Monday Fulham Stuff (18/10/10)...

[WhiteJC]

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2010/10/17/2169783/chris-bairds-outlook-remains-positive-despite-fulhams-defeat?

Chris Baird's Outlook Remains Positive Despite Fulham's Defeat By London Rivals Tottenham
Defender insists his side had no luck in 2-1 defeat to Spurs

Fulham defender Chris Baird insists his side were unlucky in suffering their first Premier League defeat of the season.

London rivals Tottenham came out on top in a game the Cottagers could well have won, with Tom Huddlestone's controversial strike snatching three points for Harry Redknapp's side.

Baird told Fulham's official website: "We were unlucky today, there is no doubt about that. We played some very positive football and created a number of chances.

"On another day we could well have taken something. It's never nice losing, but when you play well and still come away with nothing it's doubly disappointing."

Fulham impressed with their attacking intent and clever use of the ball and were deservedly rewarded courtesy of Diomansy Kamara's cool finish.

However, Mark Hughes' team were immediately pegged back when Roman Pavlyuchenko pounced on the rebound from close range after Rafael van der Vaart had turned brilliantly and chipped the ball over Mark Schwarzer and onto the crossbar.

"We were very positive and the goal was more than deserved," said Baird. "Joe [Kamara] took his goal well and it was good to have him back. He's a goalscorer and that's what he gives you.

"But having taken the lead there was no excusing conceding so quickly. I still thought we had the better of the chances to see the game through and that was probably the difference.

"Of course, they added a second and when you go behind against a side like Tottenham it's always going to be difficult.

"We've watched that second goal back and we all agreed that Tottenham were a little fortunate. For me, it shouldn't have been allowed.

"But that's football, we now have to make sure we react accordingly and do well in our upcoming matches," he added.

"This was our first defeat of the season and it would have been nice to keep that run going a bit longer - but there's plenty of football to be played."

[WhiteJC]

http://www.fulham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=217408

Fulham - Confusion Reigns!
The Premier League unbeaten run may have gone but there`s a distinct whiff in the air this morning that we were robbed.

When Tom Huddlestone struck that ball it took a slight deflection off Chris Baird before William Gallas swung a boot at it (missing) before the net bulged.

Gallas was stood in an offside decision a point the linesman noticed and quite rightly flagged to indicate so.

Mike Dean ambled over, exchanged pleasantries with his assistant before indicating it was a goal and that Gallas hadn`t been interfering with play.

After the game, Mark Hughes took great delight in having his say about the incident, commenting,

"Everybody saw the linesman`s flag go up immediately to give an offside as soon as the ball was struck."

"It was right in the eye-line of my keeper, so Gallas is interfering with play. It`s unusual for a referee to do that. Maybe he lost faith in his assistant."

"Huddlestone went over to Dean`s face and gave him a compelling argument because that caused him to clarify his decision. That was two occasions that he overruled his assistant."

"I confronted the ref and he said to speak to him afterwards, but what`s the point? But I do want some clarification."

Meanwhile, Harry Redknapp was surprisingly reflective on the situation with the Spurs boss remarking about the incident,

"I don`t know if the goal was offside or not. I don`t fully understand the offside rule these days. It`s confusing."

So, if a leading manager openly admits that he doesn`t understand the damn rule what chance do the rest of us have?

Get it sorted we say!


Read more: http://www.fulham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=217408#ixzz12grJ6HMM

[WhiteJC]

http://www.fulham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=217410

Fulham - Murphy Back-Tracks!
I have to admit that I was a little perplexed to see something of a back-tracking exercise from Danny Murphy in his programme notes yesterday.

Having upset the apple-cart I got the impression that slowly but surely Danny was gaining support on his controversial views.

But penning the following,

"Much has been made out of my comments."

"These were taken out of context to a large extent and blown out of all proportion."

"I have a huge amount of respect for the managers of the clubs that I named. Let`s draw a line under it and return our attention to recent events on the pitch."

Should have left it how it was Danny!


Read more: http://www.fulham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=217410#ixzz12grYrtrD

[WhiteJC]

http://mikewhalley.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/last-on-motd-murphys-war/?

Last on MOTD: Murphy's war
WOLVES manager Mick McCarthy wasn't too happy to discover he was on the shortlist for the Danny Murphy Villain of the Year Award, sponsored by Injury Lawyers 4 U. ("Have you been involved in an accident at work?")

Not quite as miffed as Stoke's Tony Pulis, who responded with a full-frontal attack on Murphy's motives for including him among the nominees. But the Wolves boss was still miffed enough to describe Murphy's words as "wrong" and "silly".

It's easy to understand where Fulham captain Murphy's comments – made at the Leaders In Football conference just under a fortnight ago – were coming from.

