Demitri_C Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 I think its just me but fulham really didnt cause us that many problems barring Johnstones world class save. They had a lot of the ball but just foubd it hard to break through us. We defended well amd pressed them. They play great football but the way they try thw fancy passing in their own half is going to cost them as season progresses as there was a nukber of failed passes and they were lucky we dodnt punish them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TrentVilla Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I think its just me but fulham really didnt cause us that many problems barring Johnstones world class save. They had a lot of the ball but just foubd it hard to break through us. We defended well amd pressed them. Agreed but we could easily have thrown it away in the last 10-15 because of Bruce being cautious. The fact that Fulham failed to capitalise on it doesn’t change my view that is tactics for the end of the match were wrong and could easily have cost us. The point I always make is that when we play sides that are better at using possession ie Wolves, if we conceed it to them then sooner or later they will capitalise. That Fulham didn’t due to Johnstone, their inability and some desperate defending doesn’t detract from the fact we needlessly invited them onto us. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 1 minute ago, TrentVilla said: Agreed but we could easily have thrown it away in the last 10-15 because of Bruce being cautious. The fact that Fulham failed to capitalise on it doesn’t change my view that is tactics for the end of the match were wrong and could easily have cost us. The point I always make is that when we play sides that are better at using possession ie Wolves, if we conceed it to them then sooner or later they will capitalise. That Fulham didn’t due to Johnstone, their inability and some desperate defending doesn’t detract from the fact we needlessly invited them onto us. Yes i agree we could have if we didn't defend very well. But fulham found it tough Even when they beat us 3-1 last year when we had 10 men we were still unlucky in that one as we missed chances. I feel we look a lot more solid but bruces subs sometimes are baffling. Like bringing on davis as opposed to hogan who wpuld have been better suited for the style we adopted towards the end of the game. We need to be better with the ball no question. Problem is whelan he is gpod at breaking up play but his passing is awful most of the time . Why cant we seem to fins a dm who can do both? As jedinak also has the same problem and that invites pressure onto us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stratvillan Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 I thought the subs were reasonable. We were being caught out by the ball down our left, time after time, de laet helped in this (and got him game time). I probably would have put Hogan on instead of Davis, but I can see why he took Kodjia off. Thor is the only one I didn't get, because he can't hold onto the ball. In Bruce's credit his change in formation ( doesn't happen often) with onomah pushed up was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 Full credit to the manager for developing a shape into which everyone seems able to contribute, Adomah excelling on the left, Hutton filling in admirably, Kodjia showing he is also a team player, and the chance soon to rest whelan and start Jedi and easily throw in grealish for whoever is tiring more out of Adomah or snodgrass. JT, Onomah and Snodgrass have been top signings too. And those 21 points from 10 games is promotion form. Good old potato face, we have a lot to smile about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 25 minutes ago, RimmyJimmer said: Oh dear, I see we didn't win good enough again for some. I think thats a little harsh. Our aim this season is promotion nothing less. I have said many times that if Bruces style of play gets us promoted i will acknowledge he has done a decent job. But i still wouldn't think of him as someone i want at the club long term. If we sat back against PL opposition like we do in the championship we would be embarrassed week after week. The issue that many of us have is that we simply don't believe his negative approach will accumulate enough points to fulfil that aim. We won yesterday and thats great, but his tactics will, and have cost us points this season. I guess its all about how you rate the squad of players at his disposal. I think he should be doing better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post This Could Be Rotterdam Posted October 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2017 Looking forward I still don't see Bruce getting us up automatic. I can see us achieving play offs but that's more a view of how open this league is than any faith in Bruce across a full season. But should he get us up I fully expect xia to sit him down, thank him for his tenure and show him the door. He absolutely won't be the man for us in the Premier league, and I'd be surprised if many felt otherwise. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 23 minutes ago, This Could Be Rotterdam said: Looking forward I still don't see Bruce getting us up automatic. . And that's the issue mate. Success is subjective, and whilst many may take the view that a playoff position is success, i believe this squad is better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 14 minutes ago, av1 said: And that's the issue mate. Success is subjective, and whilst many may take the view that a playoff position is success, i believe this squad is better than that. Alas, we’re currently the most in-form team in the league (I know, boooo!) so Bruce will be sticking around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastie Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, av1 said: And that's the issue mate. Success is subjective, and whilst many may take the view that a playoff position is success, i believe this squad is better than that. Agree - this squad should be targeting automatic promotion , I think we can certainly achieve it - we are not playing that well and getting results which hopefully means the best is yet to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, bobzy said: Alas, we’re currently the most in-form team in the league (I know, boooo!) so Bruce will be sticking around. That’s all very well but being the most inform team isn’t all it’s made out to be, I mean there’s in form and then there’s really in form, until Bruce gets us really in form the jury is completely out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Stratvillan said: I thought the subs were reasonable. We were being caught out by the ball down our left, time after time, de laet helped in this (and got him game time). I probably would have put Hogan on instead of Davis, but I can see why he took Kodjia off. Thor is the only one I didn't get, because he can't hold onto the ball. In Bruce's credit his change in formation ( doesn't happen often) with onomah pushed up was spot on. We were getting caught on their left, but not so much that it was a concern. When he introduced De Laet we effectively ended up with 5 at the back with Elmo almost a third CB. I’m not sure if that was the intention but it’s what happened and as a result we invited them onto us and had absolutely no outlet. Kodjia absolutely needed to come off, he was done it was more the players he introduced and how they were used that I wasn’t keen on. We won so it worked but It could have been very different and I think it was overly negative . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastie Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 1 minute ago, TrentVilla said: We were getting caught on their left, but not so much that it was a concern. When he introduced De Laet we effectively ended up with 5 at the back with Elmo almost a third CB. I’m not sure if that was the intention but it’s what happened and as a result we invited them onto us and had absolutely no outlet. Kodjia absolutely needed to come off, he was done it was more the players he introduced and how they were used that I wasn’t keen on. We won so it worked but It could have been very different and I think it was overly negative . Would be nice to kill games off rather than the nerve wracking endings we have but I guess it worked yesterday - had we drawn however he would have come in for pelters. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, Eastie said: Would be nice to kill games off rather than the nerve wracking endings we have but I guess it worked yesterday - had we drawn however he would have come in for pelters. Agreed on all points. Bruce is vindicated by the result but I don’t have to like or agree with his approach. It’s subjective I guess, he wasn’t wrong to do what he did especially given the outcome, it’s just not how I want to see us playing in this league at home against a side who were poor on the day and who we had largely controlled for 75 minutes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastie Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Agreed on all points. Bruce is vindicated by the result but I don’t have to like or agree with his approach. It’s subjective I guess, he wasn’t wrong to do what he did especially given the outcome, it’s just not how I want to see us playing in this league at home against a side who were poor on the day and who we had largely controlled for 75 minutes. He is too cautious in his approach - no need to go gung Ho but he is the opposite and it invites pressure on us ; I was surprised to see de laet come on and also surprised not to see hogan get a few minutes as we had little options on the break sitting so deep in the last 15 minutes. That said it was a cracking header from de laet well saved - I think 3-1 would have been a fair score yesterday as we did well against a good Fulham side 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2017 Dunno how I feel about the current train of conversation here. We should've been absolutely out of sight with 15 minutes to go, but through no fault of SB we weren't. Then, as you would expect to see in most games featuring any team, the opposition feel like it "might be their day" and start going hard for the equaliser. He could've kept pushing to get a third, but concede and he'd get hammered for it. He chose to go defensive, but again it puts the risk that we might concede. As it goes I think he generally got it right, certainly De Laet made sense, but I'd have had Hogan rather than Bjarnason though i) because I don't rate Thaw, and ii) Hogan's pace would've given them something else to think about. Tough decisions, and I guess looking at the result he got it right. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, Eastie said: He is too cautious in his approach - no need to go gung Ho but he is the opposite and it invites pressure on us ; I was surprised to see de laet come on and also surprised not to see hogan get a few minutes as we had little options on the break sitting so deep in the last 15 minutes. That said it was a cracking header from de laet well saved - I think 3-1 would have been a fair score yesterday as we did well against a good Fulham side I think bringing on De Laet was a good move, we need to get him fit and integrated into the side no least so we can get Hutton out the side. But also because the games are going to come thick and fast for the next few months and we need to capitalise on our squad strength. I just would have brought him on at RB and pushed Elmo ahead of him if we wanted to tighten up our right. What we did was more 5 at the back. I’d also have brought Hogan on, for his confidence, the above point about the squad and because I think he would have exploited the space they started leaving behind them as they pushed to try and get a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Dunno how I feel about the current train of conversation here. We should've been absolutely out of sight with 15 minutes to go, but through no fault of SB we weren't. Then, as you would expect to see in most games featuring any team, the opposition feel like it "might be their day" and start going hard for the equaliser. He could've kept pushing to get a third, but concede and he'd get hammered for it. He chose to go defensive, but again it puts the risk that we might concede. As it goes I think he generally got it right, certainly De Laet made sense, but I'd have had Hogan rather than Bjarnason though i) because I don't rate Thaw, and ii) Hogan's pace would've given them something else to think about. Tough decisions, and I guess looking at the result he got it right. You can’t argue with the outcome. But sat at VP watching it very much felt like we invited them back into it rather than them forcing themselves back into it. I agree it’s on the players that the game wasn’t wrapped up earlier but that doesn’t absolve Bruce of blame for the last 15 mins in my view. We didn’t need to go crazy all our attack and risk an equaliser more just keep playing how we were, but we changed and that impacted on them. I don’t think we changed as a result of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post weedman Posted October 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2017 You have to remember though that Fulham had scored 4 late goals in the last 4 games before us, Bruce made the defensive changes where the other 4 teams didn't and we won without them really creating anything. Maybe we could have snatched a 3rd by pushing on a bit, but given their record of late goals I think Bruce played it well, remember when we were 2-0 up playing great football against Leicester and lost 3-2 after Sherwood made a load of attacking changes? Not only did he get crucified for that it ended up starting a spiral downward that we took 2 years to get out of. A bit of caution isn't always a bad thing 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, weedman said: You have to remember though that Fulham had scored 4 late goals in the last 4 games before us, Bruce made the defensive changes where the other 4 teams didn't and we won without them really creating anything. Maybe we could have snatched a 3rd by pushing on a bit, but given their record of late goals I think Bruce played it well, remember when we were 2-0 up playing great football against Leicester and lost 3-2 after Sherwood made a load of attacking changes? Not only did he get crucified for that it ended up starting a spiral downward that we took 2 years to get out of. A bit of caution isn't always a bad thing Interesting... I wasn’t aware of their late goals, I’m also not sure what if any defensive or otherwise changes the opposition made or didn’t make. I’m not sure I agree entirely with you but it’s a valid and interesting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts