POST MATCH: Fulham 4-5 Man City

[sarnian]

Why do we have culprits?

Exactly Peabody why does everybody seem to think that football is a game that is played perfectly all the time. Mistakes happen, I wonder if all these posters are all perfect and never make mistakes in their own respective professions

[ArcticOctopus]

"There were no culprits it was just one of those days" is a perfectly fine answer. Like I said I wasn't able to catch the full game. We generally don't allow 5 goals, regardless of if they are top or bottom of the table. So it seemed reasonable to me that *somebody* was having an off day.

[Grassy Noel]

I don't know how many more times we need to find out Lukic and Berge just don't compliment each other in the 6/8 roles.

I don't expect them to pass compliments but pass the ball!

[cmg]

Some mention was made a day or so ago, by Windy City and others, of our seeming reluctance to have a shot at goal.
Interesting to see yesterday's results of some rather more speculative shooting efforts by several players.

[Southcoastffc]

Why do we have culprits?

Because its easy for people to throw rocks, especially if they are watching on TV and so can't necessarily see the whole pattern of play and movement of players off the ball.

[Southcoastffc]

I don't know how many more times we need to find out Lukic and Berge just don't compliment each other in the 6/8 roles.

I don't expect them to pass compliments but pass the ball!

Can't play together unless it's Spurs away????

[FFC1987]

I don't know how many more times we need to find out Lukic and Berge just don't compliment each other in the 6/8 roles.

I don't expect them to pass compliments but pass the ball!

Can't play together unless it's Spurs away????

As in, the one we won 2.1 recently? Iwobi and Berge started that unless I'm completely misreading this post?

[SerbianLad]

As in, the one we won 2.1 recently? Iwobi and Berge started that unless I'm completely misreading this post?

Lukic and ESR came on when we struggled in the second half and stabilised us completely. They also played well together against Newcastle for example. Newcastle fans were saying how we dominated their midfield. There were other examples too, like the Brentford game, or like most games last season. It definitely didn't work against Manchester City and Everton amd maybe some other games, but it's categorically untrue that it never worked well.

[FFC1987]

As in, the one we won 2.1 recently? Iwobi and Berge started that unless I'm completely misreading this post?

Lukic and ESR came on when we struggled in the second half and stabilised us completely. They also played well together against Newcastle for example. Newcastle fans were saying how we dominated their midfield. There were other examples too, like the Brentford game, or like most games last season. It definitely didn't work against Manchester City and Everton amd maybe some other games, but it's categorically untrue that it never worked well.

I disagree on the stabilisation point. They are 'good' if we just want to offer nothing in final third, but become hard to break down. If Spurs gift us a two goal lead with soft goals, then sure, we can make good use of the Lukic/Berge pivot....but anyone watching could see we offered nothing in terms of progressive football for the majority of that game after the goals. Saw a stat suggesting the xG after the goals was rounded to to close to 0.

Newcastle game is a good point again in that, Berge/Lukic would work because Newcastle have one of the best trio midfield but they didn't have their talismanic Tonali starting. So having the combative pivot, whilst not overly effective, and ultimately, giving us zero points. xG was ok at roughly 1.5 but looking at the stats, Newcastle still managed to create more than enough to justify the win. So not really sure if that's an indication that its effective or not really.

Brentford, hmm, hard one really as clearly a team in transition so perhaps it would of been a different story if we played them now. Look, I'm not saying both aren't ok in circumstances, but its about what you want from the team. If we're playing like Forest last year, being grim to break down, and hoping to create few, but clinical chances/goals, I fear we need better conversion wingers (which might come true with forms to Chuku and Kevin), but I really don't think we have that in Wilson and Iwobi, or with Jimenez up top (or Muniz for that matter, both are good, but not great finishers). So with that in mind, I disagree that Lukic and Berge are an effective duo 6/8 combination and neither seemingly are willing to change or adapt into that. We need more in key passes, goals and assists from one of those slots of we want to push into top 10 territory in my humble opinion.

[SerbianLad]

I disagree on the stabilisation point. They are 'good' if we just want to offer nothing in final third, but become hard to break down. If Spurs gift us a two goal lead with soft goals, then sure, we can make good use of the Lukic/Berge pivot....but anyone watching could see we offered nothing in terms of progressive football for the majority of that game after the goals. Saw a stat suggesting the xG after the goals was rounded to to close to 0.