After all, his side have been on the end of some pretty physical treatment this season against Stoke (Andy Wilkinson clattering Moussa Dembele), Wolves (Karl Henry's tackle inadvertently breaking Bobby Zamora's leg) and Blackburn (El-Hadji Diouf barging Mark Schwarzer out of the way in the build-up to a Chris Samba goal).

And there's been much debate since as to whether English football is becoming a dirtier game. For what it's worth, I'm with Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini, who found himself defending Nigel de Jong over a tackle which accidentally broke Newcastle winger Hatem Ben Arfa's leg two weeks ago.

"I think these things can happen in football," Mancini said on Friday. "Today, it is worse than it was 15 years ago, perhaps, because football is a much quicker game.

"But it happens here and it happens in Italy. Sometimes, I would agree that we should pay attention to tackling, because when things like the Ben Arfa incident happen, it is very disappointing."

There are, perhaps, more bad injuries in the Premier League now because players are fitter, stronger and quicker. So if a player slightly mistimes a tackle now, he'll be hitting his opponent at a greater speed and with more force – and therefore is likely to do more damage.

It doesn't mean there's more malice in the game. What it does mean, as Mancini pointed out, is that players have to take greater care in the way they tackle. Reckless challenges can do more serious damage than they used to.

Some of the raction to Murphy's outburst has been as over the top as a Karl Henry tackle on Jordi Gomez. I've seen a couple of columnists question the veracity of Murphy's comments, then contradict themselves by suggesting he will get special treatment when he next faces Wolves, Stoke or Blackburn.

(Really? You think Pulis, McCarthy or Sam Allardyce would be daft enough to tell their players to, erm, get after Murphy? Or that their players would be daft enough to try? With all the TV cameras there are at Premier League games? Sure, Murphy will get some barracking from the fans of those clubs, maybe some verbal stick from the players too, but I'm sure he can handle that.)

While Pulis' anger was totally understandable – as was that of McCarthy and Allardyce – I wasn't entirely sure that he was justified in suggesting that Murphy picked on soft targets to avoid damaging a potential career as a media pundit. (I would never question Pulis' comments to his face, though, as he's harder than me and, quite frankly, I'm scared of him.)

Pulis' argument was that Murphy didn't want to offend the Premier League's bigger clubs, and so avoided mentioning De Jong's leg-breaker and a horrendous opening weekend tackle by Liverpool's Joe Cole on Arsenal's Laurent Koscielny.

But if Murphy was trying to protect his media career, it didn't work, because he had to pull out of punditing on ITV's live coverage of England v Montenegro last week as a result of what he said.

And anyway, the whole "soft targets" argument is a bit shaky when you consider that Pulis is the manager of mid-table Stoke, having a pop at the captain of mid-table Fulham. Murphy may have been a significant figure in English football for more than a decade, but he's not exactly Sir Alex Ferguson, or even Roy Hodgson.

Murphy has since suggested that his quotes were taken out of context, and blown wildly out of proportion. So let's take a look at the offending sentence (again, out of context).

"You get managers who are sending out their teams to stop other teams playing, which is happening more and more – the Stokes, Blackburns, Wolveses," Murphy said.

Ah, now I see the problem. There's more than one Wolves. Murphy was probably referring to other Wolveses.

[WhiteJC]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11681_6449744,00.html?

Fulham duo taking oxygen
Fulham duo using specialised chambers to aid recovery

Fulham midfielder Dickson Etuhu has revealed both he and team-mate Bobby Zamora have been undergoing unusual treatment in a bid to speed up their recovery from injury.

The pair have resorted to specialised oxygen chambers as Etuhu fights ligament damage while Zamora recovers from the broken leg sustained against Wolves last month.

The method is a measure of how far sports science has come in modern football and Etuhu expects to be back early next month thanks to the treatment.

"I believe I will be back in three weeks," Etuhu told the News of the World.

Coffin

"I've been using the oxygen chamber at a hospital. It's like a small submarine, but when I come out I feel great.

"Bobby is using one at Fulham. It's smaller, like a coffin, but he's in there every day. I used the same treatment about 15 months ago when I'd torn a quad muscle."

Zamora's untimely injury came almost immediately after he put pen to paper on a new deal at Craven Cottage and Etuhu admits the sooner he gets back to fitness the better.

He added: "Bobby is a massive loss to us and we need him back as soon as possible."

[WhiteJC]

http://cottagers.blogspot.com/2010/10/officiating-of-mike-dean.html?

Craven Cottagers
Following the 2007/8, 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons at Craven Cottage - recounted by season ticket holders who aren't actually Fulham fans.

The officiating of Mike Dean

A compelling game that was completely overshadowed by a bizarre and effectively match deciding moment as referee Mike Dean's decision to allow Tom Huddlestone's winner to stand was simply a very, very bad piece of officiating from which Spurs emerged with two points more than deserved.

