Although there are many people analysing yesterday's performance and drawing conclusions, it is probably a little premature to start worrying too much about the coming season. It wasn't the result we wanted, but the first few weeks of the season are always going to be a lottery. New players, tactical tweaks and a lack of competitive action are always going to take time. But, yesterday's performance did highlight where Fulham are going to need to strengthen, if we are to mount a serious attempt at automatic promotion.
An excellent crowd witnessed Fulham control much of the first half, possession wise, without threatening the Norwich goal too often. Fredericks got forward well, but too often his final pass was not good enough (P.S. I am a big fan of Fredericks). Cairney looked nowhere near 100%, even though he still stood out. An own goal from Martin gave the Whites the lead, and had we got another before half time, it would probably have been done and dusted. From the stands it was clear that the Norwich number 8, Vrancic, was managing to find space and was dictating everything that they tried to do. In my, humble, opinion this should have been picked up on and his obvious threat should have been nullified. The second half saw Norwich start to take control, and the Whites started to drop deeper, with Vrancic being allowed way too much freedom just outside of our box. The fans around me, seemed to know the inevitable was coming, and sure enough it was Oliveira who nicked an equaliser, even though replays showed he was offside. A few late flurries suggested we might nick the lead again, but it wasn't to be, and overall a draw was a fair result.
Ratings
Button- Had a solid game and did not faff about with the ball at his feet- 7
Fredericks- Got forward well, especially on the overlap, but his final ball was poor, and played a little narrow defensively- 6
Kalas- Good solid game, and still looks Premier league class- 7
Ream- The best player in White. Has come on massively since the first half of last season, and looks comfortable at CB. Made some important challenges- 8
Sessegnon- Displayed his massive potential going forward, but looks like a rabbit caught in headlights, when it comes to defensive positioning. Not a left back for me, more of a wing back.- 6
Norwood- When involved he linked up play well, but does not look like he has the passing vision of Kevin McD. New to the team so unfair to criticise-7
Johansen- Seemed to disappear for periods of the game, but his engine cannot be questioned. Given more competitive game time, he will surely be more prominent- 6
Cairney- As always looked good on the ball, but not up to full game speed because of his injury. Still looked a class above most of the fit players-7
Ayite- A quieter game from Ayite, but still had something to offer-7
Kebano- Much the same as Ayite, showing some trickery, but only occasionally-7
Aluko- For me, probably one of his worst games in White. I couldn't work out where he was playing as sometimes he was in the middle, sometimes on the wing, and sometimes in defensive midfield. Didn't do enough to worry the opposition- 6
Odoi- Looked uncomfortable at left back, even though that is his old position-6
Cisse- Came on too late for me to form an opinion, but looked to want get involved- 6
Kamara- Much too early to tell as he has had only 4 training sessions with the club. Looked hungry, and not afraid to go for goal. On one occasion he had the option to lay it back, but went for goal, but he is a striker and they sometimes need to be greedy- 7
Overall-
It is clear that Sess is not a full back, and we need cover in that position since the departure of Malone. McDonald was clearly missed because of his excellent passing. It is hard to take too many lessons from this game, but there needs to be a few additions to the squad if we are going to challenge up the top.
MOM- Vrancic
FFC MOM- Ream
Positive fans are invited to join our FFC facebook page at- https://www.facebook.com/groups/FFC.Ambition/?ref=bookmarks
IN SLAVISA WE TRUST
COYWs
© Nic Smith.
So, the argument rages on, or so it seems. What is the best method when it comes to deciding which players a club should sign, or in this case Fulham FC? It has been much reported that Slavisa Jokanovic is unhappy with his lack of input into who the club buy. What the real story is, only the club and coach know, but his quotes seem genuine enough. On social media, a whole debate has been going on as to whether the coach should decide or those in power, who hold the purse strings should decide. Both sides have a valid argument, in that Slavisa wants to build a promotion winning side, and the board want to make certain that the club is financially viable. I am certain that there are other fans, of other clubs, who are engaged in similar debates.
Statistical approach coupled with moneyballs.
