collapse collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine

Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Fulham Fallout  (Read 7054 times)

Offline nigel

  • Member
  • Posts: 3132
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2012, 01:21:08 PM »
If we'd drawn or lost I could understand all this "I'd have had him off" or "I'd have done it sooner"
But we won, so, surely there can't be any arguement with it.
From my view point, In the first half 4 or 5 times we attacked on the wings but there was no one in or around the six yard box, so that was 4 or 5 opportunities wasted. I felt in the 2nd half, in particular, we seemed to be lop sided on the left. It seems logical to take one of those off. I, like many others, felt CN'Z was begining to fade out of the game. CN'Z coming off kept balance to the team, it was the right move.
I don't think we'd have won if, say, Gabby or Albrighton had come off.
     

Offline Concrete John

  • Member
  • Posts: 15171
  • Location: Flying blind on a rocket cycle
  • GM : Mar, 2014
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2012, 01:47:00 PM »
If we'd drawn or lost I could understand all this "I'd have had him off" or "I'd have done it sooner"
But we won, so, surely there can't be any arguement with it.

I've stated a few times I would have made the switch with Albrighton coming off.  However, that's just me being honest rather than a criticism of the manager.  Afterall, and as you say, we won the game and his subs contributed largely to that, so well done, Alex.

Offline darren woolley

  • Member
  • Posts: 22351
  • Location: London
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2012, 03:50:18 PM »
Good article again Dave bang on the nail as usual.

Offline Witton Warrior

  • Member
  • Posts: 3500
  • Location: Back in K3
  • GM : Feb, 2014
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2012, 04:02:55 PM »
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.

The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?

AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.

Offline eamonn

  • Member
  • Posts: 18303
  • Location: Highgate
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2012, 04:07:52 PM »
Thought there might be a reference to Mr Deacy. Ireland and Herd got stuck in with some challenges that he surely would have been impressed with.

Offline Surrey Villain

  • Member
  • Posts: 636
  • Location: Now Malvern. Over The Hill. Must change my name?
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2012, 04:55:29 PM »
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.

The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?

AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.

Has anyone considered the crosses were not overhit, just that there should have been somebody on the opposite wing?
It is the same with corners.  Everybody piles into the middle and a ball to the far post is considered 'overhit'.  Fulham's central defenders are giants (so are most clubs' actually) so there is little point putting a ball into the goalmouth, why not keep somebody wide.  Marc Albrighton is a great crosser of the ball, why not make full use of him?

Offline Rancid custard

  • Member
  • Posts: 1833
  • Location: Croydon - hooray for me!
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2012, 06:07:20 PM »
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.

The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?

AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.

Has anyone considered the crosses were not overhit, just that there should have been somebody on the opposite wing?
It is the same with corners.  Everybody piles into the middle and a ball to the far post is considered 'overhit'.  Fulham's central defenders are giants (so are most clubs' actually) so there is little point putting a ball into the goalmouth, why not keep somebody wide.  Marc Albrighton is a great crosser of the ball, why not make full use of him?

This goes back to something I was saying about the midfield days of MON, when we had Ash and Milner/Downing on the wings it always seemed if it was crossed/over hit it they'd always be there to collect it because there was never anyone in the middle. The plan was Petrov to release it to the wing and one of them to whip in a cross for Carew to head in or Gabby to gain half a yard on and poke it home. We were never dominant just outside the area in the middle, which is why amongst other players Sidwell and NRC always came up looking rubbish. It now seems we're trying to play through the middle a lot more at the expense of the wings.

Offline nigel

  • Member
  • Posts: 3132
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2012, 07:00:05 PM »
My mates a steward down at the Villa, and on Saturday he was right by the dug out.
He was saying that AMcL kept shouting to players "Keep the ball, if you can't go forward take it back, just keep the ball"
I know we're not Barca, Real M, AC and even Man U and Man C but that's what they do. Pass, Pass and more Pass, Forward, Backwards and Sidewards, just keep the ball.
I thought that side of our game was good. Add a few penetrating passes and we could start to look dangerous again. Fulham are a decent team and if we'd have kept giving the ball away we could have been in trouble.

Offline Mister E

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10664
  • Location: Mostly the Republic of Yorkshire (N)
  • GM : 15.02.2019
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2012, 07:36:39 PM »
The most interesting fact from the last two games is that Hesk has continued to warm the bench.
D'you think McL has got the hint re the appetite for Our Emile?

Offline Villanation

  • Member
  • Posts: 1775
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2012, 08:13:40 PM »
www.thebirminghampress.com/2012/03/12/the-sun-shines-on-b6/

What can you say, some obvious points and some ill thought out, yes we do play better football without Benty but that's a question of style and how you see the team playing and whats available, nothing to do with Bent's ability, and "the not scoring dilemma"," therein lies the problem", rubbish, and that's easily put right, 1, you stop pissing players about and get them into a mind set of what's expected, and IMO that's precisely how you approach Gabby Agbonlahor, put Gabby up front, drill that roll into him week in and week out and then he will start scoring, he won't get Bents 25 goals in a season,( but then actually Bent won't get 25 or even 20 goals in a season for Villa) but he will get the goals that count and get us the wins that we need and that's been proven, what games has Gabby started up front on his own for us this season and what as been the overall out come of those games......nuff said. 

Offline hawkeye

  • Member
  • Posts: 8973
  • GM : Jun, 2012
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2012, 08:14:11 PM »
Good stuff Dave,

Offline hawkeye

  • Member
  • Posts: 8973
  • GM : Jun, 2012
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2012, 08:27:30 PM »
We look a better outfit without Bent and with Cuellar.
I jut hope AM recognises this and builds from here. The problem with Bent is that he contributes very little, unless he scores he contributes nothing. The defence is allways going to be up against it if every ball played to Bent goes to the opposition. If you play Bent then you have to gear a game plan around him and have the players that can cope with playing with a passenger.

Offline Percy McCarthy

  • Member
  • Posts: 23595
  • Location: I'm hiding in my hole
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2012, 08:36:21 PM »
Spot on hawkeye. Trouble is he will play when fit because he cost 20m. Great goalscorer, not right for this team at the moment.

All my nose mates thought I was putting on a brave face when I said the injuries to Dunne and DB would improve us.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 08:37:57 PM by PercyN'thehood »

Offline Villanation

  • Member
  • Posts: 1775
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2012, 08:44:14 PM »
We look a better outfit without Bent and with Cuellar.
I jut hope AM recognises this and builds from here. The problem with Bent is that he contributes very little, unless he scores he contributes nothing. The defence is allways going to be up against it if every ball played to Bent goes to the opposition. If you play Bent then you have to gear a game plan around him and have the players that can cope with playing with a passenger.

Spot on, mostly, for me Bent represents a style of football that has long gone, fine if your playing for a team like Sunderland, or Sunderland as was, but now most front men need to be able to move at pace, need to be able to work the channels, need to be part of the team as a vital cog, problem for old Benty is if he can't get into the 6yd box and wait for the crosses to fly in at him one after another, forget, he goes missing like he wasn't on the pitch, Villa IMO are just not that type of team.

Offline hawkeye

  • Member
  • Posts: 8973
  • GM : Jun, 2012
Re: Fulham Fallout
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2012, 08:44:28 PM »
Percy I thought exactly the same, losing both has improved us defensively.