| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 22:05 - Oct 2 with 3645 views | Antti_Heinola |
An absolutely incredible game of football. After dull game after dull game, QPR ensure this one wasn't a snoozefest by attacking with greater purpose going forward while simultaneously attempting to eclipse their defensive display v Newcastle with something even more terrifying. Bold move. Somehow it worked. Sort of.
1. LEE MASON: I'd be interested to see a video of Lee Mason's greatest hits when 'refereeing' QPR games. From the utter farce of the Derry sending off at Man Utd (never rescinded, despite the fact it was proved he never touched Young and that it should have been offside anyway) to this latest tour de force. I saw it mentioned on here, and noticed it myself at the game: we did not receive a free kick for a foul until the 44th minute of the game. That in itself is an astonishing thing - that a team can play a half of football without conceding a single foul? Throughout the game, tiny nudges on Fulham players resulted in free kicks, whereas any decisions given for us had to be absolutely cast iron for him to blow up - apart from the foul on Shodipo in the box, of course.
I can't comment too much on the penalties, I haven't seen any angle on the first one at all (although why on earth a pull in the box that results in a pen is worth a yellow is beyond me), but the second looked extremely unfortunate. What got me more was that Mason was pointing to the spot almost before the challenge. Has and always will be a dreadful referee - and I usually try to be on the ref's side - they have a very difficult job blah blah, but I can't bear the thought of another game with this clown in the middle doing his level best to skew the result. Not when we're doing our own level best to skew the result ourselves.
2. JIMMY: At the end of the longest of weeks for our beleaguered boss, some light at the end of the tunnel. It's been fascinating to see the swing these last few days. When the story broke, it felt like 98% of fans believed he had to go. By Saturday morning, it seemed at least 50/50, with even his harshest critics starting to believe that the Telegraph's story wasn't quite as devastating as it looked at first. I'm not sure there could have been a worse game for Hasselbaink to face after last week. Playing a team who had ripped his own team to shreds only a few months earlier, and who give us regular pastings on their own patch. Mix that with the sizeable portion of our support who want change at the top, and you have a poisonous cocktail no one would want to swallow.
Yet, he had to. He came out last from the tunnel, refusing to even glance at the fans. His only look was to his goalkeeper coach to whom he gave a 'come on!' clench of the fist sign to. The reaction was difficult to gage from fans, I heard no boos or chants, there were a few claps of support, but it felt wary. We all knew that if Fulham were 3 up before half time as usual, things would get very ugly. But the support, actually, was superb. Far better than it has been at home. Even when the equaliser went in there was only encouragement - it made a huge difference I think.
At the end of the game, Jimmy might've been tempted to come over and clap or wave, but he did neither - he simply urged his players, particularly the apparently reluctant Caulker, to go to the fans and applaud them. His whole demeanour was of discomfort and even shame. And I had sympathy for him. If he was to clap us before the game, what would it mean? 'Thanks for your support?' 'I'm innocent lads'? 'I'm sorry'? Almost any action could have been misconstrued, so he did nothing except make the players show that he was grateful for the support. And with that fortuitous win, perhaps the tide has turned. After all, LBlock gave him three games and we won one and drew two. He's earned at least another deadline.
And there can be no doubt, despite some horrendous defending, that the players still believe in him and are playing for him. To a man they worked their arses off. And Jimmy himself perhaps thought he had little to lose and we were as open and attacking as we've ever been under his stewardship (admittedly not a huge boast). It was a game that proved how attacking and dangerous 4-2-3-1 can be if the wide players provide a genuine goal threat, but also how weak we are through the centre of the park without Cousins or Borysiuk. Or, perhaps, Sandro. So it was a brave selection, and his subs were equally brave. An early rest for the tiring BFG. A huge show of belief in young Shodipo and then, when I think we all expected Sandro for Henry, he made the call to give us some more pace and mobility at left back, withdrawing the noble Lynch and rolling the dice with young Niko. He could've placated the fans, sought to curry favour, but, in this week where his principles took a bashing, he stuck to them here. And, remarkably, was rewarded, even if it meant an entire season's worth of luck came in this one game.
