Wanderers 0 Fulham 0

[tarian1979]

Scandalous that was disallowed. Thought so at the time (Sit in north lower)

[magic legs]

I can't be arsed going back through older posts when I am pissed up, but even allowing for the shit refereeing, the 2 points were lost to me with the over-cautious line-up (considering how bad Fulahm have been of late)and the end of season performance from the players in the first half. If thats all been said already then carry on.

[DeaneWhite]

I can't be arsed going back through older posts when I am pissed up, but even allowing for the shit refereeing, the 2 points were lost to me with the over-cautious line-up (considering how bad Fulahm have been of late)and the end of season performance from the players in the first half. If thats all been said already then carry on.

 

It's been touched on. I think the fact that if Elmander and Davies had both started, the lack of cover on the bench would have been potentially suicidal. Imagine if SKD is sent off (not unknown, given he commits more fouls than anyone else) then Elmander picks up a fitness-related injury, eg., gets cramp and limps off with a hamstring injury, we have no strikers at all for at least three games. That is until Klasnic (hasn't played 90 minutes) returns from injury or SKD returns from his three match ban. All hypothetical, I know, but this is exactly the kind of thing that the manager has to consider.

[frank_spencer]

It's been touched on. I think the fact that if Elmander and Davies had both started, the lack of cover on the bench would have been potentially suicidal. Imagine if SKD is sent off (not unknown, given he commits more fouls than anyone else) then Elmander picks up a fitness-related injury, eg., gets cramp and limps off with a hamstring injury, we have no strikers at all for at least three games. That is until Klasnic (hasn't played 90 minutes) returns from injury or SKD returns from his three match ban. All hypothetical, I know, but this is exactly the kind of thing that the manager has to consider.

 

VazTe/Harsanyi etc are there to provide cover in emergency are they not?

 

Surely we need to win these games so thats what we go to do and worry about other problems if they happen.

[M G WHITES]

Was gutted when i saw the line up yesterday,1 up front at home v those's shitbags is a joke.

 

We was robbed i know but ffs

Edited February 7, 2010 by M G WHITES

[Guest Frandsen08]

with vlad not being able to play on tues, i couldn't understand why he didn't get more of a game.

[Arnold Jackson]

Both teams were missing key performers and until the last 20 minutes the game was pretty boring. With a bit more composure in front of goal both Mark Davies and the struggling Elmander should have put us 1-0 up. Muamba was at his awesome tackling best and fully deserved to be on the winning side. Knight seemed to relish the responsibility of Cahill's absence and did ok.

 

Like a few I was upset with Coyle's cautious approach. I don't like to have 5 in midfield at the Reebok ever but against a very very weak Fulham side I remain confused and I admit disappointed with Owen on this one.

 

At the end of the day though we have been completely robbed by an incompetent referee. We all have a go at referee's but I feel Mark Clottenburg is making many many errors this season. He was the only person in the whole ground who saw something that frankly did not happen. In my mind we won 1-0 and as such I am sad not to get the points but confident that in the end... we got the job done!

Edited February 7, 2010 by Arnold Jackson

[magic legs]

Muamba was ecellent but the other midfielders need to make themselves more available once he has won the ball - which he seemed to do every time yesterday - so the possession isnt wasted.

[tarian1979]

the movement of some of our players is diabolical. theres only chung yong that makes great runs off the ball. taylor, cohen etc static.

[HomerJay]

the movement of some of our players is diabolical. theres only chung yong that makes great runs off the ball. taylor, cohen etc static.

 

 

thats the one thing we have absolutely ZERO of.

 

but i dont believe thats player, thats down to coaching.

 

so hopefully, it will improve even this season.

 

cohen, who i praised earlier in the season, needs to go looking for the ball far more. otherwise out you go son.

 

i think wilshere could provide this, but not sure he could play in a centre mid of just 2 players.

[newquay central]

Basically not good enough and should have taken 3 points , we need to start winning our home games or we are seriously in the shit .

[Gaz Nt]

Points from yesterdays game:

 

1) Thought Knight had another good game at the back, won 9/10 balls and seems to be far more confident on the ball than he was under Megson.

2) Also though little M Davies played well and chased everything. Bit baffled to see him taken off tbh and not Cohen.

3) Taylor and K Davies were both poo yesterday which seems to becoming a regular occurance as of late. Taylor only benefits the team on Set pieces.

4) Elmo looked good yesterday when he came on and looked hungry, he should have started IMO with the absence of Klasnic and maybe have played M. davies instead of Cohen.

5) The midfield were very pedestrian yesterday and hardly any movement whatsoever!

6) Chungy was hardly involved yesterday - maybe he isnt superhuman after all.

7) Weiss looked good when he came on yest and brought something different to our play.

[Sir_Francis]

Thing is apart from (about) 1975 when George Best, Rodney Marsh and Bobby Moore played for Fulham, can you ever remember a great spectical of a match between the two sides? I certainly can't as each one has been a very dull affair with plenty of draws and nil nils.

 

What about that season they went up as champions and came to the Reebok and ran out 2 nil winners ?

 

Boa-Morte and Saha ran the show.

 

Yeah, we might have lost, but from a footballing point of view, they were on another level.

[DeaneWhite]

VazTe/Harsanyi etc are there to provide cover in emergency are they not?

 

Surely we need to win these games so thats what we go to do and worry about other problems if they happen.

 

Vaz Te barely gets a chance in the reserves. Elmander is clearly not match fit. Harsanyi would be bench fodder at best, but to effectively risk 3 first strikers being out at a time we need the points the most would be suicidal. Can you imagine the outcry had he played Elmo with Davo from the start, then Davo is sent off for an elbow that only the referee saw and then Elmo does his hamstring? We would be left without a first team stiker and lose games we should win. If you only have two recognised first team strikers available, but a midfield of players who want to get forward, you leave one on the bench. With Cahill and Steinsson both out (Steinsson in the warm up), I would have done the same and packed the midfield. Unfortunately, Jussi was up to his usual tricks and with Matt Taylor his normal useless self, the midfield was static.

