Good morning! It’s a lovely, crisp morning in South London. Perfect football weather maybe.
I shall be back with a report at some point on Sunday (up to Cambridge for a fancy dress do – I’ll be Captain Haddock, assuming my beard arrives in the post today). In the meantime, enjoy the game! I have high hopes.
The good news is in: Brede Hangeland has signed a contract extension with Fulham.
It’s a win-win situation. If at some point in the next two years Fulham start to seriously underperform, or if Hangeland takes his game to a new level, then at least we’ll be able to get fair value for him when the vultures circle. But if we keep on playing well and he keeps on playing well then on we all go and we don’t need a centre-back for quite a while. Hurray!
Between Hangeland and Aaron Hughes (who also needs a contract, but who also will surely sign one), we have a hugely successful and very likeable centre-back pairing. There is nothing flash about either of them. Neither is what you might call a ‘hard man’ (did you see the stats in the paper the other day about Hughes’ disciplinary record? I think he’s the cleanest player in the entire league) but both have stickability, enough presence not to be bullied (see last Wednesday against Blackburn), and enough nouse to control their area of the pitch against all but the best teams.
They always say that you build from the back, and rightly so: we have Schwarzer-Hangeland-Hughes, and we’re not going to best that for a good while. When you think of the various Niemi/Knight/Bocanegra/Christanval/Pearce combinations, which all had their moments (good and bad), then look at the current setup, we’re miles ahead aren’t we? Schwarzer is so good I hardly ever mention him on these pages (he was at it again on Wednesday, with some crucial saves and claims), and when did Hughes and Hangeland last look like they weren’t on the same wavelength?
I am, I have realised, talking more about the player’s work in the team than the player himself, but I think that’s apt for the side we have now. It’s all about the team, and the individuals that make it greater than the sum of its parts. Hangeland’s vitally important to this team, and now we know he’s staying with us for a while. Great news.
(And in a nice twist, tomorrow we will see Zat Knight again. I have a lot more time for dear old Zat than most, but comparing the two of them really does show how far we’ve come. Knight had dominant games, and didn’t have the benefit of serious coaching like Hangeland does now, but even so. Knight’s defence always seemed to find a way to concede. We’re better than that now.)
You have to admire facebook for its sheer out-there-ness. According to this email, my sister, Dom from my last job, and Pendo who I worked with in Ireland, have started a zoo together.
Anyway, Bolton tomorrow. As discussed a while back, Bolton are allowing 5 shots a game more than they’re making, and you’d take that wouldn’t you? Intriguingly though, they have won 2 of their 5 away games this year. These were Portsmouth (7 straight defeats vintage) 3-2, and Birmingham, 2-1. Since then they’ve lost 2-1 at United, and been spanked by Chelsea (4-0) and Villa (5-1). Most recently, they lost 2-0 at home to Blackburn.
I shall be back later with Hangeland thoughts…
Hasn’t it been mad seeing Jimmy Bullard rescuing Hull? I think the maxim “there’s a time and a place for everything” works well with Bullard. The way the team is now, can you imagine Chris Baird playing like he is with Bullard about? And I mean this in purely footballing terms.
Bullard’s style affects everyone around him to a massive extent, and when you’re Hull City and things are looking bleak, I can’t think of anyone better to turn things around. It’s why Phil Brown made that gamble in the first place, and why he’s probably thanking his lucky stars that Bullard re-appeared when he did.
So yes, the time and place for Bullard is Hull City, 2009 vintage. They need him, just as we needed him when he came back from injury a couple of seasons ago. It’s easy to over-estimate his contribution to that reversal, just as it’s easy to under-estimate it. But you can’t knock the way he’s gone about his business on the pitch up at Hull. He’s doing exactly what he did for us, charging about everywhere, demanding the ball, and using it very, very well. For a team to go from where the were to where they are (only three games, but what a difference!) is a testament to the fellow’s pizazz. No, we don’t need him anymore, but he’s still a fine player by the looks of things, and I find myself delighted to see him at it again.
