New Times bit: Zamora (of course)

Here.   Rushed out while on train last night, but hey.

Night falls over Fulham

Thou shalt not pass

Lot of tricky crosses there, and a few players who know how to get on the end of them.   Fulham defended set pieces brilliantly today.

Fulham 1-0 Sunderland

Phew.  A battle and a half, but early goals are everything in football and Bobby Zamora nabbed one to deliver a fine three points today.  It was a funny game, with Fulham having the better chances and Sunderland long periods of possession, but ultimately Fulham’s organisation and stability trumped Sunderland’s increasingly desperate improvisational efforts.  Yep, a really good win.

Having missed the early fun on Wednesday today was all about being seating and ready for kick-off in good time.  Just as well:  with five minutes gone John Paintsil sent a high, swirling cross into the area, and (perplexingly) only Bobby Zamora seemed to want to get on the end of it, which he did with a well-taken header for 1-0.   It was one of those goals that seems somewhat out of place in top-flight football.  Perhaps a replay will prove me wrong, but surely someone in the Sunderland defence ought to have made life difficult for our enigmatic number 25.   But no, a free header, and another goal for the Zamora collection.

The goal seemed to give our man added belief, as he proceeded to dominate the Sunderland defence all afternoon, one of his “that’s more like it games”.  Michael Turner found one way to counteract this threat, bearhugging Zamora from behind whenever the ball went in the air.  Mike Dean the referee had no objection to this so Turner carried on doing it all game.   Zamora snapped in the end and rightly gave Dean an earful.  The only consolation for us is that Clint Dempsey would only have driven the resulting free-kicks into the stand.

A terrific move then resulted in Zamora heading against the Sunderland bar, and Erik Nevland, usually so deadly, missed what appeared to be a sitter, blasting high from not far away.  Very much an “I hope we don’t come to regret that miss” miss.

Sunderland turned up the attacking intent a notch, but for all their possession, something didn’t quite look right.  Was it their two forwards, so courageously shackled by Hangeland and Hughes?  Certainly Darren Bent has a fine goalscoring record this year, but his all around play lacked a certain something.  He and Kenwyne Jones won a lot of flick ons (special mention to Chris Baird for repeatedly dropping back and helping out the defence here), but they played below their reputed levels.  Andy Reid buzzed around in the midfield, but our defence coped with his crosses.  Keiron Richardson, who destroyed us in this fixture last season, was at left back.   And then?  And then nothing really.   Our men had to be at their best to keep them out, but generally speaking they were, and 1-0 didn’t really flatter us.   The crosses kept on coming in, and Mark Schwarzer (how good he is) kept on dealing with them.  Sunderland threw on Frazier Campbell and Boudewijn Zenden, we countered with Kagiso Dikgacoi for Jon Greening (this year’s number 34 therefore partnering last year’s number 34 in the middle of midfield – how often has that happened, I wonder?).  Zenden almost knocked Schwarzer back into the net with a screamer from distance, but Schwarzer kept that out and kept the rebound from going anywhere it shouldn’t have.   Job done.

Finally, we don’t often mention Paul Konchesky in these reports, but today he had a spectacular game.  His work in defence was sound, but as a galloping full-back he made some telling touches, his passing was crisp and accurate, and he’d have scored if he’d been more selfish when clean through on the angle.  A terrific game from the only one of our three bald amigos still fit and ready.

Sunderland tomorrow

Last year we got lucky against Sunderland.    In the three preceding games we’d lost to Blackburn, West Ham and WBA, and another defeat… well who knows, but four on the spin is never good is it?   In the game itself Kieron Richardson scored one free kick (dubiously chalked off for a foul in the wall) and hit three posts with another (see above).   We scraped a point, snatched another at Portsmouth the next weekend, and away we went.

This year’s Sunderland are a decent side.  Steve Bruce is one of the managers who ‘gets it’, I think, and having spent some money (on some good players) his Sunderland side are rightly there or thereabouts.   They have battlers in midfield (Cana looks a terrific player, but Cattermole’s still out though, right?) and the always dangerous Darren Bent up front (I shall try to put him off his game with a head-spinning Twitter message tonight… something like “Hangeland and Hughes are your god-fathers.   You will not score.” or something suitably enigmatic.   To make him think.