I do not claim to know how Kline uses the statistics or what algorithms he uses to reach a decision on whether a player should sing for FFC. It is probably much more complex than a lay person like me can imagine. However, it has been likened to the "Football Manager" computer game. The man takes the statistics for a multitude of aspects of a players game, and comes to his conclusion. I have played CM and FM, and I have had to remind myself it is a computer game and not the real thing. No computer game can replicate the complexity of tactics used in the real world, and the computer cannot replicate a players mood, or momentary lapse of concentration. And it cannot replicate the man management needed in the dressing room, where a player's character has to be handled in the correct way. I am not for one moment suggesting that Kline uses his stats in the same way as we may do when playing FM. I do however have to ask how these statistics are compiled and how much they truly reflect a player's performance. For example, a defensive midfielder may break up the game and play a lot of short passes to the nearest players. This could give him a pass success rate of 90%, but if they are mainly short passes, how effective is that 90% statistic? In other words, does it truly reflect the effectiveness of those passes. If Kevin McD attempts a lot of long, or telling passes, the chances of him having a 90% success rate are much slimmer, as they are much more difficult passes to execute and more likely to be cut out. On the other hand if Kevin McD makes two or three defence splitting passes during the game, his value to the result is much more important. A person could make this argument for many positions on the field, and for many scenarios.
The issue I, personally ,have is who is compiling these stats and how in depth are they going, before analysing every single pass, shot or tackle etc., and their overall effectiveness, in the grander scheme of things. And are the people analysing every players' performance, people who understand the deep complexities of football, or are they just number crunchers? In other words , are they just counting the number of passes without actually thinking about the effectiveness in relation to the overall picture?
The "moneyballs" argument makes some sense in that, with football clubs under more and more financial scrutiny, the club do not want to buy players who may have no resale value. Thus, a player will not be bought if he is over 28. I agree that buying too many ageing players is not a good idea, financially, but it should not be strictly adhered to, as seems the case with Kline. What is wrong with signing one excellent 30 year old if he is going to help the team reach it's goals more than a 23 year old who may offer a resale value but is not as good?
The traditional approach.
This needs little explanation. Every football coach has his own philosophy on how he wants his team to play, and he wants the players to compliment his philosophy, and the players best suited to carrying out his tactics. A good football coach should have a flexible philosophy, meaning that he can adapt to each game, and the different opposition the team is faced with. It does not matter how effective the philosophy is in getting results, there are too many other factors that affect a club's season (injuries, opposition tactics, player's mood etc.), and for that the coach must be flexible whilst still sticking to his philosophy somewhat. Ipswich away, last season, was a prime example of where Slavisa was flexible with his desired tactical philosophy. The coach must also man-manage, and that means having the player's with the right mentality for his character and for the style of football he wants to play. The argument may be that footballers are highly paid professionals, and they should be following the tactical orders to the best of their ability. This is nonsense, they are still human beings with moods, lives outside of football etc. and they are not robots. This is where the coach uses his man-management skills and can decided which players are in the right frame of mind, or need the right type of management to prepare them mentally for the game.
When signing a player, the coach, under the traditional method, will be alerted to potential signings by his scouts and he will then study the player and decide whether that player will fit into his tactical philosophy, and also whether he is good enough to play at the level required. Although, there are many factors to be considered, this is the fundamental approach to signing players in the traditional way.
Conclusion (my personal opinion)
The traditional way is my preferred method, if there was a straight choice between the two methods. And before any readers shout that "I am a dinosaur", I am fully au fait with the modern methods and modern technology. Football coaches are the scapegoats if things go wrong, so it is unfair to blame them if they have had no responsibility in signing players. Football coaches know which players best suit their tactics and style of play, and it is impossible to continue with the philosophy if you are given the wrong types of players. There could be an argument, that the coach should alter the style of play, a little, to accommodate players he has had no say in signing. But, in my eyes, that makes the coach slightly redundant, and what would be the point in him having his own unique, tactical philosophy. If it was that easy, for a coach to adapt to players he does not want, then the club may as well just employ any Tom, Dick, or Harry, with the correct coaching badges. I remember clearly when Abramovich insisted on signing Shevchenko against the wishes of Mourinho, and it wasn't long after that Mourinho left Chelsea.
Maybe a compromise could be found to accommodate both methods. Slavisa could compile a list of possible signings, all players he thought were ideal for his tactical philosophy, and achieve his ambition of taking the club to the next level. He could, then, give that list to Kline and his mates, and then Kline could advise Slavisa on the players he thinks match his statistical requirements. Then they could sit down like adults, with the rest of the coaching staff, and make the correct decisions. But ultimately, the final decision must be given to the man who is responsible for getting results, and the man who will be sacked if he does not achieve those results. If Slavisa, genuinely, believes he is being ignored in this respect, then I know who I would sack.
*This article is the opinion of the contributors, and is not meant as anything more than an opinion*
IN SLAVISA WE TRUST
COYWs
Our facebook group (please join)- https://www.facebook.com/groups/FFC.Ambition/
© Nic Smith