A word, at the end, to the Fulham fans: 'There's only one greedy bastard'? I think if we've learned anything this week, it's that there really isn't only one greedy bastard. That's sort of been the point. Classic wit of the terraces.
3. CENTRE OF DEFENCE: I've seen Hall and Caulker described as both immense and awful. Somehow, they were sort of both. On the one hand, lack of communication, poor positioning, crazy, unnecessary runs upfield and failure to get back quickly enough could and should have cost us dear. However unfortunate Caulker might have been for the first penalty, he was still unwise to be grappling in the box. Equally, when Fulham hilariously wasted their two-on-one v Smithies after Parker's simple yet brutally effective through ball, Hall was badly at fault - playing everyone on by being about three yards behind the defensive line. On the other hand, they worked their nuts off, made some fantastic challenges, some courageous blocks and were visibly exhausted at the end of the game. In some respects then, they were immense. But also awful.
Our defence has good players in it, but at the moment, particularly in the centre, we are all at sea. We said all last season we needed an organiser in there, we bought Lynch, but for one reason or another he hasn't yet been given that role. Yesterday the poor bugger had to fill in at left back, where Aluko taunted him all afternoon with his pace and trickery. I think we need to see what this defence would be like with him at the centre, doing the ordering.
You don't need the best defenders to make a good defence. The great Arsenal back four is proof of that - all good players, but only Adams was ever the best player in the country in his position at the time. But together, they were perfect. Drilled, determined - *organised*. Look what Gigi De Canio managed to do with perhaps the worst back four we've had in the last 30-odd years. We do not have that organisation - too often, Hall and Caulker are miles apart. They are just not working as a team well enough. But who knows? Maybe by persevering we'll get a good defence. Or maybe Lynch needs to be given the chance to knock this porous back four into shape.
Having said all that, as with the Newcastle game, they didn't get much protection from the midfield (or the two full backs either)...
4. CENTRE OF MIDFIELD: First game of the season, the Leeds central midfield stood right back and allowed Henry and Luongo to dominate the middle of the park and control the game. That's rarely happened since - and this had terrifying similarities to the Newcastle game at times. Parker and Cairney in particular tore us apart, but Aluko and Lucas Piazon made equal amounts of hay (which they then casually set fire to, luckily for us). While we undoubtedly played the best attacking football we have this season, and looked dangerous every time we went forward, their passing was slicker and faster, their movement better, their attacks far more direct. And our midfield just could not cope. It didn't help that Henry had to keep dropping deep to fill in for kamikaze runs by our centre backs, but generally we just looked so slow - they passed like we were barely there.
But as with the centre backs, the odd thing was that Henry and particularly Luongo actually had good games. It wasn't like they were making tons of mistakes, it was just that they seemed woefully outnumbered and outpaced. The two wide players in a 4-2-3-1 are crucial. Back in the championship season we had two from Hogan, Routledge, Mackie and Smith - four conscientious, hard working wide players who knew they had to support Adel and Helguson AND help out their full backs and their central midfielders. Yesterday, we played quite wide, sometimes not too far off a 4-2-4, and the holes as they attacked were enormous. If we are going to press that high, we desperately need pace in that centre of midfield and this pair just do not have it. Neither, a little worryingly, does Borysiuk.
But we need to find a balance and fast - yesterday could have been as bad as Newcastle, that it wasn't was because of poor finishing, luck, great blocks and good saves. I don't like Sandro, I want him out, but I think in these situations JFH may need to accept that we could do with his physicality and dynamism, even if it is for an hour, because these two were totally overrun yesterday - although both worked phenomenally hard and Luongo in particular grew into the game fantastically well, and ended it really strongly. Needs a goal, though.
5. WASHINGTON: Now, this is more like it. Finally liberated from having to do a really sh!t impersonation of Heidar Helguson, he's starting to look a better player. Only Jimmy will know why it's taken quite so long to give him a couple of games in this position, but it should have been done much earlier. He could turn into a Jamie Mackie type player, only with a little more guile. Yesterday, he was my MOTM. A superb display I thought - worked his arse off, created chances, finally got his goal and who cares how fortunate it was, and really unsettled their full back all afternoon.
He's taken time to score goals wherever he goes, so now perhaps he'll have the confidence to get a few more for us. It's also encouraging that we have some decent competition on the wings - Yeni, Wszolek, Washington, Nasser (now probably fifth in line) and Shodipo...
6. SHODIPO: Wszolek was struggling. Blowing out of his arse. Not able to really track back. As well as he played first half, he had gone. Here was a problem. I wondered if Jimmy might go 4-3-3 and bring on Sandro. Or play the more defensive Kakay. Or try Nasser. But his belief in Shodipo is clear - and it paid off. The last week has shown us why you have to be so careful with young players. A week ago v Birmingham, Shodipo was ineffective, a bit lost and contributed little. This week he started on the bench, came on, and tilted the game towards us.
There were many things to admire. Speed, strength in possession, determination, some lovely interplay with Chery and I think four dangerous crosses pinged in in the last 20. The only surprise was that it wasn't him that set up the winner, although he did lay the ball off to Chery for that perfect cross. He was also, surely brought down for a penalty - if not, he most certainly should have been booked, because why else, when faced with an open goal from 12 yards and having controlled the ball, would he elect to tumble in the box? Maybe he had no idea about Mason's history and how the chances of him giving us a pen were virtually nil. Still, really encouraging from Shodipo. He won't and can't play every game, but it'll be interesting to see how he develops this season. With Kakay and Hamalainen knocking on the door too, there are things to be upbeat about. |  |
| |  |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 22:24 - Oct 2 with 3567 views | londonscottish |
Great knee jerks, thanks |  |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 06:26 - Oct 3 with 3183 views | Lblock |
Good read
However, point of order, I actually gave him 4 games I think? Plus a caveat that it wasn't about the results more about approach and performance
So have I changed my mind?
Not really. I still think he's clueless and one dimensional but his brief switch in formation and personnel plus good calls on the substitutions on Saturday, coupled with result, means it would be churlish of me to call for his head loudly
I would also disagree that Henry played anywhere near well. His continued selection will add to pressure on ODH and cost him his job eventually.
Great result, strange performance and a stay of execution |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 08:32 - Oct 3 with 2984 views | ozranger |
I think Henry's performance here is definitely in isolation. That being owing to our centre-backs choosing to wander forward and forcing Henry to move in to one of their positions. However, Henry has one very distinct problem which could be either of (a) he has been specifically told not to wander forward in any way by JFH or (b) he lacks confidence in himself. Too many times in this match as in others Henry has been in a position to take the ball forward himself - charge at the opposition - yet instead chooses to turn the ball back. That latter statement leads one to believe he does not have the confidence in himself to make plays forward.
Another point that perhaps can be made, and it is interesting viewing from behind the goal to get that perspective, is that we did not have players who presented themselves in the channels. This may also be a problem for Henry and the centre-backs in that there is no one there to push the ball forward to. Or, was this a problem generated by the fact we were too wide or even from the formation we play? |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 09:17 - Oct 3 with 2905 views | DesertBoot |
Thankyou Antti once again for excelent analysis. Extraordinary game and positives to take from an attacking point of view. Even after scoring in the 87th minute, Fulham were still given glorious opportunities to equalise. It was terrifying as it was exciting! |  |
| Wish I could be like David Watts |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 09:46 - Oct 3 with 2846 views | CHUBBS |
Excellent read that Antti,however I'd find it very strange if Lynch was brought in to be the vocal leader/organiser of our defence with Nedum in it.
If the captain needs another player in to tell him what to do then surely his position as leader of the team is untenable?
Great result but if it wasn't for our keeper and their incredible ineptitude we'd have had another Newcastle style result.
I can't see that win changing things that much as the performance wasn't great But it could have a big impact on the players confidence to help turn things a little. |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 10:16 - Oct 3 with 2788 views | enfieldargh |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 08:32 - Oct 3 by ozranger |
I think Henry's performance here is definitely in isolation. That being owing to our centre-backs choosing to wander forward and forcing Henry to move in to one of their positions. However, Henry has one very distinct problem which could be either of (a) he has been specifically told not to wander forward in any way by JFH or (b) he lacks confidence in himself. Too many times in this match as in others Henry has been in a position to take the ball forward himself - charge at the opposition - yet instead chooses to turn the ball back. That latter statement leads one to believe he does not have the confidence in himself to make plays forward.