In truth it’s got 0-0 written all over it, especially after our Europa fun on Thursday, but hey, it’s all good.

World Cup ‘analysis’: or why England will win the world cup

Okay, here’s my take.   What do you think of it all?

Group A – South Africa, France, Uruguay, Mexico

I’ve been procrastinating over email about possible World Cup draws lately, and one of my theories was that South Africa would get fed to the lions as a “see, we’re not crooks” gesture from FIFA*.    So it would seem.  It’s a bastard of a group, only watered down somewhat by the fact that France are not the France they should be.    Uruguay are a good side (do you remember their work in 1986?  That was tremendously fun to watch.  Anti-football, perhaps.), and Mexico could be tough if the stars align for them.    South Africa will have to hope everyone draws with everyone else and that they can sneak a win in somewhere.   Nasty draw.

Group B – Argentina, Greece, S.Korea, Nigeria

More of a group of life this one.   Argentina made the clever decision to appoint a Famous Person as manager instead of a Good Manager, and oh look, they’re a shadow of what they should be despite having some of the more gifted players in the world game.  Greece are a… I don’t know what Greece are, but traditionally they’re strong, organised, etc, just the sort of team that could give Argentina problems.   South Korea might actually fancy their chances of squirming through this group, and Nigeria would perhaps say the same.   It will be interesting to see how the African teams fare won’t it?  You normally assume that there’s a sort of home continent advantage in these things – will it apply here?  In which case Nigeria could be favourites for this group.   To do this, they’ll need to start picking Dickson Etuhu, of course.

Group C – England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia

Well………. to get here, Slovenia beat Russia over two legs, Algeria beat Egypt, and USA beat Spain in South Africa in the Confederations Cup.  So the glass is not as full as people would have you believe.    But there is good reason to think that England will triumph in 2010.   The Gordon Brown factor.

You will recall that nice Tony Blair surfed his way through the UK economy’s boom years, then cannily (finally) stepped aside to let poor, patient Gordon Brown deal with the shit hitting the fan.     It was evil timing.   There must be a general election here by early June 2010.   So I fully expect the Conservatives to win that, England to romp home in the World Cup, and to see Dave Cameron smugnify his way through the ensuing feel-good factor while poor Gordon weeps into his biscuit tin at home.    It almost has to happen.

Group D – Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

This is the real group of death.   All four of these teams are good enough, although Australia’s tactical switch to Asia for the qualifying may somehow hinder them in a way that I can’t quite put into words.   Serbia are dark horses with no tournament pedigree, Ghana, driven on by the “worth three players” Michael Essien and our own John Paintsil (how will he spell his name in the World Cup?), could even be favourites to win this group, and Germany are Germany.    Nasty.

Group E – Holland, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon

The second most aesthetically pleasing group (after Spain’s), this should bring some nice contrasts in style and some good, even games.   Holland are stronger than people seem to think, Denmark are handy and have that unfinished 1986 business to sort out, and Japan are usually good value.  Cameroon are always strong in the Cup of African Nations, and are another team we did well to dodge.   This is not really a group of death, but probably a group of surprisingly serious injury.

Group F – Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia

I understand that there are a number of Paraguayans of Italian descent, so this could be a grudge match of sorts.   Otherwise, well I make a point of watching every available World Cup match.  I even went to Iran v Angola in 2006.   New Zealand v Slovakia is this year’s Iran v Angola.    The game you will be able to get tickets for.   What it does mean, of course, is that a less celebrated side will make it through the groups, and that’s a good thing in anyone’s book.

Group G – Brazil, Portugal, North Korea, Ivory Coast

I don’t know that this is the toughest group, but it’s quite a fun one.   If you’re not aware of the history, have a quick look at this.    North Korea went 3-0 up on high flying Portugal in the 1966 QF, and had they managed to hold out would have played England in the semis.   They didn’t, but it’s still a nice rematch.   Expect plenty of Pak Doo Ik sightings.

Ivory Coast must be gutted, but this is the World Cup and you have to beat good teams to progress.   I expect them to trample all over an overrated Portugal side and contest the group winnership with the frighteningly balanced Brazil side (bet on Brazil by the way – yes it’s a tough group, but they’re still the best team in the world).

Group H – Spain, Chile, Honduras, Switzerland

Yummy.   This one’s got a bit of everything.  Spain should blast their way through like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber hacking at a snowman, but beyond that it’s all go.   The three remaining teams will all fancy their chances, although all have that “do they know how to win in tournaments?” thing hanging over them.     Whoever gets through here will be a nasty last 16 matchup for someone.   If I could have tickets for a single group I think it’d be this one.

So there we are.   Putting it all together we get:

A – Uruguay, South Africa, France (out on goal difference), Mexico
B – Nigeria, Argentina, Greece, South Korea
C – England, USA, Slovenia, Algeria
D – Germany, Ghana, Serbia, Australia
E – Holland, Cameroon, Denmark, Japan
F – Italy, Slovakia, Paraguay, NZ
G – Brazil, Ivory Coast, Portugal, North Korea
H – Spain, Chile, Switzerland, Honduras

1 Uruguay v Argentina (!)
5 Holland v Slovakia
2 Nigeria v South Africa
6 Italy v Cameroon
3 England v Ghana
7 Brazil v Chile
4 Germany v USA
8 Spain v Ivory Coast

A Uruguay v England
C Holland v Brazil
B Nigeria v USA
D Cameroon v Ivory Coast

1 England v Brazil
2 Nigeria v Cameroon

F Brazil v Cameroon

Winners Brazil

* not that FIFA are in any way crooks.  I’m just saying that this is what I’ve heard some people say that some people think.  CCN thinks FIFA is on the level.

Fulham 1-0 CSKA Sofia

In the end it was all about the result, a 1-0 win that means victory in Switzerland will qualify us for the next round.

If this doesn’t come to pass, the Europa league will be remembered (by this non-traveler, at least) for bizarre refereeing and even more bizarre queues to get into Craven Cottage.  What is it about these games that causes such gridlock on Stevenage Road?    Last night we got to our seats with 11 minutes gone, by which time Sofia had hit the bar with a crunching drive from distance (the fat part of the bar, too – this was a legitimate close shave) and Danny Murphy had missed a penalty.   On receiving notification of what had happened I immediately smelled a wind-up:  how could they hit the bar?   How could Danny Murphy miss a penalty?    But no, it was all true.

Soon we were in front though:  Bjorn Helge Riise, in another good Europa half (he doesn’t yet seem to have a good 90 minutes in him, but this may not be fair, and bears further watching as he sees more time on the pitch), skipped past what seemed like several Sofia defenders on the right hand side of the area, dinked a cross into the middle, from where an onrushing Zoltan Gera bashed a header home.   It was an aesthetically pleasing goal of the type we don’t often see, a good cross, a well timed run through a well defended area, and a decisive finish. 

It felt like the beginning of something, but as chances came and went we withdrew at half-time knowing that there was still much to do.   And so it proved, as Sofia came out for the second period playing like a cut-price 2006 vintage Argentina.    We couldn’t get the ball off them, and when we did we gave it back as soon as we were able.  It was a frustrating half, the only consolation being that Mark Schwarzer was not unduly extended.   Damian Duff and Clint Dempsey arrived as substitutes to bring some normalcy to our side, but neither managed to reverse the Bulgarian momentum.  Zamora, the lone striker tonight, seemed to have lost interest, and without the returning Danny Murphy our team (full of midfielders) seemed to lack focus.   Who was playing where?  Were we in a 4-5-1?  Whatever, it was more a case of 10 white shirts chasing Bulgarians.

Sometimes this European tour feels more like being stuck in an airport departure lounge waiting for some long-delayed aeroplane to arrive and take us out of our misery, but with Roma’s win over Basle there is still hope of progression, and looking back, it has all been great fun.   Disappointing to think that had the referees done their job we may well be through already, but such is life and we must soldier on regardless.

Wednesday: midfield exploration part 3

While we wait for Thursday (and part 4 of the midfield exploration – coming soon!) it’s time to have a think about another angle here.

Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?

If so, do you tell this person he is “too serious,” or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?

If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands.

That’s the lead in to Caring for your Introvert, by Jonathan Rauch.

Which is a roundabout way of coming back to Jimmy Bullard.   I wrote something about him the other day, and this drew a terrific comment from theunrepententgunner, which I am posting here in case you missed it then.   Here:

—-begins—-

Have to agree with Richard. As an analogy, its alot like basketball. Let me explain at some length here (if i may indulge you Richard)

For starters, for those that play fantasy football in a league like the one that you are running, people will notice there is virtually no player in the leauge with a greater ratio of successful passes to minutes played than Bullard.

Part of that is due to a small sample size, and part of that is that Bullard commands the ball, and in fact demands it.

In basketball this is kind of like a person that takes 20 shots in 15 minutes of action (an astonishing rate by any measure). They are for better or worse a ballhog. The general downsides in basektball are that teams pretty quickly adapt, and focus their defense more on you. Furthermore, by taking that many shots in the first place, even if the defense didn’t adapt, there are possibly situations where you would have been better off passing. (for sake of convenience there might be 5 of 20 shots that were open and you Really needed to take, 10 shots that were questionable but defensible, and 5 awful decisions when a pass was better).

A player that regularly shoots more than they should in basketball gets gameplanned against.

However, there might be a situation where this is the right strategy. I think back to Allen Iverson circa 2001 (an all time gunner who shot without a conscience). His teammates were good defensive players but generally VERY limited offensively. Iverson shooting against double teams was in fact the right decision often times, even versus passing to a wide open teammate shooting 15 feet away. Each case must be treated individually, and in the heat of battle making assessments accurately is near impossible (which is why it so hard for a player to change stripes in my opinion, because if you honestly think the best decision is you shooting, you’re going to do it over and over).

Now, the worst situation for Allen Iverson would be if his teammates were Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Lebron James and say Yao Ming, all extroadinary offensive players that score at a very high rate. Iverson’s career shooting percentages, on aggregate were middling. His strength was that he could do it by himself, and his energy was infectious. In this situation with superior teammates Iverson would be a disaster, as he clearly should be passing more to the sharpshooting Nash or getting Yao Ming open for a 5 foot shot.

Bullard is much the same way I argue. His use of the ball is about in line with a mid-table midfielder. He won’t win many battles with Fabregas in terms of overall distribution or efficiency, but in a bad Hull team, he is terrific. When your other options for wide players and midfielders are Geovanni and a bunch of replacement level players, then Bullard is clutch. (defining replacement as being able to get cheaply (wage and transfer fee wise) a nearly equivalent player from the reserves of a big squad or the championship).

In the current Hull team, Bullard is almost always the best option to pass the ball to, so when he screams for it it’s alot better to get it to him, than say… Nick Barmby.

In that sense, it is great. If he was in the Fulham side, taking touches from Duff, Dempsey, Murphy etc, then that is not so great.

Again, if Bullard got maybe 40-50 touches a game in the current fulham midfield, it might not be so bad, but those last marginal touches, especially after halftime when the opposing manager has decided to make each extra touch from Bullard one that will be less impactful and more problematic, well thats not so good, especially if Konchesky were to ignore a streaking Clint Dempsey up the line for a square ball to Bullard who is screaming for it 5 yards away.

I’d argue the worst case scenario for Bullard would be to be in the 2008 liverpool side with Gerrard, Mascherano and Alonso. Any touches he takes (assuming he’s shoehorned in somehow) would be a relative disaster since Alonso especially would be much more likely to use the ball effectively.

Anyway, he doesn’t have that problem in Hull, and even if he’s at best a mid-table ball hogging midfielder, that is something Hull *really* needed, and as much as I think Altidore is for real, i think Bullard has been their biggest upgrade, because even on his 90th touch of the game, where the defense KNOWS its going to him, he is still a better option than what they had before.

/Sorry for being so long-winded.

—-ends—-

Me again.

The above struck me as being about as on the money as it’s possible to be.    Danny Murphy has far better ‘game intelligence’ than Jimmy Bullard, and with Bullard in the side Murphy was being marginalised.

That ceased to be soon after Bullard left, and the previously maligned Dickson Etuhu entered the fray.  And what did he do?    Keep giving the ball to Danny Murphy.

He was criticised for this.   But in the context of our discussions this week, is this not exactly what he should have been doing? You have a gifted midfield general who has played at the top level, has a great understanding of what the manager wants, and the ability to pull it off.   Too right you give him the ball.

This is the entirity of the point really.  Without Murphy in the side directing traffic we are slightly blunted, but this is something we’ve gone over already.    No, I just wanted to bring back that comment and put it in the context of what we had (Bullard), and what we have (not Bullard, a better team).

Next we have a Europa league game, but last in the midfield series (for now) will, I hope, be about ready on Friday.

So: who passes where

First, please make sure you’ve read yesterday’s discussion before proceeding.  Valuable thoughts from all.

I’m too good to you.   Here, I went through the various telegraph thingies and counted where our central midfielders passed the ball.   That’s right, counted.

Why?  Well we’d had tea and Holby City was on in the other room, and I wanted to know the answer to the question I was beginning to pose in my mind.  Namely, where do these midfielders pass the ball?   Because it’s all well and good us saying that player x does y and player y does z, but by at least counting the things we get a better idea of what’s happening.   Effectively confirming what we think we see with our eyes.   It’s not perfect – the Clint Dempsey CF experiment may skew things more than I’d hoped – but still.

We see:

Baird passes to the centre-backs more than the other three
Greening keeps it in the midfield more than the other three (then Etuhu, which we’d expect)
Greening and Etuhu use the fullbacks a lot
Murphy uses the fullbacks least
(if we consider full-back the one true ‘out ball’ in football this jibes with what we might expect, that Murphy’s good enough to do something else while lesser mortals use this ‘get out’ more)
Greening hits the centre-forwards least (Murphy most, but Baird and Etuhu there or thereabouts too)
Murphy passes to the wide men most
Murphy and Etuhu have a strange thing going:  Murphy passes more to JP and DD/ZG; Etuhu to PK and CD.  You don’t get this with Greening and Baird.   Odd.

If we factor in the fixtures (Murphy and Etuhu have arguably had the harder games) then these numbers could be underplaying things.  (also I may have missed a game here or there – has DM played that little this year?   Although Greening had 90 odd passes at Villa, which skews everything).

The meaning of Greening

Martin and I were pondering Jon Greening via email today.    I forget the origins, but we were discussing how Greening rarely passes the ball forwards.    I was going to suggest that this is probably a RH instruction, but then I looked at his games for WBA last year and most of them are quite similar.   He doesn’t really do aggressive, forward passes.

That’s him against us there, and him for us here (against Bolton).   Much of a muchness isn’t it?   Good, solid, rotate it around passing.   Not a bad thing necessarily: it could be that the way we play and the way WBA play with the ball is similar enough to help Roy make up his mind about the player.

And the way we play doesn’t really demand central midfielders attack.   In the paper the other day someone – I forget who – was talking about how the single holding midfielder is becoming obsolete, as one man cannot adequately shield the back four.   Now it takes two men, and that’s where the central midfielders come in.    They really don’t go too far forwards.   Our team’s attacking roles are now, very clearly, something along the lines of the following:

I absolutely love the way our wide men drive infield.  We miss Dempsey on the left when he’s up front, but I actually thought he had a pretty good game dropping back into “the hole” on Saturday.   Duff is an absolute master on the right, and his goal (right foot) just showed his value; any defender would have shown him onto that right foot in the same position, and he made that split second count.

But that’s not what this is about.   Again, we rarely see our central midfielders anywhere near the penalty box (except for at set plays).    It leads to a lot of moves like this:

If I may go all David Pleat (analytically, rather than… well).   We see a lot of Hangeland-Gera-Greening-Konchesky-Hangeland-Gera-Greening-Baird-Duff type moves don’t we?    It’s how the team’s set up.   The wide men show, the full-backs push on, and if they can bring the forwards in they might.  Otherwise it’s through the midfield again and see what else you can come up with.    Go and look at the chalkboards and you’ll see lots of these type of passes.    It’s how we operate; it generally works.

If this is so (and I think it is) then the question becomes one of whether we do this as well as we should.   And this is perhaps the trick I’ve been missing.    When Murphy and Etuhu were at their best all this happened very quickly.   We see Gera turn in tight spaces and find teammates quite a lot at the moment, but Murphy does this in the middle of the pitch, which if English football is like being in a washing machine, is perhaps the bit at the end where the spin goes really fast and our kitchen counter shakes and sometimes things fall off.    Meanwhile, Etuhu was becoming an arch recycler of possession, one touch control, two touch pass.    My latest unsubstantiated theory is that Greening and Baird are a heartbeat slower in doing this than our main men.

