did not use a single substitute, said: ‘We’re lucky enough to know our best 11, 12 or 13 and we try to get the best out of them.

‘I hear “impact players” mentioned and I sort of embrace the principle that these kind of players exist – but I don’t know quite how we’re going to get them. If we had a player who was good enough, he’d be on the field in the first place.’

I find myself pleased with this, but Roy must also consider the Baker Factor, named for Colin’s discovery that forwards score at a better rate off the bench than when they start.   So while a fresh Johnson/Zamora trumps a fresh Nevland/other, an unusually tired Zamora or Johnson is probably less effective than 20 minutes of Nevland.  Speaking of Colin, worth reading back on this to remind ourselves that Mr Zamora will rebound before too long.

Missing in action

Simon Davies’ loss of form is well known now.  He has played wide right, wide left, and done neither especially convincingly.  This is – as Tony pointed out the other day – turning into the Simon Davies we first expected when Chris Coleman first signed him.

Then we expected a middle of the road player who was sometimes good but sometimes not and who would not make much of a difference either way.  Instead we got a revelation: a player who was pleasing to watch, and a player who could do most things you’d want an attacking midfielder to do.  Davies is quick – not fast, but nimble and quick.  He flies around the field and is excellent on the counter attack. He immediately made an impact by passing not to the sky or to the opponents’ centre-backs, but to his teammates.  It sounds silly, but it was really noticeable.  Everyone else was playing silly balls in the vague direction of Brian McBride’s head; Davies *passed* the ball.  Claus Jensen did that when he was fit, but nobody else was a proper passer.  Then we saw what he could do with a dead ball, a beautiful whipped delivery that caused problems all over the place.  Without thinking I remember a goal at Upton Park, and an extraordinary drive from distance at the Stadium of Light.  His overall delivery was excellent.  The only things he couldn’t do were head the ball and defend, and even then he nabbed a good header against Man City at home last year (goal of the season by any rational analysis… possibly) and his defending did get better over time.

Highlights everywhere, my favourite being that darting run away to Reading last year, when, like a fly half in rugby dummying an entire team, he slipped through a tiny gap then sent Erik Nevland free for that thrilling “we might just pull this off you know” goal.  Davies was a player at the top of his game, our best player.

We’re now 15 games into the new season and I really can’t remember one performance that matches what he did last season.  A drop in form?  Changing positions?  Swallowed by the system?  All three contribute, no doubt.  But maybe he’s just suffering from not being The Man anymore.  I’m not suggesting that he has an ego that has been punctured, not at all.  He seems like one of the more likeable players in the game, from a distance.  No, it just seems that when he first played for us he was clearly our best player.

His first game was that abominable midweek away match at Sheffield United in January 2006.  I made the dubious decision of going to that one on the supporters coach.  It was freezing, miles away, and the team was terrible.  And I mean terrible.  Sheffield United got stuck in, Vincenzo Montella decided he’d had enough after half an hour, and Zat Knight and Ian Pearce played as if it was a “no defending” theme night.  The team, for posterity:

Niemi-Rosenior-Knight-Pearce-Quedrue-Davies-Volz-Brown-Radzinski-Montella (Helguson)-McBride

Feel the quality.  No?  You’re right.  In retrospect that’s a Championship side.  Simon Davies stands out doesn’t he?  How on earth did we stay up?  Here was my report from that day.

In his second game Knight and Pearce were excused, Bocanegra and Christanval playing in the middle. Helguson started this time, and Wayne Routledge replaced Radzinski.  We beat Newcastle 2-1.   Again, looking at that team, Davies stands out doesn’t he?

Maybe his best performance last year was at home to Reading (3-1).  That day we lined up Niemi-Omozusi-Stefanovic-Hughes-Ashton-Davies-Davis-Murphy-Dempsey-Kamara-Bouazza.  It was a notional 4-4-2, with long balls and chaos, especially when Shefki Kuqi came on and changed the game in our favour.  Don’t laugh, he did!  David Healy was another substitute, and scored a late goal to seal the win.  Davies was sensational that day, scoring the first and making the last.  Great stuff, but again, looking at that team you see a back four that was frankly all over the place, a midfield with an identity crisis (Murphy and Davis were playing as orthodox CMs then, and it wasn’t working), and the forwards…  so again, Simon Davies stands out doesn’t he?  In a team of poor technique, of non-existant organisation, Davies’ skill and calmness under pressure made him look a class apart.  It continued throughout the season, even during the run in.