I'm finding it hard to focus on the game without raging over this goal, so I may as well get it out of the way first and review the game later. Huddlestone strikes a great shot. It comes through a crowd of bodies in the box, perhaps taking a minor nick from one of the players before nestling in the bottom corner. However its trajectory takes it past William Gallas, standing in an offside position on the edge of the six yard box, who lunges to try and get a touch but fails. The linesman flags Gallas offside as he is clearly interfering with play, despite his non-touch, as Mark Schwarzer can't fully commit to an attempt to stop the ball in case a touch from Gallas changes the shot's trajectory. The referee disallows the goal. Big Tom has a word with Mr Dean. He duly trots off to his linesman and has a word. Disgracefully, bizarrely and uncomprehendingly, he now gives the goal. In common internet parlance - WTF!?

From a little bit of internet research this morning, which of course doesn't appear to contain an explanation from Mike Dean, the most informative insight is from the goalscorer himself here. In the first half Huddlestone attempted to head away a Fulham through ball - he got his head to it but just changed the trajectory forward. He said it just brushed his head but I seem to remember a much stronger connection. Anyway the ball went on to reach Kamara, who had been offside when the ball was played and the linesman flagged accordingly. However Dean overruled his official, presumably deciding that Huddlestone's touch was strong enough to deem that the ball had actually been played by a Tottenham man, meaning Kamara could not be offside. It was such an odd decision that most players, having seen the flag go up, effectively stopped and no danger came from the situation, which actually could have been quite promising.

From what I can ascertain, Dean has used a similar warped logic for the winner, but is on far shakier ground. The argument, from what I can see, is that Huddlestone's shot took a deflection off Chris Baird and, as Dean now deems Baird to have played the ball, Gallas cannot be ruled offside. But Baird didn't play the ball. At best, it hit him. In fact, looking at two replays, it's not even certain that he does deflect the ball. Certainly the shot doesn't seem to deviate from its course in any way.

No other referee that I have seen interprets the offside rule in this way, with any slight touch by a defending team instantly dismissing the potential of an offside call. It's a ridiculous stance to take and would be totally unenforceable if applied in such away across the board. I would suggest that Mike Dean needs to go back to the FA's referee school for re-education as his approach to offside further complicates a ridiculously opaque rule and how it is enforced.

[WhiteJC]

http://www.tribune.ie/sport/soccer/article/2010/oct/17/spur-of-the-moment-ref-decision-gifts-points/?

Spur-of-the-moment ref decision gifts points
FA Premier League: Fulham 1, Tottenham Hotspur 2. Ben Rumsby, Craven Cottage
MIKE DEAN awarded one of the most controversial goals of the season as Tottenham came from behind to end Fulham's unbeaten start in the Premier League.

Referee Dean allowed Tom Huddlestone's 63rd-minute winner to stand at Craven Cottage after his assistant had initially flagged William Gallas offside.

Fulham had deservedly taken the lead on the half-hour mark when Diomansy Kamara marked his first Premier League start for almost a year with his first goal for the Cottagers in even longer, but Roman Pavlyuchenko levelled almost immediately after brilliant play from Rafael van der Vaart.

However, the match will be remembered for Dean's contentious call and he and his fellow officials left the field to catcalls and chants of: "You don't know what you're doing!"

Fulham had even started the game better. The home fans screamed for a penalty when the ball appeared to strike the arm of Alan Hutton, and soon afterwards Fulham took the lead half an hour in. Clint Dempsey was the architect, escaping the attention of surprise starter Ledley King before crossing for the unmarked Kamara to fire home.

But Tottenham levelled from the kick-off, Van der Vaart showing magnificent control in the box and chipping against the crossbar, with Pavlyuchenko converting the rebound.

Spurs continued to struggle aerially and Chris Baird forced another acrobatic Gomes save with a header from Davies' corner.

Then came the defining moment of the match, Huddlestone rifling a 25-yard shot through a crowd of players and into the corner of the net.

The fit-again Gallas was in an offside position when the ball was hit and the assistant referee raised his flag.

But after consulting with Dean, the officials appeared to decide Gallas had made no contact and the goal was given.

However, it could be argued the Spurs defender was interfering with play by actively trying to deflect the ball and the Fulham fans were understandably livid.

The home side poured forward in the closing moments but couldn't find a way through.

[WhiteJC]

http://fulham.theoffside.com/team-news/spurs-2-1-fulham.html?

Spurs 2-1 Fulham
By: timmyg

We're basically fighting a war with water pistols at this point. It was a match that Fulham didn't deserve to win, but surely didn't deserve to lose it like they did.

Once Murphy went out injured I knew a draw was the best we could muster — it just sucks it took a ref to figure out something different for us. But the main concern about yesterday was not Mike Dean's decision*, instead it was who he had and did not have on the field yesterday.

