Ratings & Reactions: Fulham v Villa

[nick76]

We were bound to slip up at some point, winning runs always to come an end. It’s now how we react to it. Time to go on a new winning run against Preston.

[villan_007]

4 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I have a hard time blaming the right back when the goal comes down the left side and pulled back to a late runner from pretty much middle of the park.  

The runner was sessengon who ran in from the right and scored. Axel is 100% at fault. He lost his man and that man scored. Other than that lapse he had him in his pocket the entire game. Original poster has it spot on 

[srsmithusa]

52 minutes ago, villan_007 said:

The runner was sessengon who ran in from the right and scored. Axel is 100% at fault. He lost his man and that man scored. Other than that lapse he had him in his pocket the entire game. Original poster has it spot on 

If the defense were playing a one-on-one, man to man marking system all over the field, I would agree with you.  Just checked the replay.  Sessegnon came from our right but much farther up the pitch than should have been the right back responsibility.  The right back was and should have been much closer to the end line.  IMO of course.

Seriously, not trying to be quarrelsome, but surely AT could not be at fault for things sessegnon did anywhere on the pitch?  Football defenders play more zonally than that.  But I'm sure you know that, that's why I'm asking.  I'm genuinely puzzled that you would think that was AT's fault.  Shouldn't a DM be providing cover in that position?  (or hutton marked closer to prevent the soft draw back pass?)

[AvfcRigo82]

1 hour ago, villan_007 said:

The runner was sessengon who ran in from the right and scored. Axel is 100% at fault. He lost his man and that man scored. Other than that lapse he had him in his pocket the entire game. Original poster has it spot on 

Sessengon played a brief roaming role to lose Tuanzebe in advance if you will and did well to lose him.

Just a lapse moment of concentration combined on our behalf to react in the box at the time of the goal.

I wouldn't put the entire blame solely on Tuanzebe considering he had him man marked out of the game the rest of the time.

[SirSteveUK]

FYI - Fulhams next 4 games:-

Bristol City (a)
Wolves (h)
Derby (a)
Sheff U (h)

[villan_007]

2 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

If the defense were playing a one-on-one, man to man marking system all over the field, I would agree with you.  Just checked the replay.  Sessegnon came from our right but much farther up the pitch than should have been the right back responsibility.  The right back was and should have been much closer to the end line.  IMO of course.

Seriously, not trying to be quarrelsome, but surely AT could not be at fault for things sessegnon did anywhere on the pitch?  Football defenders play more zonally than that.  But I'm sure you know that, that's why I'm asking.  I'm genuinely puzzled that you would think that was AT's fault.  Shouldn't a DM be providing cover in that position?  (or hutton marked closer to prevent the soft draw back pass?)

I think IMO that AT was tasked with man marking Sessengon. Hes been their most prolific player this season with most of their play going through him. He was on him like glue where ever he went and nullified him in the first half. He came further forward a lot to track him leaving Elmo to cover him. I think it worked perfectly up until the goal when for the first time AT lost him and we were punished. 

That's why I think he was at fault. Just my opinion that they said stick on him for 90 mins. It looked like that to me 

[AVTuco]

7 hours ago, nick76 said:

We were bound to slip up at some point, winning runs always to come an end. It’s now how we react to it. Time to go on a new winning run against Preston.

While I agree with this, my worry is that we lost for a reason. We lost because two of our top 3 attacking players were out. And they're not back against Preston either. Albert hears to be out for a while. We obviously can beat anyone with the guys we have, but it requires pretty much a clean sheet now. We have had many of those too, but the mindset going into games is different. We need to be more reserved and careful, which is not a good starting point.

[Vincenzo]

This was always going to be tough but even harder with 2 key players out.

Bruce went with the safe option to stop them playing and knick a point or even all 3 with a smash and grab

That went to pot when Elmo came off and Onomah came on. He really is s@@t and a waste of space imo. I don’t know what Bruce sees in him.

We need to be braver with Preston on Tuesday and keep to the system we have been playing in our winning run. We never really looked like scoring against Fulham

Play Lansbury and O’Hare or Green (if fit) in the positions that Jack and Albert play in. Preston are no mugs and will cause us a few problems if we let them

Come on Villa !

[striker]

14 hours ago, roonst83 said:

Losing Adomah we can deal with, but there’s no suitable replacement for Grealish. 