On October the 21st this year I wrote about Clint. At the time he hadn’t a league goal to his name, and was taking lots of exciting but wild shots from outside the box. I listed all his Fulham goals and noted that they’d all been half-scruffy efforts from inside the area. Since then he’s scored five goals in five games, all from inside the area.
Coincidence? Of course. But it’s great to see the fellow doing what he does best. Getting in places where defenders don’t want him to be and sticking the ball in the net. He does that as well as anyone, and I’m sure the goals will keep coming, especially with Duff and Davies now both available.
Brilliant to see Simon Davies back at the Cottage isn’t it? I don’t know where he fits in now Duff and Dempsey are so entrenched, but despite knowing better, I keep forgetting what a terrific player Davies has been for the club. Last night he joined a messy match, showed his class instantly, and settled the game with a fine cross for Dempsey.
Another player in the same boat is Zoltan Gera, who had another fine game after coming on. There seems to be so much more conviction about his play now. I have no idea how you fit four good wide players into a team, but it’s a nice problem to have. If Chris Baird is to stay holding then it’s very tempting to wonder about using one of the four as a withdrawn forward/classic 10. I’d love to see what Duff or Davies or Dempsey or Gera could do in that role, particularly the latter two with their ability to make late runs into the box. Roy doesn’t seem likely to sacrifice his 4-4-2, and who can argue with that, but I would like to see us playing three of these four if possible.
But perhaps there isn’t room. I was happy with the central midfielders in the end last night. Jon Greening couldn’t impose himself on the game, but as Danny Murphy’s understudy it’s hard to argue with his play. We’ve done well while he’s been in the side, and if he hasn’t brought his best to the table every game, he certainly hasn’t let us down. Sure, Murphy offers the side more, but Greening’s done okay too. I always think that centre-midfield is one of the hardest positions to play, so for he and Baird to start out as a new ‘engine room’ and make it work has been great to see. I sit quite close to the pitch now, and while I lose an overview of where everyone’s standing, I can see a lot more effort out there. Greening’s plays hard for the team and is not without skill. I think Roy will be reasonably pleased with his efforts.
Finally, fair play to our defence last night. It’s easy to write Blackburn off as a long-ball team, but last night they threw the kitchen sink at Hangeland and Hughes, and did so from a range of angles and through some very different players. Di Santo looked lightning quick; Roberts is one of those players you always like to be not playing; McCarthy is unpredictable but dangerous; Diouf is an enigma, but a fine player on occasion. And that’s not to mention David Dunn buzzing around all over the place. Our lads stood up to a surprise barrage very well, and thoroughly deserved the clean sheet.
Was there, I wonder, a Fairy Liquid slick somewhere on the pitch? If I’m right, every so often the ball would land in this area, and for the next ten minutes would be uncontrollable. Players would pass it into spaces where no teammate could follow, to the touchline, to the wide open night sky: anywhere but to teammates. It’s a theory, and one that would certainly explain some of the worst passing I can remember seeing from a Roy Hodgson Fulham team. For 40 minutes we were dreadful.
We couldn’t get to grips with Blackburn’s super-organised 4-3-3. Blackburn won all the first phase balls, all the second phase balls, and any other balls that were there to be won. They then passed it around reasonably neatly (in non-Fairy Liquid stretches of the game) and refused to let Fulham in. Fulham would eventually see the ball, play it down some dead-end or recycle it back through to John Paintsil or Paul Konchesky, who would then play it down some dead-end. As I say, it was dreadful.
The funniest thing in all this was that, just as people had given up on the half and gone to the bar, we went and scored. Erik Nevland – heretofore… untidy… – did as he does, found space in the penalty area and slammed a shot low past Paul Robinson. 1-0, a really nice move (Nevland-Zamora-Nevland-Duff-Nevland). Everyone cheered, but it was a bemused cheer of wonderment and concern. How did that happen?
