Yes, yes we won, but even so we were awful

[Riversider]

If the OP thinks that first 25 mins was one our worst performances in 50 years I'm gobsmacked!

Pound for pound it was, unless you want to compare it to the days Mrs Lewington use to wash all the kit and the players coach would stop at a chip shop on the way home so that Jimmy Hill could jump out and order fish and chips for all !
That was an awful opening 25 minutes where we should have been dead and buried, and if we play like that against Bristol City and Leeds we will be,
Parker was with that squad for two weeks and that's how he prepares them to start a London Derby ,
Then in the second half when we got on top of them what does he do, he calls of the attack for the last 20 minutes leaving Kamara up top by himself allowing QPR to come back in to the game when they had virtually thrown the towel in,
Parker got lucky on Friday, Derby and Swansea give us a chance of some more points, but I'm scratching my head wondering where the points are coming from in December when every team we play is capable of punishing performances like we witnessed on Friday night.

[Dr Quinzel]

For some part it did feel like a win by luck rather than judgement. In the first half we had no game plan for their best player, Eze. Second half with the enforced change of Harrison for Bobby, it changed for the better. Tom and Stefan sat a bit deeper, and that held back Eze, and Bobby supplied the link play that Tom wasn't. He was brilliant when he came on. Maybe Scott would have made that change without the injury, but I don't think so. Some other good performances and good player choices within that though, so have to also give Scott credit for players like Rodak being in the team and performing too.

[Matt10]

For some part it did feel like a win by luck rather than judgement. In the first half we had no game plan for their best player, Eze. Second half with the enforced change of Harrison for Bobby, it changed for the better. Tom and Stefan sat a bit deeper, and that held back Eze, and Bobby supplied the link play that Tom wasn't. He was brilliant when he came on. Maybe Scott would have made that change without the injury, but I don't think so. Some other good performances and good player choices within that though, so have to also give Scott credit for players like Rodak being in the team and performing too.

Well said. I think Parker may have inadvertently found that StefJo can actually play that deep midfielder role quite well. I've been pushing for it all season because I think he's one of the best distributors of the ball on the team. He would be able to play the role of true playmaker from that spot.

[Skatzoffc]

Thanks for the reply Matt.

Do we not think , having the top scorer in the division , that playing Cav/Knock on the opposite wings would benefit the team more?

Serious question.


If they made it to the byline and crossed with their best foot surely Mitro would have 50 goals by now and be on his way to Real Madrid.

The service he has had has been dreadful this season yet he is still top scorer.

We are simply not playing our team to its strengths at present imo.
That seems to be painfully obvious to all on the forum but not to the coaching staff.

Ho hum

[Matt10]

Thanks for the reply Matt.

Do we not think , having the top scorer in the division , that playing Cav/Knock on the opposite wings would benefit the team more?

Serious question.


If they made it to the byline and crossed with their best foot surely Mitro would have 50 goals by now and be on his way to Real Madrid.

The service he has had has been dreadful this season yet he is still top scorer.

We are simply not playing our team to its strengths at present imo.
That seems to be painfully obvious to all on the forum but not to the coaching staff.

Ho hum

If you're going to have that strategy, it needs to be supported with overlapping fullbacks to ensure the defenders are kept honest. Parker's system isn't based on that.

Think about it, as a defender, if you know what side and direction the winger is going to go, all you have to do is stay goal-side and force them to the way you already know they're going. This is why teams that do that have overlapping fullbacks because it brings in another layer for the defender to think about.

The benefit to inverted wingers is they are multi-directional. A defender has to remain honest and cannot force the winger one way or the other. They instead have to contain until there is secondary assistance from a midfielder or a center-back. When Cav scored his goals, they were cut inside goals. He was doing quite well at this until teams started to gameplan in bringing the DMF to support the outside back centrally. Teams that don't defend that way against us will be in trouble with our inverted wingers.

I'd rather Mitro score 20 goals, and the other players like Cav, TC, Kamara, Knock, Reid, reach double digits. I think this system is geared more for that. I also believe the coaching staff are mixing up our attacks by dynamic player progression throughout the match. For example the first goal Kamara scored was available because Knockaert had shifted from RW > CAM > RCM > SS in a span of 10 minutes that ensured Kamara wasn't going up 2v1 in the cross.

To be perfeclty honest, I believe the coaching staff know what they're doing. I also believe that supporters know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, supporters can only go off of match analysis, which has too many variables to be considered a measured approach to coaching; or providing valid input. It's fun to talk about, and gets my tactical juices flowing, but I've nothing to lose - so there's much less need to go further than analyzing what is on the video.

[The Rational Fan]

Have to give credit where it's due. Warburton took a page out of Cardiff's book in setting up a less zonal and more man-oriented defensive look, the difference being is they pressured much higher than Cardiff did - and were quite physical overall.

As some have mentioned in previous threads, it was the conditioning that did QPR in though because there is no way a man defense will be able to be maintained for 90-minutes, and Parker did well to combat this by rotating Cav and Knock as much as possible. In addition to that, by force of hand really, was putting Bobby Reid in and dropping Johansen back.

I don't understand what that means.

A "man-oriented defense" is what many kids learn in primary school, that is when in defense each defensive players marks a attacking player (e.g. RB marks the oppositions left winger or the most left player currently upfront). At "man-oriented marking" most extreme, defenders following attackers around the field in stupid formations (eg all defenders on one side of the field because all the attackers are one side).

