A Clear “Identity”

[Milo]

Following on from my question last month, "what is Parker's style?"... I am still trying to pinpoint exactly how Parker's team will set up in 6 months time against Luton Town.

You could say of Jokanovic that he played possession based football and firmly wanted to play out from the back. We've seen glimpses of similar in midfield - especially against Wolves where we were retaining possession with Cairney, Anguissa etc and passing across the halfway line looking to spread play. We have also seen Ream and MLM receive the ball more in defence and construct more moves from defence. With that a few members became nervous the same old caveats of losing possession in key areas were beginning to drift back into our game. For me there's been a shift towards reintroducing Jokanovic-esque build up play slowly and, as Cairney said as Ranieri left, allowing our players "to play football" as that's what they are suited to.

I have also looked to Parker's interviews for an answer. He seems to be trying to address the exact same question himself in almost every conference he hosts. He wants the club to have a "a clear identity". He deserves plaudits for being a good orator in interviews, but if you sit down with a pen and actually jot down the main points he's making I have so far been struggling to add anything to:

Work rate

He mentioned at one point for instance that the identity will come from the ground and history, but I fail to see how that translates to any sort of difference on the field. He then expressed his desire for the first team to be a reflection of the staff. I admit I originally mistook that for more of Parker's superficial management talk - so dazed as I was by his sales approach that it almost passed me by. Reflecting more on this though, that is something that we have begun to see.

Gray is back, and Wells has been headhunted. The former has clearly tightened us up since coming back in and that's where Jokanovic perhaps could be criticised (as we have often discussed on the forum this season). The seams that were no longer held together by Gray's tactics slowly started to come apart under pressure by Premier League forwards. Now they are coming together again, and you can see Gray has more authority on the sideline - addressing players before they come on the pitch. I have also noticed smaller additions such as more elaborate free kick moves. Perhaps our new first team coach's ideas? I agree with Parker that his playing staff represent his backroom team, and that is because he has been willing to give them more influence.

So to summarise, what have we learned about Parker's style? Our new identity? Off the pitch, he has allowed his staff greater influence. He has created a good atmosphere that should lend itself well to retaining players in the summer. On the pitch, I think we are obviously in transition. I think the main changes have been that Gray has tightened us up defensively, and Jokanovic's methods are being titrated back into the squad slowly which suits our (current) players. We are also maintaining a high intensity and work rate that connects with the fans.

Thoughts?

[RaySmith]

Identity is the word of the moment re football clubs, but what exactly is meant by this?

People say we lost our identity when Rainieri took over from Slav, with the distinctive passing, playing from the back that Slav pursued, but Slav was only our manager for what? three seasons. Not a very deep seated identity then.

I feel Fulham's identity comes from more  than the style of play  adopted by  all the different managers, though I think we have generally had a reputation as a footballing side - the team of  Johnny Haynes, one of the best passers of the ball ever to grace the game, though how  much did we retain that identity when we sank to the  bottom division with the  limited players available?

For me, Fulham's identity is the friendly, family club with the unique ground down by the River - something almost intangible, but us fans know what it is.

But these days identity seems often related to style of play, whch often changes from manager to manager, depending on players available. But it would seem not quite right to see Fulham playing with a Big Sam or Pulis type style though.

I think Parker is influenced by Slav's style though, but is more flexible, and willing to adapt.

[Nero]

Our Identity will be to be tight at  the back and pass up front and if you can't find a pass pirourtte until you can

[The Rational Fan]

I think Parker's made it clear that he wants to play attractive football, but balanced with pragmatism and situation dependent. So Like Slavisa, Parker wants an attractive tactical identity but unlike Slavisa he will try to avoid to use the wrong tactics against the wrong opposition. Like Raneri, Parker wants tactics to be suited to play our opposition, but unlike Raneri he wants to avoid using tactics that FFC hasn't got the players to deliver. Parker job is to take the players bought and from the academy, look at the opposition and come up with tactics that are attractive to watch and get results.

[Twig]

I think Parker's made it clear that he wants to play attractive football, but balanced with pragmatism and situation dependent. So Like Slavisa, Parker wants an attractive tactical identity but unlike Slavisa he will try to avoid to use the wrong tactics against the wrong opposition. Like Raneri, Parker wants tactics to be suited to play our opposition, but unlike Raneri he wants to avoid using tactics that FFC hasn't got the players to deliver. Parker job is to take the players bought and from the academy, look at the opposition and come up with tactics that are attractive to watch and get results.

On the pitch I think that about sums it up. As others have said, identity goes beyond the playing style; a family friendly club, a listed building, deep history,  even our location on the banks of the Thames, all this contributes to our identity.

[HV71]

I think Parker's made it clear that he wants to play attractive football, but balanced with pragmatism and situation dependent. So Like Slavisa, Parker wants an attractive tactical identity but unlike Slavisa he will try to avoid to use the wrong tactics against the wrong opposition. Like Raneri, Parker wants tactics to be suited to play our opposition, but unlike Raneri he wants to avoid using tactics that FFC hasn't got the players to deliver. Parker job is to take the players bought and from the academy, look at the opposition and come up with tactics that are attractive to watch and get results.

On the pitch I think that about sums it up. As others have said, identity goes beyond the playing style; a family friendly club, a listed building, deep history,  even our location on the banks of the Thames, all this contributes to our identity.

Totally agree -