There seems to be a misplaced loyalty towards Kit Symonds amongst many FFC fans. Kit was a loyal servant to the club, but he was hardly Paolo Maldini, Ronald Koeman etc. as a defender. He was an average defender who gave 100% every game (by the way the much derided Dan Burn gave 100% every game). Kit had no managerial experience and his record in the transfer market was hardly inspiring. I, personally, have nothing against Kit, but he was taking the club nowhere fast. If every club changed manager after a poor sequence of results then 90% of clubs would have 3 or more managers every season.
So, what has gone wrong? Or is Slavisa too stubborn, tactically, for his own good. Listening to TMOD and the poor Football league show on C5, some things start to make a little sense. As much as we like to slag off those pundits as "talking rubbish", we should also realize that these are guys who played professionally, training every day, at a level we can only dream about. From the comments made (not about FFC), it seems there is a tendency amongst many clubs to play on the counterattack. Sides are happy to concede possession, with an organized defence, waiting for the chance to break out quickly. This may explain why there were 3 0-0 results in the Prem. and 8 1-0 results in the championship. There are some very good players in the Championship now, and teams are much better organized. Lower down with less technically gifted players, there won't be so many low scoring games, as the teams are not so well organized, but the Championship has become Prem.2 with the prize for going up massive, and the prize for dropping down to League 1. equally devastating. There seems to be a fear factor creeping into every team, which means that it is better to sit and wait for one counterattack, rather than take risks by steaming forward.
So where does that leave Slav and his preferred possession football? There is absolutely nothing wrong with possession football, but it only works when a team is settled and the players know each other well. It also requires technically gifted players who can move the ball about quickly. The problem FFC have, in this respect, is that we have more than 11 new players who still don't know each others' game well enough. This all takes time, and 14 league games is not enough time for everything to gel. The other problem is that we have to question if our players are good enough to play fast, incisive possession football. When I was at school, the first thing we were taught was "pass and move", and every games day we would spend ages on practicing this, often being bollocked for not moving into space enough. It is the basic foundation of possession football. FFC do not have the players of the quality of Barcelona, so we can't expect ticky tacka football, but with good, fast, incisive possession football we can still cut teams open when they sit deep. Even Barcelona became predictable and teams would sit narrow, forcing them wide, knowing that they daren't cross the ball because they did not have a tall striker. Of course, Barcelona had players like Messi and Iniesta, but they were being shackled by placing 2 or 3 players on them. Barcelona solved their predictability when they signed Suarez. Suarez has the ability to be on his own upfront, with an excellent first touch, and the skill to turn in very tight spaces. That meant that Messi and Neymar were less marked as the other teams had Suarez to think about also. I am not comparing FFC to Barcelona, but the point is that possession football can work with the right personnel. Fulham, may have the personnel for this level (Kalas says we have a better squad than Boro last season), but, in my humble opinion, the team has not been together long enough for it to be effective, yet.
I am certain that Slavisa, knows the same problems as I, and the rest of social media, know. It is his job to decided when, and if, his possession football needs altering or ditching altogether. I still believe that the biggest problem we face is the gelling of a lot of new players. One of the things they said on C5 last night was that less skilled teams seem to do well with a settled squad who have great camaraderie. Whilst, there are little cliques that are evident in the team, I wonder how well our players know each other on a personal level. It is all OK to go out and be professional on match day, but team sports need much more than "just doing your job". Partnerships and friendships have to be formed both on the pitch and off it. I can see players like Aluko being popular in the dressing room, and players like Scotty Parker will attract respect. It is just a matter of time and team bonding before the squad can have a good understanding and camaraderie.
On a similar theme, I would suggest that our home form is also down to having a lot of new players. Every club that moves into a new stadium suffers from indifferent home form at first. As footballers, we all know that there are little things that we notice playing at home. It may be the length and width of the pitch, the lay out of the stands, the positioning of a stanchion etc. All of these things become second nature, over time, and help players to have a sixth sense of where they are on the pitch. When a player is accustomed to his surroundings it becomes so much easier to concentrate on the more important things. Again, this all takes time, as our new players don't have that luxury yet.
We can all sit and analyze the team and the performances until the cows come home, and as paying fans we have that right, whatever our conflicting views. But, I for one, don't want to see a managerial merry-go-round a la Leeds or Notts. Forest. Come January or February, if things haven't improved much, then I may also be taking to social media to bemoan our lack of progression under Slavisa. But, for now, I will show patience, and still believe in the club and our players.
IN SLAVISA WE TRUST
COYWs
Our facebook group- https://www.facebook.com/groups/FFC.Ambition/?ref=bookmarks
© Nic Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment