nickwstIn contrast to the disciplined 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 that the team played under Hodgson, there was a fair deal of variety in the way the team lined up on Saturday. Watching the team's set up during goal-kicks is always a fairly good indicator (if not a perfect one) of the formation in which they are being set up by their manager.
The flexibility really derived from the versatility of the three D's - Davies, Dembele and Dempsey.
The game kicked off with a fairly basic 4-4-2, with Davies and Dembele on the wings, and Dempsey just off Bobby Zamora.
However, there was a variation that I hadn't seen a recent Fulham side use. Having seen the way Manchester City played under Mark Hughes (and continue to do so now), it certainly appears that this slight change has his mark all over it.
Whilst the back four remained the same way as it was, the midfield turned into a three. Murphy dropped slightly deeper as the pivot. Whilst Etuhu remained alongside him (although in a slightly more advanced position), Simon Davies moved inside and did the same. Now, we had three central midfielders.
Bobby Zamora remained the sole man up front, but now had two men supporting him on either side - Dembele just off his to his left, Dempsey to the right. Perhaps surprisingly, however, they were not stationed out wide, but in rather central positions, trying to get into the gap between the Wolves defence and midfield.
The team were lining up as a 4-3-2-1.
The arguments for this slight change seem to be that Hughes wanted more bodies in the middle of the pitch. It came at a time when we were being hacked to pieces, and rather losing out in the midfield battle. Hughes wanted to make up more competitive in the midfield, and play two of our most creative/threatening players in areas where they could do the most damage if we got the ball to them. Dembele has already spoken of how he feels he is developing "an understanding" with Dempsey - if this can work in advanced positions just off Zamora, it could be very dangerous. Play the ball up to Zamora, and he immediately has the trickery Dempsey and Dembele supporting him.
However, a repercussion of this change was that the full-backs suddenly had more on their plate. As well as having to offer width themselves, they now had to deal with the opposing wingers with less help than they had previously. Whilst Kelly dealt well with the pacey Jarvis, Pantsil was clearly struggling, and this did little to help his performance.
13.09.2010
nvrI am not really up to date with Fulham. Any reason why Duff didn't play? Any contigency plans in the absence of Zamora?
13.09.2010
nickwstDuff's got a slight injury at the moment. Calf muscle strain I think. Shouldn't be out for too long.
Zamora's injury leaves Fulham with a massive problem. Bobby is the only forward in the squad who can be a target man upfront, who can hold the ball up and play well with his back to goal. The only like-for-like alternative really is David Elm, and he's never really impressed. He's basically a poor version of Crouch - tall, thin, pretty slow. Problem is, Crouch has superb technique and touch - Elm doesn't to the same extent.
Otherwise, Fulham's main forward options consist of Andrew Johnson and Diomansy Kamara. Both of whom really are shoulder-of-the-last-defender type forwards, and injured. The team would have to change the way they play if they were now, used to as they are of playing with the strong, powerful Zamora up front. Eddie Johnson is a similar type of forward to Kamara and A.Johnson, but not quite as effective.
Dembele and Dempsey both *could* play that role at a stretch, but are much better played just off a forward or coming in from the flanks - the same goes for Gera. Dempsey would be my choice, as Fulham already have Duff/Davies/Dembele/Gera to fill the wide areas and second striker positions. In addition, Dempsey is the strongest of these options, and has covered there on occasion before, albeit with mixed results.
The final contingency plan would be playing a youngster, such as Dalla Valle or Trotta. The latter is more in the Zamora mould than Dalla Valle, but is perhaps too young and inexperienced to succeed at this level quite yet.
13.09.2010
ZolaI wonder if Hughes is weighing up an offer for Marlon King now. Sure he's a bit of a trouble maker, but is a free agent and can provide the much needed reinforcement up front.
13.09.2010
nickwstMarlon King could be an option, albeit a very unpopular one. Goes against everything that Fulham stands for as a "family" club, where the character of players is sometimes as important as their ability.
Also, now that the 25-man squads have been named, can King even become a part of it? I'm not sure if he can, but my initial thoughts are that he can't.
13.09.2010
Vinicius_BernoWhere is Baird? He's better than Paintsil or Kelly
17.09.2010