(*I'm not going to complain about that. From what I understand the call was akin to the infamous Tuck Rule in the 2002 AFC Championship Game, in that a bogus rule was followed out correctly. Bill Simmons wrote about the Tuck Rule over three years ago:

It should have been a fumble, but because of the stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unwise, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded way that the tuck rule was designed, the play was interpreted correctly, the Patriots kept the ball and ended up winning in overtime.

Boy, his description could easily apply to the 'offside-but-not-interfering' rule in soccer, no?)

Dembele started and played well but I noticed he isn't 100-percent just yet. In fact, didn't he hobble off injured? Diomansy Kamara can still score goals garbage goals inside the box, but is evidently unable to control a cross or fire a compose a shot at a moment's notice. And either Stephen Kelly was forced to play hurt yesterday, or Mark Hughes still hasn't figured out who our best right back is. (I mean, why else did Chris Baird start there? And why did Pantstil not come in when Murphy came out injured and Baird switched to center mid? This is starting to worry me.)

Don't know how accurate this is considering the injuries occurred just yesterday, but according to PhysioRoom.com says Murphy is out until mid-November with a groin strain, and Dembele is out until early November because of a hip injury. I really hope they are wrong, because we need more than just Zamora at this point. We just can't expect to win games with a Baird/Greening pair in the center of the park, and Diomansy Kamara starting as a lone striker.

[WhiteJC]

http://cravencottagenewsround.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/analysis/?

Analysis
Filed under: Analysis — rich
Well I missed the game, called down to Hade's cousin's wedding on the Isle of Wight.    The Isle of Wight, which is sometimes referred to by Hade's cousins in different terms (rhymes with Wight), surprised me immensely:  very few chain stores, little hurly-burly, and altogether very pleasant.

Hade has a million cousins of varying ages and it's fascinating to see how the family genes have scattered around; various cousins have very similar traits, and I don't mean that in a negative way:  it's only when you see related people in such numbers that you appreciate these things.   A facial feature here, a posture there.   Fascinating.

Anyway, the game.  I saw Match of the Day in the end and it looked like we had a decent go at it.   If Diomansy Kamara missed a few chances, well, you have to be in the right place, don't you?   How many chances does Eddie Johnson miss?   Very few, it seems – his instincts don't take him into the areas in the first place.   Kamara seemingly did much of his job very well, in that sense.

There were always going to be chances.   I don't imagine anyone took the time to work out what I was on about, but some way down this page is some analysis showing that Spurs are the most open, attacking team in the league.   So we should have expected a fair amount of attacking joy.    I hear that Greening had a good game, which is encouraging, but did everyone do enough?     Look at this:


Left first then.   These are ESPN's average position charts and you can see Spurs were effectively playing a 4-2-4 (the axes are wrong on the Spurs chart:  Bale and Lennon and Assou-Ekotto/Hutton are on the wrong flanks).  That's pretty serious, hard to defend but easy(ish) I suppose to attack.    I gather from Toby and Dave's texts that the game went back and forth a fair bit, with long periods of sustained pressure from each side.   I think you'd expect that given the way Spurs are set up.

We seem to have been in a 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey making a few forays back (see the chalkboards, not shown here) making him look like he played deeper than he did, but Dempsey, Dembele and Davies all seemed to have played quite narrow, giving us (theoretically) a very powerful middle five (pentagon?) that could (and by the sound of things did) well and truly overrun the Spurs midfield.

The problem was that when they had the ball, Modric and van der Vaart looked almost impossible to pin down.  Pavlyuchenko doesn't seem to have been involved much, but with Huddlestone doing a similar job to Greening for us (safe, accurate) in holding the fort and the full-backs and wide players all advanced, well from the pictures above they do look uncontrollable.    When they have the ball.

We appear to have needed some width ourselves to push back the four Spurs wide players, but it doesn't look like we could make this work enough.    You can see how a fit Zamora up front, with our (numerical) midfield superiority, could have caused Spurs all kinds of trouble.   As it stands I guess we had a good game against a very talented side.   That's how it seems anyway... remember I didn't see the game.    Anyone?

[WhiteJC]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/1018/1224281342743.html

Huddlestone's winner leaves Fulham feeling frustrated

Fulham 1 Tottenham 2: OFFSIDE DECISIONS will always be open to controversy because they are based on not only on the fact of a player standing in an offside position but the hypothesis of what he has to gain by being there.

For a long time match officials ducked the issue by pulling an attacker up even if he was picking his nose far away from the action but now the pendulum has swung so far the other way that a player is safe unless he actually touches the ball, reports David Lacey from Craven Cottage .

Goals are being allowed when two or three members of the attacking side have run past the last defender and must be distracting the goalkeeper's attention but this is no longer deemed to be interfering with play. Only if one of them follows up to find the net from a rebound will the goal be disallowed.

On Saturday Fulham lost their unbeaten Premier League record to a goal which would never have stood under the old system of interpretation. Having taken the lead on the half-hour following a clever piece of play by Clint Dempsey, who held off two Tottenham defenders before squaring the ball across goal to leave Diomansy Kamara with a simple tap-in, Fulham were back level within a minute after Rafael van der Vaart's chip against the crossbar had left Roman Pavlyuchenko with an equally straightforward chance. No arguments there but what followed just past the hour had Craven Cottage beside itself with frustration.

Following a Spurs corner the ball found its way to Tom Huddlestone, whose low shot from 25 yards skidded through a crowd of players and beat Mark Schwarzer into the left-hand corner of the net. Up went a linesman's flag against William Gallas, who had been a fraction offside when the ball was struck. The referee, Mike Dean, looked like disallowing the goal but amid Tottenham protests went over to consult his assistant, Martin Yerby, before letting it stand, the two officials having agreed that, while Gallas had been near the ball, there had not been any contact.

The Fulham crowd loudly informed Dean that he did not know what he was doing. In fact he knew exactly what he was about and under the present circumstances had made the correct call.

Not that this spared him a finger-wagging from the Fulham manager, Mark Hughes, at the end of the match. "The goal should have been wiped out because Gallas is in an offside position as the ball is struck by Huddlestone," said Hughes.

Guardian Service

[WhiteJC]

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Fulham-boss-Mark-Hughes-doesn-t-fear-an-FA-rap-after-his-row-with-referee-Mike-Dean-over-Tom-Huddlestone-s-controversial-winner-for-Tottenham-article602843.html

Spraky not worried about FA rap over referee confrontation

Mark Hughes said he does not fear an FA charge after confronting referee Mike Dean over Tom Huddlestone's controversial winner.

The Fulham boss was livid after Dean overruled his assistant Martin Yerby and allowed Huddlestone's long-range drive to stand, even though William Gallas was standing in an offside position.

Sparky said: "I didn't go in an aggressive manner. I just gave my view and very quickly he said come and see me so I just walked away.

"There is no point in getting yourself in any trouble when really whatever I say and whatever he says won't make any difference.

"I don't think I was in his face. I was about 15 yards away – and maybe that was a good thing."



Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Fulham-boss-Mark-Hughes-doesn-t-fear-an-FA-rap-after-his-row-with-referee-Mike-Dean-over-Tom-Huddlestone-s-controversial-winner-for-Tottenham-article602843.html#ixzz12gvHPITZ
Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here

[WhiteJC]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/18/fulham-tottenham-hotspur-premier-league

Offside decision divides opinion as Spurs end Fulham's unbeaten start
• Tom Huddlestone's winning goal at centre of controversy
• 'Goal should not have stood,' claims furious Mark Hughes


The referee Mike Dean finds himself the centre of attention after deciding to allow
Tom Huddlestone's goal to stand. Photograph: Joe Giddens/Empics Sport

Offside decisions will always be open to controversy because they are based on not only the fact of a player standing in an offside position but the hypothesis of what he has to gain by being there. For a long time match officials ducked the issue by pulling an attacker up even if he was picking his nose far away from the action but now the pendulum has swung so far the other way that a player is safe unless he actually touches the ball.

Goals are being allowed when two or three members of the attacking side have run past the last defender and must be distracting the goalkeeper's attention but this is no longer deemed to be interfering with play. Only if one of them follows up to find the net from a rebound will the goal be disallowed.

On Saturday Fulham lost their unbeaten Premier League record to a goal which would never have stood under the old system of interpretation. Having taken the lead on the half-hour following a clever piece of play by Clint Dempsey, who held off two Tottenham defenders before squaring the ball across goal to leave Diomansy Kamara with a simple tap-in, Fulham were back level within a minute after Rafael van der Vaart's chip against the crossbar had left Roman Pavlyuchenko with an equally straightforward chance. No arguments there but what followed just past the hour had Craven Cottage beside itself with frustration.

Following a Spurs corner the ball found its way to Tom Huddlestone, whose low shot from 25 yards skidded through a crowd of players and beat Mark Schwarzer into the left-hand corner of the net. Up went a linesman's flag against William Gallas, who had been a fraction offside when the ball was struck. The referee, Mike Dean, looked like disallowing the goal but amid Tottenham protests went over to consult his assistant, Martin Yerby, before letting it stand, the two officials having agreed that, while Gallas had been near the ball, there had not been any contact. The Fulham crowd loudly informed Dean that he did not know what he was doing. In fact he knew exactly what he was about and under the present circumstances had made the correct call.

Not that this spared him a finger-wagging from the Fulham manager, Mark Hughes, at the end of the match. "The goal should have been wiped out because Gallas is in an offside position as the ball is struck by Huddlestone," said Hughes. "The only grey area is whether it hit one of our players [Chris Baird] on the way through. Maybe then the argument is that he's played him on."