Newcastle game is a good point again in that, Berge/Lukic would work because Newcastle have one of the best trio midfield but they didn't have their talismanic Tonali starting. So having the combative pivot, whilst not overly effective, and ultimately, giving us zero points. xG was ok at roughly 1.5 but looking at the stats, Newcastle still managed to create more than enough to justify the win. So not really sure if that's an indication that its effective or not really.

Brentford, hmm, hard one really as clearly a team in transition so perhaps it would of been a different story if we played them now. Look, I'm not saying both aren't ok in circumstances, but its about what you want from the team. If we're playing like Forest last year, being grim to break down, and hoping to create few, but clinical chances/goals, I fear we need better conversion wingers (which might come true with forms to Chuku and Kevin), but I really don't think we have that in Wilson and Iwobi, or with Jimenez up top (or Muniz for that matter, both are good, but not great finishers). So with that in mind, I disagree that Lukic and Berge are an effective duo 6/8 combination and neither seemingly are willing to change or adapt into that. We need more in key passes, goals and assists from one of those slots of we want to push into top 10 territory in my humble opinion.

We created 0.13 xG in the second half, all after Lukic and ESR came on. So in that second half, we created more xG with the Lukic-Berge pairing than without it.

As for Newcastle game, do you really think we lost that game because of our midfield? Again, even Newcastle fans were saying we dominated them in the middle. We controlled them in the middle, and midfield is the best part of Newcastle. Berge had a shot in that game too, while Lukic had a goal, so they both had meaningful contributions in attack too.

Brentford game, both were quite positive on the ball amd regularly joined the attack. And, again, they've had great games together last season too.

I agree about how it's opponent dependent and there are games in which I would play them together and games in which I wouldn't.

I also think we should sign an actual progressive 8 (and I've said this countless times already), because I don't think Iwobi is a long term solution.

[alfie]

I don't subscribe to this pounding of Lukic, yes he had a rough game, it happens, he is human and all humans have days when things just don't go to how you want them to.

[FFC1987]

I disagree on the stabilisation point. They are 'good' if we just want to offer nothing in final third, but become hard to break down. If Spurs gift us a two goal lead with soft goals, then sure, we can make good use of the Lukic/Berge pivot....but anyone watching could see we offered nothing in terms of progressive football for the majority of that game after the goals. Saw a stat suggesting the xG after the goals was rounded to to close to 0.

Newcastle game is a good point again in that, Berge/Lukic would work because Newcastle have one of the best trio midfield but they didn't have their talismanic Tonali starting. So having the combative pivot, whilst not overly effective, and ultimately, giving us zero points. xG was ok at roughly 1.5 but looking at the stats, Newcastle still managed to create more than enough to justify the win. So not really sure if that's an indication that its effective or not really.

Brentford, hmm, hard one really as clearly a team in transition so perhaps it would of been a different story if we played them now. Look, I'm not saying both aren't ok in circumstances, but its about what you want from the team. If we're playing like Forest last year, being grim to break down, and hoping to create few, but clinical chances/goals, I fear we need better conversion wingers (which might come true with forms to Chuku and Kevin), but I really don't think we have that in Wilson and Iwobi, or with Jimenez up top (or Muniz for that matter, both are good, but not great finishers). So with that in mind, I disagree that Lukic and Berge are an effective duo 6/8 combination and neither seemingly are willing to change or adapt into that. We need more in key passes, goals and assists from one of those slots of we want to push into top 10 territory in my humble opinion.

We created 0.13 xG in the second half, all after Lukic and ESR came on. So in that second half, we created more xG with the Lukic-Berge pairing than without it.

As for Newcastle game, do you really think we lost that game because of our midfield? Again, even Newcastle fans were saying we dominated them in the middle. We controlled them in the middle, and midfield is the best part of Newcastle. Berge had a shot in that game too, while Lukic had a goal, so they both had meaningful contributions in attack too.

Brentford game, both were quite positive on the ball amd regularly joined the attack. And, again, they've had great games together last season too.

I agree about how it's opponent dependent and there are games in which I would play them together and games in which I wouldn't.

I also think we should sign an actual progressive 8 (and I've said this countless times already), because I don't think Iwobi is a long term solution.

I mean....we scored two goals in the first half and created 0.13 in second. Those two stats speak for themselves.

I don't think we 'lost' the game due to the midfield. But we did lose that game and we didn't really play that well or very expansive.

Again, Brentford game was encouraging, but its gone steeply downhill since those levels of encouragement. Plus, Brentford are a more settled side now so perhaps it would be different now. I can't say that for certain obviously but its worth factoring into the conversation.

