Newcastle v. Fulham Preview

With the kick-off of Fulham's tilt versus Newcastle less than twelve hours away, it is probably a bit late to do a preview, but it is the best topic I can come up with at the moment. First we'll do a "Tale of the Tape" between the two. Edit: I couldn't get the format right on the table below, so I apologize for a bit of a tough read.

Fulham Newcastle
4-11-15 Record(W-D-L) 7-8-15
0-6-8 Away(FFC)/Home(NewC) 5-5-5
27 Goals Scored 31
49 Goals Against 57
LLLDW Past 5 EPL Results LLLLD
DWWWL Past 5 FFC/NewC Meetings DLLLW

What can we learn from this? First, Fulham has probably actually outplayed Newcastle this season, and they have certainly outplayed them recently. Newcastle is four points clear of the drop zone at the moment despite having the second worst goal differential in the league. They have only earned one point in their past five matches, and only three points in their last ten.

Obviously Fulham is not without problems. Goal scoring is certainly a concern. 27 goals scored in 30 matches is not good, but it looks even worse when 15 of the 27 came in the first ten games. Everyone at this point is probably aware of Fulham's amazingly bad away form. September 9, 2006 was the last time Fulham won an away fixture, but (and that but may be a big one) it was at St. James Park versus Newcastle.

For me, this comes down to "which is worse" question as most relegation battle games do. Is Fulham's away form worse than Newcastle's current form? I have been planning on posting a prediction for this match since I started typing, but the above question is a hard one for me to answer. At the end of the day, I think Roy Hodgson will decide the result. If he plays aggressively (read two forwards), Fulham takes home three points and that beautiful light at the end of the tunnel becomes much larger. If he takes the familiar conservative on the road approach, the game ends in a draw.

Quote me on that prediction:

Newcastle 0, Fulham 1

Fulham opens the game attacking, scores a first half goal, and protects it with a more defensive second half approach.

On to Beijing!

After missing the 2004 Olympics in Athens, the United States sealed its bid to Beijing with a convincing 3-0 win versus Canada tonight. Dominating play throughout, they were every bit as good as the result indicated. Winning two and drawing one, the group stage consisted of a lot of "good result, but . . . " matches. For me, there was no "but" tonight.

I cannot think of a single player of the eleven who disappointed me tonight. Defensively, the US did not have a lot to deal with but played well. Seitz was not tested. Wynn looked dangerous coming forward and was equal to any challenge at the back. Sturgis did not affect the match as much, but was solid throughout. Orosco again impressed, admittedly without being pressured often, and Jonathon Spector, while probably not in top form by his standards, was a presence the US had been missing in its back four.

Controlling possession throughout, the midfield won this game for the US. Holden was again his active self, causing Canada trouble throughout. Maurice Edu showed everyone (hopefully Nowak fits in this group) that he plays far too well as a holding midfielder to move him to center back. Sasha Kljestan played well in possession and got his name in the book with a rare "during the run of play" goal. McCarthy's play was what we've become accustomed to seeing the past week and a half. He won a lot of balls in the middle and showed moments of class in possession. What can you say about Freddie Adu's performance in this tournament as a whole and tonight specifically. Anyone who has wrote him off as a bust in relation to the hype surrounding his debut at age 14 needs to take notice of how his current form.

With Nowak playing only one true striker, I am regretting my earlier paragraph decisions. Jose played fairly well; he did some nice things, but I still feel like we are not getting everything out of him. Though he was praised by the commentators for his defensive pressure, I still see a player who quits on a lot of chances and seems to choose when he wants to be that player we are all so excited about. I feel like a may be hyper critical of Jose because my expectations are so high, but there are some things the 18 year old needs to do before he can perform at a Real Madrid or Manchester United level.

Player Ratings:

Seitz--6

Wynn--7

Spector--7

Orosco--6

Sturgis--6

Holden--7

Edu--7

McCarthy--6

Kljestan--7

Adu--9

Altidore--6

Man of the Match: Freddie Adu

Hope

Brian McBride's header on Saturday gave Fulham hope that next season may not be spent in the Coca-Cola Championship Division. For me, this is the first time for awhile I have felt good about Fulham's chance to avoid the drop.

If they are anything like me, most Fulham fans have been looking at the remaining fixtures for some time now, projecting wins, draws, and losses. What is so great about the three points grabbed from Everton is that most of us had checked that one off as a loss. In a post last week, I looked at past EPL tables and determined the average minimum number of points to safety was 35. At the time Fulham was fifteen points short of that with nine games to play. My most likely route to avoid relegation was four wins, three draws, and two losses. Newcastle, Derby, Sunderland, Reading, and Birmingham were the mostly likely three pointers(if that's an acceptable term).

With three points in tow following the Everton win, three wins, three draws, and two losses should keep Fulham afloat. Four wins and anything else is a distinct possibility now as well, but let's focus on the other scenario for a second. If Fulham cannot win three of the five matches listed above, they do not deserve to stay up. If they manage to win three, I believe they will stay up. That is what gives me hope as we close this season. It is no longer a situation where Fulham needs to claw and scratch and grab results they do not necessarily deserve. They are in a spot where they should expect to succeed. I know Everton is just one team, and it was just one match, but it has given me a much brighter outlook.

The only question is: Has Fulham built up my hope only to break my heart in the final eight games?

Controversy Versus Panama?

"Roman Torres"

Junior Seau

At age 39 Junior Seau was one of the oldest players on the field in this year's Super Bowl. It was remarkable that he could play a position as demanding as linebacker at that age and at a high enough level to start on an undefeated team that was playing in the Super Bowl. Tonight he one upped himself.

Playing under the assumed name "Roman Torres", Seau captained Panama's U23 side in their group B Olympic Qualification match against the United States. Forgetting for a moment that he is over aged and not from Panama, this may be one of the most amazing feats in sports history. In America we have seen some impressive multi-sport athletes in the past. Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, and Jim Thorpe come to mind, but each of these men's accomplishments pail in comparison to Seau picking up a new sport at age 39 and competing in it on this stage. Fortunately for him and Panama , this blog's readership is likely about ten percent of his age, so his secret will stay safe.

I apologize for that, but every time they showed a close up of Torres tonight I said, "God, he looks exactly like Junior Seau!" I could not really find a picture to do it justice unfortunately.

I suppose I should write something serious about the match. The best thing I can say about it is that it was a good result. Between the announcers and scouting around a few message boards, I get the feeling that most people feel better about the match than I do. Yes, three points is three points, but I still saw a lot of the same flaws as I saw against Cuba.

Our attack continues to stagnate in the attacking third. We possessed beautifully for spells. We were fairly patient when the moment was not right, but when that perfect ball or piece of skill was called for to break down the final layer of defense, we never delivered. I see too much hesitation in the final third. I can not tell if this because of a system that the squad may be unfamiliar with, the boys just not being familiar enough with each other, or if some nerves are getting to these guys. Whatever the cause, it remains a concern. After two matches against weaker teams, we still have not scored a goal from the run of play.

Defensively, we were again not put under a tremendous amount of pressure. Whereas Cuba seemed to have difficulty generating a consistent attack to test the US defense, Panama appeared to make a tactical decision to keep numbers back. I wondered if the Cuba fiasco played a part in this apparent decision to largely play for a draw. What worried me was the chances we did give up despite any real consistent threat. Seau err... Torres really should have made it a 0-1 game early when he got inside of Edu on a corner early in the match. Overall there were not many great looks for Panama, but I fear that a more capable side could really take advantage of our back four. The arrival of Jonathon Spector after the group stage will help, but he is only one man.

Player Ratings(1-10 Scale):

Altidore: 5--He looked a little better than versus Cuba. His service has not been great, but I would still like to see him work a little harder.

Adu: 7--He did not look nearly as dangerous as the past match but was still the best bet to put Panama under pressure, well taken penalty.

Gavin: 4--Showed some skill at times, but never really seemed to get into the match. Touches and decision making left a lot to be desired.

Kljestan: 5--I liked him out wide a lot better, but he was serviceable in the middle tonight.

McCarty: 7--Worked hard for 90 minutes tonight. Some nice moments in the attack, but he mostly gets the rating for his efforts tracking back on defense. He committed a number of smart fouls in the middle third.

