Friends of Fulham

The Barnsley match was a rough result. Was it really a bad performance though? The 90-minutes are posted, and I thought I'd approach this topic a bit differently. I wanted to break it down in 20 minute increments, with the 5 minutes to end the half and match. The reason is because it is common to come away with a general feeling, but then mistakenly use that general feeling and create a general assessment of not only our team, players, but overall tactics. I have a problem with this because we miss out on the positives and the areas we need to improve. There is already general talk of "should, would, could", so why not analyze it and see how the "should, would, could" can be contextually applied to those moments.

Here's my breakdown vs Barnsley. I will provide my overall thoughts after. (Disclaimer: I didn't put much effort in researching name of the Barnsley players this go around. I know who they are, for the most part, but wanted to focus on Fulham specifically. Will adjust the next time I do one of these.)

Minutes 1-20:

• Pace of play is fast, as it should be in the first 5 to 10 minutes. We are just a tad out of sync in making good connections. For example, Knockaert slips from a wide pass by Mitro near the top of the box.


• Onomah slips on a one time pass from Cav. Onomah plays in a perfect through pass to Bryan, but the pitch speed has increased significantly due to the weather conditions.


• Defensively we struggle via Joe Bryan and KMac. When we get in the attack, Bryan doesn't drop back fast enough, resulting in exposing Kmac, as Barnsley players get behind our CDM each time.


• This forces him to stick out a streteched challenge that misses - and results in Barnsley's first shot on goal.


• The second shot on goal from Barnsley comes from the same combination, but this time the Woodrow simply bulldozes past Kmac and lets off a shot, that goes just high.


• The same combo of Bryan not dropping back quick enough happens because the referee doesn't call a foul on Cav in which the winger gets basically pulled down holding the ball up. Hector cleans up the low ball into the box.

Minutes 20-40:

• I will bring this up in the overall thoughts, but Barnsley double team tactics on our wingers were crucial, and I feel Parker should've figured out a way around this. Unfortunately, in this moment, Knockaert tries to beat 3 Barnsley players, falls down, and a long ball over the top is assumed offsides. Unfortunately, it isn't, and even more unfortunate, the Barnsley player runs into Rodak, but before that slaps the ball with his hand. That is also ignored, and we know the rest - Rodak pulls him down and the penalty is converted. Some wanted to complain about Ream here, but it's clear as day that Rodak called him off and went for the ball - but mishandled it. Ream put himself between the attacker and the ball, just as any defender would. 1-0 Barnsley.


• In response, we break their double team not once, but twice. First when they pressured high on Sess, who passes to Cairney, then he goes down the line to Knockaert, who is fouled quite hard.


• We try to get the ball to Mitro twice, but the first time he doesn't really put much effort in controlling the ball, and the second he takes a bit too long, but the deflection finds Kmac.


• We get a free kick in a dangerous position, but Mitro's strike hits the wall, and his second is scuffed. Cairney forces the ball wide to Cav, who tries to get the ball on his right foot down the side, but is double teamed (again), and Barnsley break right through and down the sidelines themselves, before Bryan cynically fouls to put a stop to the counter.


• A fortunate bounce in the midfield, allows Cav to release Knockaert, but his left footed strike is deflected. Onomah controls, but just gets out of his grasp before it's cleared away.


• We finally get a decent attack that starts from the back where Kmac breaks the double team pressure by sending in a delicate through ball to Onomah, who is then fouled. Onomah plays it quick to Cairney, sends it wide to Bryan, who sends it quickly to Cav. Bryan streaks inside, which drags the defender away from Cav, who gets to strike with his right - but it's well wild and high.


• We manage a free kick that eventually sets up a deep throw in. Cairney gets free at the top right of the box and sends in a vicious cross, but it's just out of Onomah's reach.


• We are really zipping the ball well now, especially in finding Knockaert, who is doing well to cut inside and be a threat. He manages to find Cairney, who takes a shot, but it's well deflected by Barnsley again.

Minutes 40-45:

• We finish off the couple minutes with Cav switching flanks with Knockaert. He holds off defenders, but again, the theme of the double team on our wingers is prevalent. We have no answer for it unless we can find someone central quick enough. We can't, and Cav struggles to hold them off.


• The ball is caught in the wind, but eventually we get control of it. A brilliant little chest pass into the path of Cairney by Mitro allows our captain to get a strike, but not enough conviction and is easily saved. Knockaert visibly upset, but would've been a tough pass. However, other teammates, including Kmac, are visibly signaling the pass should've gone to Cav who was open on the left. I personally won't blame our captain for trying to find the back of the net.

First half thoughts:

How anyone can say we are playing poorly is beyond me. How anyone can boo their team is also beyond me. As if the players aren't going to be hard on themselves already. They know it's a match that they should be winning.

We are moving the ball at pace. We are building from the back. Yes, it's risky, but it forces Barnsley to press higher, which in turn gives our  wingers more time. Unfortunately, we do not have enough pace centrally, so the wingers have noone to play off of. This is why many times our wingers are forced to hold onto the ball longer than intended. So not only Mitro is isolated, so are our dangerous wingers. We are creating chances, and we are absolutely not dominating possession in a slow pace. People say it's boring, but that to me is a general assessment that is unchanged by stubbornness more than what is actually happening on the pitch. As I mentioned above, we are just out of sync at times. When we did start to look in sync, we were quite dangerous. However, the biggest issue to address is the double team from Barnsley. In my opinion, it's time to change the formation to get more numbers centrally so those double teams look more like a risk to Barnsley versus a benefit.

Minutes 45-65

• Instantly you can see the aggression by us is there. Bryan shoves Woodrow out of the way, and Mitro holds off two Barnsley players. Eventually a long ball from Hector finds Mitro to feet, which gets defended, but the ball deflects to Onomah. Onomah skillfully cuts back onto his left, and sends in a clever through ball to Mitro, who lets off a low strike that is saved.


• Shortly after, we get a corner. Safe to say chaos ensured as their keeper makes a mess of it, tries to recover, but takes out Hector (no foul), and Kmac strikes a low one that is blocked before Onomah's volley goes over. More momentum.