Now Roy Hodgson has made over the Fulham team.  Schwarzer-Paintsil-Hughes-Hangeland-Konchesky-Davies-Bullard-Murphy-Dempsey/Gera-Zamora-Johnson.  These are better players in a better setup and that makes a better team.   Are we seeing less of Davies simply because everyone else is either so much better or playing so much better?  Is the collective outlook so much better, so much more organised, so much more effective that there’s simply less room for Davies to stand out?  Less of the ball to take, fewer set pieces to whip in, fewer games to shape?   While it’s great that Jimmy Bullard is hungry for the ball, every time he demands possession is another time Simon Davies doesn’t have it.  Every time Bullard takes a free-kick, or a corner, what’s Davies doing?  He’s no threat to get on the end of these dead balls either.  He is neutered.   Now Clint Dempsey’s playing on the right and Davies is parked on the left hand side of a very narrow midfield.  He’s not seeing the ball, he’s not shaping the game, he’s… not Simon Davies.

Simon Davies is probably my favourite player, and I want to see him play like he used to.  But I have no idea if that’s going to happen.  What do you think?

Barn doors

I know the whole Zamora thing is a bit passe now.  The short summary is:  needs to score more but is playing well.

And I think we can leave it there.

But one more thing.  Lies, damn lies, etc.  Goals and percentage of shots going in for a selection of top flight players.  The health warning is that one or two goals can change this list in a hurry.   Our Bob’s not doing badly, but is some way behind the game’s deadliest.   But then if he was prolific too he’d be worth 30 million…. anyway:

Gerrard 4 at 9%
Alonson 2 at 7%
Kuyt 5 at 13%
Keane 2 at 10%
Torres 5 at 24%
Lampard 5 at 11%
Malouda 2 at 6%
Deco 3 at 23%
Cole 2 at 15%
Anelka 13 at 28%
Kalou 3 at 21%
Ronaldo 8 at 22%
Rooney 4 at 9%
Berbatov 2 at 12%
Tevez 1 at 6%
Fabregas 1 at 4%
Walcott 1 at 5%
Nasri 4 at 33%
van Persie 7 at 16%
Adebayor 6 at 14%
Bendtner 1 at 8%
Miller 3 at 8%
Bednar 4 at 21%
Santa Cruz 3 at 12%
Roberts 2 at 18%
Derbyshire 2 at 20%
McCarthy 2 at 33%
Cisse 6 at 13%
Jones 1 at 11%
Diouf hasn’t scored yet, so no percentages for him (NB there will be others not on this list because they haven’t scored yet, it’s a self-selecting sample in a way)
Bentley 1 at 4%
Bent 7 at 27%
Pavlyuchenko 3 at 19%
Bellamy 1 at 4%
Di Michele 2 at 14%
Cole 3 at 11%
Carew 5 at 21%
Agbonlahor 7 at 37%
Young 4 at 13%
King 5 at 22%
Cousin 3 at 21%
Bullard 1 at 3%
Gera 1 at 5%
Davies 1(!) at 5%
Dempsey 1 at 7%
Seol 1 at 25%
Murphy 2 pens at 33%
Zamora 1 at 4%
Johnson 4 at 22%

The midfield collectively might do a bit better too.

Bullard and Davies

Simon Davies’ missing mojo, eh?

Today he received two passes all game from Jimmy Bullard, and made one back.

That doesn’t seem like much for two of our more gifted ‘footballers’ does it?

Roy’s reaction

Here.

Fulham 1-1 Man City

A sleepy winter draw in the day’s early kick-off.  Both teams occasionally showed signs of life, but ultimately settled for a point.  It was not memorable.

City scored early.  A deep cross cut out Scwarzer and offered Benjani, Hughes and Paintsil an opportunity to win the ball.  Benjani rose highest and headed home for what felt like a soft opener.