Another point that perhaps can be made, and it is interesting viewing from behind the goal to get that perspective, is that we did not have players who presented themselves in the channels. This may also be a problem for Henry and the centre-backs in that there is no one there to push the ball forward to. Or, was this a problem generated by the fact we were too wide or even from the formation we play? |
Ive seen Henry make a few forward runs, he does well, goes past a couple of players then slightly over does it and either gives the ball away or falls over.
Really FRUSTRATING!!!!!! |  |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 10:45 - Oct 3 with 2743 views | daveB |
I thought Henry had a decent game but we did miss Ariel in the middle as we had no one to put a foot in and just let Fulham run at the defence with no tackle going in. We did the same against Newcastle and every chance they had went in but we got away with it at the weekend.
I think we have the making of a decent side at the moment but still a lot of work to be done |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 10:59 - Oct 3 with 2714 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 09:46 - Oct 3 by CHUBBS |
Excellent read that Antti,however I'd find it very strange if Lynch was brought in to be the vocal leader/organiser of our defence with Nedum in it.
If the captain needs another player in to tell him what to do then surely his position as leader of the team is untenable?
Great result but if it wasn't for our keeper and their incredible ineptitude we'd have had another Newcastle style result.
I can't see that win changing things that much as the performance wasn't great But it could have a big impact on the players confidence to help turn things a little. |
I don't know about untenable. It's usual for a centre back to do the organising, so I don't see why it would be an issue. I'm sure Bidwell didn't organise the defence at Brentford, but he was still captain.
The whole Ned as captain thing gets well overblown IMO. Sticking the armband on someone else will not change a single result.
I thought the performance was pretty good - we looked very dangerous going forward and last 20 we were the dominant side - did really well to weather it all and actually looked the most likely to win then. But totally agree, they could have had six, should have had four!
Hopefully, with Borysiuk and Cousins fit again we'll start to get the midfield right. Three without defeat after the Newcastle disaster and the Hudd loss is progress. Have to build on it now and come back stronger from the break than we did last time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 11:20 - Oct 3 with 2667 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 10:59 - Oct 3 by Antti_Heinola |
I don't know about untenable. It's usual for a centre back to do the organising, so I don't see why it would be an issue. I'm sure Bidwell didn't organise the defence at Brentford, but he was still captain.
The whole Ned as captain thing gets well overblown IMO. Sticking the armband on someone else will not change a single result.
I thought the performance was pretty good - we looked very dangerous going forward and last 20 we were the dominant side - did really well to weather it all and actually looked the most likely to win then. But totally agree, they could have had six, should have had four!
Hopefully, with Borysiuk and Cousins fit again we'll start to get the midfield right. Three without defeat after the Newcastle disaster and the Hudd loss is progress. Have to build on it now and come back stronger from the break than we did last time. |
One positive about the faults in the team is that they are all visible and curable. A few tweaks here and there and we get results like Saturday.
Some clubs, like QPR were in the Prem, have terminal rot; issues that no player or manager can solve. I'm grateful we're not in that category anymore.
Good stuff. [Post edited 3 Oct 2016 11:25]
|  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 11:41 - Oct 3 with 2622 views | jonno |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 10:45 - Oct 3 by daveB |
I thought Henry had a decent game but we did miss Ariel in the middle as we had no one to put a foot in and just let Fulham run at the defence with no tackle going in. We did the same against Newcastle and every chance they had went in but we got away with it at the weekend.
I think we have the making of a decent side at the moment but still a lot of work to be done |
Exactly right - you cannot allow opposing midfield players the sort of time on the ball and the space we were giving them, any half decent player will murder you and that is what has been happening with opposing midfielders "running the game". But apart from that I thought we played extremely well and always looked dangerous on the attack. If we can close down the midfield area when not in possession we have the makings of a good side. |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 12:25 - Oct 3 with 2568 views | traininvain |
Interesting that Wszolek was struggling. Might explain why he didn't start against Birmingham as possibly not fully fit.
