Once Were Warriors - Fulham FC vs. Sheffield United FC ... the magic of the F. A. Cup (4/2/14)

My Wednesday essay, before normal service should resume at Enfield Town FC. You may need a cuppa. Or two. (NB. I have added a couple of observations from The Telegraph's Ben Rumsby - the only journalist I have noticed so far who appearing to have actually bothered watching the game - to demonstrate that my observations aren’t entirely seen through Black & White glasses). That’s not to say that my view might not be slightly biased – and still a bit damp from last night. Apologies!

First the good news – although I had to think long and hard to find any, as you can probably tell:
1) In years to come, whenever I am asked “where were you when you were sh8t?” I will be able to hold my head up high and say, in my best Max Boyce accent impression: in 1996 & on Weds. 4th February, 2014 … I was there!
2) Fulham FC can now concentrate on avoiding relegation. It’s an old cliché; but never truer. It may be the only truly positive outcome of the night; but that is NOT the one I was looking for, after all my investment of time, money and drenching - and it is NOT what should have been.

Not only was this, by a considerable distance, THE WORST FOOTBALL I have seen a Fulham team play in 15 years; but the weather was shocking, as was the refereeing; and Brazilian Bob’s tube strike meant it took me nearly 3 hours to get home – in the driving rain, soaked to the skin. If we’d won, I would hardly have noticed the weather or the tube strike. But René Meulensteen, with a bit of ‘help’ from his friend(s), picked a team which ensured I (and about 8,000 others) would go home deflated and confused; wondering why we had bothered to turn up and why RM had the gall to say he was disappointed in the crowd’s reaction to the team and their performance. We were SO bad, that including Senderos as striker might have been an improvement.

Yet, terrible as we were, I thought we were still the better side, despite all the media comment about how Sheffield “deserved” it. They were well-organised, with a 9-man defence – and Lucky, with a capital L. I was just astonished to find out that ITV4 discovered there were some highlights to show. The ones they chose were not typical of the match I saw. The result, defeat to the lowest-ranked side left in the tournament, is a significant humiliation. It will not have had a positive impact on those fans or players watching from the stand, or from the bench; but it could (should) have been so different.

The coverage: “journalists” of every description (Rumsby excepted - could he be a closet Fulham fan?) have been wetting themselves with delight at this ‘giant-killing’, trying to convey the depths of our abysmal humiliation; but the match reports bear little resemblance to the game I watched. They don't seem concerned with objectivity. Yes we were bad; very bad. We didn't look like a Premier League outfit - and most of those playing weren't PL players - but Sheffield were worse. For much of the game, they were prepared to play “19th century football”. Our crime was simply in not fielding a side that could unpick the lock to a chained and bolted defence. The 3 minutes and 16 seconds of “highlights” on the ITV4 website barely show us with the ball. Yet according to the BBC website we had 68% of (admittedly mostly blunt) possession. It felt more like 78%.

The selections – a comedy of errors: Meulensteen’s picks didn’t give me great confidence from the start. We didn’t need 4 at the back; but we persevered with that shape for most of 2 hours – with Sheffield forwards rarely visible in our half of the pitch – despite what you may have seen on the TV! We needed someone who knew at least the basics of LB play; and we did need 5 across the middle. We got neither.

Stockdale: had little to do; but mostly did it well enough. A bit suspect with some weak punches at set-pieces; but he was getting no protection from the referee; unlike his opposite number.

Amorbieta: Out of position, he looked like a trialist. Was so clueless at LB that I’ve seen fan comments this morning suggesting we should sign Sheffield’s RB. What a joke! Brayford looked passably good because he was playing into a vacuum where there should have been a LB.

Brede and Burn looked good. Rarely troubled in the centre or from set-pieces. All Sheffield’s efforts came from down the sides, where experienced full backs would have snuffed out everything without trouble. Burn looks like he will only get better and be a long-term replacement for Brede – if only we could find him another partner. Brede still doesn’t look comfortable. I’m guessing he’s not really over his sciatic problem and is taking one for the team every time he plays.

Passley, played gamely on the right. Lots of running; and he never gave up, unlike so many of his more senior colleagues. Lacked a bit of guile, of course. He wasn’t exactly Sascha Reither; but that’s largely because we never gave him the ball when he was in space, going forward. Having chosen to play him, we treated him like a leper most of the time. Even so, he drew a number of fouls that would, in a properly-refereed match, have resulted in us playing against 10 men; possibly 9. Funny how the ‘highlights’ showed none of those incidents!

Parker: ran the game, whilst he was allowed to stay in it (as you’d probably expect). Was our best and most influential starting player by far; but needed a willing partner. When Sidwell replaced him, we lacked his energetic, cutting thrust; and started to give the visitors a lot more possession.

Kasami: not a good game. Largely anonymous; but not obviously bad, either. Certainly not the worst of a bad bunch.

Tankovic: was a rare bright light amongst the under-studies. Never gave up; could have a good future; but this was not the game to explore his potential, with so many other changes in place.