• Kmac is too tight on a throw in, which prevents him from being able to confront a Barnsley midfielder from releasing their forward over the top of Hector and Ream. It's a brilliant save by Rodak though as the striker tried a deft touch past him - denied.


• We go long ball again, and it reaches Cav, but the ball balloons to Mitro, which then is well defended via a diving header by Barnsley. Onomah tries to control the ball that is behind him, but Woodrow dispossess him and sends a long ball over the top. Ream is tucked inside and is expecting to just contain the Barnsley forward down the side, however Rodak has sprinted out of his box for some odd reason - and it's 2-0 Barnsley. Momentum lost.


• In response, we change formation, but not before multiple stands of double team by Barnsley again. Kmac coming off is not surprising now after the match because we switched to a 4-2-3-1 and our CDM would be required to chase down counters all over the pitch, which is why Arter was put in. I did not want to see TC go though because he's a gamechanger and can hold onto the ball in crucial spots. I would've more so chosen Onomah to depart instead because he isn't as creative as Cairney. I think the early through ball that set up Mitro was a point that swayed Parker's decision to keeping Onomah in vs Cairney.


• Immediately, my preferences were put to the backburner as Onomah was found by Mitro at the top of the box. Onomah sends in a brilliant through ball to Cairney's replacement, BDR, who takes a soft first touch, but it's well defended. He will play a crucial role into us not getting goals back unfortunately. Right place, right time, poor execution.


• Instantly we are playing 1-2 touches brilliantly in tight spaces, looking quite quality. Barnsley can't perform their double team because we've crowded each side of the pitch that the ball is on. One anchor point such as Reid or Mitro, with the winger in Knockaert or central of Arter or Onomah - fully supporting the attack. Reid's through ball to Cav is just a bit too hard and is collected by the Barnsley defenders. Momentum is back on.


• In the 4-2-3-1, Onomah and Arter essentially set up as a pivot two in the central midfield, but when they're breached, it's up to Bryan to track back and press high. Woodrow gets his chance because this is exactly what happens. Arter is just late on his challenge, and the midfield is breached as Onomah is forced to cover from the right side all the way over to the left. Bryan doesn't press and doesn't drop back, forcing Onomah even further to drop back, which confuses Ream and he's given Woodrow too much space.


• Last mention of 4-2-3-1 change is that we now have the numbers both centrally and on the wing. Knockaert and Sess overlapping and underlapping, breaking down the double team pressure again and again. Pair that up with the mobility of BDR, and goodness me, we're a force to be reckoned with.


• Against all tactics, ironically, was Barnsley's next chance where it seemed we were completely surprised by their goal kick that went all the way over our defenders and set them up with a strike just wide.

Minutes 65-85

• Kamara subs in for Sess, and now we're at a true 3-5-2, with Arter basically dropping back in front of the defense. If we're being picky, it's more of a 3-1-4-2. What I liked especially about this was how we could now put Cav central and Knockaert on the left. This is something quite rarely seen this season, and I hope it's enough for Parker to consider going forward as I feel Cav is so strong centrally than he is stuck on the wing. It also gives freedom to Knockaert to push out or in, similar to how he did against QPR at home where his movement off the ball set up Kamara's goals.


• As expected, the 3-5-2 will have some holes defensively, and it's no surprise we're exposed when Barnsley take a quick free kick and send the ball over the top of Hector. Another vicious shot, but just wide.


• Really nice throw in direct to BDR, who chests it and sends a through ball inside the box to Onomah, who lobs it up for Mitro. Mitro controls it and finds Cav - who's shot was surely to make it 2-1, but just went wide. BDR is making a huge difference.


• After a nice run by Arter to suck in the midfield, he sends a nice pass to BDR at the top of the box. He opts to take a touch, but it's heavy, and defended yet again. As mentioned earlier, BDR's touch let him down, but more so his decision making when he was the focal point to score. He was exceptional in movement and creating chances for others though. The deflection bumps its way to Kamara, who cuts inside and tries an outside of the foot shot on goal which is well saved.


• A handball should've been called on them as we were on the break via BDR, but eventually Kamara blazes down the side and cuts back inside to pass the ball to Cav central - who unleashes a shot that is unfortuantely right at the keeper, and we are unable to get the deflection before he smothers it.


• Shortly after we've got a free kick at the half via Arter. Ball is sent up to Mitro, his shirt is being pulled by somehow gets to it and finds Hector, who's left footed shot is off the mark, but it reaches BDR. BDR takes a silky first touch and tries a quick shot from point blank range, but it's well saved yet again. Another key chance for BDR to score.


• Terrible moment for us as Rodak makes a clean grab of their corner, but ambitiously tries a drop kick straight to their player. The driect pass is brilliant to Woodrow, who skirts past Hector, before making Rodak look poor beating him near post. All momentum lost. General assessments and assumptions commence.

Minutes 85-End

• Hard to focus on the match after that killer. Mitro got a shot off that went wide. Onomah hits the crossbar. At this point, the match is over, and supporters are leaving early - don't blame them of course.

Final thoughts

Contextually speaking, and reading through the breakdown, does it really sound like we played bad? When I was watching live, I definitely felt that we weren't quite right, but once I was able to find the source of the issues being us not able to handle their double team - it all came together. I think the scoreline heavily favors Barnsley, and doesn't give our effort justice. I think it's unfortunate that there is a linear mindset of scoreline = degree of effort. Our keeper made 3 crucial mistakes, and we paid the price in the scoreline. Tactically we were beat in the stalling of our attacks because of their double team pressure. We answered with the change in formation and bringing on BDR to help Mitro. We further answered with the change to the 3-5-2 that allowed Cav and Knockaert to play close to eachother, but more importantly having Cav play centrally as more of a threat. We broke their double team pressure tactic as a result, and Kamara coming on created a freedom down the sides we did not have before.

I think my thoughts are going to be wildly unpopular, but we simply didn't find the back of the net, and conceded when our momentum was gaining. To be fair, Barnsley had their chances to add onto the score, but they failed just as much.

Overall, this leads me to think about the consistent argument of results vs how we're playing. There is a camp that is so focused on how we're playing, and thus downplaying results. Whereas there are those who are happy with the results, such as 7 unbeaten before this, but understand we're not playing to our potential. Does that mean Parker In or Out? Hard to say, isn't it? From a tactical perspective, he didn't address the double team pressure until after halftime, and after we had conceded already. However, when he did address it, it proved the right move, but has been overshadowed by elements that noone can prepare for - which is not one individual error by one of our best players, but 3 total. I am not sure where I stand. If I was forced to choose, I'd say Parker in, but he's on very thin ice - especially because his inability to address the opponent's defensive tactics against us has hurt momentum. I think he'd be a fool not to utilize the 3-5-2 more often, but I have that luxury to say so because I only get to judge the end product. 

Anyway, I hope this was worth a read, if anything to pass the time until the next match. I believe that context is everything, and I personally dislike general assessments that aren't validated without a bit more digging. As mentioned, I have the luxury to judge the end product, so I don't go out of my lane and judge the elements I'm not privvy to such as office meetings, team drillings, etc. Note: I would've put this in a video highlight package if it were allowed, but unfortunately any match footage gets flagged.

Oh...this was darn good.  Well done.

082.gif
:plus one:

Brilliant analysis Matt - many thanks for taking the  time to do this.

I must admit to not having much heart to watch the replay of the game myself, and have only seen highlights,but did think the performance probably wasn't as hopeless as thought, with Rodak's unfortunate errors being crucial.

Show the fine lines between success and failure at this level, with  no team in the division being a pushover, and capable of producing a good result against us, or anyone else, on the day.

It does seem to me that an idea  becomes prevalent and  thus the 'truth' - here, that  Fulham under Parker don't  play to the potential of their players, even when results have been good enough to get us into third place, and  not only that but we are  'boring' to watch - which mystifies me, as a long term - old -  schoolboy and Sunday League player, and fan and watcher of Fulham, since the early 60's-

1/ because i thought the object of competitive pro football was to win the game - who ever professed admiration for the stylish way their team played if they kept losing?

2/ We try to play football under Parker, even if  it can seem a bit slow  in build up at times - but I see the reasons for that - to try an break down packed defences, and anyway, i don't care how we play if we win. I never find it boring to watch Fulham since i have so much emotion invested in the result (well, maybe some 0-0 draws in the Fourth division might have been a bit boring at times!)

But Parker will live and die by results like all managers, and agree that he could be on thin ice at the moment - depending on how future results pan out. There's still a lot of the season left, and we are sill third  at the moment.

I rarely post as my views are well supported on this forum; however, I must say Matt your analysis is always refreshing to read and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and effort. For what it is worth I think the inconsistency of the team's performance this year sits with Parker but I would give him until the end of the season if I was the owner. The bigger question for the owner is if we get promoted would you keep Scott Parker? Personally, I would say no, he needs more time in a lower tier to learn his trade.

Thanks Matt very interesting read.  For me it is Parker to get tactics right and be able to spot what needs changing at the time. But he can't prepare for the Rodak blunders! The 352 formation is possibly the way ahead as I feel Hector has brought more stability to defence, but it also allows more in midfield where I think we get overun in a lot of games. A midfield of 5 out of this lot currently fit, looks very good, Knock, Cav, Cairny, Johansen, Onamah, McD, Arter. Then 1 up front with Mitro BDR or AK. Depends on the game whether your more defensive or attacking.
My thoughts anyways.

A good effort Matt 10 but you have failed to lift the Monday morning depression from this Fulham fan.
I still think we were well beaten and that Barnsley deserved to go away with the 3 points. The big hard truth is that we never really looked liked scoring against the bottom of the table team at home.

The only possible relief is that if  the muddle of the first goal had not happened then we may have done better, but at the Cottage surely we should be capable of coming back from a one goal deficit however unfortunate it is.

Quote from: Matt10 on February 17, 2020, 03:43:54 AM
I think my thoughts are going to be wildly unpopular

I'm sure your own thoughts are welcome and accompanied by some decent analysis here. Unfortunately, as usual they come with patronising comments and the misguided belief that your thoughts are in some way more objective than everyone else's.

Thanks nonetheless for reassuring us that "it is common to come away with a general feeling, but then mistakenly use that general feeling and create a general assessment of not only our team, players, but overall tactics." As someone who made this mistake, I'm pleased to know it's common. 

Similarly, thank you for correcting me where I wanted to blame your compatriot Ream in any way for the first goal when it's "clear as day" [to you] that he wasn't at fault in any way.

Thank you for pointing out to me that my view is "unchanged by stubbornness more than what is actually happening on the pitch". How stupid of me not to watch matches which [unlike you] I actually attend. 

I also apologise for making those "general assessments and assumptions" you refer to, having a "linear mindset" and being part of "a camp that is so focused on how we're playing, and thus downplaying results".

Great article, well done

Thanks Matt10. 

I was wondering who wrote the script for Saturday's debacle.  Now I know.

great analysis Matt - thanks for putting that together, a very interesting read for someone not able to make the game and not yet had time to watch anything other than the short highlights.

Well done lad.  Has Fulham beaten anyone in the bottom 6 (except Luton)?

I dont understand all the moaning on here. Got spanked by the bottom team but still 3rd. Others are losing as well.

Quote from: Statto on February 17, 2020, 12:24:10 PM

Quote from: Matt10 on February 17, 2020, 03:43:54 AM
I think my thoughts are going to be wildly unpopular

I'm sure your own thoughts are welcome and accompanied by some decent analysis here. Unfortunately, as usual they come with patronising comments and the misguided belief that your thoughts are in some way more objective than everyone else's.

Thanks nonetheless for reassuring us that "it is common to come away with a general feeling, but then mistakenly use that general feeling and create a general assessment of not only our team, players, but overall tactics." As someone who made this mistake, I'm pleased to know it's common. 

Similarly, thank you for correcting me where I wanted to blame your compatriot Ream in any way for the first goal when it's "clear as day" [to you] that he wasn't at fault in any way.

Thank you for pointing out to me that my view is "unchanged by stubbornness more than what is actually happening on the pitch". How stupid of me not to watch matches which [unlike you] I actually attend. 

I also apologise for making those "general assessments and assumptions" you refer to, having a "linear mindset" and being part of "a camp that is so focused on how we're playing, and thus downplaying results".

Why are you taking this as a personal attack?

Blimey! That was some piece of text!

I'm another who appreciates that effort and found it enlightening.

Micro analysis of this kind will presumably be happening back at Motspur Park. But it's also vital that study of individual trees (to make the usual analogy) does not prohibit a survey of the whole wood.

Matt himself evades that trap when he says that Parker's "inability to address the opponent's defensive tactics against us has hurt momentum."

That absolutely is the bigger picture. Matt justifies it here via a range of incidents, particularly involving "double teaming of the wingers",  but -- as his use of 'momentum' implies -- other matches in recent months would have yielded similar. 

Rodak's defensive blunders (panicking in the wind?) are unlikely to  repeat too often, whereas the trend summarised in that quote by Matt is not a one-off. Disguised by Mitro's goals and the occasional 'worldy' from others, it has been playing itself out some time now, has by and large been getting worse, and is the biggest indictment against current coaching.

Quote from: MikeW on February 17, 2020, 12:47:57 PM
Why are you taking this as a personal attack?

I don't read this board enough to know if there is anything in that inference. But just reading Matt's post  without any thought that it was digging out anyone in particular, I had no problem with the broad point he was making. It's valid, and it still will be valid even if there is a subtext to it that runs over my head.

Hi - interesting read. I'd be interested to know if you sit behind the goal or in the JH. Reason I ask I'm in the JH and while I found a different take on the match interesting, I really didn't see it the same (positive) way at all. I thought we were pretty hopeless start to finish. The only player for me who comes out with any credit is AK - and yet he only seems capable of being an impact player lately.

At the root of the issue I think is twofold. Firstly, although I love possession football (the second two Huddersfield goals perfect example), we seem to lack the 'probing' nature, as in moving the ball round and then striking fast for the jugular when a gap appears or someone makes a run. Secondly we have too many underperforming players who get in the team regularly, such as Cav/Onomah/even Arter, while a proven player like StefJo sits unused. I'll forgive Knockaert as this was his first game in a while.

There are games where things just don't drop sometimes, or you get sucker punched. This wasn't that. We barely created a proper chance (bar the ball dropping kindly after a couple of goalmouth scrambles) while Barnsley made several.

For me, Cav and Onomah need to be 'rested' (I use the term diplomatically) and we need to retain our style, but improve on it.

Quote from: Statto on February 17, 2020, 12:24:10 PM

Quote from: Matt10 on February 17, 2020, 03:43:54 AM
I think my thoughts are going to be wildly unpopular

I'm sure your own thoughts are welcome and accompanied by some decent analysis here. Unfortunately, as usual they come with patronising comments and the misguided belief that your thoughts are in some way more objective than everyone else's.

Thanks nonetheless for reassuring us that "it is common to come away with a general feeling, but then mistakenly use that general feeling and create a general assessment of not only our team, players, but overall tactics." As someone who made this mistake, I'm pleased to know it's common. 

Similarly, thank you for correcting me where I wanted to blame your compatriot Ream in any way for the first goal when it's "clear as day" [to you] that he wasn't at fault in any way.

Thank you for pointing out to me that my view is "unchanged by stubbornness more than what is actually happening on the pitch". How stupid of me not to watch matches which [unlike you] I actually attend. 

I also apologise for making those "general assessments and assumptions" you refer to, having a "linear mindset" and being part of "a camp that is so focused on how we're playing, and thus downplaying results".

Touchy, touchy. Heavy sarcasm really doesn't become you.  So Matt made a few points that don't accord with your views (and of several others), isn't this board all about debate?

Quote from: b+w geezer on February 17, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: MikeW on February 17, 2020, 12:47:57 PM
Why are you taking this as a personal attack?

I don't read this board enough to know if there is anything in that inference. But just reading Matt's post  without any thought that it was digging out anyone in particular, I had no problem with the broad point he was making. It's valid, and it still will be valid even if there is a subtext to it that runs over my head.

You're not missing anything, except that the OP does this sort of thing all the time. The thread isn't not a "personal" attack, but it is an attack on (or at least, disrespectful and patronising towards) anyone who disagrees. That is, unless you don't think it disrespectful and patronising in a debate to tell someone their views are a common mistake, driven by personal feelings rather than objective analysis, clearly wrong, attributable to stubbornness and a linear mindset, and unduly focussed particular issues, etc (all of which the OP has managed to say in a single post on this occasion, which is something special even by his own standards).       

Quote from: Statto on February 17, 2020, 01:30:02 PM

Quote from: b+w geezer on February 17, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: MikeW on February 17, 2020, 12:47:57 PM
Why are you taking this as a personal attack?

I don't read this board enough to know if there is anything in that inference. But just reading Matt's post  without any thought that it was digging out anyone in particular, I had no problem with the broad point he was making. It's valid, and it still will be valid even if there is a subtext to it that runs over my head.

You're not missing anything, except that the OP does this sort of thing all the time. The thread isn't not a "personal" attack, but it is an attack on (or at least, disrespectful and patronising towards) anyone who disagrees. That is, unless you don't think it disrespectful and patronising in a debate to tell someone their views are a common mistake, driven by personal feelings rather than objective analysis, clearly wrong, attributable to stubbornness and a linear mindset, and unduly focussed particular issues, etc (all of which the OP has managed to say in a single post on this occasion, which is something special even by his own standards).     

I have to say I agree. The OP consistently is patronising and will defend the indefensible until the cows come home, on the basis that he sees it better and more clearly than any of us other neanderthals, when really he is merely trying to find evidence to prove his own preconceptions.

I could go through and cut this to pieces, but frankly, who has the time.

There's a common phrase among football fans - 'those that go know'. We should start considering it.