Of course that should not make any difference since the decision depends on where the attacker is when the ball is played by a team-mate and who touches it thereafter is irrelevant. Hughes was on firmer ground when he looked it at from his goalkeeper's point of view.

"Mark Schwarzer has to hold his position until the ball actually reaches where Gallas is," he said, "because he is thinking that at some point Gallas may stick out a toe and deflect it. To say he is not interfering and not in the goalkeeper's eyeline is completely at odds with the truth." This is a fair point. If goalkeepers are expected to second-guess opponents who are offside anyway, then the law is becoming an ass.

Naturally Fulham felt hard done by although Tottenham, whose carefully controlled performance plainly had Wednesday's Champions League game against Internazionale in mind, always looked as if they could step up a gear if necessary. Huddlestone was the industrious heart of their game and once Harry Redknapp had brought on Aaron Lennon to give Spurs added width on the right, moving Luka Modric towards the centre, a Fulham midfield deprived of Danny Murphy by a groin strain early in the second half, struggled to keep possession.

[WhiteJC]

http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Football/45370/Hughes_rues_first_Cottagers_loss.aspx?

Hughes rues first Cottagers loss

Fulham boss Mark Hughes was left frustrated after his side lost for the first time in the Premier League this season, going down 2-1 at home to Spurs.

A Diomansy Kamara goal gave the Cottagers the lead on the half-hour mark, but Spurs hit back through Roman Pavlyuchenko and Tom Huddlestone to claim all three points.

Afterwards, Hughes told his club's official website: "In the first half I thought we more than matched what they produced and I thought we were the better side and well worth the lead.

"Unfortunately, from our point of view, we switched off almost immediately and conceded after we scored.

"If we had kept the lead to half-time we would have grown in strength and stature in the second half.

"I thought in terms of chances created and general play, we created more than Spurs did.

"So all in all, it's a frustrating day with a lot of good things, but a number of things we need to look at as well."

[White wizard]

Regardless of the rights or wrongs, this is the second occasion this season where the ball has fallen to an unmarked player 30yds out, who has scored with an albeit well struck but speculative shot. Lessons to be learned? We cannot legislate for weak / bad / (dare I say corrupt) refereeing, but we can pick up players who are known to be happy to have a shot from distance. 

[WhiteJC]

http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/p6_1_4745_club-focus-fulham-referee’s-decision-reversal-fails-to-hide-cottagers’-attacking-failings.html?
   
Club Focus - Fulham - Referee's decision reversal fails to hide Cottagers' attacking failings

All the talk in the wake of Tottenham's rare Craven Cottage win on Saturday was about referee Mike Dean's perplexing decision to award a Tom Huddlestone strike after initially ruling the goal out for offside. The age-old 'interfering with play' debate will once again be a talking point, but had Fulham - and particularly Diomansy Kamara - taken more of their chances, then no excuses would be required. The unbeaten tag has disappeared, leaving the statistics instead to read one win from eight. There is, as yet, no need to panic or for Mark Hughes to make drastic changes, but the lack of a quality finisher was evident at the weekend.

Kamara may have opened to scoring after having the ball put on a plate by Clint Dempsey, but he missed several other gilt-edged chances that, if taken, could well have sent the points in the other direction. The loss of Bobby Zamora is starting to affect the team in a similar way as first feared, despite the initial show of determination the players demonstrated. Kamara's finishing was evocative of Zamora's during his first season at Craven Cottage, when he mustered just two league goals. However, even then, Zamora's play as a target man was first rate, and the same cannot be said for the Senegalese. Kamara spent the majority of the 90 minutes equally as unaware of the laws of offside as the officials were, standing as he did yards ahead of the Spurs backline, effectively eliminating himself from the contest. Throughout his time at the club, he has played his best games as an impact substitute, and Hughes is more thank likely to be the next in line to view his striker as exactly that

With Eddie Johnson marginally effective off the bench as well, but also having proven nothing when starting, the lack of replacement for Zamora, in both goalscoring ability and hold-up play is holding Hughes' side back from truly showing their potential. Moussa Dembele was evidently not fit enough to be back in the starting line-up, and Danny Murphy picked up a knock in the first half, so there was little, too, in the way of creativity. While Dempsey continued to show bags of industry, there is not enough consistency around him to be causing damage to the opposition. In that respect, Hughes could do a lot worse than give Zoltan Gera a run alongside Dempsey.

One thing the Hungarian at least has over Johnson and Kamara is he is not a shrinking violet. Instead of running aimlessly and standing offside like the Senegalese or spending half the game on the turf like the American, Gera will offer 90 minutes of effort and intelligent forward play. Unfortunately, such is Gera's limited time on the field this season, Hughes does not see where one of the revelations of last season fits in. For now, his being deployed in the hole behind a forward is arguably the manager's best option of all.