Dempsey: I haven’t seen anyone else comment on this aspect of his game; but he was directly and personally responsible for the goal. He briefly marked the goal-scorer, at the corner which should never have been (see below, in “refereeing”); but then thought it might be clever to pre-empt where the ball would pop out of the aerial skirmish - and left his man. Maybe he thought: “I don’t fancy missing a penalty in a couple of minutes time, in these conditions”; or, “If Fulham get a cup-run, I’m going to miss out on it anyway”. More likely, he’d just had enough and wished he’d been subbed earlier. He had one silky touch in the first half (see below, in “Rod”) which might have helped to open up the floodgate of goals we should have been anticipating. Otherwise, he was largely anonymous; although he didn’t give up on effort, until his injury. Looked significantly below par and a poor loan signing, regardless of his history with us. “Never go back!”. He ought to have been substituted, to allow Bent to partner Rod – but there was a flaw in that particular cunning plan. Instead, with all our subs deployed, he pulled his calf muscle (it seemed) and was a lame duck for the last 15 mins., at least; and was a critical liability at that fateful corner.

Rod: looked half the player he was in the first leg – and he wasn’t particularly great in that game, either, save for his equalising goal. Should have scored in the first half when put clean through by a clever 1-2 ball from Dempsey - and no, of course they didn’t show it in the highlights – that would have spoiled the predetermined media story of ‘plucky underdogs vs. woeful Fulham’ … rather than woeful Hugo. Instead, Rod mis-controlled it and it came to nothing. A clean take-down or even a first-time shot would have surely put us 1-0 up and forced them to emerge from their heavily armoured shell. When the torrential rains eventually came, we should have been a couple clear. Instead we made increasingly hard work of limited opposition.

Alex K: had yet another poor game - in fact, next to no game – but, then again, he’s looked poor in so many recent performances, that shouldn’t surprise. Substituted early, without a whimper.

The substitutions: made little sense. Duff was the only ‘good’ replacement of the night; but he should probably have started at LB instead of the woeful Amorbieta. He worked gamely and probably benefited from the run out in heavy conditions. Our only striker removed and replaced with an impact-less MF, Dejagah (switching us to 4 – 6.5 – 0.5). Sidwell, a straight swap for Parker, when he and/or Karagounis should have been partnering Parker from the start. All 3 subs were on before 70 mins were up; in a game we all increasingly saw was likely to be heading for extra-time / penalties. Left us no cover for a knock – which inevitably came. Such tactical naivety was real ‘schoolboy’ stuff. I do hope Wilkins’ contract is a v. short-term one. Because he is adding NOTHING on the side-line. “Never go back!”.

The refereeing errors - Neil Swarbrick; Christ in a balloon, where HAS he been officiating before last night? There were so many glaring errors, it’s hard to know where to start. What we needed was a strong Premiership ref. to take a grip of the game. What we got appeared to be a Rugby League ref the visitors had brought down with them, on their coach – and two assistants hardly worthy of the title. Swarbrick had no concept of consistency. What was an offence by a Fulham player was normally considered ‘robust fair play’ when performed by a yellow shirt in an 11-man rear-guard action. I think they might have even got away with a bayonet charge out of their well-prepared defences, had they executed one! We had so many penalty appeals – probably 5 or 6 good, strong ones (Rumsby: "Dempsey went down in the box in the final minute of normal time after being held by Harry Maguire but the referee was in no mood to end their torment"). Brede was being fouled continually, at every set-piece. The ref was unimpressed – and unimpressive.

Harris, Sheffield’s influential left-back, should have been dismissed for a 2nd yellow card as early as the first half, for his persistent bad fouling of Passley – after which we would have ripped them apart. Instead, he got a right talking to; from a ref. who clearly knew he should have been producing another card (Rumsby: "they could count themselves fortunate to end the first half with 11 men after referee Neil Swarbrick refused to show Bob Harris a second yellow card for raking Josh Passley seconds after booking him for going through the back of the same player"). The goal, when it finally and fully-expectedly came, was delivered from a corner which had been preceded by a two-footed, studs-up challenge to win the ball, that should also have seen a straight red card for the Sheffield player involved (can’t name him and it wasn’t shown in the brief highlights). No red card; no yellow card; no free-kick, FFS! Yet Sidwell had seen yellow at the end of the first period of Extra Time, for a far more innocuous, if strong, challenge in which both players involved were equally committed; and it wasn’t clear that a foul of any description had been committed at all. Yet another late, high, studs-showing challenge in the 2nd period of extra time by Harris’s substitute, Miller earned him just a yellow card and a talking to … and, presumably, quite a large amount of cash in another brown paper bag for the man in black. Just shocking! The only good news is that this terrible refereeing performance has not cost us any Premier League points; which remain infinitely more valuable than a Cup run. That’s SOOOOOOO last year, darling!

… although repeat selections and performances like last night's certainly WILL cost us Premier League points; starting at Old Trafford, on Sunday. Throw in “Brazilian” Bob's tube strike (a c. 3 hour journey home - I could have got to Old Trafford quicker!) and Enfield Town FC - next up, weather permitting - can only be an improvement, surely!