I still think yes, the pivot is good as an option, but we have that availability if we consider Lukic, and Berge as the squad 6's anyway so we don't really disagree on much here other than perhaps how often and effective they are together. I still think the weird bit is, Lukic and Berge should of been at its most effective, against a team like City. See less of the ball, pressed and pinned back, but it had the opposite effect. Perhaps Pep did his homework and worked around it, maybe  both or one of those two had a particularly bad game. Maybe a mixture of both but it didn't work. It also didn't work against Everton, a completely different side in all manner of ways so the signs are here.

I do hope Alfie's post isn't in response to me as I like Lukic, give him credit all the time, I just don't necessarily think he's a starter in either the 8, or the 6 role right now ahead of Berge. That doesn't mean I don't rate him, support him, or think that'll change. Its just my opinion on current form.

[alfie]

I disagree on the stabilisation point. They are 'good' if we just want to offer nothing in final third, but become hard to break down. If Spurs gift us a two goal lead with soft goals, then sure, we can make good use of the Lukic/Berge pivot....but anyone watching could see we offered nothing in terms of progressive football for the majority of that game after the goals. Saw a stat suggesting the xG after the goals was rounded to to close to 0.

Newcastle game is a good point again in that, Berge/Lukic would work because Newcastle have one of the best trio midfield but they didn't have their talismanic Tonali starting. So having the combative pivot, whilst not overly effective, and ultimately, giving us zero points. xG was ok at roughly 1.5 but looking at the stats, Newcastle still managed to create more than enough to justify the win. So not really sure if that's an indication that its effective or not really.

Brentford, hmm, hard one really as clearly a team in transition so perhaps it would of been a different story if we played them now. Look, I'm not saying both aren't ok in circumstances, but its about what you want from the team. If we're playing like Forest last year, being grim to break down, and hoping to create few, but clinical chances/goals, I fear we need better conversion wingers (which might come true with forms to Chuku and Kevin), but I really don't think we have that in Wilson and Iwobi, or with Jimenez up top (or Muniz for that matter, both are good, but not great finishers). So with that in mind, I disagree that Lukic and Berge are an effective duo 6/8 combination and neither seemingly are willing to change or adapt into that. We need more in key passes, goals and assists from one of those slots of we want to push into top 10 territory in my humble opinion.

We created 0.13 xG in the second half, all after Lukic and ESR came on. So in that second half, we created more xG with the Lukic-Berge pairing than without it.

As for Newcastle game, do you really think we lost that game because of our midfield? Again, even Newcastle fans were saying we dominated them in the middle. We controlled them in the middle, and midfield is the best part of Newcastle. Berge had a shot in that game too, while Lukic had a goal, so they both had meaningful contributions in attack too.

Brentford game, both were quite positive on the ball amd regularly joined the attack. And, again, they've had great games together last season too.

I agree about how it's opponent dependent and there are games in which I would play them together and games in which I wouldn't.

I also think we should sign an actual progressive 8 (and I've said this countless times already), because I don't think Iwobi is a long term solution.

I mean....we scored two goals in the first half and created 0.13 in second. Those two stats speak for themselves.

I don't think we 'lost' the game due to the midfield. But we did lose that game and we didn't really play that well or very expansive.

Again, Brentford game was encouraging, but its gone steeply downhill since those levels of encouragement. Plus, Brentford are a more settled side now so perhaps it would be different now. I can't say that for certain obviously but its worth factoring into the conversation.

I still think yes, the pivot is good as an option, but we have that availability if we consider Lukic, and Berge as the squad 6's anyway so we don't really disagree on much here other than perhaps how often and effective they are together. I still think the weird bit is, Lukic and Berge should of been at its most effective, against a team like City. See less of the ball, pressed and pinned back, but it had the opposite effect. Perhaps Pep did his homework and worked around it, maybe  both or one of those two had a particularly bad game. Maybe a mixture of both but it didn't work. It also didn't work against Everton, a completely different side in all manner of ways so the signs are here.

I do hope Alfie's post isn't in response to me as I like Lukic, give him credit all the time, I just don't necessarily think he's a starter in either the 8, or the 6 role right now ahead of Berge. That doesn't mean I don't rate him, support him, or think that'll change. Its just my opinion on current form.

No it's not directed at anyone, just my own thoughts on this particular game, it just wasn't his day.

[SerbianLad]

I mean....we scored two goals in the first half and created 0.13 in second. Those two stats speak for themselves.