[WhiteJC]

http://www.tribalfootball.com/ex-liverpool-star-urges-reds-take-look-fulham-defender-hangeland-1187271?

Ex-Liverpool star urges Reds to take look at Fulham defender Hangeland

Former Liverpool midfielder Jamie Redknapp believes his old club should take a look at Fulham defender Brede Hangeland.

In his column for the Daily Mail, Redknapp wrote: "Watching Spurs at Fulham on Saturday, I could not fail to be impressed by Brede Hangeland.

"I'm sure Mark Hughes is bracing himself for a bid from former Fulham manager Roy Hodgson, now he has the Red Sox millions behind him at Anfield.

"The giant Hangeland would be ideal for Liverpool as the Sami Hyypia-type defender they were missing yesterday."

[WhiteJC]

http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/Sport.cfm?id=36363&headline=Exclusive%3A

Exclusive: Fulham's Elm and Newcastle's Best were Palace targets

CRYSTAL Palace boss George Burley has revealed that Fulham's David Elm and Newcastle's Leon Best were both striker loan targets.

The Eagles manager had tried to bring a striker in before Saturday's 1-0 derby reverse to Millwall.

Elm had been lined up to move to Selhurst Park but Fulham boss Mark Hughes - worried about his own options in attack with Andrew Johnson and Bobby Zamora ruled out - decided against letting the switch go through.

Get tomorrow's South London Press for Burley's reaction.

[WhiteJC]

http://hammyend.com/index.php/2010/10/gatesys-weekend-roundup/?

Gatesys Weekend Roundup
by GATESY on OCTOBER 18, 2010

They say things even themselves out over the course of a season. Well already this season it's looking like we're due some good luck coming our way soon. What with bad challenges, injuries to key players and this weekend a some what suspicious goal being given against us.

Before all the talk was of Murphy and his comments during a very quiet news week, but afterwards the media was all-aflutter over Huddlestones off side goal at the Cottage. Having scored three of his last seven Premier League goals against us the no-necked midfielder loves nothing better than playing us. And with a little persuasion, and perhaps intimidation, aimed at the line-o he managed to score yet again.

After the final whistle Hughes was seen to approach the referee as they left the pitch and was told to come and speak to the official in his changing room after they'd all left the pitch, only for the ref to do a quick bunk before Sparky had a chance to catch up with him.

"I'd like a little bit of clarification, if he's made a genuine mistake, he'll admit to it, but it doesn't do us any good so what's the point?

"The goal should have been wiped out because Gallas is in an offside position as the ball is struck by Huddlestone. To say he's not interfering or not in his eyeline is completely at odds with the truth. Mark Schwarzer has to hold his position until the ball actually reaches where Gallas is, because he's thinking at some point Gallas may stick a toe out and deflect it. "

Even 'Arry seemed to conceded they'd been ultra-lucky too.

"If you had a shot at goal and somebody was stood in an offside position, you were given offside," he said.

"It's become very, very complicated.  How many of us do know unless we're referees or linesman? I'd be a liar if I was an expert on it."

Another person who can't be called a liar, was Robbie Savage who admitted to us on his Saturday eveing 6-0-6 show that even players of his calibre have no idea of the exact rules on the offside trap. So what hope do us 'normals' have?

Away from the banks of the Thames, Man City battled their way to second in the League after defeating Blackpool 3-2.  Though with Blackpool also on the end of some iffy refereeing calls, 'Olly' has called for technology to be brought into the league. He said:

"Their first goal, Tevez was offside, and the second one was a foul on my defender, absolutely blatant."

But in the space of just a few minutes he became a beaten, downtrodden man.

"We're getting absolutely Bo Diddley squat, week in, week out. But there you go, such is life."

City sit above local rivals United who only managed to draw at home against our next opponents West Brom. Fielding a weakened side with naughty boy Rooney on the bench alongside Scholes (so glad I put him in my fantasy football team...). I'm not sure if it's made the press yet, but word on the street is Rooneys not fond of this and could be all set for a move. Usually this'd get poo-poo'd but every single paper seems to be on board with this story, even making the front page of The Times.

At the top of the tree that lot down the road stumbled their way to a draw up at Villa Park.

"I am not disappointed about failing to go seven points clear. We knew this would be a difficult game. Last year we lost here. This is a good result at this stage of the season, and to be five points clear is good."

Two sides recently discussed by our boy Dan played up at the Reebok. Bolton won their first home game of the season with ex-White Knight escaping a somewhat obvious hand ball shout from the visitors. Stoke, who have been rumoured to be after Gera, would be disappointed with not returning to the Potteries without a single point especially as Bolton finished a man shy after Klasnic got two yellows for two separate episodes of flailing arms (possibly on the instructions of his manager, I just don't know).