 

One major point, we played piss poor for 70 minutes and still went away feeling we had been cheated out of a win. We had enough chances to win the game comfortably. Had refereeing decisions been correct, we would have coasted it 2-0 minimum. As it was we were robbed of two points when even by our own standards we were poor.

[Casino]

Had refereeing decisions been correct, we would have coasted it 2-0 minimum.

 

how so?

 

ps i disagree with just about all your post but this bit is worthy of a question

[DeaneWhite]

how so?

 

ps i disagree with just about all your post but this bit is worthy of a question

 

Kevin Davies was fouled in the box in the first half- Hangeland climbing all over him. Any right thinking referee would have given a penalty. Just to note- a free kick for a lesser foul was given a minute later in our own box. Then of course the 90th minute Kevin Davies header. If that was a foul by Davies, then no headed goal would ever be allowed to stand. If anything in that incident, the defender was backing into Davies. At the same time, Zat Knight was being pulled and pushed around the box by another defender. Goal or penalty from that one incident. Take your pick- but no way was Kevin Davies guilty of a foul there. It is quite possible we failed to win that game due to Kevin Davies' reputation. That doesn't excuse the poor performance from the rest of the team one little bit- nor the fact that we shouldn't have needed either of the poor decisions. On another day, Mark Davies would have scored. The save that Schwartzer new nothing about hit the crossbar. Nine times out of ten, those go in the top corner- or if they hit the bar, the rebound falls morekindly. I know we have had too many of these "on another day" moments this season, but it takes nothing away from the fact that even when playing as poorly as we did, we should have beaten them.

 

Disagree all you like with the remainder, but that is the only reasoning I can think of as to why a manager not known for playing negative football would have played 4-5-1 against a poor Fulham team. I would certainly not have started with Taylor. He looks more inept with every passing game. Had Weiss or Wilshire have started the game, there would have been more movement in midfield and maybe, just maybe, we would have used them instead of the hit and hope punt to SKD.

[HomerJay]

Kevin Davies was fouled in the box in the first half- Hangeland climbing all over him. Any right thinking referee would have given a penalty. Just to note- a free kick for a lesser foul was given a minute later in our own box. Then of course the 90th minute Kevin Davies header. If that was a foul by Davies, then no headed goal would ever be allowed to stand. If anything in that incident, the defender was backing into Davies. At the same time, Zat Knight was being pulled and pushed around the box by another defender. Goal or penalty from that one incident. Take your pick- but no way was Kevin Davies guilty of a foul there. It is quite possible we failed to win that game due to Kevin Davies' reputation. That doesn't excuse the poor performance from the rest of the team one little bit- nor the fact that we shouldn't have needed either of the poor decisions. On another day, Mark Davies would have scored. The save that Schwartzer new nothing about hit the crossbar. Nine times out of ten, those go in the top corner- or if they hit the bar, the rebound falls morekindly. I know we have had too many of these "on another day" moments this season, but it takes nothing away from the fact that even when playing as poorly as we did, we should have beaten them.

 

Disagree all you like with the remainder, but that is the only reasoning I can think of as to why a manager not known for playing negative football would have played 4-5-1 against a poor Fulham team. I would certainly not have started with Taylor. He looks more inept with every passing game. Had Weiss or Wilshire have started the game, there would have been more movement in midfield and maybe, just maybe, we would have used them instead of the hit and hope punt to SKD.

 

but maybe weiss would offer no protection to robinson and there would could have lost the game down their right wing???

 

not saying this is a case, but its certainly a thought that would have gone though coyles head.

 

taylor IS playin shit, but you still can not fault he work ethic and the fact that he is defensivly solid (as far as left sided midfielders go)

[Zico]

What about that season they went up as champions and came to the Reebok and ran out 2 nil winners ?

 

Boa-Morte and Saha ran the show.

 

Yeah, we might have lost, but from a footballing point of view, they were on another level.

 

aye, they scored about 15 seconds in and 15 seconds from the end

 

in between we barely touched it

 

and fulham brought about 3000 fans

 

crazy times

[Burndens Bogs]

Kevin Davies was fouled in the box in the first half- Hangeland climbing all over him. Any right thinking referee would have given a penalty. Just to note- a free kick for a lesser foul was given a minute later in our own box. Then of course the 90th minute Kevin Davies header. If that was a foul by Davies, then no headed goal would ever be allowed to stand. If anything in that incident, the defender was backing into Davies. At the same time, Zat Knight was being pulled and pushed around the box by another defender. Goal or penalty from that one incident. Take your pick- but no way was Kevin Davies guilty of a foul there. It is quite possible we failed to win that game due to Kevin Davies' reputation. That doesn't excuse the poor performance from the rest of the team one little bit- nor the fact that we shouldn't have needed either of the poor decisions. On another day, Mark Davies would have scored. The save that Schwartzer new nothing about hit the crossbar. Nine times out of ten, those go in the top corner- or if they hit the bar, the rebound falls morekindly. I know we have had too many of these "on another day" moments this season, but it takes nothing away from the fact that even when playing as poorly as we did, we should have beaten them.

 

Disagree all you like with the remainder, but that is the only reasoning I can think of as to why a manager not known for playing negative football would have played 4-5-1 against a poor Fulham team. I would certainly not have started with Taylor. He looks more inept with every passing game. Had Weiss or Wilshire have started the game, there would have been more movement in midfield and maybe, just maybe, we would have used them instead of the hit and hope punt to SKD.

 

Not a lot to argue with there DW, good post.