Thoughts and reaction to today's match against WBA..merged

[Travers Barney]

My take

Really enjoyed today...great turnout and we were very noisy.

Played well first half...needed a 2nd...obviously.

Liked the H&H partnership at the back...reminded me of a similar partnership not so long ago.

Great chat on the train on the way up with a 83 year old Fulham fan who still follows the team home and away....

What its all about.

coyw

[Julius Geezer]

Stekelenburg played well - took the shine off his performance with the loose handling on the goal.

Riether was re-energised today - made some good tackles, not sure where he was meant to be playing second half.

Amorebieta - poor game, gave us nothing going forward, lost out on headers too - glad he was subbed.

Hangeland was good, few sliced clearances here and there but got some vital blocks in.

Heitinga also excellent, one of our best players in fact with well timed tackling and good concentration, switching him to right back was a bad move though.

Parker was quality. Don't agree he was average at all. Covered alot of ground, constantly getting in West Brom players faces, made some crucial tackles.

Sidwell - good game, he's turning into mr consistant even if a few passes went astray and missed good chance.

Dejagah - Excellent, gave Ridgewell plenty to think about and took his goal well.

Holtby - Another great performance, does so much right, tired later on, going to be vital in the run-in.

Richardson - Fairly quiet, made some good runs, helped Amorebieta out, got subbed.

Rodallega - Gave us good options, won the ball in the air a few times, tried hard, was unlucky with his effort in the first half.

Mitroglou - Looked rusty, had a lack of zip, one or two nice touches, have faith he will settle in.

Riise done ok, still got done a couple of times down the wing.

Burn didn't have long, thought it was a bit of an odd sub, didn't have strength to cope with Anichebe.


Thought our first half looked well drilled and organised, small short passing in triangles worked well.

Should have put the couple of extra chances we had to practically finish the game off before half time.

They changed their system, we had to change ours.

We didn't look the same second half, gave possession away far too easily and repetitively, gave ourselves too much defending to do.

Having said that - I thought we would hold on and was really disappointed to concede so late. That missed 2 points could be crucial.

Anichebe was a massive threat to us with his strength - thought they didn;t have much to offer until he came on.

Special mention to our fans who were excellent today and definitely gave the boys a boost.

[Me-ate-Live, innit??]

I thought Parker was really good. If you expect him to stop a bullet with his bare hands or jump from a cliff then ......

Today I only wanted him to pass to a red shirt  ........... he did not

[JackyFulham90]

Wasted chance to beat a very average side, we were brilliant 1st half very poor in the 2nd, still any away point is a good point & keeps us in there fighting with a chance

[ffc73]

I think where the problem lied was that Sidwell and Parker got tired, so it left a gap in front of the defenders which they operated in during every second half attack. Allowed Anichebe to hold it up and get runners beyond him.

Frustrating that we "all" see this and yet 3 managers have continued to persist with this

[fulhamben]

I think where the problem lied was that Sidwell and Parker got tired, so it left a gap in front of the defenders which they operated in during every second half attack. Allowed Anichebe to hold it up and get runners beyond him.

Frustrating that we "all" see this and yet 3 managers have continued to persist with this

René didn't, and I expect felix to work this out too

[Arthur]

We lost the game due to poor substitutions. Felix is to blame for that

Maybe we did and he is. What can be said, however, is that substitutions and the result inevitably go hand-in-hand. They are, for want of a better phrase, the 'cheap shot' of supporters' gripes.

Whenever the result is a poor one, there will invariably be a complaint on this forum about the substitutions: they were the wrong ones or were made too soon or left too late or whatever. Yet, whenever the result is favourable, no such complaints arise. (Would you have posted, had Stekelenburg not allowed Vydra's shot to squirm under his body?)

For what it's worth, I don't think Rodallega would have been able to do anything, had he remained on the field, so poor was our passing; Riise was certainly no worse than Amorebieta; Burn found it difficult to contain Anichebe and moving Heitinga out of the centre of defence, where he was playing so well, did seem odd. (I actually thought Burn was coming on to make a five-man defence with three centre-backs - which may have been better. Who knows?)

So, yes, it is possible for a manager to throw away the result with poor substitutions and perhaps yesterday was one such instance. I guess I just need more convincing that it was.