 

Disagree with this. There is a suitable replacement in O’Hare but Bruce won’t play him. I’d also play Hayes every day of the week rather than Onomah who is a total waste of space.

Bruce got it badly wrong yesterday yet again with his team selection sending out the wrong message to Fulham and Villa lost the points because of that.

I thought we’d seen the last of the safety first approach but sadly not.

When you have injuries keep the same shape and play your next best available rather than changing everything.

Edited February 18, 2018 by striker

[nick76]

2 hours ago, AVTuco said:

While I agree with this, my worry is that we lost for a reason. We lost because two of our top 3 attacking players were out. And they're not back against Preston either. Albert hears to be out for a while. We obviously can beat anyone with the guys we have, but it requires pretty much a clean sheet now. We have had many of those too, but the mindset going into games is different. We need to be more reserved and careful, which is not a good starting point.

I agree with your points. We also have to remember that while Fulham were the better team over the 90 minutes we did have chances to score before they scored and if had taken a chance it may have been different. Additionally we had lost two players and made some me stupid mistakes like Johnstones kick for the second goal which he never makes.

 

losing Jack and Albert is a big blow we still have creative talent in Snoddy and we have to remember that on paper our team is still far better than most.

 

For me we just had a bad day at the office. If we go on a run like this then I will be concerned but one game i’ll put down to a blip.

[TRO]

We lost 2 players with guile......its not a commodity our squad is blessed with.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, striker said:

Disagree with this. There is a suitable replacement in O’Hare but Bruce won’t play him. I’d also play Hayes every day of the week rather than Onomah who is a total waste of space.

Bruce got it badly wrong yesterday yet again with his team selection sending out the wrong message to Fulham and Villa lost the points because of that.

I thought we’d seen the last of the safety first approach but sadly not.

When you have injuries keep the same shape and play your next best available rather than changing everything.

Its an opinion....one that is feasible, but I still think its down to individual errors and while i think we are generally defensively sound for 88 minutes in a match, we regularly manage to find a couple of Errors.....blimey we did it against Burton at home, never mind Fulham.....we did again against Sheff Utd at home.....We really have to stop this its sloppy.

On the O'Hare thing.....its a real tricky one for me.He is a lovely player, but needs to be stronger on the ball, gets knocked off a bit too easily and its dangerous at this level....Jack went away and cured it.....Need Callum to do the same.

They all have iffy bits to their game, thats the problem with selection.

I tend to agree with you on the last line.

[roonst83]

1 hour ago, striker said:

Disagree with this. There is a suitable replacement in O’Hare but Bruce won’t play him. I’d also play Hayes every day of the week rather than Onomah who is a total waste of space.

Bruce got it badly wrong yesterday yet again with his team selection sending out the wrong message to Fulham and Villa lost the points because of that.

I thought we’d seen the last of the safety first approach but sadly not.

When you have injuries keep the same shape and play your next best available rather than changing everything.

Fair enough. I’d discounted O’hare as Bruce just doesn’t play him. But you’re right O’hare is the most suitable replacement we’ve got in our squad. 

[sne]

 

[Stockport_Villain]

22 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I have a hard time blaming the right back when the goal comes down the left side and pulled back to a late runner from pretty much middle of the park.  

Having looked at the highlights I stick by my point. In the build up the goal scorer is just outside our box in a forward left position right where Axel is. The move progresses and the goal scorer holds his position until the last minute then runs across the box and finishes the cross off nicely. At all times he was in the area and eye line of Axel who should have been following him. 

I also agree that we were carved open on the right but all  defenders need to follow their runners.

[srsmithusa]

18 hours ago, villan_007 said:

I think IMO that AT was tasked with man marking Sessengon. Hes been their most prolific player this season with most of their play going through him. He was on him like glue where ever he went and nullified him in the first half. He came further forward a lot to track him leaving Elmo to cover him. I think it worked perfectly up until the goal when for the first time AT lost him and we were punished. 

That's why I think he was at fault. Just my opinion that they said stick on him for 90 mins. It looked like that to me 

Interesting  you may be right.  Watching on television, it’s very hard to see off the ball positioning and movement.   I did notice the axel and Elmo were very fluid in interchange, but not in a way that seemed unusual.   So if axel was charged with marking sessegnon, were we more like 2 center halves, a left (Hutton) and a shared right with axel on a man and Elmo either rb or Rew as needed depending on where sessegnon was?   That’s an incredibly creative and complex defensive alignment.  Much more creative than seems like anything I’ve seen from Bruce.  