Blackburn will have wondered the same thing, but sadly for them Fulham were a different team in the second half. Chris Baird grabbed the game by the scruff of the neck and took over. He was magnificent, putting together a tremendously mature, cultured and astute half, full of driving runs and canny interceptions. He is the most improved player at the club by a distance.
Fulham were in control now and added a fortunate (but not undeserved) second when a Duff shot deflected through the Blackburn defence and gave Clint Dempsey an unmissable tap-in, and then a third following a lovely move across the pitch that finished with Dempsey rolling his man inside the six yard box and banging in his second.
3-0 then. Weird.
Heads up: Bruce (DuNord) and Adam (This is American Soccer) are both up for an exciting award. Go over and vote for one or both of them!
It has been three long weeks since the last home game. Three weeks!
Sometimes during these long gaps between games it does feel as though something is missing. For me, naturally there should have been a home game on Saturday. I really needed one.
On Thursday I accidentally (but jovially) called my boss a bastard during a client meeting. It was once of those gritted teeth grinning incidents. I don’t know why it happened. It just did. People obviously noticed but were too polite to bring it up.
On Friday I left my mobile phone in the pub. Only later (after a nice curry) did I realise what had happened, but already seeds of doubt were in my mind. Luckily some lads had handed it in to the bar, but how strange that I had left it behind.
On Saturday things reached a low point. At 2:15 I decided to cycle to the Famous Three Kings to watch the Birmingham game. This I did. Only that morning I had mentioned to Hade that, despite all the serious weather, I had been in an office for much of it and the whole thing had passed me by. Ha! Got to the pub alright (it rained, but I was expecting that), but on the way home (having witnessed the game from a cramped corner while three drunken non-football fans who shouted too much lolled around on the prime location sofas) I got a puncture. And the rain was serious now. Luckily I got a replacement inner tube at Evans on the Fulham Road, but a couple of miles later (passing Wandsworth Common, to be exact) the new tube burst! I nearly threw my bike into the trees. It was pissing it down, I was soaked through, and still not home. Furious I was. Grrr.
Sunday: after a nice day in London we found ourselves abandoned at Stockwell tube. There were buses – there are always buses – but 500 other people wanted buses, so we walked. Eventually we saw an opportunity and did get on a bus, and soon we were sitting upstairs. As the bus slowed on Tooting High St we leapt to our feet and started our descent. I was carrying Hade’s brolly. I slipped on the stairs, sending the brolly scything through the air and just past the face of a grumpy looking woman in the seat next to the stairs. “Jesus Christ!” she said at me, in a “what the fuck are you doing?” voice. Everyone else on the bus laughed, but we concluded that I had been a few centimetres away from a nasty incident.
And today I realised that our team Christmas “do” is on the same night as the CSKA Sofia game. Nobody seemed very understanding about that one.
So it’s been a weird week. Luckily there’s a game tomorrow. The above might not sound like much to you, but to me it’s a run of things, signifying who knows what. No, these are not earth shattering events, but a sense of unease circles me now like the popular image of vultures around a dead cow. Football though. Blackburn too. Funny isn’t it how this run of games was always when we’d “cash in”, but now it’s here we’ve lost in Birmingham, Blackburn look a decent side, Sunderland most definitely *are* a decent side, Burnley are really good at home, etc, etc. This league, eh?
I was just digging around looking for something when I ran across this (excuse the lengthy quotation, but I think it’s worth it):
1925-26: This was an important phase in the history and development of the off-side Law. The “three-opponent” rule had remained basically unchanged until now. Following a proposal by the Scottish FA, the International Board, meeting in Paris on 13 June 1925, decided that the simple answer to the problem, was to reduce from three to two the number of defenders who could place an attacker off-side. The law was promptly altered for season 1925-1926 so that a player could not be off-side if two (instead of three) opponents were nearer to their own goal line when the ball was played. The 1925 rule remained in force until after World Cup, Italy in 1990. Under the old rule that had been in force since 1867, defending players would play further up the field. By keeping in a diagonal line, the defenders easily caught attacking players off-side as they advanced past the foremost defender. And should an attacking player run through after a long ball, he still had the other defending player to beat and the goalkeeper.