Just goes to show that maybe there is logic to some of JFH's seemingly unorthodox decisions. |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 13:25 - Oct 3 with 2460 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 12:25 - Oct 3 by traininvain |
Interesting that Wszolek was struggling. Might explain why he didn't start against Birmingham as possibly not fully fit.
Just goes to show that maybe there is logic to some of JFH's seemingly unorthodox decisions. |
yep - 3 games in a week did for him. | |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 13:30 - Oct 3 with 2443 views | WadR |
Good stuff Antti, but think you're a bit harsh on Mason. There was a wonderful Taarabt-esque bit of skill from him that took the ball away from a Fulham player at the edge of the QPR box and sprung a counter attack for us. Few referees are capable of such deftness and vision. |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 14:01 - Oct 3 with 2398 views | Hunterhoop |
Interesting, but I don't really agree with your assessment, Antti, certainly not from a tactical standpoint.
Most fans seem to accept, Henry and Luongo played well. I certainly think Luongo was excellent. Love to know his tackle count. My mate and I counted 4 in the first half. He was top in the league last week with 4 in the whole match....
Equally, some, yourself included, praise Hall and Caulker for their defending when the ball got within touching distance, if not their positioning, which I maintain was awful. And positioning is far more important. The best defenders (think Hansen, Moore, etc) didn't need to dive in, make last ditch blocks, etc, because they were already in the right place to snuff out danger earlier.
But, if Henry and Luongo played well, but the centre halves didn't get much protection, why were we so open.
Well, here's my take; no one else seems to be asking this.
1) We are NOT really playing 4-2-3-1. We are playing 4-1-3-1-1. When Henry plays, he sits deep, much deeper than his partner. It's partly because it's safer for him, he gets more time, and partly because our centre halves' positioning is so woeful, he needs to. This leaves his partner having to cover a lot of ground because they don't press or hastle or get tight as a pair. Henry wants the play in front of him because he doesn't have the legs to get back if the play gets the wrong side of him.
2) Chery is playing more as a forward in the Taarabt role, than a supporting midfielder. He doesn't get back goal side when the oppo have the ball. He seems to press the defenders, but, once they've moved it past him into the midfield, he disappears.
- both these points means Luongo is massively outnumbered. I thought he did an outstanding job covering: a) the amount of ground he did, and b) actually getting close enough to their players in possession to put tackles in! He also carried the ball forward well.
3) But this stretching of the middle 3 so they're playing almost linearly (1-1-1), isn't the only problem. Our wide players were a massive issue, defensively on Sat especially. This is where I disagree with your Washington assessment. He worked his nuts off...yes. His positional play both in an out of possession was terrible though. And put additional strain on the problems above.
To explain, when we had the ball, Lynch often looked up and Washington was narrow of him. The winger should be wider of the FB so the FB can pass it forward to the wingers feet. If he's narrow - often Washinton was inside the full back marking him - it makes the pass very risky as Washinton can get crowded out by the oppo full back and centre half.
If we then lose it...or if we're out of possession, Washington was then far too high up the pitch and far too narrow so Lynch was faced with a FB who'd got in behind Washington and a winger. What happens then is either Chery or, more often Luongo, has to cover across. This means, if the oppo can shift it back into the middle, we're now outnumbered there, especially with Henry sitting too deep.
Ultimately, if your wide player gets plays more as a forward and not a left winger, nor shape goes Washington's pace gave us a good outlet in the game, but positionally he simply didn't play as a left winger.
Pavel is a genuine winger and did a much better job positionally hence why, first half especially, almost all their attacks came down our left. However, like you say, he tired quickly.
Shape wise we have a real problem. It stems from the two centre halves being far to far apart far too much, and the two wide players getting too narrow and/or too far forward, and they both put huge pressure on the central midfielders, who, as a result, looked overrun. This is further exacerbated by Henry wanting to play safe, sit deep and not get tight in case they get behind him. But it means we let the opposition midfield simply "play" too much.