Fulham couldn’t get going.  City had the wily Hammann and the blockading Kompany in front of their back four, and for a time the Whites seemed to be trying to bypass these two with aerial passes.  This wasn’t really working, so it was with some relief that the usual swift passing began to reappear.  Murphy and Bullard grew in influence, and Zamora seemed in good form.  Then came the equaliser:  Dempsey found Zamora, who took his time, then sent a sensational reverse ball through the City defence and into Bullard’s path. Bullard stuttered then hammered his shot across the goal right to left and into the far corner.  The league’s most futile shooter had finally hit the net.

The rest of the half was promising, with half-chances coming and going.  Hart in the City goal was not unduly troubled, but Fulham were now pulling the strings.   It continued into the second half, Zamora again starring with some mesmerising buildup play, but his luck in front of goal deserted him.  In the first half he had pulled a high ball from the sky then sent a screaming drive straight into Andy Johnson; now he slipped when well placed and skewered a ball high into the Neutral Area, and later expertly turned, looked up, then rolled a shot *just* wide.  His frustration grew and his effectiveness declined, culminating in an exasperated exchange with Bullard over an attacking free-kick.  The ball, 25 yards out and in the traditional left-footer area, seemed ideal for Zamora or Konchesky.  Zamora was quite insistent that he should take it, but Bullard stood his ground and our number 9 was forced to withdraw in disgust.  Bullard’s shot was saved easily by Hart, and our attacking play petered out from there.

In hindsight our best spell had come with Murphy, Bullard and Zamora playing some dazzling balls to one another and into Andy Johnson.  But as the game went on Bullard seemed to revert to his old freewheeling ways, popping up on both flanks, deep in front of the back four, just behind the front two, wherever he felt like playing.  And – surprise, surprise – the team’s play once more became ragged and unproductive, and City got back into the match.  Not to the extent that they became dangerous, but Fulham’s momentum disappeared and the game drifted into nothingness.

This was a shame because the match was there to be won.  In Dunne and Ben Haim, City had two ponderous and exploitable centre-backs.  But the Hammann-Kompany shield was hard to negotiate, and we could not capitalise.   The positive side is that the likes of Simon Ireland, in such fine form this year, and Shaun Wright-Phillips, a terrific player, did not unduly trouble us.  Murphy was again in good form breaking up attacks, and perhaps the two sides ended up cancelling each other out.  No matter:  five games unbeaten now, and any grumbling is slightly unreasonable with that considered.

Zamora interview in the Independent

Good spot, Pat on TiFF.   Really good interview by Glenn Moore.

Friday night..

Here’s Roy’s preview.

Really interesting.  Talks about the Dempsey/Gera situation.  Also worryingly realistic about Brede Hangeland and the lure of big clubs.

Man City tomorrow. Free-scoring Man City, who aren’t great away from home, who have problems at the back, who played in Europe in the week, who have injury concerns… were this not Fulham I’d be positively optimistic.   I’m the last person you’ll find saying things like “this game will tell us a lot about how good the team is”, because I do think that anything can happen in a game of football and so judging too much on one game is dangerous.  BUT it’s going to be a fascinating contest isn’t it?    So many attacking threats to nullify.  This could be our first goal bonanza at the cottage this year.  But it probably won’t be.

Colin has pooled the squad’s contract details onto one handy page.  And has details of why Mark Schwarzer is pretty valuable.   Isn’t it funny how Paul Robinson continues to have problems with balls going past him?  At what point do the mainstream media sit up and think “hang on, this bloke really isn’t very good is he?”?

Much of a goalkeeper’s work is done by the defenders in front of him.  If you give a premiership forward a free shot from the edge of the box he’ll score quite often.  If you put two people in his face he’ll rarely score.   So the quicker defensive players get to a forward the worse the shot and the easier for the goalkeeper, more or less.  Schwarzer’s been excellent, but again, it’s a team game, it really is.

Finally, don’t forget:  1245 kickoff tomorrow!

Going forwards

I think we’ve spent a fair amount of time thinking about the team’s defence, and possibly have quite a good understanding of why that side of the game is going quite well.   We understand, I think, that this is somewhat hindering our ability to score many goals.  But it’s also true that we could, and should, score more than we are.

So what needs to happen?

