2019-20 Swingometer - SPECIAL FULHAM EDITION!

[dcdavecollett]

Sorry to press the point again, but we didn't 'do a Fulham'.

They chose to buy ten/eleven players; we were compelled to as our promotion squad was gutted by mass departures.

However, if you choose to stick to this opinion, at least you have a glowing future as a Guardian sportswriter!!

[FatSam]

Sorry to press the point again, but we didn't 'do a Fulham'.

I agree - that was meant to be the implied by the opening point in my post, and I should have probably said 'when people judged that we' in the last paragraph to be clearer. I got lost in a 'who signed who' internet rabbit hole in-between which also didn't help!

[dcdavecollett]

No problems, mate.

[LukeJames]

If we do go down, will doing a Fulham then be known as doing a Villa?

[ChicagoLion]

If we do go down, will doing a Fulham then be known as doing a Villa?

Well no, because someone will say, they did not do a Villa because they did not buy a Brazilian Centre forward, or play in Claret and blue or be based in Birmingham.

[brian green]

Nor are they followed by the African Car Reverser.

[Ads]

The "doing a Fulham" has always been a lazy comment.

We bought out of necescity and didn't buy as well as we could. Fulham made an active choice to rip up what worked and start again. Fulham might say they felt compelled to strengthen, but they had a choice, we didn't.

[hilts_coolerking]

The "doing a Fulham" has always been a lazy comment.

We bought out of necescity and didn't buy as well as we could. Fulham made an active choice to rip up what worked and start again. Fulham might say they felt compelled to strengthen, but they had a choice, we didn't.

I've never really understood the determination to insist that "doing a Fulham" is somehow completely misleading or inaccurate.  They spent a lot after promotion, their new signings didn't improve the team, they went down.

[Ads]

The "doing a Fulham" has always been a lazy comment.

We bought out of necescity and didn't buy as well as we could. Fulham made an active choice to rip up what worked and start again. Fulham might say they felt compelled to strengthen, but they had a choice, we didn't.

I've never really understood the determination to insist that "doing a Fulham" is somehow completely misleading or inaccurate.  They spent a lot after promotion, their new signings didn't improve the team, they went down.

Because it was the assumption that if you spend loads, you automatically go down and "do a Fulham". It was nonsense then, its nonsense now.

[chrisw1]

Whether you like it or not there are a lot of similarities in what we've done.  Yes, our squad was thinner but we didn't HAVE to release Hutton, Whelan, Jedinak, Chester and Albert.  Yes they probably were not good enough for the PL, but that is the judment Fulham made about some of their squad too.  The fact our players contracts were ending doesn't make that decision that different.

We both spent a lot of money, bought pooorly and (probably) got relegated because of it.  I appreciate the phrase is annoying and I've argued against it a lot myself.  But the reality is if we haven't 'done a Fulham' then we have done something pretty damn similar.

[cdbearsfan]

Yes, even if we go down it won't be because we spent loads. Spending loads is the reason we still have a chance going into the last week of the season. We would have a Norwich type points total if we had decided to try to stay up on the cheap. They finished miles ahead of us last year and, unless they get a shock result against Man City, they'll be finishing on 21 poxy points.

[chrisw1]

Yes, even if we go down it won't be because we spent loads. Spending loads is the reason we still have a chance going into the last week of the season. We would have a Norwich type points total if we had decided to try to stay up on the cheap. They finished miles ahead of us last year and, unless they get a shock result against Man City, they'll be finishing on 21 poxy points.

It's not about spending loads, it's about spending poorly on too many players.

[cdbearsfan]

We had to buy loads of players, we had loads leave. I agree about the buying poorly, but if one of Wesley or Samatta (combined value approx £35 million) had turned out to be even vaguely decent, we would be safe by now.

[chrisw1]

We had to buy loads of players, we had loads leave. I agree about the buying poorly, but if one of Wesley or Samatta (combined value approx £35 million) had turned out to be even vaguely decent, we would be safe by now.

But my point is Fulham felt the same.  Just because their poorer players contracts weren't up doesn't necessarily mean they were not essentially making the same decision we did.

I honestly think if we'd got Benrahma, Maupay and Philiips instead of Wesley, Samatta, Trez, Jota, Nakamba, Luiz & one of Konsa or Engels then we'd be comfortably safe now.  This would probably have meant keeping Whelan, Chester and possibly Albert as squad fillers, but they wouldn't have played anymore than Jota or Lansbury anyway.

[cdbearsfan]

I'm not sure Phillips was available, and just signing those players would have left us very prone to injury. It is easy be wise after the event. At the time we needed strength all over the place, you're always buying on the basis that not every signing is going to be a world beater but if you have cover in each position then you'll be able to muddle through.

Not having sufficient cover up front so that we could replace Wesley/Samatta with an actual goal threat is likely to be what proves fatal, not signing a few bench warmers.