There are some solutions here:
1) Change the central defensive partnership. I want to see Lynch there, probably with Hall. They have got to communicate better and play narrower...so there is no easy ball through the middle of us.
2) We need to be clear where Chery is playing. He has to have some responsibilities when we're out of possession. He needs to help the central midfield more. If he's no. 10, he's no. 10 IN possession, and he's a central midfielder out of possession.
3) Wide players....they need to play as wide players for the good of the shape of the team. If Washington or another "forward", ie. Ngbakoto, plays wide left...they need to play wide left. They can't let their full backs be waltzing in behind them down the flank. It pulls our midfield completely out of shape.
4) Henry must be told to push up and get out to the challenge for the ball in the middle with Luongo. Or whoever plays with Luongo. He's trying to "protect" (or possibly being told to), but it's inviting pressure. And if the central defenders are better positionally, there's less need for him to drop in.
Ultimately, our shape and solidarity will be enhanced if we play better square pegs In square holes.
I'd like to see:
Smithies
Onouha/Kakay (I still think positionally Onouha is perfectly good at RB)
Hall/Onouha
Lynch/Caulker
Bidwell/Robinson/Hammalinen
Wszolek/Ngbakoto/Kakay
Luongo/Cousins
Borysiuk/Sandro/Henry
Shodipo/ Chery
Chery/Washington (playing off:)
Polter/Sylla
First choice is the first name, but they should be replaced on by a name following them. It's more important for us to have a clear shape and approach with players understanding their roles than shoehorn the "best" 11 players available onto the pitch. |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 15:09 - Oct 3 with 2302 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 14:01 - Oct 3 by Hunterhoop |
Interesting, but I don't really agree with your assessment, Antti, certainly not from a tactical standpoint.
Most fans seem to accept, Henry and Luongo played well. I certainly think Luongo was excellent. Love to know his tackle count. My mate and I counted 4 in the first half. He was top in the league last week with 4 in the whole match....
Equally, some, yourself included, praise Hall and Caulker for their defending when the ball got within touching distance, if not their positioning, which I maintain was awful. And positioning is far more important. The best defenders (think Hansen, Moore, etc) didn't need to dive in, make last ditch blocks, etc, because they were already in the right place to snuff out danger earlier.
But, if Henry and Luongo played well, but the centre halves didn't get much protection, why were we so open.
Well, here's my take; no one else seems to be asking this.
1) We are NOT really playing 4-2-3-1. We are playing 4-1-3-1-1. When Henry plays, he sits deep, much deeper than his partner. It's partly because it's safer for him, he gets more time, and partly because our centre halves' positioning is so woeful, he needs to. This leaves his partner having to cover a lot of ground because they don't press or hastle or get tight as a pair. Henry wants the play in front of him because he doesn't have the legs to get back if the play gets the wrong side of him.
2) Chery is playing more as a forward in the Taarabt role, than a supporting midfielder. He doesn't get back goal side when the oppo have the ball. He seems to press the defenders, but, once they've moved it past him into the midfield, he disappears.
- both these points means Luongo is massively outnumbered. I thought he did an outstanding job covering: a) the amount of ground he did, and b) actually getting close enough to their players in possession to put tackles in! He also carried the ball forward well.
3) But this stretching of the middle 3 so they're playing almost linearly (1-1-1), isn't the only problem. Our wide players were a massive issue, defensively on Sat especially. This is where I disagree with your Washington assessment. He worked his nuts off...yes. His positional play both in an out of possession was terrible though. And put additional strain on the problems above.
To explain, when we had the ball, Lynch often looked up and Washington was narrow of him. The winger should be wider of the FB so the FB can pass it forward to the wingers feet. If he's narrow - often Washinton was inside the full back marking him - it makes the pass very risky as Washinton can get crowded out by the oppo full back and centre half.
If we then lose it...or if we're out of possession, Washington was then far too high up the pitch and far too narrow so Lynch was faced with a FB who'd got in behind Washington and a winger. What happens then is either Chery or, more often Luongo, has to cover across. This means, if the oppo can shift it back into the middle, we're now outnumbered there, especially with Henry sitting too deep.