As part of my torturous steps to recovery programme for no longer being 'A Parker Believer', and having read through Matt10's POV analysis, I decided to watch the full ninety minutes on FFCtv to see what I missed live on Saturday.  I clearly felt, from reading Matt10's peer reviewable paper, the wind and rain must have gotten in my eyes, and, I can positively say, they must have done.  I have to say that if Barnsley had won 7-0 we couldn't have complained on the balance of chances presented.  It was much worse than I first thought and I have to say Matt10 has tried to make the proverbial silk purse out of it.  Sorry Matt10 but we were worse than dire.   This line in particular sticks in my throat - I think the scoreline heavily favors Barnsley, and doesn't give our effort justice - because it is frankly codswallop.

A well thought out, and good piece of writing Matt10. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this, and placing it on the Forum for everyone to read. Based on that, we have pushed it out via the Friends of Fulham blog, which News Now will pick up an circulate. We have also pushed it out on Twitter, for the rest of the Fulham fan base to read.

Quote from: SuffolkWhite on February 17, 2020, 11:26:34 AM
Thanks Matt very interesting read.  For me it is Parker to get tactics right and be able to spot what needs changing at the time. But he can't prepare for the Rodak blunders! The 352 formation is possibly the way ahead as I feel Hector has brought more stability to defence, but it also allows more in midfield where I think we get overun in a lot of games. A midfield of 5 out of this lot currently fit, looks very good, Knock, Cav, Cairny, Johansen, Onamah, McD, Arter. Then 1 up front with Mitro BDR or AK. Depends on the game whether your more defensive or attacking.
My thoughts anyways.

0001.jpeg

Quote from: toshes mate on February 17, 2020, 02:24:45 PM
As part of my torturous steps to recovery programme for no longer being 'A Parker Believer', and having read through Matt10's POV analysis, I decided to watch the full ninety minutes on FFCtv to see what I missed live on Saturday.  I clearly felt, from reading Matt10's peer reviewable paper, the wind and rain must have gotten in my eyes, and, I can positively say, they must have done.  I have to say that if Barnsley had won 7-0 we couldn't have complained on the balance of chances presented.  It was much worse than I first thought and I have to say Matt10 has tried to make the proverbial silk purse out of it.  Sorry Matt10 but we were worse than dire.   This line in particular sticks in my throat - I think the scoreline heavily favors Barnsley, and doesn't give our effort justice - because it is frankly codswallop.

Spot on Toshes mate.

I was there and also saw what tosh and dodger saw.
No good pretending otherwise, as if you don't face up to your problems, you can't begin to mend them.
A poor display, with no exceptions and no MOM
As someone else said, this is not new. We've not been playing well for along while and both our results and others around us have flattered us and kept us in contention.
It's not too late, luckily and if we start picking the right team, then playing a more progressive game, we could still make it but I wouldn't bank on it.

Quote from: Dodger53 on February 17, 2020, 02:48:13 PM

Quote from: toshes mate on February 17, 2020, 02:24:45 PM
As part of my torturous steps to recovery programme for no longer being 'A Parker Believer', and having read through Matt10's POV analysis, I decided to watch the full ninety minutes on FFCtv to see what I missed live on Saturday.  I clearly felt, from reading Matt10's peer reviewable paper, the wind and rain must have gotten in my eyes, and, I can positively say, they must have done.  I have to say that if Barnsley had won 7-0 we couldn't have complained on the balance of chances presented.  It was much worse than I first thought and I have to say Matt10 has tried to make the proverbial silk purse out of it.  Sorry Matt10 but we were worse than dire.   This line in particular sticks in my throat - I think the scoreline heavily favors Barnsley, and doesn't give our effort justice - because it is frankly codswallop.

Spot on Toshes mate.

:plus one:   I thought the first half was dull, dull, dull and in the 2nd half we were so poor that I just laughed.

Beyond the 'patronising' accusation, there's been the  'codswallop' one. As regards Matt's verdict on the scoreline, that's a fair accusation. What isn't codswallop is to analyse in such detail, which is something one can't possibly do at the time (accepting that being there also has advantages over not being).

As well said just above " if you don't face up to your problems, you can't begin to mend them." But in practice facing up to problems in football -- having decided that is really what you intend to do -- involves getting down to details and sorting them out. Roy Hodgson has made a career out of just that, for instance.

Codswallop-speaker or not, Matt says in his report, based on accumulation of detail, that we have problem in Parker's "inability to address the opponent's defensive tactics against us." That is illustrated by lots of incidents recounted from Saturday. (They don't account for why Barnsley could have scored more, but they do tell the story of our scoring difficulties). It is good to have had that story closely illustrated and  would be even  better  to have  it heeded.

I think next Friday I will do all I can to avoid watching Fulham or catching the match result but instead watch out for the Matt 10 summary on this board. In that way I can look forward to a good week-end.

Appreciate Matt's work here ... but what sticks out for me is "We actually did decently enough to repeatedly get the ball to our wingers ... who were double-teamed and had no one to pass to because Mitrovic is blanketed centrally and we don't have any midfielders who can run to make themselves available."

That's what I (and others) have been yelling about for six months. It's not that the players aren't ever executing; it's the whole system is tragically flawed and requires moments of individual brilliance to bail it out.

You can't sum up Parker's deficiency any better than that. His system for the players we have is egregiously bad. We've gotten away with this plenty this season, but not on Saturday ... and with nine total goals in our last nine league matches, eight with one goal or fewer, we're getting away with it less and less often.

Quote from: Denver Fulham on February 17, 2020, 04:42:36 PM
His system for the players we have is egregiously bad. ... and with nine total goals in our last nine league matches, eight with one goal or fewer, we're getting away with it less and less often.

Exactly, and regardless of any downsides to it, the report illustrates why.

Matt thanks for your annalsys and time. I dont agree with every point you make but I dont feel patronised either. I also thought it was a very poor performance and my main criticism of our tactics would be that if we are going to play it long which we did more or less all game (often when unable to play out due to their press) that we didnt focus on winning the second balls.

Thanks Matt for posting such a detailed analysis.

I for one didn't find your tone patronising or disrespectful. In fact, whilst I don't agree with some of your points, it is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking posts on here for a while.

The fact that it wasn't a "heat-of-the-moment" knee-jerk reaction posted right after what was an awful result must have helped :)

I look forward to your next analysis, after we put Derby to the sword on Friday :)

Cheers

Burt

I applaud the detail, work effort and thought that has gone into the opening post.  This Board lives and dies by the quality of thought and prose. 

I like it when people have a different view, it gets me thinking.  The views in the opening post are tactically miles away from what I think about Saturday's game.  They have helped me focus on why that is.  So here goes.

Without doubt the finest display I have ever seen on a day when a strong wind blows from behind a goal was Fulham against Newcastle about six years ago when we ran out 5-2 winners.  Murphy, Zamora  and Dempsey figured it all out such that we were practically unplayable playing into the wind.  Football as a battle of wits, adaptation and imposing will on the other team.  A masterclass.  Well Saturday was the polar opposite.  Fulham players didn't even want to look at each other in the second half. Totally undone.  Barnsley on the other hand were playing very intelligently indeed.

Thanks Matt - an interesting read.

I don't think I am alone in thinking that two men out wide nearly all the time is easy to defend against. I sometimes think it's as if we are playing with only 10 men. We play a genuine 4-3-3 and Barnsley's 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 not only made them more compact, but gave them better possession than they should have had, and to me they looked the better team, particularly for spells in the first half. Of course our errors gave them not only the lead, but increasing confidence, and overall Barnsley can be pleased with the performance, not just the result. They have definitely improved with the new manager. They remain one of, if not the, favourites to go down, but this will give their supporters some hope, even if not a lot!

Consequently I agree that we created very little in the first half, and this has been a problem for us in several games, Hull being another for example. Having said that, thought we were a bit unlucky at times with the way the ball fell, and we had a couple of good chances, Mitro's shot saved by keeper's feet, and an uncharacteristically poor header from about 6  yards, and Bobby Reid when the keeper closed him down really quickly. If we could have gone to 2-1 the momentum and psychology may have meant we could have got something out of the game. I know ...and if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. 

Good analysis Matt10 and thank you for , as always, taking an analytic approach . I don't agree with all your points but you certainly don't deserve the vitriol you have had to endure  .I agree with Colinwhite that we failed on picking up the second ball when playing it long . Also if you invert the wingers you almost invariably slow down your attack as you have to check back in order to cross or shoot . Not your fault but no tv or video coverage gives you the full view of the action and trust me we were well beaten on Saturday by a team who were thinking rather than just playing

Quote from: Denver Fulham on February 17, 2020, 04:42:36 PM
Appreciate Matt's work here ... but what sticks out for me is "We actually did decently enough to repeatedly get the ball to our wingers ... who were double-teamed and had no one to pass to because Mitrovic is blanketed centrally and we don't have any midfielders who can run to make themselves available."

That's what I (and others) have been yelling about for six months. It's not that the players aren't ever executing; it's the whole system is tragically flawed and requires moments of individual brilliance to bail it out.

You can't sum up Parker's deficiency any better than that. His system for the players we have is egregiously bad. We've gotten away with this plenty this season, but not on Saturday ... and with nine total goals in our last nine league matches, eight with one goal or fewer, we're getting away with it less and less often.

You know what? you summed up my feelings.

I love Matt's posts and really appreciate the thought and quality.

For me, in simple terms, football is either more about imposing yourself on other teams, stopping the other team do what they want or an equal bit of both.

Man city and Liverpool etc will impose themselves on other teams. If Southampton play Man city, they try and stop Man city first and foremost and then try and take advantage of the few chances they get.

I always assumed there would be a point in the season we would click and at that point the balance of power would be with us. So, being ex-premier, most teams will try and stop us first. And they do. I assumed that for most of these teams, we would just be too good at what we do at around game 15-20.

Watching recent games, it just so obvious that we have just not improved to enough of a level. Whereas, the opposition's ability to stop us has improved enough that they can stop us reasonably easily now and are now spending more time imposing themselves.

Tactically, we just seem really poor.

I take Matt's point that is was not as bad as it seemed on Saturday. But its Monday and it still feels an awful game. Huddersfield at home was pretty bad but we just managed to score with every shot we got on target but spent the rest of the game completely overrun by Huddersfield.

Its not got better after 33 games, I can't see it starting now. Its a roll of the dice as far as Parker goes. He'll have to change something but coaches that constantly talk about rolling ya sleeves up and showing fight always worry me.

Matt, great read. Thanks for putting in the work.

As a side note, what did you ever do to Statto, he seems to lie in wait for any comments you make. Perhaps he should take off that hair shirt and respond thoughtfully instead of with imagined slights.

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 09:07:14 PM
Matt, great read. Thanks for putting in the work.

As a side note, what did you ever do to Statto, he seems to lie in wait for any comments you make. Perhaps he should take off that hair shirt and respond thoughtfully instead of with imagined slights.

The OP is patronising and disrespectful towards those that disagree with him. Those words, patronising and disrespectful, have objective meanings and it's a fact, not my opinion or an "imagined slight", that his comments frequently fall within those meanings. If you (and others) don't feel disrespected and patronised, that's just because you're not one of those the comments are directed towards, ie you're not someone who disagrees with Matt10, which of course is your prerogative. But it doesn't mean the comments aren't patronising and disrespectful to another (probably larger) segment of the forum.

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 09:07:14 PM
Matt, great read. Thanks for putting in the work.

As a side note, what did you ever do to Statto, he seems to lie in wait for any comments you make. Perhaps he should take off that hair shirt and respond thoughtfully instead of with imagined slights.

Oh come on, you must see some of the condescension in the OP post?

Quote from: toshes mate on February 17, 2020, 02:24:45 PM
As part of my torturous steps to recovery programme for no longer being 'A Parker Believer', and having read through Matt10's POV analysis, I decided to watch the full ninety minutes on FFCtv to see what I missed live on Saturday.  I clearly felt, from reading Matt10's peer reviewable paper, the wind and rain must have gotten in my eyes, and, I can positively say, they must have done.  I have to say that if Barnsley had won 7-0 we couldn't have complained on the balance of chances presented.  It was much worse than I first thought and I have to say Matt10 has tried to make the proverbial silk purse out of it.  Sorry Matt10 but we were worse than dire.   This line in particular sticks in my throat - I think the scoreline heavily favors Barnsley, and doesn't give our effort justice - because it is frankly codswallop.