[Baszab]

All we had to do was stick Kvist in front of the back 4 (or 5) after an hour - how many goals do we concede in the last 15 mins when an opponent gets in behind our midfield and back 4 are too flat to stop  a shot  ? - (that often seems to get deflected !)

[nose]

All we had to do was stick Kvist in front of the back 4 (or 5) after an hour - how many goals do we concede in the last 15 mins when an opponent gets in behind our midfield and back 4 are too flat to stop  a shot  ? - (that often seems to get deflected !)

exactly so... i am very worried now, felix has to come up trumps V (it's only) chelsea, we need three points not a discourse on how good they are. that is what surrendering those two points yesterday means.

[Me-ate-Live, innit??]

Wasted chance to beat a very average side, we were brilliant 1st half very poor in the 2nd, still any away point is a good point & keeps us in there fighting with a chance

I enjoyed(admired)  the football they played, calling them a very average side is meant to be insulting ..no???
Well we were not as good as them yesterday, which makes us less than average 

[St Eve]

We lost the game due to poor substitutions. Felix is to blame for that

Maybe we did and he is. What can be said, however, is that substitutions and the result inevitably go hand-in-hand. They are, for want of a better phrase, the 'cheap shot' of supporters' gripes.

Whenever the result is a poor one, there will invariably be a complaint on this forum about the substitutions: they were the wrong ones or were made too soon or left too late or whatever. Yet, whenever the result is favourable, no such complaints arise. (Would you have posted, had Stekelenburg not allowed Vydra's shot to squirm under his body?)

For what it's worth, I don't think Rodallega would have been able to do anything, had he remained on the field, so poor was our passing; Riise was certainly no worse than Amorebieta; Burn found it difficult to contain Anichebe and moving Heitinga out of the centre of defence, where he was playing so well, did seem odd. (I actually thought Burn was coming on to make a five-man defence with three centre-backs - which may have been better. Who knows?)

So, yes, it is possible for a manager to throw away the result with poor substitutions and perhaps yesterday was one such instance. I guess I just need more convincing that it was.

it would probably be great result but strange substitutions and we got away with it. The second half was dire and we tried to defend and we cannot for that amount of time - look at our goal a difference. The substitutions were awful. Incomrehensible. He must have known that the new Greek was not fit. The defense was great in the first half so why play around with It. We had 2 young fresh midfielders, Kasami and Kvist, sitting on the bench while Parker was huffing and puffing.

[Arthur]

it would probably be great result but strange substitutions and we got away with it. The second half was dire and we tried to defend and we cannot for that amount of time - look at our goal a difference. The substitutions were awful. Incomrehensible. He must have known that the new Greek was not fit. The defense was great in the first half so why play around with It. We had 2 young fresh midfielders, Kasami and Kvist, sitting on the bench while Parker was huffing and puffing.

Again, maybe.

Yet, had FM left Rodallega on, someone would ask why he hadn't given Mitroglou a chance. (Mitroglou for Rodallega for the last half-hour most certainly wasn't an 'incomprehensible' decision, moreover. Quite the opposite; I'd say that it was the most heavily-expected substitution of the season. I also fail to see what was 'incomprehensible' about bringing on a left-back - Riise - for Amorebieta, who was having a difficult game... at left-back.)

And had he then taken Parker off and West Brom had equalised, there would be someone else claiming that this had weakened the midfield and therefore cost us the win.

Could it not be that, whatever substitutions we'd made, West Brom would have scored - simply because they were playing so much better in the second-half?

[Northern Cottager]

it would probably be great result but strange substitutions and we got away with it. The second half was dire and we tried to defend and we cannot for that amount of time - look at our goal a difference. The substitutions were awful. Incomrehensible. He must have known that the new Greek was not fit. The defense was great in the first half so why play around with It. We had 2 young fresh midfielders, Kasami and Kvist, sitting on the bench while Parker was huffing and puffing.

Again, maybe.

Yet, had FM left Rodallega on, someone would ask why he hadn't given Mitroglou a chance. (Mitroglou for Rodallega for the last half-hour most certainly wasn't an 'incomprehensible' decision, moreover. Quite the opposite; I'd say that it was the most heavily-expected substitution of the season. I also fail to see what was 'incomprehensible' about bringing on a left-back - Riise - for Amorebieta, who was having a difficult game... at left-back.)