Down the bottom of the table Wolves, 'Stam, Newcastle and Wigan all walked away from their respective games with a point a piece. Luckily for us viewers, Mick McCarthry was able to act like a tool for us all to enjoy on Match of the Day with a lovely little comment about our Danny. How dare such a lowly mortal dare to mention a manager in less than glowing terms!

I'm not sure how you feel about it, but whenever I see Roy at Liverpool it stirs an odd reaction in me. It feels like he's an old girlfriend of mine who's left me for a new more flash fella. Only things aren't going so well now for her as it turns out he's not as flash as he made out. Infact, he's a bit of a lame horse. I want to be all cocky about it but I can't, as they still have a place in my heart. Well anyway, Liverpool lost (again), which means it'll be more doomsday like reaction coming from Merseyside for the coming week (again). And more in papers of Uncle Roy getting the old heave hoe anyday, with Rijkaard one of the many names in the frame.

All that in one weekend, and we've still got Blackburn versus Sunderland tonight! It don't get much better than this!!!

[WhiteJC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1321479/Graham-Poll-Why-Tom-Huddlestones-goal-rightly-stood--Blackpool-benefit-accuracy.html?

Why Tom Huddlestone's goal rightly stood... if only Blackpool could benefit from such accuracy
By GRAHAM POLL

There are so many misconceptions about refereeing. At least one can be dispelled after Tottenham's controversial win at Fulham.

Mike Dean did not - as many including Mark Hughes claimed - fail to support his assistant Martin Yerby when Tom Huddlestone struck the winner in the 63rd minute at Craven Cottage.

The two officials followed protocol and came to the absolutely correct decision together - that the offside William Gallas was not interfering with play.

It is impossible for an assistant to be absolutely sure if a player, who is in an offside position, is directly in the line of vision of the goalkeeper.

What complicated matters further was that Huddlestone's 30-yard strike took an audible deflection. Yerby, some 45 yards away, could not be sure who got the touch.

The offside law states that a player who is in an offside position, as Gallas clearly was, must either interfere with play or an opponent or gain an advantage from being in that position.

FIFA has defined that a player must actually play the ball to be deemed to be interfering with play and referee Dean, from his better position, knew the deflection was by Baird and so Gallas could not have interfered with play.

He also saw that Gallas was not in the line of goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer's vision and so was not, in FIFA's terms, interfering with an opponent.

After sensible consultation Dean and Yerby agreed that the goal was legal. It was Dean and Yerby's experience which led to this correct outcome and not pressure from players as also suggested.

What a pity that the same sense was not used at Bloomfield Road where a similar incident finished with a very different outcome for Ian Holloway's Blackpool.

A superb game was marred by some poor offside calls, especially when Carlos Tevez scored the opening goal from a clearly offside position.

It was a routine decision which the assistant missed. Not such an easy call was unfortunately made incorrectly, again at the expense of Blackpool, when a throughball was missed by the marginally offside Elliott Grandin and ran on to a clearly inside Gary Taylor-Fletcher who finished superbly.

No such consultation between Phil Dowd and his assistant who mistakenly judged that Campbell had played the ball and therefore had interfered with play.

When the system works it is fabulous; when it does not it merely reinforces the feeling that a moment to review on a video replay could prevent a lot of costly errors, which are natural given how difficult these calls are.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1321479/Graham-Poll-Why-Tom-Huddlestones-goal-rightly-stood--Blackpool-benefit-accuracy.html?#ixzz12i0bUgpX

[WhiteJC]

http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Football/45399/Sky_Sports_pundit_lauds_Fulham_star_as_ideal_for_Liverpool.aspx?

Sky Sports pundit lauds Fulham star as "ideal for Liverpool"

Jamie Redknapp believes his old club Liverpool are likely to launch a raid for Fulham defender Brede Hangeland in January, suggesting the towering Norwegian is the closest thing to Anfield legend Sami Hyypia
.
The aforementioned Sky Sports pundit suggests Hodgson's close relationship with his former player could aid his endeavours to land Hangeland; a player Redknapp suggests Liverpool are crying out for since the departure of Sami Hyypia in 2009.

Redknapp watched Hangeland's impressive performance against Tottenham Hotspur at the weekend and believes Liverpool's current malaise would certainly be helped if could they call on the Craven Cottage stalwart.

Redknapp told the Daily Mail: "Watching Spurs at Fulham on Saturday, I could not fail to be impressed by Brede Hangeland.

"I'm sure Mark Hughes is bracing himself for a bid from former Fulham manager Roy Hodgson, now he has the Red Sox millions behind him at Anfield.

"The giant Hangeland would be ideal for Liverpool as the Sami Hyypia-type defender they were missing yesterday."