Fulham: Where everything is not as it seems, possibly

People are spending a lot of time talking about how good Brede Hangeland has been this year - and he has been very good - but how much of our amazing defensive record this year is him and how much is coaching?  When you think about it, we have a watertight back four consisting of:

a player who couldn’t get much of a game at West Ham, and who was largely seen as a fun but accident prone right back (the amazing John Paintsil)

a player who has always been quietly effective, but who many fans wanted to replace this season (Aaron Hughes)

a player who, while imposing, was by no means infallible when he arrived at the club (Hangeland)

a player who, while generally handy, has never been enormously well thought of in this country, failing to stick at both Spurs and West Ham (Paul Konchesky)

These are all good players, but until this season, nobody would have expected them to have made up a unit that is among the stingiest in the division.  Sure, they have improved, but I’m sure that much of it is coaching.  As noted in previous dispatches, Roy Hodgson had Finland conceding under a goal a game in Euro 2008 qualifying; our current defensive record is surely not a coincidence.

And neither is our inability to score. One thing that is slightly frustrating on the Fulham message boards is people saying “the defence is playing great, but the forwards aren’t doing their bit”.  Again, true to a point, but the two things are not unconnected.  Only the very best teams can be super-effective at both ends of the pitch. 

Fulham’s play is not massively defensive, in that we do look to play when we have the ball, but our defensive work does require the full commitment of the entire team, while the attack usually gets between one to four players really committed.  We do well in possession, but very rarely will you see Fulham attacking opponents with a numerical advantage.  We are set up not to concede.  This makes our defenders look very good and makes our forwards look less effective than perhaps they are.

There are important differences between this year’s team and last year’s team.  Last year’s team could not keep the ball, so spent longer defending.  If you spend an hour defending you are more likely to concede than if you spend 45 minutes defending, right?   Now when we do have the ball we are careful with it, we don’t overcommit, and when we lose it our players are very quick to slow down opposing attacks.  And as noted, Hodgson has the defenders themselves set up perfectly too.  Result: much better defence.  Paintsil, Hughes, Hangeland and Konchesky are under a lot less pressure - or are under a better sort of pressure - than would be the case were we not so well coached.

I’m not trying to take anything away from the way our defence has played this year.  Clearly they have been outstanding.   But I think it is important to realise that they have been put into a situation that is strongly geared towards their success.  They still have to do the job - and they have - but this is a team thing, and sometimes it seems unfair that the team’s attacking players are getting grief when the team is not constructed with them in mind.  Which makes the Johnson and Zamora partnership all the more impressive to me.

Comments

[Jason]

Hey buddy; Whats with this semi-sensible posting lark, its almost like you know what your on about tut tut tut.
Less of it I say, kindly read the other team contributors, fall into line and start posting like a headless muppet ;)

aThankYou
J

[Rob]

Interesting.

When a "big" team - Liverpool or Chelsea - are set up to play parsimonious football, they're boring.

When a, shall we say, smaller team do it... well, that's sensible.

WBA, according to Hansen and Lawrenson, play "too much" football. Last year, not enough football was being played. Bolton were setup under Allardyce to be negative. And so on.

Just goes to show. Even the fans are guilty of spouting the same balls that they "pundits" come up with.

[morals]

I like Danny but we need a holding midfielder. Would give Jimmy and wide players more freedom to get forward. We'll see more attacking flair now that Dempsey has broken back into the side. He was our best player against Spurs IMHO.

[Tomm]

Have to say it. Ray Hodgson is a superb coach. Should have got the England job, but he's not "glamorous" and his face doesn't fit.

[Mund]

I completely agree.