And had he then taken Parker off and West Brom had equalised, there would be someone else claiming that this had weakened the midfield and therefore cost us the win.

Could it not be that, whatever substitutions we'd made, West Brom would have scored - simply because they were playing so much better in the second-half?

I don't feel we would. If we had kept our width and not invited pressure by putting more defenders on the pitch and put maybe Kvist on with Richardson, Sidwell and Dejegah still on the pitch we may have relieved some pressure as well as having someone more competent at sitting in front of the back 4 than Parker who was blowing out of his arse after 55 minutes.

[copthornemike]

We lost the game due to poor substitutions. Felix is to blame for that

Maybe we did and he is. What can be said, however, is that substitutions and the result inevitably go hand-in-hand. They are, for want of a better phrase, the 'cheap shot' of supporters' gripes.

Whenever the result is a poor one, there will invariably be a complaint on this forum about the substitutions: they were the wrong ones or were made too soon or left too late or whatever. Yet, whenever the result is favourable, no such complaints arise. (Would you have posted, had Stekelenburg not allowed Vydra's shot to squirm under his body?)

For what it's worth, I don't think Rodallega would have been able to do anything, had he remained on the field, so poor was our passing; Riise was certainly no worse than Amorebieta; Burn found it difficult to contain Anichebe and moving Heitinga out of the centre of defence, where he was playing so well, did seem odd. (I actually thought Burn was coming on to make a five-man defence with three centre-backs - which may have been better. Who knows?)

So, yes, it is possible for a manager to throw away the result with poor substitutions and perhaps yesterday was one such instance. I guess I just need more convincing that it was.

First well done to WBA - the view from the stands for away supporters was excellent and I thought their stewards were pretty friendly and not heavy handed.

From where I stood is was obviously appearent Heitinga could not deal with Anichebe - he was outmuscled on every single  occassion and only Hangeland's experience prevented Big Vic causing more problems than he did - good job he did not start for them.

As for the substitutions they made sense at the time - and it was good to see our manager making them before it appeared to be too late. Risse was an improvment over Amorebieta, Burns physicality was required to deal with Amorebieta & Rodallega was tiring and winning very few arial challenges. But with the benefit of hindsight the midfield visibly tired after an hour and the introduction of Kvist or Kasami for Parker was sorely required. Unfortunately we can only make three substitutions!

[RidgeRider]

We lost the game due to poor substitutions. Felix is to blame for that

Maybe we did and he is. What can be said, however, is that substitutions and the result inevitably go hand-in-hand. They are, for want of a better phrase, the 'cheap shot' of supporters' gripes.

Whenever the result is a poor one, there will invariably be a complaint on this forum about the substitutions: they were the wrong ones or were made too soon or left too late or whatever. Yet, whenever the result is favourable, no such complaints arise. (Would you have posted, had Stekelenburg not allowed Vydra's shot to squirm under his body?)

For what it's worth, I don't think Rodallega would have been able to do anything, had he remained on the field, so poor was our passing; Riise was certainly no worse than Amorebieta; Burn found it difficult to contain Anichebe and moving Heitinga out of the centre of defence, where he was playing so well, did seem odd. (I actually thought Burn was coming on to make a five-man defence with three centre-backs - which may have been better. Who knows?)

So, yes, it is possible for a manager to throw away the result with poor substitutions and perhaps yesterday was one such instance. I guess I just need more convincing that it was.

First well done to WBA - the view from the stands for away supporters was excellent and I thought their stewards were pretty friendly and not heavy handed.

From where I stood is was obviously appearent Heitinga could not deal with Anichebe - he was outmuscled on every single  occassion and only Hangeland's experience prevented Big Vic causing more problems than he did - good job he did not start for them.

As for the substitutions they made sense at the time - and it was good to see our manager making them before it appeared to be too late. Risse was an improvment over Amorebieta, Burns physicality was required to deal with Amorebieta & Rodallega was tiring and winning very few arial challenges. But with the benefit of hindsight the midfield visibly tired after an hour and the introduction of Kvist or Kasami for Parker was sorely required. Unfortunately we can only make three substitutions!

0001.jpeg