Yay more fun with data!
Yes that is just 2 games conceding less than double-digit shot totals.
Yay more fun with data!
Yes that is just 2 games conceding less than double-digit shot totals.
What to say about Kit Symons that hasn’t already been said? We got our immediate bump when he replaced Magath, but have essentially plateaued for the past calendar year.
Our offense is on fire and something to behold when fully functioning. The one-two passing and fluidity were such a reprieve from the nebulous Magath and static Jol era. And it worked: currently we lead the league in goals scored and shooting percentage. Our PDO is second to Boro.
Yet this type of offense would be Kit’s undoing, as the defense would be exposed whenever our midfielders moved upfield. It was also due for a major regression (those numbers weren’t going to keep up with a defense this bad).
Speaking of, stating our defense is bad is now akin to saying iTunes sucks. It’s been so bad for so long we’ve sort of just accepted it.
Ted Knutson, creator of of StatsBomb.com and now analytics honcho at Brentford, came up with a theory that relegation candidates often average 16 shots against per game.
Although this is presumably for the EPL, and things in the Championship are slightly different, but if we still apply that metric Fulham were averaging about 14 shots against per game this season. Last season was over 15.
Additionally, Fulham’s Danger Zone Against percentage (this being shots that are essentially point blank) this season is 42%. Last season, when I last calculated it in early April, it was 41.9%.
Despite all the changes in personnel, there hasn’t been much systemic improvement with our defense.
So Kit had to go. It’s a shame as he seemed like a genuinely nice person. And one thing becomes evident when looking at the numbers: if we wanted to remain a mid-level Championship club, Kit would have been a fine manager.
But we don’t want to be mid-level Championship side, let alone remain in it.
We want to be in the Premier League.
Sometimes leads are blown because the lead was perilous to begin with, a result of some fluky behavior and good fortune, and it catches up with the team as some sort of metaphysical reckoning.
Other times it’s bad luck or a momentary lapse in judgement, a result of some cruel joke by Loki.
And then there are other times when you’re two goals up with 10 minutes plus stoppages to go. Then but fifteen minutes later, you are no longer two goals ahead but instead level with your opponents. And it’s because you made a Gamble when you should have probably just, oh, I don’t play cards but you know what I mean.
In the first 80 minutes of the game, this was Charlton’s shot chart:
In the final 15, it was this:
Numerically, they had slightly more shots in the first 80 minutes. But only 4 of the 12 were in the Danger Zone, and most were speculative long rangers.
In the final 15 minutes, 7 of 9 (not the Star Trek character), nearly 80%, of Charlton’s shots were in the Danger Zone, basically point blank.
Here are their shots in this span, logged by minute:
81(g), 82, 85, 86, 88, 88, 90, 90, 96(g)
I don’t normally like to speculate on substitutions, but Cauley Woodrow is worth looking at. Kit gambled, and it almost paid off after clearly not paying off and then eventually did not pay off at all. In the 88th minute The Gamble could have very easily could have iced the game for us had an unfortunate deflection not nicked his shot wide. But, the shot didn’t go in. There was no goal and no ice and no two goal lead with minutes remaining.
Up to that point Charlton had gotten a goal back and attempted 6 shots, 4 within the DZ. After The Gamble they’d attempt 3 more, all in the DZ, and one would score.
A second defensive substitution was not made until Mattila came on in the 90th, about ten minutes in to Charlton’s blitz of point-blank shots.
A win that raises all sorts of questions.
What is the modern Fulham? The team that crushed QPR 4-0? Or the team that has been beyond ordinary for as long as we can remember?
Realistically you have to err on the side of caution, but just as there were reasons to be negative before, there were plenty of reasons to be cheerful on Friday too.
I think this was a crucial win in this respect. Few of us, I suspect, felt that the team had this kind of performance in them. That being so, where did it come from?
1) Ryan Tunnicliffe is not as good a footballer as some of the recent centre-midfield candidates, but he has a role and he sticks to it. Without overplaying this, a few of us have been moaning about this for ever. Football is a team game and sometimes you need less talented players to make the overall unit function. Tunnicliffe showed glimpses of this in a couple of very disciplined and restrained performances under Renee Meulensteen, and it’s been pleasing to see him used now. So merely accepting the need for a player like Tunnicliffe feels like a big thing.
