Scott Parker´s Fulham

[toshes mate]

You can demonstrate ineptitude in particular circumstances without being primarily inept as a descriptive adjective of personality.  But if you persist then Parker hasn't demonstrated the 'skill' (opposite to inept) needed to turn certain players around from their 'native' habits and get them to play together as team mates, again very obvious from moments in the Charlton game when the team lost its shape completely on too many occasions.  That is what costs goals conceded.

I use the word 'naive' meaning lack of sophistication needed to man manage, to describe Parker at this stage.  Jokanovic was, as an example, a very shrewd man manager no matter who he had to deal with and that is how he was able to get the best out of 'average' individuals. Parker has a more gifted squad meaning he has to use other man management techniques to turn an already sophisticated group of players into a team that plays consistently together - somethting we are not yet achieving as can be seen from unevenness in performances especially yesterday in the first half. 

The Reading game was a one off influenced largely by the sending off and our second half showing was, IMO, poor in the circumstances.  Arter has yet to shine in my opinion but I guess that is a matter of taste, nuance and appreciation.  He hasn't impressed me at all. 

[colinwhite]

We played superbly at Reading and the sending off was a result of them trying to rough us up as they couldnt get near the ball. After we were 4-0 up we started thinking of our third game in  a week to come ,which was hardly `naive `. Going for 678 may have been !
The first half yesterday was poor but had more to do with mawson (getting caught out of position for the first ) and ream (failing to clear fot he second) than Arters indiscipline or team tactics.

[hovewhite]

Easy to be wise after any game,the plus for me scotty switch to 3 at the back and made us look something like the home team.
Scotty himself is learning ok n the job and doing rather well darlings.

[Statto]

Personally, putting the defending to one side, I thought the problem first half yesterday was what we did in the final third. Too many early, long, high crosses from the wingers. It felt like Charlton were content to let us do that all day long, because they weren't connecting. In the same way that you can safely concede any number of corners to Fulham and rest assured that we won't score from any of them. Under Jokanovic, the wingers (or possibly the fullbacks overlapping them) waited until they got right down to the touchline, allowing time for more people to get in the box as well, before rolling low cutbacks to the penalty spot. We showed much more penetration and goal threat that way IMO. So whilst I like Parker, I'm reluctant to credit him too much for changing that in particular.

Also I'm not convinced our tactics were wrong for the PL. If we ever try to replace 9 out of the first XI with players signed from abroad and/or crocked in the last week of the window, we'll go down. It will take more than giving our full backs slightly different instructions to change that.

[toshes mate]

We played superbly at Reading and the sending off was a result of them trying to rough us up as they couldnt get near the ball. After we were 4-0 up we started thinking of our third game in  a week to come ,which was hardly `naive `. Going for 678 may have been !
The first half yesterday was poor but had more to do with mawson (getting caught out of position for the first ) and ream (failing to clear fot he second) than Arters indiscipline or team tactics.

Goals conceded always start from losing possession be it misplaced passing or a goal kick.  From the misplaced pass the counter will direct itself, if the opponent in possession is wise, to the weakest point of defence either by determining the quality of the player defending or the space and cover there is.  Once an opponent reaches a dangerous point to cross/pass or shoot then the odds are stacked against the defending side.  Charlton had fourteen attempts in the first half and that sums up how poor we were.

Arter as defensive midfield is not as good as he thinks he is at either intense covering or active recovering in the FFC side as it was yesterday.  Reed works at what he does and is till learning but, IMO, he is much better than Arter in that side.  I also believe Reid made a huge impact on successes in the second half and I question why he didn't start.   

[filham]

The big tactical change yesterday, three at the back, worked wonders. Why did we not start with that formation, surely we new all about Charlton, there strengths and weaknesses and what would work and what would not work against them.

Will we now start with three at the back against Stoke in the next match.

[Sting of the North]

The big tactical change yesterday, three at the back, worked wonders. Why did we not start with that formation, surely we new all about Charlton, there strengths and weaknesses and what would work and what would not work against them.

Will we now start with three at the back against Stoke in the next match.

Or we anticipated Charlton playing slightly different? Or we anticipated winning some battles that could have changed the flow of the game in the first half?

Do you really think that we knew what would work against Charlton, and then deliberately set the team up in another way? I didn't see many on here advocating for starting with a back three, so maybe that was not so obvious. Sometimes things just don't work out the way you expect or hope they will. Good that we managed to change our tactics and shake things up so that we ultimately were much closer to three points than Charlton were.

My guess is that we will not start three at the back next game.