Swans versus Badgers - and we all know it's not a great time to be a Badger

Fulham FC vs. Swansea City match report - 23/11/13

Was the week-end's game between these two struggling teams in effect a "six-pointer"? That seems unlikely. Since we now know Swansea have players who can take a game by the scruff of the neck and grind out a result, while Fulham still do not - and remain firmly ensconced in the bottom three. Swansea were 5 places above Fulham on Saturday morning; but only 2 points better off. On this showing, I expect Swansea to finish well above us this year. Although the question still remains as to whether or not they should. The Men-of-the-Match were both from Swansea: De Guzman and Williams (plus a strong 35 minute cameo off the bench from Jon-Jo Shelvey). Though Parker ran them all close.

I took along a colleague from work to the game. John is an Aussie 'soccer' fan of Greek descent, who's been to a few Premier League games since he came to England. He has followed Chelsea from a distance for some years before arriving here; but that didn't stop him acquiring a Fulham #14 shirt, which he proudly wore to the game - "Karagounis". Alas, the Greek midfielder would not feature after his World Cup qualifying exertions last week. We stopped for a beer in The Crabtree before the game, where we got talking with a bunch of away fans, as you do. They promised to do us a favour by winning the game and getting our manager sacked. Very kind, I'm sure! This was my first chance to see whether the arrival of René Meulensteen as "Head Coach" (or possibly as a potential 'stalking horse' to current club manager Martin Jol) had made much difference to the Fulham side.

In fact, I thought we did look a lot better organised than anything else I've seen from Fulham this season (except PERHAPS after 20 mins. of the Palace game). Making Parker Capt. was definitely a good move. The Guardian match report said "personnel changes and a formation adjustment gave renewed solidity to a side that has leaked goals all season". They also said "Jol's substitutions were curious". All of which is mostly correct. It was good to see Bent start; although his 3 goals have all come as substitute. The local lad looked like a striker in need of more consistent pitch time. He should have scored when he hit the inside of the post in the 31st minute; and he should have at least hit the target before that, when he misjudged a tame, free, downwards header in the 27th, with the 'keeper beaten. Both of these efforts and the early foul by Rangel on Kasami which went unpunished, came in the first half, when Fulham did enough to go in ahead. This despite the possession stats favouring Swansea; and despite the two separate glaring errors in the 43rd minute by Boateng, each of which nearly put Swansea into the break ahead. In the first half the visitors mostly showed little attacking intent or threat. They were happy to contain; while we never tackled De Guzman's controlling influence. He mostly sat deep, pulling the strings like a puppet master in what generally looked like a spoiling 4-1-4-1 formation. Swansea held the ball and looked to break with pace. Something Fulham looked largely incapable of. Just before their first goal, you just felt Swansea were going to make their pressure count in a way Fulham had not done in the first half.

I was sitting in the middle of the Putney End, directly above and behind the Fulham goal in the second half; so I was close to both Bent's misses and, in the second half, both the visitors' goals. Their first, Aaron Hughes's o.g., was inexplicable. He wasn't under that much pressure. The skidding ball in from Pozuelo had been delivered too fast and just wanted to be collected or cleared. Hughes needed to choose between hooking the ball to safety or halting his run completely; and he did neither. A man with more pitch time this season would, again, have done much better. Otherwise AH had a good game.

Shelvey's goal was inexcusable. Left unmarked early in the move, he sprinted into the centre to collect a pass then danced around a couple of half-hearted challenges from Sidwell & Kasami, each of whom had got themselves on the wrong side of the Swansea substitute. Even as Shelvey unleashed his swerving shot, I thought Stekelenburg could have done better. Otherwise the GK, again, had a good game; looking composed and making several critical stops.

Amorbieta looked OK, in a limited way; but he was at fault for conceding the free-kick which led to Swansea's first. Richardson looked even more limited. There wasn't much else to report. Fulham's show ponies continued to trot around the parade ring without creating much danger up front. It was a game that could, probably should, have produced a point for us. A first-half goal might even have lead to all three points; but the more we wasted our few chances, the less likely even a point looked. We didn't lack fight though, for a change; and kept carrying the game to Swansea right to the end. Except when the visitors broke once again and nearly scored a 3rd in the final minute. I wanted to see a change up front, with the young Dembele getting a run, towards the end. It was difficult to see why we would include a callow 17-year-old in the match-day squad and still NOT play him, when we had nothing much left to lose, late on; and few threatening options up front. He could have done no worse than our toothless tigers. That our only goal came direct from a Parker cross speaks volumes. I was left nursing a blossoming cold in the Putney End and wondering if my toes would ever de-frost. They did finally, as I sat in the Oktoberfest Pub, watching the big German Bundesliga derby (Dortmund vs. Munich) over a few steins of imported beer; seeing football played on a big screen at a much higher level ... by which I don't mean being projected onto the wall, well above my head.

Tony Gale's column on the Fulham website says of next Saturday's match-up: "Make no mistake, Fulham’s game at West Ham United on Saturday is a massive fixture for both clubs". Uh-oh! Another possible six-pointer; and suddenly EVERY Fulham game is starting to look like a must-win fixture. Meanwhile, a badger cull continues in Gloucestershire to halt the spread of Bovine TB. I'm just hoping it doesn't spread too quickly to West London.