If you want to see man-marking gone mad, you often see little kids wait while the "player they are man-marking" ties their shoe laces or does a throw-in. In truth, most sunday league teams do man-marking with a little zonal marking, often the defensive midfielder uses an extremely zonal defensive role and everyone else picks up a player. Man-Marking as problems, for example if a bunch of defenders Ream's pace are all playing against a really fast attackers, man-marking will result in balls being put into the free spaces (e.g. in the centre upfront) and the faster players winning those balls.

A "zonal-organised defense" is when each player marks a space (e.g. RB ensures no one gets through the right hand side of the field and marks any player or multiple players in that space). This is obviously more complex and harder to learn. At "zonal oriented defense" most extreme, the right back can be defending against all four attackers as they on the right and the other three marking space with no players. A RB marking four players on the by-line (side-line) is possible and he knows if those four players provide a good cross into the box, that the zonal defensive will have a three man advantage throughout the rest of the field (e.g. an extra defender, extra midfield and extra striker), so a good attacking cross could result in a goal conceded.

As both have advantages so a comprise (or combination) of both is normally used, trying to get the best of both worlds. Different players use a different combination of both, Mitrovoic seems to be "extremely zonal defensively" as he defends from the front of the field regardless of how many players there whether it's zero or five players. I wonder if Michael Hector may add a quality man-marking player to the squad, which is useful to have as FFC haven't been great at shutting down quality players especially last season. I strongly favour a more zonal marking system like Fulham does, but if Fulham do a little more traditional man-marking and it may help.

The defensive technique a team uses does depend on the attacking players. Diego Maradona tended to be more quiet when man-marked, such as against Germany 1986 and thrived against England 1986 who defended more zonally. Diego Maradona just seemed to pull any zonal system so out of shape, that it was better going back to basics of like kids marking key attacking players out of the game. Diego didn't have the pace to exploit man-marking weaknesses, although his goal of the century against England pulled the zonal marking out of shape and his assist against man-marking Germany proves if you have enough quality any system is useless.

Frankly, I think Mitrovoic is more likely to score when man-marked because if the opposition is not defending the space in midfield then balls will get to him and even though he will have a defender on him his ability to shrug off such players means man-marking him isn't effective; also a player like Kamara that breaks free of his markers probably also enjoys being man-marked, as zonally space is therefore not marked. Its hard to pick a Fulham player that thrives against quality zonal marking more than quality zonal marking, but Reed, KMac, Cairney, Knockaert and R.Sessegnon are able to exploit poor quality zonal-marking that leave zones free. So some teams may chose to use quality man-marking against us rather than chose zonal marking and risk doing it poorly.

It was stated above you cannot man-mark for 90 minutes, I am not quite sure why a traditional man-marking defense cannot be maintained for 90-minutes, but all your players have to be fitter than all their players which is unlikely. Less fit players have to use zonal-marking from time to time, very few players could man-mark Stefjo for 90 minutes and Mitro would be dragged into useless positions all game if he didn't zonal-mark only.

The when to use man-marking and zonal marking is probably one of the hardest to understand tactics in football, and i have failed to get my head around it since the World Cup of 1986. Good managers mix up their team so it any tactic has a few players that can exploit it. A coach once said zonal is better for smarter players and man-marking is good for fitter players. The key advantage of man-marking is its easier to do well, especially if your fitter than the other team. Ryan Giggs pointed out if your teams (e.g. Man United) has both more skill and more fitness than other team, then copying their formation and man-marking them almost guarantees a victory, as the tactically advantage is removed.

[Statto]

Well today was by no means great from Parker - it should have been a straightforward 3-0 win given the gulf in talent available to both managers IMO...

HOWEVER the fact is we had twice as much possession, twice as many shots, twice as many shots on target and four times as many corners as Bristol, hit the bar, should have had a penalty and had to contend with a generally biased official

So if we're going to have "yes we won but..." threads when we win games we deserved to lose, can we also have "yes we lost but..." threads when we lose games we deserved to win (or at least draw)

[Woolly Mammoth]

There is a case when supporters are disappointed at an adverse result like today, when we should have come away with at least a draw, and maybe a win. Then we can be hot under the collar and breathing fire and stating justified reason as to why we were hard done by.
So when we win under circumstances whereupon it was not the perfect performance. Why do people dissect every part of the action when the basic object is to score more goals than the opponents. That's what counts, and that is what we pay to watch, whether it be a glorious victory or a grinding out fortunate ugly victory.
Our best form of defence is attack at a high tempo, that is when we look our best. Whether people want to hear it or not, under the current system of play our defence is weak for a team looking to achieve promotion by the play offs, never mind automatically.
That's our weakest link, other weaknesses is a lack of a killer instinct, and a lack of physical and a strong mental presence, which is a must in the Championship. It won't happen but we need a proper leader as Captain.
Even with Hector waiting in the wings, we need reinforcements in January, otherwise we are in danger of under achieving, and that will be a massive own goal.

[Leveller]

Well today was by no means great from Parker - it should have been a straightforward 3-0 win given the gulf in talent available to both managers IMO...

HOWEVER the fact is we had twice as much possession, twice as many shots, twice as many shots on target and four times as many corners as Bristol, hit the bar, should have had a penalty and had to contend with a generally biased official

So if we're going to have "yes we won but..." threads when we win games we deserved to lose, can we also have "yes we lost but..." threads when we lose games we deserved to win (or at least draw)

Fulham always have more possession against Bristol City at Craven Cottage ... and always lose.

Think about it.