It was a poor game and one any discerning soccer enthusiast would surely rather forget. For once the BBC’s seemingly invariable editorial policy of showing any game involving Fulham and a Premier league team other than the ‘top four’, last or next to last on Match of the Day seemed wholly justified. Not that the BBC’s screening of selected incidents from the game, which lasted barely four minutes and went totally without comment, gave any impression of what us fortunate few Fulham supporters actually present saw and suffered.
True to our expectations, Stoke endeavoured to play to their physical strengths. All the ploys we anticipated were there, including: Delap’s exceptionally long, low trajectory, throws; lots of crosses unsuccessfully directed towards the far-post for the elongated expectant Crouch; and a general endeavour to boss the play in a manner appropriate to their abundance of large and combative players. Fulham’s response was also as expected, with the team for the most part retaining their shape, whilst not so successfully attempting to build a passing game. Only the referee Martin Atkinson acted throughout contrary to stereotype, appearing to be in his rare ‘consistent permissive mode’, (last seen in our cup game last year against Bolton Wanderers.) So as in the Bolton game it was again open season on Bobby Zamora, who was persistently clambered over whilst off-the-ball.
In the end Stoke got fortunate and Fulham fairly late on paid dearly for errors by conceding two goals. (The first goal came seconds after the injured Danny Murphy was subbed, when the area he would have marked was left uncovered.) From this game it is difficult to cite specific positives, though I would mention that the re-united central defender pairing of Hughes and Hangeland worked very well despite a severe testing. Also that Andrew Johnson never stopped chasing and harrying, to the continual disquiet of the Stoke defence. His acceleration and his reaction time now seem quicker than ever.
My abiding impression from the game was of the regrettable conduct of many most vocal Stoke fans who jeered Danny Murphy. He was loudly booed whenever he came into possession of the ball, and subjected to abusive chanting throughout the game. I understand the purported justification for the heated animosity displayed towards the Fulham captain throughout this game was the articles he wrote about a year ago, in which he put forward a reasoned and justifiable critique of teams, including Stoke, who at that time over-relied on physical aggression in their play.
The targeting of any player for abuse can never be justified whatever the perceived circumstances. The selection of Danny Murphy as a hate figure seems particularly perverse given that he personifies intelligence in football, both in the manner he plays with his focus on constructive passing and creative control, and from his perceptive comments on the game. As we always have at Fulham, players with such rare qualities should be cherished.
I spoke with Danny after the game. (It was very good of him to talk to me as he was then in process of applying two large ice packs to the knocks he had received, and was clearly still in some considerable discomfort.) I asked him whether he was, as has been rumoured, The Secret Footballer who writes a weekly column in The Guardian newspaper and who expressed similar views and the time. “I’m not the Secret Footballer” replied Danny. “I wouldn’t write anonymously. Anything I want to say goes out in my name………I think that is important.” Whilst we were speaking the atavistic faces of two Stoke (so called) fans appeared pressed up against the other side of the plate glass window, looking in and mouthing obscenities at Danny. This was a graphic reminder that not only is it important to be prepared to speak out and to be attributed for honest and intelligent opinions, but also that in soccer this can be a brave principal to live by. Sometimes our “beautiful game” has very ugly faces.
Josephus
18.10.2011
Whilst I don’t agree with jeering and aggression towards players off the pitch, I feel that Stoke fans were in some ways justified in barracking him whilst he was on it.
There were close to 28,000 people there on Saturday making their opinions felt, when Danny did his piece in the paper I am certain that this reached a much wider audience and has helped perpetuate this erroneous myth that Stoke are ‘overly’ physical.
Yes, Stoke do play to their strengths and there have been some bad, and in the often mentioned, Arron Ramsey’s case, career threatening injuries. That said I feel we play with power, controlled aggression and to our strengths.
We do very well in the fair play league for a team that does use strength as a weapon and finished above a lot of the teams who.
That said, Danny has been, and continues to be an excellent, professional footballer. Who also is an example to all young players how to play the game and conduct yourself on and off the pitch. I do, however, find it difficult to sympathise with the author’s views in this piece.
That said, good luck this season (I used to live on North End Road and will always have a soft spot for your team). See you at the Cottage.
Oooops, laptop meltdown;
“We do very well in the fair play league for a team that does use strength as a weapon and finished above a lot of the teams who finished in the top half of the league, who are considered better footballing sides. Ahem, take a quick look at this
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/fairplay/_/league/eng.1/barclays-premier-league?cc=5739 ”
(time to scrap this aging laptop)
Well, since you got back in the top flight you haven’t finished higher than 13th in the Fair Play league. In the same seasons we’ve been first and second in the same league so if there is one teams’ captain that has some leverage on this topic it would be Danny Murphy!
Amazing that so many words can be written on a game without mentioning that Fulham were desperately poor and managed one shot on target plus one against the woodwork in 90 minutes. I have plenty of time for Fulham but this was by far your most unadventurous display against Stoke since we got promoted. As for Murphy, great footballer and most teams would benefit from having him in midfield. But, if he goes in print to claim that Stoke (and a few other teams) set out to injure players, what does he expect the fans to do when he next visits their stadium? What does he intend to do in retirement? I assume he has plans to become a referee judging by the constant gobbing he did in the referee’s ear on Saturday. 😉
All roads lead to Rome
What planet are teams that loose to Stoke on.?
If you where at the match I see no mention of the fleeting skill of Pennant, and in a nutshell the final secuming to the presure. I didnt realise the fareplay league was what we all espire to.?
We are and always will be an Honest hard working team with good team spirit and I include Fulham in that group to.
Lets look at the ballet dancing queens that grace the top four :-//
Sorry I belive even if it takes time Honesty is the best policy in life and is good for football…
I do agree with most of your post and my response to taptaplin was only on the link he sent to the fairplay league and the point he tried to prove. I don’t like to lose to Stoke (like I don’t like losing to any other team), but have no problem admiting that you were the better side on saturday.
Size & attitude did beat flair & organisation in my book.
Would I be right in assuming English is your second language?
Correct
Yes Nick 13th, not the worst team by a long chalk, but ALWAYS being mentioned. Bad press sticks around. In Danny’s case HIS bad piece of press followed him to Saturday’s game.
He’s a quality player in a currently under performing Fulham (I think they’ll come good btw).
My beef is with the original text. Danny Murphy recieved a hostile reception because of what he said. A surprise? No.
That’s Ok then : )