I don't think we 'lost' the game due to the midfield. But we did lose that game and we didn't really play that well or very expansive.

Again, Brentford game was encouraging, but its gone steeply downhill since those levels of encouragement. Plus, Brentford are a more settled side now so perhaps it would be different now. I can't say that for certain obviously but its worth factoring into the conversation.

I still think yes, the pivot is good as an option, but we have that availability if we consider Lukic, and Berge as the squad 6's anyway so we don't really disagree on much here other than perhaps how often and effective they are together. I still think the weird bit is, Lukic and Berge should of been at its most effective, against a team like City. See less of the ball, pressed and pinned back, but it had the opposite effect. Perhaps Pep did his homework and worked around it, maybe  both or one of those two had a particularly bad game. Maybe a mixture of both but it didn't work. It also didn't work against Everton, a completely different side in all manner of ways so the signs are here.

I do hope Alfie's post isn't in response to me as I like Lukic, give him credit all the time, I just don't necessarily think he's a starter in either the 8, or the 6 role right now ahead of Berge. That doesn't mean I don't rate him, support him, or think that'll change. Its just my opinion on current form.

Obviously Iwobi is more progressive than either one of Lukic and Berge, but equally, you can't compare the first half to the second as we were on the top in the first half. We can't know if we would have been on the top with Berge and Lukic or not. In the second half, we created more with Berge-Lukic than we did with Berge-Iwobi(again, because Iwobi is more progressive than both Berge and Lukic, we probably wouldn't have created as much as we did in the first half if we started with Berge-Lukic), but I can't see how anyone could make an argument that we didn't improve significantly with Berge-Lukic in that match (compared to the start of second half). To me it showed that that partnership still has it's place in certain scenarios and that it can definitely still work.

Newcastle game I completely disagree with. We had a terrible start of the game,but we grew in to the game and completely dominated until the equaliser. After we equalised we dropped off(which actually coincided with Lukic leaving the pitch and us breaking up the Berge-Lukic partnership). The xG with Berge-Lukic on the pitch was 1.59-1.53, which is excellent for a game away to Newcastle, imo.

[SerbianLad]

To further add to the Newcastle game point, xG in the Newcastle game with the Berge-Lukic partnership 1.59-1.53 in favour of Newcastle. xG without the Berge-Lukic partnership 0.55-0.00 in favour of Newcastle. I'm sorry but, frankly, I think it's quite ridiculous to say that the Berge-Lukic partnership didn't work against Newcastle. Particularly in the second half, where the xG with the two of them together was 0.65-1.20 in our favour. Games like Newcastle are exactly the type of games Berge-Lukic partnership should start in, even if we get a more progressive option for the 8 role.

[FFC1987]

To further add to the Newcastle game point, xG in the Newcastle game with the Berge-Lukic partnership 1.59-1.53 in favour of Newcastle. xG without the Berge-Lukic partnership 0.55-0.00 in favour of Newcastle. I'm sorry but, frankly, I think it's quite ridiculous to say that the Berge-Lukic partnership didn't work against Newcastle. Particularly in the second half, where the xG with the two of them together was 0.65-1.20 in our favour. Games like Newcastle are exactly the type of games Berge-Lukic partnership should start in, even if we get a more progressive option for the 8 role.

Newcastles was 2.05 so not sure what you're looking up. I appreciate you're on one this morning Serb, but my justification for suggesting the Lukic/Berge setup wasn't overly effective was conclusive in that, we lost the game against a Newcastle side missing Tonali. Looking past xG, we had worse stats in almost every category offensively with less successful tackles as a % so even some of our defensive stats were skewed. So you might find this analysis ridiculous, and you're welcome to it. I equally, after the last few games also find it ridiculous and boring that it's even a discussion.

So much so that we both agree we desperately need an 8. Making the entire conversation mute anyway. Talk about losing sight whilst fighting in the trenches here.   

[SerbianLad]

Newcastles was 2.05 so not sure what you're looking up. I appreciate you're on one this morning Serb, but my justification for suggesting the Lukic/Berge setup wasn't overly effective was conclusive in that, we lost the game against a Newcastle side missing Tonali. Looking past xG, we had worse stats in almost every category offensively with less successful tackles as a % so even some of our defensive stats were skewed. So you might find this analysis ridiculous, and you're welcome to it. I equally, after the last few games also find it ridiculous and boring that it's even a discussion.

So much so that we both agree we desperately need an 8. Making the entire conversation mute anyway. Talk about losing sight whilst fighting in the trenches here.   