I haven’t the time or knowledge to go into things in any detail now, but let’s start things off and build as the weeks go on.   To the coaching books…

a team’s attacking play is based to a great extent on the concepts of creating and attacking space.  The players must widen out and lengthen the opposition defence by making movements without the ball; in other words they must force them to cover a greater area of the field, so making sure that the defenders do not find themselves in a position of numerical superiority
- Ceccomori et al:  Soccer’s 4-4-2 system

Effective attacking plays will always aim to get and create numerical superiority.  An exchange of passes, dribbling and overlapping are only a few of the more technical and tactical methods used to create numerical superiority, and they are indispensible to building up a fluid, efficient and productive attacking phase.
- Ceccomori: Set Plays

By making the most of our numerical superiority we free men to receive passes and create empty spaces that can be attacked.  As a result it will be easier for us to get near our opponent’s goal.
- Prestigiacomo: Coaching Soccer – Match Strategy and Tactics

The principal characteristics of a good attacking phase are the following:

+ unpredictability.  That is, the team’s ability to use the whole range of attacking techniques (explained in detail), modifying or varying them constantly in order to put opponents under pressure
+ effectiveness.  (playing to your players’ strengths)
+ adaptability.  (exploiting your opponent’s weaknesses)
… our team’s ability to defend with efficiency has a great influence on the way which we develop the attacking phase.  Even the number of players who can be involved in the attacking phase will depend, not only on the technical ability of the individuals or the competence of the team in general at maintaining possession, but also on the part of the field where the ball is recovered.  If our team organisation allows us to recover the ball at a good distance from the goal we are defending, then we will be better able to redirect play with a good measure of calm and without taking unecessary risks.  It goes without saying that the closer we are to our own goal when we recover the ball, the higher the pressure we will be under and the lower our chances of playing it with the necessary composure, because if we lose the ball in such a situation we will be putting ourselves in danger.
Lastly it is important to remember that the more players we can involve in the offense phase the more extensive our attacking front will be, thus offering us more solutions of assault, and putting the opposition’s defence under greater pressure.
- Massimo Lucchesi:  Attacking Soccer, A Tactical Analysis

Phew.  These are all from the introductions or fundamentals parts of the books in question.  They then go on to draw lots of diagrams and get even more long winded.  No matter, we have what we need for now.  Let’s try to summarise:

Creating space through movement
Creating numerical superiority through movement, exchanging passes, dribbling, overlapping
Unpredictability
Playing to strengths
Playing to opponents’ weaknesses
Winning the ball in a decent position
Getting enough people involved in the attack

This is a laughable attempt to bottle something that cannot be bottled, but it gives us hooks on which to try to land our hats.   Let’s go through each in turn (although they are all related):

Creating space through movement:  Johnson and Zamora do a lot of this.  The rest, not so much.

Creating numerical superiority:  this hardly ever happens

Unpredictability:  Clint Dempsey and Zoltan Gera (in terms of his late runs at least) bring this to the side; everyone else seems quite predictable

Playing to strengths:  are we stifling Bullard?  Davies is underwhelming now.  Johnson’s game looks well rounded, but we do seem to have blunted the attacking edge of some of our players in the name of defending.

Playing to opponents’ weaknesses:  I must admit I haven’t paid enough attention to opponents to know. Although Danny Murphy said that they were going to pressurise the Spurs ‘keeper, and that worked.

Winning the ball in a decent position:  yes, fine, as we’ve seen.  Murphy helps a lot here.

Getting numbers forward:  no, hardly ever.  We make sure that our players are set for what I now know is called “Negative Transition”, e.g. being behind the ball when we have it in case we lose it and are vulnerable to a counter attack.  I have also read in one of these books (prob the 442 one) that the wide midfielders are not usually both expected to attack at once, and this sort of fits.  We see Bullard building up, Davies as a sort of spare Bullard, and Dempsey as a third attacker, which Zamora and Johnson do their whirling around.

This really is a first stab at getting to grips with attacking ‘theory’, so please excuse platitudes and errors.   Hopefully some of the above might stimulate you into coming up with better ideas than I have.   The question we’re all wondering, I suppose, is whether we will now build on the solid defence and get better going forward, or will the latter require sacrificing the former?   I think it would, and I think Roy is happyish with how things are, so he won’t tinker too much as long as results are broadly in line with current happenings.