Defending players had this law worked to such a fine art, that in the early 1920’s the full-backs had developed an almost fool-proof tactic to catch attacking players off-side. They would position themselves almost up to the halfway line, one staggered slightly behind the other, enabling them to catch attacking players off-side with such success, that the game had so many stoppages for off-side offences, it became monotonous. Credit for exposing and exploiting the old rule is usually given to a full-back who played for Newcastle, Billy McCracken, who with this full-back partner would advance to as near the halfway line as possible (a player cannot be off-side in his own half), moving up quickly and timing their runs, so as they would often catch two or three forwards off-side. Opponents could find no way to master this tactic, which very quickly caught on with other teams.
The alteration from three to two dramatically decreased the off-side offences. In the season 1925-26, goals scored in the Football League were a third up at 6,373 compared to the old off-side law era 1924-25 season’s tally of 4,700. Although crowds relished the glut of goals, perceptive observers saw a sudden decline in the quality of the game. The law change also meant that the defending players were forced to play squarer to each other and much nearer to their goal – but not too near as to allow the attacker to shoot without first beating them to the ball. Attacking players began to use the long ball played between the two defenders, and made more use of their wingers who (with only 2 full-backs being employed) had ample space to ply their trade.
In 1925, Yorkshireman, Herbert Chapman (a modest player with half a dozen clubs, and later a manager with Huddersfield) eventually became manager of Arsenal. Chapman (on advice from the veteran inside-forward Arsenal player Charlie Buchan) changed the role of the all-purpose midfield player, and evolved and refined a new extra defensive position called the ‘centre-half’, whose job it became to block off the ‘through ball’, and to cover the wingers if they beat the other two defenders. The ’stopper’ had arrived; and other teams soon followed this idea. The standard 2-3-5 formation (two full-backs, three half-backs and five forwards), became 3-3-4. Deep-lying inside forwards began to adopt pincer-movement goal-raiding tactics known as the ‘W’ plan. Having a centre-half in the team, meant one less player concentrating on attacking, thus enforcing an initial negative type of defensive play that has taken many years to develop into the more offensive and exiting counter-attacking style that we enjoy today.
So now you know.
I only found this because I was looking at Dixie Dean’s 60 goals and remembered something about the offside rules changing just before. So it makes sense.
You know how when you put your phone on silent it vibrates?
What if you could turn that vibration up several notches, so that there would be no way on earth you’d miss it if it shook. You could then attach this device to your wrist, say, and get on with whatever you’re doing. We’ll call this the f!ckupbuzzer.
If someone wanted to alert your buzzer they could maybe have a button on their desk. If something happened that required your attention that someone would jab his or her button. A signal would be sent and the f!ckupbuzzer would shake on your arm. This would take about three seconds. You, noting this strange feeling (like an electric shock, perhaps), would stop what you were doing.
You might then put your buzzer to your mouth like James Bond and say “Yes, control? What is it?”
And control would say: “Henry handballed it in the buildup. Twice. Free-kick to Ireland.” Or: “Yeah, Riise was fouled, but not by Hangeland, by Kelly. And Hangeland was covering. So it’s a penalty to Roma and a yellow to Kelly, not a red for Hangeland or a red for Kelly.” Or: “David Healy scored, chief. The ball was well over the line.” Or: “You can’t send Nevland off for that, you idiot. Yellow card.” Or: “You can’t send Konchesky off for that! Not even a yellow.”
After which you would blow your whistle, explain to the opposing captain what had happened, and resume the game.
It would take 30 seconds.
