I'm not usually this negative...

[Blingo]

You lot should start a "knockers" club. Even when we play well enough to win 4-1 and score 3 really good goals you lot still moan. Why bother???

[Mitch]

You lot should start a "knockers" club. Even when we play well enough to win 4-1 and score 3 really good goals you lot still moan. Why bother???

If you aren't analitical of yourself, how will you ever improve?

[jarv]

Mitch, what game were you watching??

Krakoff were not poor. They pressured, had pace in abundance and the bad boy Argentine in midfield on last nights performance could be replacement for our ageing captain.

Fulham....brilliant at times. BZ had probably his best game so far. AJ (I like him and hope we keep him) was excellent. The midfield was sound and Etuhu? He is what he is. He is not Johnny Haynes. He made a few mistakes but he put in a lot of good work. Baird and hangeland were both outstanding.

Like some others my only doubt is Riise. Not only is he not producing, looks a bit of a liability at times. Geeez, Baird was better at left back when called upon.

[Mitch]

Mitch, what game were you watching??

Krakoff were not poor. They pressured, had pace in abundance and the bad boy Argentine in midfield on last nights performance could be replacement for our ageing captain.

Fulham....brilliant at times. BZ had probably his best game so far. AJ (I like him and hope we keep him) was excellent. The midfield was sound and Etuhu? He is what he is. He is not Johnny Haynes. He made a few mistakes but he put in a lot of good work. Baird and hangeland were both outstanding.

Like some others my only doubt is Riise. Not only is he not producing, looks a bit of a liability at times. Geeez, Baird was better at left back when called upon.

WOW. Really? I'm not the only one to have felt the same way, evidenced by other posters.

No one is expecting Etuhu to be Haynes. I just didnt think he was even Etuhu last night. Also, I thought that was one of BZ's worst games.

Krakow are a poor team, as I saw in Poland and with some of their comedic attempts on goal. Take into account other results in the group and they are the worst team in it.

I say to my mate, and interesting to see you also did, but Nunez is actually a very good player. Him and Iliev are their best by far. Far more suited to Spanish football though.

[HatterDon]

The only Fulham match I have ever see where there were ZERO negatives was against QPR this season.

So don't be surprised that you find negatives. Personally, I'll take a season of 4-1 home victories each of which is folowed by people moaning over how individuals performed.

My moan? This was Kelly's third excellent start in a row. It's a bloody shame that there were 5 or 6 matches in the middle of that string where he never even came on as a sub.

[MJG]

The only Fulham match I have ever see where there were ZERO negatives was against QPR this season.

So don't be surprised that you find negatives. Personally, I'll take a season of 4-1 home victories each of which is folowed by people moaning over how individuals performed.

My moan? This was Kelly's third excellent start in a row. It's a bloody shame that there were 5 or 6 matches in the middle of that string where he never even came on as a sub.

I wrote last night that Kelly was the unsung hero of the game. he is what he is, a solid RB who for 15-20 games a season is a good back up.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

The only Fulham match I have ever see where there were ZERO negatives was against QPR this season.

So don't be surprised that you find negatives. Personally, I'll take a season of 4-1 home victories each of which is folowed by people moaning over how individuals performed.

My moan? This was Kelly's third excellent start in a row. It's a bloody shame that there were 5 or 6 matches in the middle of that string where he never even came on as a sub.

Kelly is in a tough place though - Baird is in front of him, then Grygera (who has been excellent). He plays his part, but with so many options it is not surprising that he finds himself on the bench

[Oakeshott]

Mitch

I agree with you (except re Brede). Our goals were excellent, but I thought we were lucky the opposition was no better because Dickson and JAR were very poor. Substitute SS and Briggs for the Spurs game and we might be in with a shout.

Obviously AJ was the man of the match with two fine goals and a tremendous work rate, with in my view Danny, Bobby and DD not far behind. But in addition I thought Chris Baird had an excellent game and for me it is a genuine toss up whether he or Hughsie is the better alongside Brede - both very reliable. I can't see Senderos or Halliche getting a look in provided Brede, CD and AH stay clear of significant injuries.

For me, our improvement over the last three to four years is really based on the solidity of our centre backs. It was always so shakey with Zat Knight, but once Brede adjusted to the speed of the Premiership - and it didn't take him long - we've been fine. In fact, although Lawrie Sanchez didn't deliver results, he did bring us Hughsie, Chris Baird and Danny AND sold Zat for a goodly sum, so he did us some favours.

[cebu]

The only Fulham match I have ever see where there were ZERO negatives was against QPR this season.

So don't be surprised that you find negatives. Personally, I'll take a season of 4-1 home victories each of which is folowed by people moaning over how individuals performed.

My moan? This was Kelly's third excellent start in a row. It's a bloody shame that there were 5 or 6 matches in the middle of that string where he never even came on as a sub.

Kelly is in a tough place though - Baird is in front of him, then Grygera (who has been excellent). He plays his part, but with so many options it is not surprising that he finds himself on the bench

I suspect that in Jol's eyes Baird is not in front of Kelly for the RB spot. I think Baird's the play-anywhere option for the defensive roles and could well be pushing a fit-again Aaron Hughes to play alongside Hangeland.

[Irelands_number1]

I thought last night when we actually got the ball down and played football on the deck we looked like, dare i say it the "old" fulham! were capable of playing serious stuff but weve reverted to a lot of long ball shite and its not effective for us really.
on personal performances i thought
RIISE was wasteful and made a lot of hoofs but im not a riise hater i think hes played well of late,
HANGELAND i thought was unusually sloppy bringing the ball out of defence
ETUHUwas poor as everybody else has said but he did nunez so thats a + for me (however in the few minutes sidwell was on centre mid he did more than etuhuh did all game)
BOBBY seems a bit off his game? he didnt play poorly but doesnt look quite as sharp as normal?

on the positives though aj duffer and dempsey were fantastic! murphy and kelly also had very good performances

[BalDrick]

'BOBBY seems a bit off his game? he didnt play poorly but doesnt look quite as sharp as normal?'

Lack of confidence innit

[jarv]

we seem all over the place on opinions....so....
schwartz 7, kelly 7, B and H 8 Riise 5  Demps 8  Murph 7 Etuhu 5 Duff 8  AJ 9 bz 7. IMHO.

[ron]

Dickson was poor - but was it Murphy's best performance of the season alongside him?

It may well have been Murphy's best performance alongside Etuhu this season, but we have not had that many great performances as it is.

If your really trying to say that Murphy had his best performance of the season BECAUSE he was next to Etuhu I would have to disagree.

I am saying exactly that - Playing with Dixon appears to improve Murphy's performance.

Can't say I agree. I've noticed a lack of movement in general when Murphy has the ball. Often we only give each other one option, which really doesn't help with Etuhu as his play is quite static.

The thing is that Murphy has often been more shackled when the player next to him has been allowed to roam (see Bullard and Sidwell). Etuhu (and also Greening come to think of it) played a simple passing game and gave Murphy all the control. Having these well defined roles seems to allow Murphy to look forward, rather than to look back at his centre-mid team mate.

Etuhu has been in and around our most successful squads and has been picked repeatedly by three good managers, so he must be doing something right.

This is not a defence of his performance last night, which was poor, just a thought as to why, if he is awful, Dickson gets in the team.

How Etuhu does get into the team...and last night he displaced Sidwell for a full hour....amazes me. He just receives the ball and then is impatient to get rid of it, often to a man with two markers. he seldom makes ground, and is prone to losing the ball as he did last night when it led directly to their goal. When the opposition has possession, he seems to always be in no man's land, too far away from his mark to attempt anything but a lunging tackle if the ball comes his way.

[bigalffc]

'If Dickson is out of form, how about Sidwell as a sitting midfielder, not box to box?'

Think if it's to be Murph and Sid, then Murph needs to sit tight and let Sid roam. But, as I've just posted above, Murph does the forward role better than Sid does, possibly QED Etuhu plays.

Silly thing is, we've been overlooking the elephant in the room that is Chris Baird with regard to that position for so long, but I genuinely think he could do a real job there, to such an extent I think he could make the position his own.

Totally agree when the back four are settled I would be happy to see bairdhino there