Running the game

Passes made by players last Saturday:

Bullard 67
Murphy 27
Dempsey 28
Davies 29
Paintsil 27
Konchesky 33

Young 21
Barry 24
Sidwell 14
Milner 22
Petrov 39
Luke Young 50
Cuellar 45

I didn’t include forwards.  Does that mean we kept the likes of Barry and Sidwell quiet?  I think it does.

Gareth Barry’s passing in previous games:

Man Utd 40
Arsenal 32
Middlesbrough 42
Newcastle 40
Blackburn 31
Wigan 31
Portsmouth 66 (playing left back)

Interesting how little he sees the ball (relative to Jimmy Bullard), and how we kept him relatively quiet.

And just to emphasise how important Jimmy Bullard is to our team, here are his passes:

Villa 67
Liverpool 67
Spurs 68
Newcastle 46
Everton 64
Wigan 64
Portsmouth 59

Busy isn’t he?  Nice that he’s running back into form as well.  The England call up may have messed with his head, but he seems to be firing again now.

How to tame better teams while playing away

Since we’ve already started down this road, we might as well carry on and see where it takes us.

Last week it was observed that the Fulham defence is playing well, but is being helped by the way the team is set up, to the point where our defenders are now probably being over-praised and our forwards may be slightly undervalued.   It is difficult to apportion credit here, so we should be happy to say “good job, all” and leave it there (while remembering to praise Roy Hodgson yet again).

The Aston Villa game gave us yet another reason to praise everyone and admire Roy Hodgson’s cunning.  What follows is a look at how we went to Villa Park and nullified one of the country’s more dangerous teams.  Yes, Villa had an off day, but isn’t it funny how in the last month we have also caught Liverpool, Spurs and Newcastle on off-days?    What are the odds?  

Anyway.  Against Villa we had very specific problems.  First, that man Gabby Agbonlahor.  He has a reputation for being extremely fast.   So that’s problem A:  if Fulham had pushed up to squeeze the game Villa would at some point have picked us apart over the top.  Problem B was annoying too, because if the defence was to sit back in deference to Agbonlahor’s pace this would leave Villa’s five man midfield (Young-Barry-Petrov-Sidwell-Milner: all good players) a lot of room (forwards and sideways) to pin us back in our own box.    It represented something of a quandary:  if you can’t push up, you can’t drop back, what do you do? 

Roy Hodgson seemed to have an answer for his players: keep the ball as long as possible, but under no circumstances should we over commit to attack.  Do not hare forwards in numbers.  Stay disciplined, and make sure that the metaphorical back door is never left unguarded.   Finally, pass slowly and carefully.  Confused?  Let’s have a look at this in more detail.

Keeping the ball sounds obvious, but it remains true that if we have possession the opposition probably aren’t going to score.   But – as one of the club’s more eagle-eyed supporters recently noted on a message board – it’s what we did with the ball that was particularly interesting.   When in possession we frequently saw Jimmy Bullard (our heartbeat/quarterback/other cliché) slow down the move and recycle the ball through the back four.   Bullard usually attempts to pass forwards, to take the game to the opposition.   On Saturday he did not do seem to do this.   And this being the modern world, I can prove it with statistics:  against Newcastle, Bullard passed to the midfield or the defence (e.g. sideways or backwards) with 61% of his passes; against Spurs it was 63%; at Anfield it was 79%; at Villa it was 88%.  If that’s not a pattern I don’t know what is. 

By slowing down our own attacks Villa were given time to regroup into a line of five and a line of four in front of our players in their own half.   This is exactly what Roy Hodgson wanted.   Think about it:  if Fulham go at Villa all guns blazing, before too long Villa are going to win the ball and catch us out, catch us with players who are not in a position to defend.   The more ragged the game the more chance that their faster, more dynamic players make something happen.   But by ensuring that Villa are as deep as possible when not in possession, it makes it that much harder for them to launch quick attacks.   Normally you push a team back by adopting a high line yourself.  We couldn’t use a high line, so we pushed them back by slowing the game down.  This way their players are behind the ball and most of ours are too.  Bingo: everyone *on both teams* is in a very controlled position and you have a slow paced battle right in the middle of the pitch, a positional stalemate, the very opposite of an open game.  The last thing Villa wanted but the perfect way to pilfer an away point.