No it wasn't. It was 2.14 in the whole game, but Lukic came off in the 85th minute and we condeded 0.55 xG during that time, while creating 0.00 xG. You could also look at the exact same fixture last season, we won 1-2 with the Berge-Lukic partnership and a 0.75-1.56 xG in our favour. That partnership quite simply works well against Newcastle because they can match Newcastle's physicality.

And again, lots of those offensive stats from Newcastle literally came in the shirt period without the Berge-Lukic partnership. E.g. Number of shots before the Lukic substitution 13-12 in favour of Newcastle. 5-0 after Lukic was subbed off.

[FFC1987]

Newcastles was 2.05 so not sure what you're looking up. I appreciate you're on one this morning Serb, but my justification for suggesting the Lukic/Berge setup wasn't overly effective was conclusive in that, we lost the game against a Newcastle side missing Tonali. Looking past xG, we had worse stats in almost every category offensively with less successful tackles as a % so even some of our defensive stats were skewed. So you might find this analysis ridiculous, and you're welcome to it. I equally, after the last few games also find it ridiculous and boring that it's even a discussion.

So much so that we both agree we desperately need an 8. Making the entire conversation mute anyway. Talk about losing sight whilst fighting in the trenches here.   

No it wasn't. It was 2.14 in the whole game, but Lukic came off in the 85th minute and we condeded 0.55 xG during that time, while creating 0.00 xG. You could also look at the exact same fixture last season, we won 1-2 with the Berge-Lukic partnership and a 0.75-1.56 xG in our favour. That partnership quite simply works well against Newcastle because they can match Newcastle's physicality.

And again, lots of those offensive stats from Newcastle literally came in the shirt period without the Berge-Lukic partnership. E.g. Number of shots before the Lukic substitution 13-12 in favour of Newcastle. 5-0 after Lukic was subbed off.

If helpful, I'm using the BBC reports which are quite reliable so not sure what reference you're using.

Not that it can ever happen, but I'd wager with a new 8, or Iwobi, or King, in the 8 with Berge, or Lukic in the 6, for an entire season, you'd get more points out of those combinations, than you would out of Berge/Lukic. Do you disagree?

[SerbianLad]

If helpful, I'm using the BBC reports which are quite reliable so not sure what reference you're using.

Not that it can ever happen, but I'd wager with a new 8, or Iwobi, or King, in the 8 with Berge, or Lukic in the 6, for an entire season, you'd get more points out of those combinations, than you would out of Berge/Lukic. Do you disagree?

I looked at fotmob, sofascore and the official PL app. They all say 2.14. But again, we conceded 5 shots, or 0.55 xG in the few minutes without Lukic on the pitch. So the stats that I put out are absolutely true.

As for the second point, I agree if it's a new number 8 (although, as I said, I'd still prefer Lukic and Berge together in certain games rather than Lukic or Berge).

Iwobi, I'm not convinced yet. The sample size isn't big enough. The only game where I thought it really worked well was the Sunderland game. Wolves game I didn't think it really worked despite the final result. Spurs game, it worked in the first half, looked terrible in the second. Man City game, we created a lot, but that was partially due to Chukwuese having a stormer (although Iwobi in the middle did help too), but on the other hand, the goal we conceded was partially because of Iwobi in the middle. Neither him nor Berge tracked back well enough for their 4th goal. Haven't seen the game back, but from memory they ran through our midfield a few more times (maybe the Gvardiol chance, not sure). Of course he was paired with Berge in all those games, but I don't think pairing him with Lukic will solve the issues Iwobi has in the middle (Lukic is more dynamic but less physically dominant, so we'd probably have similar problems).

King, definitely not. Nowhere near ready for the 8 role physically. I think that will be his best position in the future, but right now, I'd be worried if we started him there.

In short, new 8 definitely, Iwobi maybe and King definitely not, with the slight caveat that I'd still play them together in certain games even of we get a new 8 or if Iwobi proves that he can definitely play there well.

Of course, unless we get an 8 that turns out to be cr*p 

[FFC1987]

Fair response. Some I agree with, some I don't.

I think of the analysis needs to also focus on, if we don't play Iwobi, in the 8, he goes out wide.....and I don't really like him there despite him having good stats there....But I want him in the side, hence why I prefer him in the 8 with King/ESR in front, with a mixture of Kevin/Chuku/Wilson out wide.

We acknowledge we agree, there's an element of usefulness to the Berge/Lukic pivot, but also the need for a new 8.