Ultimately, if your wide player gets plays more as a forward and not a left winger, nor shape goes Washington's pace gave us a good outlet in the game, but positionally he simply didn't play as a left winger.
Pavel is a genuine winger and did a much better job positionally hence why, first half especially, almost all their attacks came down our left. However, like you say, he tired quickly.
Shape wise we have a real problem. It stems from the two centre halves being far to far apart far too much, and the two wide players getting too narrow and/or too far forward, and they both put huge pressure on the central midfielders, who, as a result, looked overrun. This is further exacerbated by Henry wanting to play safe, sit deep and not get tight in case they get behind him. But it means we let the opposition midfield simply "play" too much.
There are some solutions here:
1) Change the central defensive partnership. I want to see Lynch there, probably with Hall. They have got to communicate better and play narrower...so there is no easy ball through the middle of us.
2) We need to be clear where Chery is playing. He has to have some responsibilities when we're out of possession. He needs to help the central midfield more. If he's no. 10, he's no. 10 IN possession, and he's a central midfielder out of possession.
3) Wide players....they need to play as wide players for the good of the shape of the team. If Washington or another "forward", ie. Ngbakoto, plays wide left...they need to play wide left. They can't let their full backs be waltzing in behind them down the flank. It pulls our midfield completely out of shape.
4) Henry must be told to push up and get out to the challenge for the ball in the middle with Luongo. Or whoever plays with Luongo. He's trying to "protect" (or possibly being told to), but it's inviting pressure. And if the central defenders are better positionally, there's less need for him to drop in.
Ultimately, our shape and solidarity will be enhanced if we play better square pegs In square holes.
I'd like to see:
Smithies
Onouha/Kakay (I still think positionally Onouha is perfectly good at RB)
Hall/Onouha
Lynch/Caulker
Bidwell/Robinson/Hammalinen
Wszolek/Ngbakoto/Kakay
Luongo/Cousins
Borysiuk/Sandro/Henry
Shodipo/ Chery
Chery/Washington (playing off:)
Polter/Sylla
First choice is the first name, but they should be replaced on by a name following them. It's more important for us to have a clear shape and approach with players understanding their roles than shoehorn the "best" 11 players available onto the pitch. |
can't argue with much of that mate!
i also agreed the central midfield players played well, but they were still ripped a new one.
Good analysis though - better than i could do!
I do think there attacks came down our left because they targeted Lynch though, rather than Wash not being in position. I also think wingers should mix it up - come inside and go outside, but equally there were several occasions when Wash should have been wide for Lynch and wasn't. But it's a new position for him. He's bright, he'll learn! | |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 15:36 - Oct 3 with 2254 views | PinnerPaul |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 06:26 - Oct 3 by Lblock |
Good read
However, point of order, I actually gave him 4 games I think? Plus a caveat that it wasn't about the results more about approach and performance
So have I changed my mind?
Not really. I still think he's clueless and one dimensional but his brief switch in formation and personnel plus good calls on the substitutions on Saturday, coupled with result, means it would be churlish of me to call for his head loudly
I would also disagree that Henry played anywhere near well. His continued selection will add to pressure on ODH and cost him his job eventually.
Great result, strange performance and a stay of execution |
Nope - it was 3! | | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 16:03 - Oct 3 with 2229 views | vegasranger |
Thanks for the balanced report Antti. Managed to watch the extended highlights and there seemed to be some serious issues in central defence and central midfield. Parker seemed to be running wild a bit like Shelvey for Newcastle. They had way too many chances. Why do we continue to play so narrow and why do we still seem to be unfit? At the end of the day an excellent result and much needed points but feel it's covering over a lot of cracks. | | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 16:41 - Oct 3 with 2178 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 16:03 - Oct 3 by vegasranger |
Thanks for the balanced report Antti. Managed to watch the extended highlights and there seemed to be some serious issues in central defence and central midfield. Parker seemed to be running wild a bit like Shelvey for Newcastle. They had way too many chances. Why do we continue to play so narrow and why do we still seem to be unfit? At the end of the day an excellent result and much needed points but feel it's covering over a lot of cracks. |
Cheers!