This was brought home slightly when Dikgacoi came on, and instantly started knocking it around like time had slowed down around him.   Bang-bang-bang.   Not Iniesta/Xavi bang-bang-bang, but noticeable bang-bang-bang.     So the theory is that this – if we’re being critical (which I’m usually not) -  is what we’re missing.   That split second of tempo that unsettles defenders, and gives the next man that extra second too (Mart observed that while Greening’s passes are usually accurate, their recipient often has a bit to do to keep the move going).   And these extra split seconds probably all add up.

I don’t know if this is the case – in a way this was just an excuse to play with arrows and things – but it’s something I will be watching for over the rest of the season.    As I’ve said before, I’ve been really impressed with the Baird/Greening stand-in pairing, and on the surface they’ve done little wrong (I really don’t think it’s realistic or likely that either will start playing like Cesc Fabregas) – but equally, if playing centre-midfield was easy, it wouldn’t be where you usually find all the really good players.    As I say, something to keep an eye out for*.

*and how good was Dikgacoi’s little cameo?  True, the team lost direction while he was on (missing Gera, I thought), but he made a cracking tackle on the edge of our box and showed a super-smooth touch on the ball.   Good lad.

Fulham 1-1 Bolton Wanderers

There is something about Saturday afternoon football in late November.  Everything seems vivid:  the noise from the crowd – even the downtime murmurs – seems somehow louder than usual; the colours seem somehow sharper and deeper; it feels like watching football should feel.

Adding to this, Bolton and FUlham gave us a good old fashioned tussle, an absorbing game that featured a prolonged period of gradually growing desperation to get us all on the edges of our seats, then a thrilling “done it!” moment to ensure we could go home happy.   Really enjoyable stuff.

As against Blackburn last week, our first half efforts were uneven.  Bolton looked better than expected, with impressive performances throughout the side.  Fulham never did find a rhythm, but nearly scored when Nevland had a shot blocked on the line.  At the other end Bolton did score via Klasnic, who knocked the stuffing out of the crowd with a lightning quick turn and volley amid a crowded area.

The second half was much better, with Fulham hurtling forwards in waves of attacks.  Bolton’s tackling was straight out of the mid-eighties, players piling into challenges with reckless abandon.  In the end six were booked, but none dismissed, which was a surprise.  Not because anyone deserved to go, but if you tackle hard enough and wildly enough for long enough, eventually red cards get shown.  But no, every rash challenge was from a player who had not yet been booked.  (Bolton could reasonably argue that we started it, after Jon Greening’s retribution hack on Tamir Cohen in the first half, but in the second only one team had the ball and only one team was crunching into tackles).

Fulham kept on going close.  The opposite wing ploy (Duff on the right; Dempsey or Gera on the left) can be very effective when it goes well:  Gera was impressive again; he has an ability to turn quickly in confined space and move inside into dangerous areas.  From there he set off moves that ran through Dempsey on the edge of the D, or reversed out to Konchesky overlapping.  Later, when Gera went off, our attacking play seemed to lose fluidity.  Dempsey – at the heart of everything again from his centre-forward’s position – nearly scored with a header from a corner, a defender heading it back out from the goal-line.  Duff (put through by Dempsey) drew a good save from Jaskalaainen, Nevland thrashed a half volley out of nothing and towards the top-corner, but Jaskalaainen somehow flipped that over the bar.  Some save.  Some shot.  The tension grew.

Then Duff found himself in a good position inside the area, shuffling, jockeying for space, going to his right foot, then bang!  Into the far corner for a wonderful equaliser.  You could imagine the Bolton defence looking at Duff in disbelief – our winger has tormented teams all season cutting in off the left flank and slapping those left footed drives towards the far corner.  Now here he was snatching a goal going the other way.  Great work from a fine player.

Bolton -having defended like demons – then remembered their attacking game, and pressed on in search of another goal.  Fulham’s dominance, which had been absolute in the second half so far, was gone, although Duff drove wide and Dempsey high after exciting surges.

All in all a decent point.  While we might have (and perhaps should have) won the game, it is never easy to come back from a goal down against an organised and motivated side, so credit to all for a job well done.

Morning

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.

Hangeland signs

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.)

Randomness

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…

Some things

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.

Fulham 3(!)-0 Blackburn Rovers

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.

Awards

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!

Rambling

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?

One for Collins John

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.

The f!ckupbuzzer

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.