Just being honest here, Fulham. Not great but silver linings??

[The Little Dave]

Think the first two league games have actually told us quite a lot about what Arbeloa is trying to do even if obviously 0 points isn't ideal.

Chelsea and Sunderland were basically two totally different versions of Fulham.

Against Chelsea we were insanely aggressive. High line, loads of players going forward, pressing really high, trying to squeeze everything up the pitch. And honestly there was stuff to like about it going forward, but every time Chelsea beat the first press it felt like they had half the pitch to run into.

With our CBs that just doesn't look sustainable.

Then against Sunderland it felt like Arbeloa had clearly reacted to that. We were way more cautious, better protected, less open, but probably went too far the other way. Loads of possession but not much happening with it, Garcia pretty isolated, King not really getting it in the same dangerous areas and Sunderland ended up creating the better chances anyway.

Weirdly though I actually think seeing both extremes is a positive in one way. Please skewer me haters.

It shows Arbeloa isn't just going to be one of those managers who plays his system no matter what and keeps doing the same thing while everyone can see it isn't working.

Chelsea looked too aggressive so he changed it.

Sunderland looked too safe, not all the time but for sure at times.

Now it's just about finding somewhere in the middle.

And I think Shea Charles is absolutely massive for that.

For me Charles could end up being one of the most important players in the team because if Arbeloa wants us pressing high and pushing the full backs on, someone needs to cover all the space that leaves. It's also why I think Reed had a spot on this side. Chase down, high energy, bite the ankles.

That's where we looked really vulnerable against Chelsea. It wasn't always the actual press that was the problem, it was what happened when the press got beaten.

Suddenly there were 5 or 6 Fulham players ahead of the ball and our centre backs were being asked to defend loads of open grass against quick forwards. It wasn't complicated build up, it was simple one pass vertical football that beat us.

Charles gives you someone who can actually cover ground, win second balls, get across the pitch and protect the CBs when everything gets stretched.

Basically gives you a chance to be aggressive without being completely suicidal.

But this is also where I think we need to have a proper conversation about Andersen.... and im not happy about this, cause I was so ready for him when we signed him to become the next Ream.

Not saying Andersen is suddenly a terrible CB because he isn't.

He's still a very good passer, good in the air, experienced and can be really useful when we're defending in a more normal shape.

But I'm just not convinced he's suited to what Arbeloa seems to want.

He's not quick and that becomes a way bigger problem if you're asking him to defend 30 or 40 yards behind him.

Against Sunderland I thought he looked really uncomfortable at times and tbh one performance I could let go but it's not great look at his late half last season and just tough new system.

So if we're genuinely moving towards a more aggressive high line, there is an argument that selling Andersen now actually makes sense.

You'd still get decent money for him, he's an established Premier League CB and he's under contract for ages.

Then use that money on someone younger and much more athletic who actually fits the system...

And I don't even think the replacement needs to be as good on the ball.

I'd happily lose a bit of Andersen's passing if we got someone who was way quicker, better recovering, better defending channels and more comfortable when the game gets stretched.

Because a quick CB doesn't just improve the defence.

It changes what the whole team can do.

You can push the line higher without panicking every time someone plays one ball over the top.

The midfield can press harder.

The full backs can get forward.

Charles doesn't have to cover the entire pitch by himself.

King can stay closer to Garcia and suddenly the attack isn't so disconnected....

Right now it feels a bit like Arbeloa wants to build an aggressive team but the defenders we've got were built for a different style.

That's probably the biggest issue for me.

Andersen might still be a perfectly good Premier League CB while also being the wrong CB for this version of Fulham.

That's not really a criticism of him either, just a squad building thing. Can we find a team who needs a no nonsense backline manager?

Chelsea showed the full madman version where we pushed everyone up and got absolutely killed whenever the press broke.

Sunderland showed the reaction where we protected ourselves more but ended up looking too passive and didn't really create enough.

The fact Arbeloa changed it that much after one game is actually encouraging imo.

And I honestly think Shea Charles plus a proper athletic CB could be what makes that possible. My outlook has been adjusted, I think 13-14 is realistic. But if we solve the CB issue and Charles becomes the component I describe, top half is there, for sure.

[hopper]

Some good points and agree Charles will be important.

Sorry to be critical but the writing style of splitting your points across many short lines made this quite hard to read, given that some are a continuation of the line before.

[Andrew]

Also, Sunderland is a bigger pitch and left seemed to me made our style, with these players, less effective.

The manager surely has to factor in that type of thing.

[The Little Dave]

Some good points and agree Charles will be important.

Sorry to be critical but the writing style of splitting your points across many short lines made this quite hard to read, given that some are a continuation of the line before.

It's fine! I don't think I've ever written something this long since school 

Thanks for going with the ride!

[Jim©]

Also, Sunderland is a bigger pitch and left seemed to me made our style, with these players, less effective.

The manager surely has to factor in that type of thing.

What are you on about, you're on a wind up. It's 5 yards difference end to end.

[RAY Rock]

Also, Sunderland is a bigger pitch and left seemed to me made our style, with these players, less effective.

The manager surely has to factor in that type of thing.

Sunderland were absolute 💩 Ipswich beat them we were a utter embarrassment yesterday completely devoid of ideas no high press no taking the game to the opposition slow turgid snails pace football with mind numbing stupid ridiculous substitutions players were hiding and playing safe that is on the manager

[Carborundum]

Also, Sunderland is a bigger pitch and left seemed to me made our style, with these players, less effective.

The manager surely has to factor in that type of thing.

What are you on about, you're on a wind up. It's 5 yards difference end to end.

Its three meters wider too, which again doesn't sound much, but according to  the admittedly sometimes fallible AI, that results in a pitch area of 7,140sqm, versus 6500sqm at the Cottage, 9.8% bigger. 

[bobbo]

Some good points and agree Charles will be important.

Sorry to be critical but the writing style of splitting your points across many short lines made this quite hard to read, given that some are a continuation of the line before.

It's fine! I don't think I've ever written something this long since school 

Thanks for going with the ride!

no you probably haven't , I got halfway through and picked up a copy of war and peace 😫

Just joking of course .

[LittleErn]

An interesting post Dave. I agree with many of your points but not all.

I don't think we were two different versions of FFC. I think we tried to be the same but found Sunderland's defence to be much more solid and better organised than Chelsea's was. I didn't tbink we were any more cautious, better protected, or less open. I think the reason we shipped three goals was more about the quality of Chelsea's strikers.
You said, "The fact Arbeloa changed it that much after one game is actually encouraging imo"; I'm not sure that AA changed his system but, in any case, he didn't change his philosophy. I would be genuinely interested to know what you think he changed.

I agree with you about Charles, who deserves a run in the side at least, and, sadly, that Andersen can't play well in this set-up and needs replacing. As you said "it wasn't complicated build up, it was simple one pass vertical football that beat us" - I'm afraid that will continue to beat us if we continue to play the high press without some fast mobile defenders coming in.

"Right now it feels a bit like Arbeloa wants to build an aggressive team but the defenders we've got were built for a different style.That's probably the biggest issue for me." And for me!

[WindyCity]

Very disappointed in this outing.  I also didn't think it was so much a change in AA's tactics, but the lads just didn't seem to press as much, and that could be that Sunderland was better organized as LittleErn mentioned.  So, not as much pressing, but also, when FFC was in transition moving forward, for whatever reasons, they did not keep forward in attack.  It was seemingly much more passing sideways and backwards to get organized, but in so doing, provided no threats or good chances.  Would have preferred to see more aggressive style, as in the Chelsea game. 

I see we have acquired that RM midfielder.  Another very good player, but diminutive in stature.  Should there be concern here?  FFC now composed of quite a few players in this vain.  King (love him as a player, has been our best player so far, but easily knocked off the ball), Bobb, Kevin, Palacios, LDF (for his position), and now Angel.  Lots of flyweights in our team.  Hope not a problem.

Also, I think the Sunderland game really introduced both Garcia and Palacios to the rigors of Premier League football.  Taken off the ball quickly, not able to make that final pass or shot, closed down quickly, more quickly than they expected, it appeared.  Hopefully they get up to 'speed' quickly, because this league should not be a 'learning ground', giving players time to acclimate, this is the "big league" and we should expect players coming into this team to be able to play the quicker and more physical style of play.  JMHO

[McBrideOfFrankenstein]

To me the biggest alarm bell was not the performance but Arbeloa's lineup and subs, and I generally don't second guess managers on that score too often. Palacios needs more time. Muniz had scored the week before and needed to be on the pitch creating chaos the last 20 minutes. Kevin should have been brought in earlier.  Bizarre across the board.

[Whitesideup]

Interesting post Little Dave. For me style was kind of similar. When in possession we sent full backs well forward on both sides leaving us effectively with two at the back. Both the chance squandered and the goal scored came from the ball being played out wide-ish to players who had far too much space and time, firstly on the left-hand side and secondly on the right. Most Premier League sides will have players with enough pace and quality to exploit openings. As defences become increasingly well-organized, and get behind the ball in numbers very quickly, so playing quickly in transition is becoming increasingly important and sides are becoming very proficient at it.

On both occasions (chance and goal) both full-backs were so far forward and behind the Sunderland attacking players they had no chance of getting back.

Think also of Palmer's goal for Chelsea. Quickly played up to Pedro which left Andersen with a one-on-one, but Palmer was up with him so a simple pass from Pedro left Andersen no chance and Palmer a relatively easy goalscoring opportunity. Not a full-back in sight.

Being offensive is of course positive, but at the same time you can't afford to be open to attacks on the transition every time you lose the ball. That was an issue in both games so far, and is of course something that has to be addressed. 

[Grassy Noel]

I have the patience to wait for systems to bed in but inexplicable substitutions scare the life out of me. What does he see that no-one else sees? He seems fixated on the Spanish player solution.

[Jim©]

Also, Sunderland is a bigger pitch and left seemed to me made our style, with these players, less effective.

The manager surely has to factor in that type of thing.

What are you on about, you're on a wind up. It's 5 yards difference end to end.

Its three meters wider too, which again doesn't sound much, but according to  the admittedly sometimes fallible AI, that results in a pitch area of 7,140sqm, versus 6500sqm at the Cottage, 9.8% bigger. 

When you're playing, those measurements make no difference whatsoever. Claiming it as a reason for our performance was bizarre IMO.

[Carborundum]

Also, Sunderland is a bigger pitch and left seemed to me made our style, with these players, less effective.

The manager surely has to factor in that type of thing.

What are you on about, you're on a wind up. It's 5 yards difference end to end.

Its three meters wider too, which again doesn't sound much, but according to  the admittedly sometimes fallible AI, that results in a pitch area of 7,140sqm, versus 6500sqm at the Cottage, 9.8% bigger. 

When you're playing, those measurements make no difference whatsoever. Claiming it as a reason for our performance was bizarre IMO.

Taken on advisement thank you, and of course when I'm playing it really wouldn't make a jot of difference.  But the games I'm watching at the Cottage seem to be about pockets of space, so instinctively I suspect it matters more in the premier league. As to whether it suits or hinders Fulham when there's more space, I couldn't give a reasoned explanation but note that last season we were good at home and ropey away. So maybe there's something in that.

But I'm still boggling at the maths of how an extra 5 meters in length and three meters of width gives 9.8% extra space.  An extra player would only increase the team size by 9.1%.  Twelve-a-side anyone?

[Deuce]

I think the main difference was clear between the two games:

Chelsea was almost as poor as we were in defence. Sunderland werent. They defended, didnt push high but played aggressive and were much more physical than Chelsea. Chelsea were naive, Sunderland were pragmatic. Our style of play flattered to decieve because Chelsea backline sat high and were exposed. Sunderland didnt allow this and we were stuck.

Most worrying was that AA didnt really seem to have a plan B.

[sunburywhite]

Not great but silver linings??

All we need now is Jeff Beck to sign up

[LittleErn]

Nobody can say that we weren't warned. Have a look at Cottage Tactito's article 4 days before the match. Here are some quotes that IMO we should have heeded. Last season " Sunderland let in the fourth fewest, with only Arsenal, Man City and Brighton having a meaner defence." "look at Sunderland's defensive setup. Regis Le Bris spoke often of the importance of his side's defensive foundation. ............... a narrow and compact 4-4-2 block, funneling opponents out wide." "they are more than happy to soak up a bit of sustained pressure and rely on the likes of Omar Alderete and Dan Ballard to defend their box when teams are inevitably forced wide by their shape. Most of their defenders rank highly in blocks, clearances and interceptions, and their physicality and collective intensity helps prevent chances from being reliably converted." "Just like the Fulham of old were happy to explode on the counter, so do Sunderland, with their low block creating plenty of space in behind as teams are tempted to push up the pitch." "Sunderland's team is often packed with willing runners ...... capable of either carrying the ball or running beyond into space. Noah Sidiki, Habib Diarra, Nilson Angulo, Brian Brobbey and others all do this in varied ways, and can do so in central areas if given the chance, rather than just out wide." "Sunderland, for all their defensive solidity, have conceded the joint second most fast break goals since the start of last season. Another indicator that finding ways to get at their defence when it isn't set is the best route to joy."