2) I recently read the latest Secret Footballer book, and there were a couple of interesting parts in particular. In one, the player – Dave Kitson we believe – talked about how fans are overly impressed by players who throw themselves around, but not by players who show real bravery, trying the difficult pass that has high rewards but which, when it’s not successful, leads to groans from the crowd. For whatever reason – and it might be just how QPR defended – the players seemed somehow bolder. I think it helps having a genuine playmaker like Jamie O’Hara in the side. O’Hara – and I was quite wrong about this – isn’t just about the spectacular for the sake of it. There’s an intelligence to his play that opens up opportunities. I think perhaps that confidence spreads to his teammates.
3) alright, let’s be honest, the back four is new and improved and this makes everyone else better too. Whatever the merits of those no longer playing, it must be said that Ream and Stearman have a steadying influence on the middle of the pitch, and the full-backs are on another planet altogether. James Husband looked good last year and has continued this. He just gets it. He seems – for this level – to have just the right kind of mentality for a full-back, good instincts, good decision making. The covering across in the second half, where he ended up sweeping up on the other side of the field, was a good example here. I don’t know how the Garbutt situation will play itself out but Fulham have the player they need, and while full-backs aren’t typically very exciting to those making transfer offers, we’ve all seen how hard it is to get good ones. Just make a deal, Fulham.
4) I don’t know if Ryan Fredericks can defend but if he can he’s too good for this level.
5) I confess to having had my doubts about Dembele. I thought I was seeing an age group bully, someone whose physical attributes made him a destroyer down the teams but unlikely to figure out the professional game. Of all our young players I was least impressed with him. Like all of us, I like to think I can spot a player, but clearly missed big here. He was immense on Friday and played an intelligent game in partnership with McCormack. And you can see plenty of room for improvement, too.
QPR were pretty awful but Fulham were excellent. One swallow doesn’t make a summer, but just showing that we have this kind of performance in us is enough to bring about some optimism.
Here’s a link to a google spreadsheet I will be updating with data from each match (or, I hope to keep updating): Fulham Data.
Once data for the entire league becomes available I’ll post that so we can see where we stand in comparison to others.
I am miles behind on watching the games, but here are some reasons to be happy:
A source close to the situation divulged on Tuesday afternoon that the 19-year-old will be allowed to leave Craven Cottage for training-only stints with prospective buyers as the Championship season unfolds. It is in this manner that he can choose his next employer.
The 19 year old is Emerson Hyndman, who actually looked pretty capable in the team’s engine room under Magath, has shown composure beyond his years, and is now certain to go somewhere else.
It’s probably too soon to mark this down as ‘an alarming trend’, but equally, we had high hopes for this generation of Fulham youngsters and one by one they’re all disappearing.
The article above notes that Fulham have offered a new deal to the player, but, just as happened with Patrick Roberts, have little power in the situation with the contract on the verge of expiring. I appreciate that it’s easy to sit here and criticise things that are presumably much harder to control than we might ever imagine, BUT it’s dismaying to see another talented player about to leave. Dan Burn can go in the summer, so too can Moussa Dembele, and Lasse Vigen Christensen can be off a year later.
Part of me wishes the club had done what Magath actually tried to do, namely commit to youth. We all saw how dangerous a tactic that could have been, but in many ways it’s hard to disentangle the general idea from the executioner of this idea: could someone like Dario Gradi have made this approach work?
You can build a team any way you like, but if you’re somehow able to grow one from within then there’s a suspicion that somehow this is a better thing, that this leads to better outcomes. In a parallel universe out there is a team that’s competing for the 2019-20 Premier League title, with grizzly veteran David Stockdale in goal, twin pillars Burn and Burgess (together as a pairing for 5 seasons) at the heart of the defence, and Hyndman and LVC running games from the middle of the park. Patrick Roberts is unstoppable on the wing, and Woodrow and Dembele are almost telepathic by now.