This exactly. Cannot see that despite how anyone dresses it up that the performance was anything but dire. Barnsley thoroughly deservedly won easily. They are also the poorest side in the division but whos manager got his side to play the conditions a lot more intelligently than Parker did. Parker should not be doing his 'L' plate, "how to manage a football team " course here with a genuinely talented multi million pound squad. He should be doing it at Barnet or Orient. Also as detailed as Matts analysis is, there's a big element of ifs and buts. If my aunty had balls she would be my uncle and on the strength of this game it doesn't compute as much of the dialogue is extremely selective in its content.

A Quincy breakdown of a game,silotions send to scotty on a postcard please!!

Quote from: FFC1987 on February 17, 2020, 09:41:37 PM

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 09:07:14 PM
Matt, great read. Thanks for putting in the work.

As a side note, what did you ever do to Statto, he seems to lie in wait for any comments you make. Perhaps he should take off that hair shirt and respond thoughtfully instead of with imagined slights.

Oh come on, you must see some of the condescension in the OP post?

No, I can't, really. One sees what one wants. Two people say the same thing and someone can take offense or think it is a vintage Churchill speech depending on their pre-conceived notions. Statto seems to be in the former category when it comes to Matt. I could be wrong. It is simply my opinion. Much as Matt voiced his. Statto is entitled to his opinion as are you. As is Matt. As am I. I saw nothing directed at any individual until Statto made accusations. We should be talking football (which is the way I read Matt's post) not making every disagreement into a personal battle.

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 10:44:08 PM

Quote from: FFC1987 on February 17, 2020, 09:41:37 PM

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 09:07:14 PM
Matt, great read. Thanks for putting in the work.

As a side note, what did you ever do to Statto, he seems to lie in wait for any comments you make. Perhaps he should take off that hair shirt and respond thoughtfully instead of with imagined slights.

Oh come on, you must see some of the condescension in the OP post?

No, I can't, really. One sees what one wants. Two people say the same thing and someone can take offense or think it is a vintage Churchill speech depending on their pre-conceived notions. Statto seems to be in the former category when it comes to Matt. I could be wrong. It is simply my opinion. Much as Matt voiced his. Statto is entitled to his opinion as are you. As is Matt. As am I. I saw nothing directed at any individual until Statto made accusations. We should be talking football (which is the way I read Matt's post) not making every disagreement into a personal battle.

To repeat, not my "opinion" or "seeing what I want". Google the definition of disrespectful and explain to all those who disagree with the OP how him saying their opinion is the product of "stubornness" and a "linear mindset" is respectful.

Not a "personal battle" either, just a recurring issue that I've called out.

I am glad to see some analysis of the performance, and some suggestions as to where we can improve. Hopefully we get some good discussion on the points rather than just arguing for pages about some of the language used.

Gotta love this forum.  :wine:

I think Matts summary is exactly that, his take on things and his attempt to be objective. Some  points I agree with and some not just like everybody else.Those people who question that should offer counter arguments if there is a discussion to be had otherwise sadly it just becomes about feeding or defending your own ego. Interesting that those feeling put upon rarely offer any real football observations of their own.

I have now watched most of this game three times and whilst I am impressed with the length and detail of Matt10's breakdown the content of it does grate and potentially offend when read as an attempt to re-educate us about what we see happening with our own eyes week in, week out. 

In his first paragraph, for example, Matt10 writes along lines of  'I have a problem because [people on here] go into meltdown ...'.  My retort is that it is sometimes okay to go into meltdown when you believe the abuses inflicted upon your senses by a football coach has gone on for long enough with absolutely no sign of positive change coming with it.  Perhaps coaches over complicates things in much the way an article written on why they do what they do may turn out.  A better version of coaching may be 'You get the bloody ball. You pass and move, pass and move, pass and move until you see their goal. Then you kick the bloody ball as hard as you bloody can past their bloody 'keeper.' which was my introduction to football one afternoon on a London common.  It still works even to this day.           

But these very experienced players of Fulham must surely have a  very good  knowledge of footballing basics, as does the manager with his extensive experience in the game.

I think the expectations around playing at home against the side  bottom of the table - who actually played very well, and got about us - caused anxiety in the players . We weren't on our normal game, which, you must admit, usually includes at least periods of often brilliant, close passing football, with  many chances created, if not  taken.

But it was keeping errors that undid us, though Rodak was obviously not the only player performing poorly on the day, but once we went a goal down, against team playing as it was their Cup Final, we found it hard to get back into the game, in  very windy conditions - which were the same for both teams admittedly.

But fans talk of lack of effort or footballing nous, but I don't think it's about this.  Have you
never experienced  a day when you are very stressed about something, and  do familiar things all wrong and are accident prone? You try hard but nothing flows for you.

Footballers, however much they are paid, are not immune to anxiety and stress which can strongly affect their performance. In fact. their's is a far more stressful occupation than  most of us experience. You are judged by performance on the day, and the result, every time you go to work. And there are a lot more people  judging you, on  often very harsh criteria, than when i began watching the game. Then you might say about a player who had  poor game -'well, he did his best.'
Now  he would be called 'an overpaid, lazy, useless piece of  s***, who doesn't give a f*** about the fans who pay his wages. And as for the crap manager meant to be motivating these primma donnas.......!'

Matt's view  is his view, and he cites chapter and verse, to give a very interesting take on the game, which isn't just down to 'we played crap, and the manager is useless and should be sacked, and the players don't give a s***, and can't even  do the footballing basics.'

Well we all have opinions don't we? and that's what the forum is all about.

Matt takes the time and effort to do a detailed analysis of the game -an objective analysis as far as he is concerned, and i don't find him condescending at all, though i do find some other posters condescending!

That's my opinion anyway - people are free to scroll over it, which I'm sure many do.

