huss9 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, 80 said: Easily, with a proper striker. so not with the team that played, then. we would have been better with joelinton in the team but we didnt have him either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRaspberryJam Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, 80 said: Easily, with a proper striker. Which proper striker are you referring to that would have bagged 5? Haaland? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, huss9 said: so not with the team that played, then. we would have been better with joelinton in the team but we didnt have him either. Being carved open is being carved open. This wasn't a steely, forbidding defensive display, it was a smash and grab, with unlikely goalscorers making up for our main attackers fumbling almost everything they touched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRaspberryJam Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, 80 said: Being carved open is being carved open. This wasn't a steely, forbidding defensive display, it was a smash and grab, with unlikely goalscorers making up for our main attackers fumbling almost everything they touched. what game were you watching man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancing Brave Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, 80 said: Being carved open is being carved open. This wasn't a steely, forbidding defensive display, it was a smash and grab, with unlikely goalscorers making up for our main attackers fumbling almost everything they touched. Tart's arse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 52 minutes ago, Weezertron said: I think for the most part people are suggesting subs are made as a means to get ahead of fatigue and injury crisis. I agree with this normally, but we had a two week break and looked even worse than when we were "fatigued". Seems more of a confidence thing, because as soon as we went 2-0 up, suddenly we were passing all around their press. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, Dancing Brave said: Tart's arse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 41 minutes ago, 80 said: It was more the dearth of alternatives. We were lucky to win tonight, they could have had 5. I thought we played pretty badly for the most part. But that just isn’t true, is it? We could have had 5 and all then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 They could have had 5 with 3 shots on goal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Puppets Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 24 minutes ago, 80 said: Being carved open is being carved open. This wasn't a steely, forbidding defensive display, it was a smash and grab, with unlikely goalscorers making up for our main attackers fumbling almost everything they touched. Eh? I watched a really scrappy game… one where both teams were poor… one where Fulham had 2/3 shots on goal all game… and where we took two chances that fell our way. We didn’t play well with the ball, but defensively we were pretty good. The midfield for me is the problem. A seeming lack of confidence / ability to keep the ball. Understandable considering the absentees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, Menace said: They could have had 5 with 3 shots on goal If they had better players they would have had more shots, obviously. this forum man, can’t people find any enjoyment anymore? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 8 minutes ago, Menace said: They could have had 5 with 3 shots on goal Their problem wasn't just the shooting, they just had no one to attack the ball. There was one particular cross in the first half which I was worried our defenders might deflect it in even if their forwards were too timid to attack it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, Menace said: They could have had 5 with 3 shots on goal They had 14 shots on goal? Not counting the fairly marginally offside goal and the ball whizzing across the face of our goal untouched by attackers or defenders several times. Maybe this is some strange new breed of defensive genius I'm not familiar with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, TRon said: Their problem wasn't just the shooting, they just had no one to attack the ball. There was one particular cross in the first half which I was worried our defenders might deflect it in even if their forwards were too timid to attack it. Doesn't count mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, 80 said: They had 14 shots on goal? Not counting the fairly marginally offside goal and the ball whizzing across the face of our goal untouched by attackers or defenders several times. Maybe this is some strange new breed of defensive genius I'm not familiar with. Yep, I thought it was as much to do with poor decision-making and a lack of composure from Fulham. You can’t rely on that being the case every week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said: Eh? I watched a really scrappy game… one where both teams were poor… one where Fulham had 2/3 shots on goal all game… and where we took two chances that fell our way. We didn’t play well with the ball, but defensively we were pretty good. The midfield for me is the problem. A seeming lack of confidence / ability to keep the ball. Understandable considering the absentees. I can go along with most of that, but on balance of play I'd have to say they deserved the win. 3-1 to them would've been a perfectly understandable result. They had 2-3 shots on target, but it's deceiving if we ignore events like that shot they screwed wide towards the end when it looked easier to score. Defensively we weren't awful, we weren't collapsing at all, and I wouldn't call the rest of the performance awful either, but going back to how this started, honestly I expected to win and put in a much more convincing display tonight, and that was very far from the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Thought Fulham looked pretty toothless like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Just now, The Prophet said: Thought Fulham looked pretty toothless like. Crosses into the box and shots from distance from the ensuing scramble it looked like to me. Couple moments of miscommunication by us on a couple crosses even made one or two of them look more dangerous than they were. Only clear chance they made was when the game was long since won. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) The main issues arise when we drop deep and go into that flat 4-5-1 formation - it massively isolates our best player Isak for one thing but it also puts undue pressure on the defense. When we’re pressed up the pitch in the 4-3-3 we did last season and lose the ball in midfield our defense is at the halfway line and we have a much better chance of recycling possession. When we’re sat deep we’re fucked when we lose possession as it’s immediately in or around our box and we’re scrambling. We’re at our best in that true 4-3-3 pressuring up the pitch. When we drop into the flat 4-5-1 like we did today (and have many many times this season but didn’t last season) we play like garbage. Edited January 27 by cubaricho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 18 minutes ago, 80 said: They had 14 shots on goal? Not counting the fairly marginally offside goal and the ball whizzing across the face of our goal untouched by attackers or defenders several times. Maybe this is some strange new breed of defensive genius I'm not familiar with. they had 3 shots on goal, and 14 shots total. They rarely looked like they could produce anything other than speculative efforts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Our midfield was overran all game and we banked on them not having quality in the final third. Play like that against Villa who are far superior to Fulham and we get ruined. 4-3-3 vs villa is sending the team to the slaughter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, Vinny Green Balls said: they had 3 shots on goal, and 14 shots total. They rarely looked like they could produce anything other than speculative efforts. They're all shots on goal, just not accurate ones Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 11 minutes ago, 80 said: I can go along with most of that, but on balance of play I'd have to say they deserved the win. 3-1 to them would've been a perfectly understandable result. They had 2-3 shots on target, but it's deceiving if we ignore events like that shot they screwed wide towards the end when it looked easier to score. Defensively we weren't awful, we weren't collapsing at all, and I wouldn't call the rest of the performance awful either, but going back to how this started, honestly I expected to win and put in a much more convincing display tonight, and that was very far from the case. It is crazy to suggest that a 3-1 to them is a perfectly understandable result. We were pretty shit for 60 minutes, but they were shit even when they dominated. They did not deserve to win at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmesy Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 9 minutes ago, TRC said: Our midfield was overran all game and we banked on them not having quality in the final third. Play like that against Villa who are far superior to Fulham and we get ruined. 4-3-3 vs villa is sending the team to the slaughter They obviously identified our CM as an area of weakness, which any team with half a brain in charge will do. Only takes 10 minutes of watching us to realise how gaping the holes in our midfield are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, Vinny Green Balls said: It is crazy to suggest that a 3-1 to them is a perfectly understandable result. We were pretty shit for 60 minutes, but they were shit even when they dominated. They did not deserve to win at all. They didn't deserve to win because they couldn't shoot for toffee. But they were underperforming versus the opportunities they were creating. I don't obsess over xG, but they beat us on it tonight, and that won't be counting all the times they failed to apply the final touch. In contrast, almost everything we did - which wasn't much for the first 75 minutes - broke down outside their area, apart from the two we scored, one of which resulted from a lucky deflection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now