If anyone’s bothered, I’ve decided to stop with the books blog as it’s painfully obvious that I have no idea how to write about books (“uh, that there was good. That one… yeah, pretty good too“). Instead I’ve loaded up everything onto librarything and contented myself with a star rating. As soon as I finish a book I’ll add it to the list. What you see there are all books finished in 2009 so far. What you don’t see are the many started and abandoned (although having got 600 pages into Don Quixote I owe it to myself to try to get through it… one day).
In the furious neverending November rain, Fulham made one mistake and lost the game. James McFadden, a quality player in an average Birmingham side, clipped a ball over the Fulham back four to Lee Bowyer, Bowyer flipped the ball over Mark Schwarzer, and the ball nestled in the net. 1-0. Bowyer was clean through because only three of the Fulham back four pushed up at the same time, Brede Hangeland delaying for a split second that ruined everything.
Apart from that it was all Fulham, although in truth neither goalkeeper had much to do. Having gone ahead Birmingham were able to pack their own half, and their organisation and determination were much too good for a willing but quality-shorn Fulham side.
We must not overlook the conditions, which made slick attacking play hard, but nevertheless, Birmingham were very much there for the taking. In the end our chances were limited to a couple of half chances that Zoltan Gera didn’t take, a Clint Dempsey bicycle kick that was never going in, and a rasping drive from Damian Duff that, had it been on target, would’ve been tricky for Joe Hart to deal with. Duff’s daisycutters are made for surfaces like this, but he came on too late to attempt many, and most of Hart’s action was dealing with crosses. He did tip a tremendous Dempsey header over the bar, but, while a good save, had the ball gone in questions would have been asked.
Fulham pinned Birmingham back for almost the entire second half but a goal wasn’t coming. At one point I caught myself thinking “we’re murdering them here,” but of course you can’t metaphorically murder a team if you’re not getting shots in. These games can be something of a puzzle: our forward players performed reasonably well, with Zamora proving a handful and supplying some nice layoffs, Dempsey his usual hardworking self (although when he’s up front we miss him and his box crashing from midfield), and Gera getting into some good attacking positions (we’ve missed him doing that) but not finding a way through.
But behind these three the midfield and defence played a fairly frustrating game. It was competent enough, but how often did we see a lofted ball at Zamora flicked on to nobody or to a Birmingham defender? We needed better balls to begin with, and someone attacking the spaces where the ball might fall. Nobody did this. Danny Murphy would have been a huge plus today, as would Andy Johnson. No use crying over spilt milk, and we did more than enough to win the game, but against well-drilled defences quality is needed, and quality is what we lacked. (Although again, it was raining hard all game.)
We must move on. Close away defeats are not new for Fulham so no sense getting worked up over this one.
If I may take off my ranting hat and step back to my usual self, we have a game on Saturday.
We still have no internet at home so no depth to anything much I’m going to say here, but for those of you who like betting, it’s perhaps worth knowing that only eight goals have been scored at St Andrews this season. (c/o Opta on twitter).
What with us usually being quite tight away from home, it probably won’t be a goal fest.
What are the laws of football for? You get sent off for dangerous play because it’s dangerous. You get sent off for fouling too much because you shouldn’t foul too much. But what are the implications of these dastardly acts? Usually nothing. Just the general cleaning up of the game and allowing it to be the free-flowing attacking game we all love. If players are allowed to kick other players all they want then we probably wouldn’t have teams like the current Spain side. So it’s all good really. Ultimately though, yellow and red cards are passed on to punish infringements. Things that players shouldn’t do. Sometimes, if these things look very bad, long bans are passed along. When Paulo Di Canio pushed over that referee he got a long ban. The implication of his transgression was that referees had been demeaned and he’d set a bad example – you can’t assault the ref – but no real lasting damage was done. Eric Cantona jumped into the crowd, and while this sort of thing is bad too, no real lasting damage was done there either. Call up 95% of red card offences over the last season and again, no real lasting damage is done.