No, I know. This couldn’t and wouldn’t have happened, but it’s a future that’s within the realms of the dreamable, a path the club might have taken, a path that could scarcely have been worse than the one the club *did* take, and one that would have united the fan base for some time. Everyone likes to see the kids getting a chance, and a home-grown team would have felt special.
Naive, nonsensical, I know, I know. But every time one of these gifted young players leaves the club for not much we’re reminded of the extent to which the whole organisation has made an absolute dog’s dinner of the last few seasons. It’s been beyond shambolic.
The race against time is a plot device beloved of many film makers.
Who can forget Crocodile Dundee, in which Mick is on his way out of town, only for Sue to realise what she’s about to lose. She gets to the station in double quick time but has to relay her message to Mick via other passengers, so crowded is the concourse. Memorably, she shouts “I’m not going to marry Richard!” and this message is bounced along the platform and Mick gets it and changes his mind.
In fact I even saw an example of this yesterday, in Hotel Transylvania, when Count Dracula had to chase down an aeroplane containing the man his daughter had fallen for, a man driven away by the Count’s attempts to do exactly this: make him leave! Of course the Count realised he had made a mistake, but it was very nearly too late to rectify the situation. In the end he had to catch up an aeroplane then trasmit a message over the flight’s intercom by effectively ‘possessing’ the pilot. But it worked, so.
(Note: I can’t convey this easily here as photos aren’t backing me up, but Dracula looked a lot like Rene Meulensteen).
And so on. There are millions of examples, most requiring the retrieval of a person of a person ‘on his way’ following the realisation that a mistake has been made.
Here’s another: Dan Burn is, as we speak, being talked about as a potential signing for Sheffield United. If this is true – if there’s any truth to it – Tony Khan needs to get on the phone, get on an aeroplane, just do something, to stop it. Burn is young, has played quite well, and statistically looks reasonable (whoscored had him as our best player last year, and we found in deeper analysis that only LCV and Ruiz were more important to Fulham). He won’t peak for a while. And we shouldn’t just keep giving away our youngsters.
The Swiss Ramble is always a good read, but this profile of Ipswich Town contained an interesting nugget:
To that end, Evans initially provided his managers with enough funding to be competitive in the transfer market, but this did not achieve the desired objective, as the owner explained: “You would have hoped that money had resulted in better things, but look at Nottingham Forest – they lost £25 million last year and got nowhere. Look at Leicester, they spent 25 to 30 million for a couple of years running, I think, and didn’t manage to get promoted. So there are a lot of clubs out there that spent a lot more than Ipswich did and who ended up in exactly the same situation.”
This led to a change in Evans’ strategy, “I wanted to work with a manager who was going to try to and coach and make our players better, rather than give the manager the opportunity (to simply buy players).” The drive to more sensible cost management was also influenced by the introduction of the Financial Fair Play rules, which essentially force clubs to live within their means.
As a result Ipswich have spent virtually nothing on player purchases in the last three seasons, but paradoxically this approach has delivered better results on the pitch, thus defying the conventional wisdom that high spending equates to success. Whether the reliance on free transfers and bringing through young players will continue to work is debatable, but the recent improvement is there for all to see.
“It’s similar to last year in that it took a little while to get going, but I had a good chat with the Manager on Sunday and just said that when I came to the Club I was a striker and I think it’s best if I can get back to that, being in and around the box.
“So I’m pleased that I was up front in the cup and I got two goals to repay that faith. When I’ve been playing in the hole in behind strikers then it’s my job to come deep and link the play, but I feel a lot better when I’m further up the pitch and I’m around the box, as the second goal showed. When you’ve got the chance to come inside and get shots away and stuff, I feel a lot more comfortable.”
As a reminder, in the past McCormack has had seasons where he’s scored 21, 18, 28 and 17 goals in the league.
Think about it this way: by taking him out of the position where he’s doing this, are you confident that his “link up play” will be sufficiently productive cover this goals shortfall? If your option is McCormack behind Smith or someone else behind McCormack, you don’t just go with the former to fit Smith into the side. You put your star player where he’ll do most good for the team. The game is about scoring goals and not conceding goals. Everything stems from these two things. You don’t deliberately inhibit your options for doing this without good reason.