Morning one and all, Have just watched the highlights on MOTD of yesterdays visit to the Britannia and it once again showed our inability to defend against set plays. Credit where it is due, Stoke play to their strengths and are very good at what they do. They are the masters of delivering and executing set plays, so it goes without saying that it was never going to be an easy task. None the less, from the highlights it seemed that we failed to defend most of the corners at all. Time after time Stoke's players were left unmarked in the area and with a bit better finishing would have scored 3 or 4. Senderos was not at the races and looked very down trodden. Hughes's positionning was not much better. I am struggling to figure out if we are defending zonally or whether we are man marking. I suspect it is Zonal defending which we simply do not have the players to pull off. This was shown by the goal, no one was marking the area that Charlie Adam was in, he had acres of time. Once again, fair play to Crouch but if the ball is going to him you know it is going to be knocked down for an on coming playing. Adam was left unmarked. The preceeding corners seem to be much the same, free headers were abundant. We have to man mark at corners and stay with our men at all costs, the players need to be switched on and not give an inch. To many goals have been conceeded this season to set plays. This was always going to be difficult for us, Stoke are very hard to beat at hom,e and it was no surprise to come away with nothing, but some astute signings in the January window have got to be made. We need some fresh faces in defence that understand how to play the tactics Jol wants. COYW
I agree frogman that we seem to have adopted zonal marking (presumably because Jol believes we lack height) and the players are not carrying it off very well. However, the goal wasn't actually from a corner and the reason Adam was unmarked was because Sidwell inexplicably left him, retreated to the goal line and behind Schwarzer.
If sidwell had not decide to defend on the goal line instead of get in front of Adam we would probably be talking about a different result. If and buts though. You all know what Senderos does to my constitution but he needs more games. We are really soft at defending set pieces. I don't eve think we're defending zonally. We are just pants at the moment. We did miss Brede yesterday, although he's out of form too. What to do? I think the boys need to be a lot smarter but MJ said in his interview we needed to keep the ball in their half, which we did for the most part in the 2nd half.
Indeed we did. Despite the extravagant comments from Pulis we actually had 60% of the posession and Stoke only had 2 shots on target - both in the first half. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/match/2012/nov/24/stokecity-v-fulham Mind you we weren't any better when it came to shooting and this was something the bothered me in the Sunderland match as well. There were numerous occasions when a player could have had a 'pop' (who knows, a deflection whatever) but instead resorted to intricate little flicks/passes into conjested areas.
Morning fella's TWO shots but one of those counted which is all that matters. I'm on holiday right now and thanks to another Stoke fan, I've just watched extended highlights on the internet, tv was out last night due to a tropical storm lol. We also had a goal ruled out for offside, Shawcross hit the bar. Think yourselves lucky that as already pointed out above. We can't finish enough of our chances. From what I did see, Begovic made ONE save 2nd half? of note. For the record Iv'e not read nor heard what Pulis has said yet. He usually talks through his rear end mostly, so that's nothing new. GOOD luck for the season non the less. Pott's
Having been to the game I would suggest that from the 70th Minute when Duff came on, Fulham ran the game without creating anything bar one shot from Berbatov. Stoke were dominant and created all the chances upto that time. Have to say it was the longest we have been dominated a match and quite honestly we should have been out of sight. It was also obvious you missed Hangeland. We should have been 3 up at half time to be fair and 4 within minutes of the restart. You attacked far too late in the game in my view. Best of luck for the rest of the season.
Cheers for that Potts and it has to be said that from the highlights I saw we certainly did not deserve much from the game. I think it is fair to say that both our clubs are now well established in the premiership. We are moving in the right direction and I reckon january could see us bring in some quality players that suit Jol's ambition a bit more. That said as a fulham fan I am delighted with the start we have made and the style of football that Jol is bringing to our team. Pulis cut some slack last season for the direct football that Stoke are imfamous for but I think you are now playing some quality football as well. Shotton looked to have destroyed us yesterday. Good luck for the season.
Frogman Fair play for your comments.. Coming from a Fulham fan, " we played some good football" is the biggest compliment we could get. Always liked the way Fulham play and it's nice to read from a nuetral that, we seem to be gaining some respect for what Pulis is trying to do. More than anything I'm pleased with N'zonzi and Adam both are very good "footballers" something we've lacked since promotion. Hope you do well this season Frogman, like us you have made a solid enough start given that we've both had very difficult fixtures to date.
Have we just totally missed the fact that our tallest and most physical CB failed to even attempt to challenge Crouch for the header leading to Adam's goal? I know Crouch is a dirty ****er with his 'climbing' on defenders, but to not even challenge was appalling.
Bandy, it goes without saying that Senderos should have done alot better, he looks like he needs to get his head back into premiership football after not playing for such a while. Hope he does though by Chelsea.
No Bandit - I copped out of that bit of the saga because I felt I had slagged him off enough in the other thread. At the end of the day though, it was Sidwell's poor reading of the situation (again) which was the ultimate and crucial failing.