Ireland played a hell of a lot of international football to get to last night’s playoff. They’ve been all over Europe, spent hundreds of thousands of pounds no doubt, used up all sorts of time and effort in an attempt to get to the World Cup. The World Cup, the greatest show on earth, the biggest football tournament there is, the biggest sporting tournament there is. And now they can’t go because Thierry Henry deliberately handled the ball (twice) and knocked them out. Henry should be banned. Is there a bigger crime in football than his, in terms of pure intent and the implications of this deliberate act? I can’t think of one. The implications of what Henry did are far greater than the implications of any other transgression a player might make (deliberately or otherwise – and let’s not forget that many red cards come from accidental incidents). He should be banned. All this talk of “he’s not the ref” completely misses the point. The referee didn’t deliberately cheat a team out of a place at the world cup. Henry did.
Staines fans are concerned about Millwall’s visit.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, there are some quite amusing comments from Millwall fans.
That’s all from me. Back to work…
Hello!
I’m still here. Insanely busy week at work last week, and now we can’t get internets at home. British Telecom are sending out their best engineer, but not until Friday. So expect me when you see me really.
I had all sorts of ideas for posts based on last week’s adventures: driving to Sutton Coldfield to run some focus groups, watching those focus groups on DVD (three hours of watching myself moderate: my voice doesn’t sound half as silly as I thought it might, which is good; the overhead camera focused on my bald patch for three hours, which is less good), listening to Kerrang radio, but only in the West Midlands (why can’t the rest of the country get Kerrang?), driving back through the wind and rain and getting home past midnight, being knackered, working for much of the weekend, looking at houses for a potential move away from the growing annoyance of Tooting, reading about Roy’s favourite books in the papers (an, thrillingly, realising that the two of us have a near identical taste in literature)…. and so on. But nothing about Fulham really. Luckily it’s a week off. Unluckily we’ve run out of money for the month, so no trip to Birmingham City for me. Ho hum. It’s the simple things in life again for us this weekend, potentially without even Gentleman Jim’s radio coverage to steer me through. Unless the man from BT can fix things.
Jonathan Greening was on our radar for some time over the summer, and when he eventually arrived, on a poorly disguised loan agreement (he’s ours after the season), some were concerned that we had paid too much for an ageing player with no re-sale value.
For one thing, re-sale value is nice, but how often do we actually find players we can sell on for big money these days? The next Saha is probably at Arsenal already, and if he’s not, he’s going to cost big money. Roy Hodgson seems to value a degree of certainty in most of his signings, so this kind of speculative “high upside” player doesn’t seem likely to head our way any time soon (unless it’s via the youth setup, which is another discussion).
Jon Greening was surely signed as a Premier League ready (Greening has, since 2002, over 150 Premier League games to his name) squad man. The sort of player who is good enough to slot in, but not so good that he will demand to play every week. I’m sure Hodgson saw someone who could slot in quickly, do a job, and add to the squad. And it seems to have worked.
I’ve pulled off his last four chalkboards, as well as those of Danny Murphy:
Greening:
What we see there is someone playing Roy’s conservative midfield plan. We know that Hodgson plays two forwards, then expects his wide men to get into the area, with width from the full-backs. This places less emphasis on the central midfielders to attack, and frequently you’ll see our midfield pair sit in the middle third of the pitch all game. This is perfectly illustrated above: Greening’s playing a very safe game, holding a position, keeping the ball moving and not doing anything risky.
Now Murphy:
It’s a slightly more aggressive version of the same thing. We see two home performances when we dictated the game in the middle of the park, and that, I think, is what Murphy offers over Greening. He’s operating slightly further forward and playing a few more attacking passes. It must be noted that few of them are really making much happen, but people have to respect Murphy’s passing: if they stand off he can pick them apart, so they have to close him down which means they risk losing shape. With a player of lesser ability it’s easier for an opposing midfield to sit off and hold their shape.
It places greater emphasis on our wide men, and this is where things have come together nicely. With Bobby Zamora’s good form coinciding nicely with Duff and Dempsey’s excellent play, we now see a much different attacking look than we did last year, especially with Joe Kamara playing.
