The morning after the night before. I don’t know quite how to rationalise that performance at Stoke. It’s all too easy to blame the weather or the snow, but it seemed horribly predictable that Tony Pulis and his team would end their barren run against us. What was so disconcerting was to see a Fulham side so shaky at the back, defenders making poor decisions and the marking almost non-existent at times. Whether it was just a bad day at the office or the start of an untimely slide, remains to be seen.
The goals were well-crafted on the Stoke training ground but there was some abject defending in there. Huth never should have been allowed the room to flick that header towards goal and it travelled far too far, allowing Tuncay an easy header. Why we aren’t more dominant in the air when we’ve got some tall players – and good headerers of the ball – is baffling.
The second goal would have been funny had we not been the ones who conceded it. Hodgson might have disputed the award of the free-kick afterwards but there wasn’t really a need for Konchesky to make such a silly challenge anyway. It immediately doubled the danger. Etherington had already whipped a couple of dangerous balls and this time the marking was all at sea. As Andy pointed out in the comments last night, Baird lost his man and the fact that nobody tracked two players at the back post is unacceptable.
By this time Stoke’s confidence was flowing. They produced a nice move for the third goal – let’s leave aside the marginal offside decision (because the replays I saw suggested you couldn’t criticise the assistant too heavily) – and Hangeland, who looked woefully out of sorts at the back, allowed Sidibie far too much time to size up his options as the ball came across. The alarming gap between the centre backs allowed Sidibie collect the ball, turn and shoot past Schwarzer with ease.
None of that will have pleased Roy, who himself has come in for criticism for his team selection, particularly for picking Hangeland, who then had to come off injured, and Johnson. Much of this is guesswork as we don’t know just how fit Hangeland was and in hindsight it looks like a poor decision. However, if he passed a fitness test then you can’t blame Hodgson for wanting Hangeland in the starting line-up, even if he didn’t exactly neutralise Stoke’s attacking threat.
The big blow is what’s so far only been described as a ‘bad’ injury to Bobby Zamora. Both he and Johnson were horribly starved of service last night, so it’s unfair to judge their partnership on that performance. Losing Bobby creates a problem as I’m not sure AJ, who still seems a little short of sharpness, would as effective as a lone striker, even if you’d like to switch Gera back into the hole. Plenty to ponder before Portsmouth on Saturday.
No one seems to have commented on how physical Stoke were last night. I thought Sidibe should have been booked in the first half and sent off for his cynical foul on Zamora. Stoke players followed through too often on Fulham players. Still, you must expect this at Stoke, and Fulham were too easily bullied in the first half.
I did mention it in my report, but it’s far from a surprise now. Sidibe is a striker, I think you mean Abdoulaye Faye, who was the one who fouled Zamora.
When Roy and the team play well they deserve praise and we heap it on them in bucket loads. But when we play badly, make poor team selections and tactical mistakes, fans are often told we shouldn’t be too critical. Clearly the ream has been playing well.
So AJ becomes fit and we change the way we play. Brede is not fit so why drop Smalling? Konk has been carrying a back injury and yet we have nobody to cover for him. So as usual your report said it all. It was a bad day at the office. But it was made worse by the Office Manager just making poor decisions. We love Roy. But he just made things harder than they needed to be.
Message to Nick
Stoke too physical?? Its a mans game and not for wimps.
Yes Stoke are physical but never intentionally dirty players. There isnt a cheat amongst them – more than I can say for one incident involving your man Zamora. I bet you conveniently didnt see that on or hear the Sky teams comments.
Mick – a very proud Stoke Fan
Mick
Are you one of the proud Stoke fans who booed an injured Andy Johnson off at Craven Cottage last year? You Stoke fans are so biased I’m not surprised you think your team don’t cheat. You lot and your team are well suited. Zamora is out now because of a deliberate and nasty foul by Faye; and yes, I heard the Sky team saying that Faye was lucky to stay on. So continue playing your brutish style – you will be found out sooner or later, just like the thugish Wimbledon before you. Give me Fulham Arsenal any day
Arsenal yes – Fulham well I think your starting to get found out . Not the club or team you would like to think you are.
I suppose your team never make bad tackles. Fayes was a bad tackle yes but not deliberate. I can think of far worse cheating sides than Stoke. The problem with most people like you is that you are biased by the media.
Yes Stoke are tough but not dirty.
So you got Zamora out now – A big loss. Lets see if you are the team you profess – or are you a one man band !!
Dan
thanks for your comment on “Why Delilah”. A fair and honest comment unlike your co fan Nick.
Good luck to Fulham for the rest of the season !!
No worries Mick. Thought your ’10 conclusions’ was a very good piece.