..I´ll do one of these. When I made my after-match comments yesterday, I hadn´t actually seen any of the game, well I have now, after watching the whole game repeated late last night. Any who listened, as I did, to the game on Canary Player with Goreham and Paul McVeigh, could easily have been forgiven for thinking that they were watching the worst sort of trash imaginable. I´m not exactly sure what they expect to see from two mid-table, hard-working sides, where on the day, both defences were too strong for two toothless attacks. That´s not to say that the intent to play scintillating, flowing football wasn´t there, because it was, especially from City. Snodgrass and Hoolahan particularly were always probing and looking for openings, but Hangeland especially, was always in the right place, in the same way as Turner and Bassong nullified completely everything Berbatov and Rodellega could come up with. Yes, there were lots of misplaced passes from both sides, but that´s to be expected, when it´s not Barcelona and Real Madrid we´re watching. It was sort of game you´ll see dozens and dozens of in the Premier League during a season, and probably a couple of, every weekend, Schwarzer had a handful of saves to make, while I think Bunn only had one serious save to make all game, but does all that make it a dull, boring game to watch? I thought it was going to be, after listening to their commentary, but found it quite the opposite when actually watching it. From fairly early on, Fulham did seem content to make sure they went back with at least the one point and did try to slow things down whenever possible, but from City there was pace, there was movement, from beginning to end. I thought Becchio started slowly but gradually worked his way into the game and considering he was the lone striker, coped very well, as well as being decent in the air he seems pretty nimble with his feet too, looks as if he could be a good cover/foil for Holt if they should play together. The 5 minutes that Kamara got, is not really time enough to judge, but he´s big and strong, looks good in the air and he´s certainly got some pace, could be exciting to follow. For all the recent criticism of Tettey from some quarters, I´d still rather he played for us than against us, he picks up, and cuts out a huge amount of midfield balls during a game with his energy, and although his distribution could be better at times, his advantages far outweigh his disadvantages in my opinion. To a lesser extent, the same can be said of Johnson, and I think to take those two out and replace them with any other midfield paring, and we´d struggle to retain any sort of midfield possession. Personally, I´m glad to see the defence looking strong again, especially Turner/Bassong, which in turn will help Bunn, the more clean sheets we keep, the more likely it is that we will be more expansive at the other end. I know some people were saying that the last couple of games we looked as if we were more interested in not losing than winning, but the fact remains, that is precisely what was necessary in those two games, had we lost one or both, we really would have been looking downwards. I don´t think we can fault the manager for putting defence first, nor do I actually think it makes us into a negative team, certainly with a cavalier defence we´d be in bigger trouble. So all in all, although it´s slightly disappointing that we couldn´t break either Fulham or QPR, the other week, down, given our standing within the League, it´s not in any way surprising. Still two good points. Incidentally, had Julio Cesar played as badly against us as he did against Swansea yesterday, we´d have walked the QPR game. rbf
Surely the point is that as Bunn only had one decent save to make, as Jol clearly set out for the draw, one of Tettey or Johnson could have been replaced. Hoolahan and Becchio clearly needed help to break down a very resilient Fulham defence and, apart from my MOTM Snodgrass none was forthcoming. Both Fulham and Newcastle were very winnable home games for us - had Hughton had the mindset to approach them looking for a win, and what a very different picture the league table would tell now had he/we done so
That's exactly the point and what is most disappointing - the "non-positive" attitude from the gaffer, more so when it becomes apparent the opponents do not appear to be playing to win. We have not become a bad team and I do not believe CH is a bad manager, he's just not what we have been used to and it is taking some getting used to for sure. It's not pretty like it has been for the last 3 seasons but then perhaps we were just spoiled for too long. CH is doing what he believes it takes to maintain top flight football for another season and hopefully he will look to me more attacking after the summer when he will hopefully bolster the attacking options (2 strikers required imo)
Agreed, Thai Yet last year, Holt and Morison worked well for the first half of the season in a 4-4-2 because they took it in turns to pull out wide and run the channels for each other. As I said elsewhere, we need a Snodgrass equivalent on the left hand side, or else Hoolahoop and Holt/Becchio are almost totally isolated - apart from long, hopeful punts in their general direction.
Hi RBF bor, thoroughly enjoyable game between two teams competing but unable to break down each defences. One goal would have settled the issue but Fulham's keeper did the job he was employed for, keep us out. Becchio strikes me as a player who likes the ball on the ground, not an ariel player. Much prefer to see a game where one goal decides as opposed to a runaway victory. Nice to know you can handle prose. LOL. Regards to the King of Alsace.
Yes, another useful wide player. Kamara is supposed to be just that so it will be interesting to see how he fits in. I have been a fan of EB but recent performances have got me questioning his potential but again maybe it is down to how they are playing as a team, at Brighton they were very attack minded, so he shone in that role.
"Qui audet adipiscitur" i.e. "Who dares, wins", is a fine sentiment, well fitted to the SAS, for whom, given their role in life (or death), it might be better phrased "Unless we dare, we ain't going to win". If one seeks to apply it to any manager of a Premier League club, I can think of only one plausible candidate this season, and last -- Paul Lambert. You could make a case for saying it fitted Ian Holloway when in charge of Blackpool three seasons ago -- but then he didn't in the end win. Whether Paul Lambert is going to "win" this season remains to be seen, but at this precise moment there are 18 PL managers including ours who don't subscribe to the motto and who are making a better fist of "winning". My version of the motto is: "Who dares, sometimes wins -- but more often than not comes a cropper". P.S. Wasn't it Del Boy's favourite saying?
To be fair to Hughton, he HAD wanted to take the game to Fullham with two strikers but Holt got injured. However, why we then reverted to the defensiveness if beyond me.
With only one other striker available I would have to guess that he didn't want to start 4-4-2 unless he had his favoured two to start in that formation. Other than that, I too cannot understand why he didn't start that way.
I was referring to the fact that we chose not to get men forward - 4-4-1-1 can be an attacking formation of you commit players forward.
Well it certainly wasn´t as mind-bogglingly dull, nor was the football anywhere near as poor as the 1st half of A.Villa v W. Ham ( just completed ) that really was as dull as ditchwater.
I must admit I gave up at half time! I couldn't get the result I wanted anyhow, I was hoping they'd BOTH lose!
It's just about on a par with the negative 'pass sideways or backwards' guff we were 'treated' to yesterday at Carrow Road. Second half has improved marginally - but how could it not have done?
Perhaps the team had been preparing to play two up front, but when Holt got crocked, Hughton didn't feel like he could continue with that formation, and reverted back to the set-up the team knew and could operate. That is, Holt's inclusion was essential to playing 4-4-2 or 4-1-3-2.
Perhaps the team had been preparing to play two up front, but when Holt got crocked, Hughton didn't feel like he could continue with that formation, and reverted back to the set-up the team knew and could operate. That is, Holt's inclusion was essential to playing 4-4-2 or 4-1-3-2.
Perhaps the team had been preparing to play two up front, but when Holt got crocked, Hughton didn't feel like he could continue with that formation, and reverted back to the set-up the team knew and could operate. That is, Holt's inclusion was essential to playing 4-4-2 or 4-1-3-2.