A year ago we had Zamora and Johnson, with uncertainty out wide (Davies injured, Gera finding his feet, Dempsey not yet established as he is now), so there was much more of an onus on our central midfield pairing to make things happen. Bullard tried – how he tried! – but it was much easier to defend against. Now the work of the wide men cutting inside, playing off Zamora, is working a treat. Joe Kamara brings expert unpredictability to the mix too. Again: it’s a different look, but it’s another dimension, an evolution. We do miss Murphy, but we don’t suffer particularly by employing Jon Greening in the middle of the pitch. As we see above, he’s more than capable of taking the ball and moving it around. He’s sound defensively and can – as the assist at City showed – provide a good cross when he needs to.
All of which is a long-winded way to say that he’s been decent value and a good signing. He’s not an exciting signing, but I think Roy will be very pleased with how he has settled in.
(this looks like it’s going to be my annual ‘mulligan’ game – will fill in more details when I’ve seen more highlights)
When the league fixtures came out a few hearts sank. The early going looked difficult, with Chelsea, Arsenal, Villa, Everton, Liverpool and Man City to be negotiated in the first ten games. But then November: Wigan, Birmingham, Blackburn, Bolton, followed by Sunderland and Burnley in December. So this was the first of the ’springboard’ games; to me the goal was always to get to this point with our heads above water, then push on.
Thanks to a good run of form our heads are certainly above water, but complicating matters somewhat has been the Europa League, a handful of high pressure games spliced amongst the aforementioned tricky start. That’s what made today’s game potentially messy. Yes, it’s relatively nice to be playing a notionally more beatable team like Wigan after Liverpool and AS Roma, but after that double-whammy, beating anyone three days later is going to be tricky.
And so it seems to have proved. Wigan went ahead early, Paul Scharner rising high at the back stick, heading down to Emmerson Boyce, who drove low past Schwarzer. Fulham’s response came from the in-form Clint Dempsey, who made it 3 in 3 with a penalty after he himself had been chopped down in the area. If the decision looked marginal, the penalty was decisive, Dempsey driving the ball past Chris Kirkland with Ronaldo-esque technique. Absent Murphy, Johnson and now Kamara our team seemed bereft of a spot kick taker, but there was nothing wrong with Dempsey’s effort.
Interviews suggest that both goalkeepers had stormers, with Roy Hodgson noting that this was more of a 3-3 game than a 1-1 game, while commending the big man in yellow: “[with Schwarzer] the shots are the things that people will notice, but where he really helps us is his presence in the six yard box.” Too true. Roberto Martinez, the Wigan manager, agreed that Schwarzer had been “fabulous”.
Roy had nothing but praise for his team:
“The players dug very deep today to get this result.”
“Wigan are a good team with gifted players.”
and managed to get in a reasonably good spirited dig at recent refereeing decisions against us:
“Today we could play with 11 men, which was also a pleasant change.”
Figure 1: minutes between red cards for Fulham in league games since 08/09 and in Europa League games against AS Roma
Since the start of 08/09:
Fulham red cards in league games: 2
Fulham league games: 48
Minutes per red card in league games: 2,160
Fulham red cards in games against AS Roma: 3
Fulham games against AS Roma: 2
Minutes per red card in games against AS Roma: 60
Proof of underhandness. We had two in 48 games in the league and three in two against Roma. What are the odds?
(before you correct my logic, yes, I know. But still…)
Been a while since we did some music.
Genius. I was lucky enough to be there that night.
Click on the cover to order.
If you enjoyed this and are in a position to dole out writing work, please get in touch!  | Mike H on Morning |
 | Kevin Sydney on Morning |
 | Pensioner on Morning |
 | johnnyslick on Hangeland signs |
 | Ol Goalie on Hangeland signs |
 | Paul in Oz on Hangeland signs |
 | weltmeisterclaude on Some things |