Well, we're not unfit. Fulham were gone on 70 mins and we were still causing problems. Only one side in it for last 15-20 mins. Also, felt if anything we were too wide, not too narrow, which meant a lot of gaps! | |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 17:40 - Oct 3 with 2098 views | A40Bosh |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 16:41 - Oct 3 by Antti_Heinola |
Cheers!
Well, we're not unfit. Fulham were gone on 70 mins and we were still causing problems. Only one side in it for last 15-20 mins. Also, felt if anything we were too wide, not too narrow, which meant a lot of gaps! |
I agree about the fitness thing - having been there and then watched it all again last night on QPR Player to get a different perspective, it is evident that we were still on the pace through out and I think the sub changes JFH made on Saturday were more effective than previously.
I do think it has to be acknowledged that when Parker went off we appeared to be under less pressure coming through the middle. However, at that stage we had seemed to push Caulker in to an attacking central midfield role with Karl Henry playing just in front of Alex Smithies.
Throughout we seemed to play with a very high line and I suspect this was deliberate tactics, which unfortunately probably lead to them springing the trap door so often and having one on one with Smithies and the various hoardings around the goal  |  |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 19:58 - Oct 3 with 1979 views | derbyhoop |
To me, the problems stemmed from the CB combination. They played too far apart and Caulker seemed to want to go on far too many forays forward. As a result Henry was playing far deeper than he should have to have done. Did a decent job, but not one he should have been doing. Consequently, after the first 20 minutes, they started to cut us apart.
Somebody needs to identify who is bossing the game and get one of ours to sit on him. Shelvey did it for Newcastle and Parker, who is 35 FFS, did it on Saturday. If you cannot get the 2 central midfielders stopping them from playing then Chery has to up the defensive side of his game.
We got away with it on Saturday. Do it again and we won't be so lucky. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 20:41 - Oct 3 with 1925 views | Lblock |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 15:36 - Oct 3 by PinnerPaul |
Nope - it was 3! |
Fair enough but in my circle most had said 4 games; a definite 50-50 split amongst those in it as well
I just don't see a man with a plan
I do see a squad with no pace, lacking fitness, confused and set up scared to lose rather than Brave to win
His naivety is clear as day
So.........it's a no from me | |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 20:54 - Oct 3 with 1902 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 20:41 - Oct 3 by Lblock |
Fair enough but in my circle most had said 4 games; a definite 50-50 split amongst those in it as well
I just don't see a man with a plan
I do see a squad with no pace, lacking fitness, confused and set up scared to lose rather than Brave to win
His naivety is clear as day
So.........it's a no from me |
Just curious, and definitely not after a row, but how did you get to that figure of 3 or 4? | | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 21:21 - Oct 3 with 1844 views | Lblock |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 20:54 - Oct 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Just curious, and definitely not after a row, but how did you get to that figure of 3 or 4? |
Random
It was all about going up to the next international break
I thought I included Sunderland making it 4 games
No matter.
The dye is cast | |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 00:42 - Oct 4 with 1676 views | Northernr |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 20:41 - Oct 3 by Lblock |
Fair enough but in my circle most had said 4 games; a definite 50-50 split amongst those in it as well
I just don't see a man with a plan
I do see a squad with no pace, lacking fitness, confused and set up scared to lose rather than Brave to win
His naivety is clear as day
So.........it's a no from me |
Which means it's only ten and half months before you're calling for whoever's next to be sacked. |  | | |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 10:30 - Oct 4 with 1432 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Antti's 6 Knee Jerks - Fulham 1 QPR 2 on 20:41 - Oct 3 by Lblock |
Fair enough but in my circle most had said 4 games; a definite 50-50 split amongst those in it as well
I just don't see a man with a plan
I do see a squad with no pace, lacking fitness, confused and set up scared to lose rather than Brave to win
His naivety is clear as day
So.........it's a no from me |
Well they were clearly fit on Sat, lasting longer than Fulham - one or two knackered due to injury or playing three games in 7 days.
They didn't look confused.
They were extremely together as a team - witness scenes at the end.
And they were certainly brave to win.
Hasn't always been the case, but good signs.
The good thing about naivety is that it disappears with experience. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