Well said Ray . Agree 100 per cent

Quote from: RaySmith on February 18, 2020, 09:55:17 AM
"..a take on the game, which isn't just down to 'we played crap, and the manager is useless and should be sacked, and the players don't give a s***, and can't even  do the footballing basics.'

You may be rated offensive for implying that is what some other posters are like.  As a rare visitor (attracted here by the rare detail in Matt's post) I truly wouldn't know, but at TIFF, which I do know about, the cap does fit some. Including me sometimes! Especially when exiting in the rain from a shocking performance by my team. I'd go so far as to venture that anyone immune from those reactions can't have been watching live football for long. Or is a saint.

To imply we ought to be saints would be irritating on anyone's part, but that doesn't mean that a calm detailed inquest afterwards shouldn't be appreciated.

I have a shorter bit of analysis-

After 33 minutes we had a shot that almost went down the stairs in the furthest corner of the Putney End.  That was the closest that we had come up to that point.  Our dismal first half performance meant that our boys appeared to be given a roasting at half time and ran around with much more vigour.  Then Rodak decides to play sweeper and we were finished.

Basically, a series of half chances and pressure was all we got in the second half.  Our defending became suicidal as we pressed to get back into the game.  We were regularly exposed and Barnsley could have scored more.

Quote from: Statto on February 17, 2020, 11:06:33 PM

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 10:44:08 PM

Quote from: FFC1987 on February 17, 2020, 09:41:37 PM

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 17, 2020, 09:07:14 PM
Matt, great read. Thanks for putting in the work.

As a side note, what did you ever do to Statto, he seems to lie in wait for any comments you make. Perhaps he should take off that hair shirt and respond thoughtfully instead of with imagined slights.

Oh come on, you must see some of the condescension in the OP post?

No, I can't, really. One sees what one wants. Two people say the same thing and someone can take offense or think it is a vintage Churchill speech depending on their pre-conceived notions. Statto seems to be in the former category when it comes to Matt. I could be wrong. It is simply my opinion. Much as Matt voiced his. Statto is entitled to his opinion as are you. As is Matt. As am I. I saw nothing directed at any individual until Statto made accusations. We should be talking football (which is the way I read Matt's post) not making every disagreement into a personal battle.

To repeat, not my "opinion" or "seeing what I want". Google the definition of disrespectful and explain to all those who disagree with the OP how him saying their opinion is the product of "stubornness" and a "linear mindset" is respectful.

Not a "personal battle" either, just a recurring issue that I've called out.

Perhaps it is just the way you approach things mate. I believe Shakespeare wrote a play about it: "Much Ado About Nothing".

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 18, 2020, 05:31:16 PM
Perhaps it is just the way you approach things 

It isn't, as I've explained in the posts you're replying to. But we've clearly reached the ceiling of your intellect so let's leave it there.
093.gif 1500.gif

Definition of condescending
: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others

Come on now, put the handbags down, let's get a round in, and let's get back to discussing whether you agree with Matt's analysis of the match.

Sorry Burt. I find the pettiness of having to be childishly right tiresome.
I'll put my handbag away.
I wonder if Statto's has sequins?

What does 'double-teamed' mean ?

"Last mention of 4-2-3-1 change is that we now have the numbers both centrally and on the wing. Knockaert and Sess overlapping and underlapping, breaking down the double team pressure again and again. Pair that up with the mobility of BDR, and goodness me, we're a force to be reckoned with."

Wow, that's certainly one view of things.

But any way, on your conclusion of results v performance, the key is viewing the performance in context not in isolation. Every time we've come up against a decently coached team they've done the same things as Barnsley - press high as a team while ensuring their full-backs are never left one on one. Barnsley didn't do anything new, but the way we were set up the players once again had no idea what to do. The fact we've done nothing to change/improve the way we play is damning.

And while I get things are subjective, I'm astonished that one of your continued refrains is that 'we're moving the ball at pace'. Players are hitting quick passes, trusting their teammates control yes, but you compare the way we had players holding onto the ball and taking multiple touches to Barnsley's two-touch approach and it's night and day, particularly as so few passes were progressive (rather you tend to have 2 or 3 players passing between themselves in an area of the pitch until we lose it) - largely because the midfield, wingers and mitro were all so isolated from one another.

On your praise of the formation changes, it's probably also worth flagging how vulnerable they left us. You are right that BDR, Cav and to a degree AK all had more of an impact in the last half hour - but it is vital to acknowledge that is when the 'system' was ignored and players were given (or took) more license to play fluidly.

Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 18, 2020, 10:28:26 PM
What does 'double-teamed' mean ?

Two defenders closing down one attacker?

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 19, 2020, 05:39:29 PM

Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 18, 2020, 10:28:26 PM
What does 'double-teamed' mean ?

Two defenders closing down one attacker?

Something that has confused me is that opposition double up on both wide players, double up on Mitro and sort of one and a half up on TC, yet all our other players never have any time or space.

I'm going to count the Derby players on the pitch on Friday. Something is afoot.

Quote from: 70sPimlico on February 19, 2020, 05:53:13 PM

Quote from: YankeeJim on February 19, 2020, 05:39:29 PM

Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 18, 2020, 10:28:26 PM
What does 'double-teamed' mean ?

Two defenders closing down one attacker?

Something that has confused me is that opposition double up on both wide players, double up on Mitro and sort of one and a half up on TC, yet all our other players never have any time or space.

I'm going to count the Derby players on the pitch on Friday. Something is afoot.

Could be that they press more efficiently and have the intelligence, fitness and speed to shift side to side so they are always doubling up.

It's also possible that it is in part due to our own lack of movement in the central midfield positions in that Onomah and TC don't run in behind often, so it is less likely they receive balls in space or force the opposition into falling out of their doubling up. I'm not sure if I've worded that well enough, but you may follow?

Quote from: 70sPimlico on February 19, 2020, 05:53:13 PM
Something that has confused me is that opposition double up on both wide players, double up on Mitro and sort of one and a half up on TC, yet all our other players never have any time or space.
I'm going to count the Derby players on the pitch on Friday. Something is afoot.

Exactly this.  In a long gone former era the idea of opponents pressing to get the ball back was exactly what our coach was looking for and telling his players how to exploit the space created.