You may be right.  But wow,  i’ve seen teams try to man mark a key attacker out of the match,  in fact it happens too Messi regularly.   But sessegnon??    In fact, I’ve played that role (not against Messi of course). But playing that role from right back is certainly unusual.   I know several think something similar, I reiterate that my doubts are not to be quarrelsome or diminishing your ideas.  I’m asking because I’m truly puzzled and eager to learn.   

[Skills]

to put the argument to bed, both full backs we equally to blame for the goal...   hutton got caught to close to his man and Axel got caught out ball watching

[villan_007]

5 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

Interesting  you may be right.  Watching on television, it’s very hard to see off the ball positioning and movement.   I did notice the axel and Elmo were very fluid in interchange, but not in a way that seemed unusual.   So if axel was charged with marking sessegnon, were we more like 2 center halves, a left (Hutton) and a shared right with axel on a man and Elmo either rb or Rew as needed depending on where sessegnon was?   That’s an incredibly creative and complex defensive alignment.  Much more creative than seems like anything I’ve seen from Bruce.  

You may be right.  But wow,  i’ve seen teams try to man mark a key attacker out of the match,  in fact it happens too Messi regularly.   But sessegnon??    In fact, I’ve played that role (not against Messi of course). But playing that role from right back is certainly unusual.   I know several think something similar, I reiterate that my doubts are not to be quarrelsome or diminishing your ideas.  I’m asking because I’m truly puzzled and eager to learn.   

No problem the forum is for debate!

Elmo has been found out a few times this season when it comes to dealing with a pacey opponent. So I think this double up was intentional. AT also isn't an out and out RB he can play anywhere across the back and in DM, so would be comfortable moving around tracking sessegon, he also has the strength and pace to push forward. He showed all these traits throughout the game.

Sessegnon has 12 maybe more goals this season. He is lighting quick and definitely their danger man. (He scored at the end of the day) His weak point is his physicality, so putting AT on him was a good move for me. AT has the pace to deal with him and on numerous occasions muscled him off the ball.

So yeah for me that was his job and the one lapse we concede.

 

[srsmithusa]

7 hours ago, villan_007 said:

No problem the forum is for debate!

Elmo has been found out a few times this season when it comes to dealing with a pacey opponent. So I think this double up was intentional. AT also isn't an out and out RB he can play anywhere across the back and in DM, so would be comfortable moving around tracking sessegon, he also has the strength and pace to push forward. He showed all these traits throughout the game.

Sessegnon has 12 maybe more goals this season. He is lighting quick and definitely their danger man. (He scored at the end of the day) His weak point is his physicality, so putting AT on him was a good move for me. AT has the pace to deal with him and on numerous occasions muscled him off the ball.

So yeah for me that was his job and the one lapse we concede.

 

Fair enough, I just have a hard time seeing how such a system could work.  It seems that if your RB is supposed to get dragged all over the pitch by a pacey forward, you are leaving the right back position WAY TOO exposed.  There must have been 5 or 6 times when axel got back deep to toe poke the ball away from an attacker.  Did he leave Sessegnon for those?  If he did, he didn't do a good job tracking the danger man really, but is inattention to his job saved us several other times.

I completely agree that he was put on to deal with sessegnon's speed.  He was put at RB pushing Elmo up to right wing. (and snod to left)  most of that, at least, with the idea that it could stop sessegnon from hurting us with his speed, and it worked.  The only speed that beat us, went past hutton.  My only doubt comes from thinking it was Axel's role to follow their left wing wherever he went.  I tend to blame the DM role for leaving the trailing runner unmarked.  (although to be far, we have been leaving the trailing runner unmarked for about a decade.)  when the ball goes that deep toward the end line, the DM set up outside the 18 is set up too far forward, but should have dropped back into that space sessegnon moved into.   

But I do enjoy the discussion and concede you may well be right.  I would just (still, for now at least) be more prone to blame the DM for not dropping into that space, than the RB not covering a man that far center....He would have nearly had to run past chester, terry, and 2 central midfielders to get there.

[srsmithusa]

OK, I watched it again, very slowly, several times.  Yep,  I agree Axel should have followed him over more closely.  Not because he was in a man marking role, but because Sessegnon was the greater danger, with no other runners in sight down our right and Snod was dropping in there nicely.  Thanks for helping me see the light,   villan_007 

(also, Terry and Chester were pulled much farther to our left than i had realized.)