Holden: 6--First time I've seen him play, and I love his effort. At times his technical ability did not match the motor, but I don't think two minutes ever went by where I was unaware of his presence on the pitch.

Wynn: 5--Got himself into good spots getting forward often in this match, but did not seem to have the skill to match his runs. He could have drawn a higher ranking perhaps, but he squandered too many nice chances on the wing.

Sturgis: 4--For me it just was not a great showing by him tonight. Any 1v1 he defended looked precarious, and he gave the ball away in a couple dangerous spots.

Edu: 6--This would be higher if it was not for Torres' near goal. Looked good in the center of the defense aside from that. I question what we're losing with him out of the midfield, but McCarty held his own.

Orosco: 5--This was the toughest one for me to grade. His role was not one to get involved with the attack, and with the little amount of pressure Panama put on us, he was tough to get a read on. He did make a couple important tackles, so perhaps I'm selling him short with a 5.

Seitz: 6--He has to get a little credit for a clean sheet but was never really tested tonight.

Man of the Match: Freddy Adu (Not nearly as emphatically as in the Cuba match).

Strangest Announcer Comment: ". . . And the Bundesliga star gets his first touch on the ball . . . Zizzo still looking to break into the first eleven at Hannover."

That is pretty remarkable that he is a "Bundesliga Star" despite the fact that he doesn't start for his club who are, by the way, a middle of the table team this season.

Thanks to anyone who actually reads this nonsense. I'll be away recording music this weekend, so I probably won't post again until Sunday night or Monday when I discuss Fulham's important victory at Craven Cottage over Everton!

USA 1, Cuba 1

The USA U-23 team began its quest to qualify for the 2008 Olympic games in unconvincing fashion yesterday with a 1-1 draw to Cuba. Though the US certainly had the better of play and looked the superior side, they begin the group stage at 1 point, 2 behind group leader Honduras.

What we learned from the match:

This team, at least until the three over 23 players are added, will go as far as Jose Altidore and Freddie Adu will take them. When Adu was involved, the US looked dangerous. When he disappeared, as he did during several spells, creativity was painfully lacking in the attack. Altidore was not himself today (more on that later), but it was still clear that he is the only true forward on the squad who can strike fear in a defense.

What changes does Nowak need to make:

There are many. His experiment with Findley and Davies playing as very attacking wings was a disaster. It left the edges vulnerable in defense; yet, it added little to the attack. Hill and Freeman were both shaky at times in defense, and with Jonathon Spector available, one of these two needs to be replaced. Freeman would be my choice as Hill looked good at times coming forward.

I would like to sign the lineup look something like this:

Seitz

Hill Sturgis Ianni Spector

Kljestan Edu McCarty Adu

Findley Altidore

Best Move of the Match:

The US had several nice build ups on the attack, but they often looked unsure when they neared the box. In the 87th minute, the US built from the back up the right side. They switched play to Adu on the left edge who put in a cross that was nearly headed in by Kljestan.

Post Game Comment of the Day:

“The most important thing will be to still play our way of football…soccer. We did a pretty good job, especially in the second half, when we made a couple of substitutions … to make sure that we stay compact, and still attack from the wings.”-- Peter Nowak

I'm not sure if the guys know what "our way of football" is judging from the performance, so I don't know how they can keep playing it.

Strangest Comment of the Match:

I had trouble picking just one, so I will package two of the them together. When Eddie Gaven entered the match: "Gaven sporting the young Gordon Lightfoot look." After Cuba's number 9 was sent off: "That is for the birds! (pauses for emphasis) For the birds!"

Where do I start here . . . First of all, I think we have reached the point in history where "pop-culture" references to Gordon Lightfoot are unacceptable unless one is referring to his epic song "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". Example, "A near miss there from Cuba! If that had gone in, the US would have been using Gordon Lightfoot's "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" as the soundtrack to tonight's highlight package."

Secondly, is my mother writing this guy's material? Between mentioning a 1970's soft rocker and saying that something is "For the birds", I thought for a second that my mom had developed male vocal chords and started working as a soccer announcer.

Player Ratings(1-10 scale):

Altidore: 4--He gets this low of a rating largely because of what we know he can do. Against Cuba he looked disinterested and slow. He'll need to play better for the US to qualify.

Adu: 8--This rating would have been even higher had he not disappeared for spells. He was the most dangerous player on the field setting up his own chances as well as chances for others. I would like to see him check back and work harder to get himself touches when they are not coming easily. He needs to keep himself involved.

McCarty: 6--He had several very good spells in this match and generally played well. The biggest criticism I have for him is similar to Adu. He needs to influence the match more consistently. When the US is under pressure, he needs to play more of a role in breaking that pressure and gaining possession.

Edu: 6--He probably outplayed McCarty, to be fair, but similar to Joze, he gets docked a bit for not playing to the level he is capable of. In the first half, he played very well in his holding role, but did not involve himself much in the attack. His second half was much better in this respect. Additionally, just like Adu and McCarty, I would like to see him do a better job of offering himself when we try to break the pressure. Our defense was too often forced to clear the pressure long, over the top of the midfield.

Findley: 5--He tracked back well in the first half in his wing role, shoring up the left side defensively. Unfortunately, he did not get himself involved in the attack enough which was his chief role. As a true forward, he looked more comfortable in the second half but missed a chance that should have been the winner.

Davies: 3--He got himself into a lot of good positions in the attack but looked more interested in earning fouls than threatening Cuba's net. He also did not track back and help the defense well enough. Every dangerous chance Cuba had was on the US's left side, and Davies unwillingness to do the defensive work played a role in this.

Freeman 3--This was a game he will want to forget. His side of the field was attacked constantly by Cuba as soon as they sensed weakness, and he failed to give a good account of himself. He also added nothing getting forward.

Hill 5--He had moments where he struggled in defense, but generally looked pretty solid. He looked very dangerous getting forward, as a true midfielder or forward should from the right back role. His pace and fitness were impressive.

Ianni: 5--Hard to judge his quality in this match as Cuba did not often test the center backs. It will be interesting to see how the two center backs play against more sophisticated and capable opposition.

Sturgis: 5--See Ianni's explanation above.

Seitz: 5--There was little he could have done on the goal. He was not tested much, otherwise.

Subs:

Kljestan: 6--His addition at the half helped make the US a more patient, composed team in possession. He deserves a spot in the first eleven.

Barrett: 5--He lacked polish in his game but made up for it by working hard and using his pace and strength. He does not look like a first choice regular, but he was useful as an extra attacker in a second half push for a goal.

Gavin: 6--He made his mark as soon as he came in and looked dangerous for the remainder of the match on the left. He probably does not deserve to be in the first eleven at this point, but I would not be shocked if ends up there eventually.

Man of the Match: Freddy Adu

Next Match:

7:00 PM tomorrow versus Panama

The US desperately needs three points after the Cuba match. We will see what changes tomorrow brings.

Tryouts = Night Off

Tonight was tryout night for the U12 Classic 1 girls soccer team I will be coaching this summer, so I ran out of time to write a proper blog entry. For today, just enjoy Fernando Torres' lovely finish in yesterday's Champion's League match versus Inter Milan.

Better off with Lawrie?

Before I get into the meat of the topic the subject suggests, I feel like I should spell out my opinions of Lawrie Sanchez as a manager. I don't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I like and respect him. First, his reputation was built on taking mediocre players and occasionally leading them to surprising wins. This was the case at Wycombe where, omitting one fabulous FA Cup run, he was a disater and, to a lesser extent, at Northern Ireland. Hiring a manager with a track record like that at a club that had recently played in a UEFA Cup didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Our style of play under Sanchez was another issue. The way Fulham played made perfect sense when his past is considered. He kept everything extremely direct, not asking or allowing players to spend much time on the ball or show any creativity. He gave every player a simple task, and put them into a position where it was difficult to fail as individuals. The flip side of the coin when playing this style of football is that it is almost impossible for players or the team as a whole to do anything brilliant.

This style also leads to a blurring of talent levels between opposing sides. Whether the club plays sides that are more talented, less talented, or equally talented, the game is basically kept close. This is a wonderful strategy when your team is weaker than most of the teams it will face; however, given the talent already on the board and the money available to spend, why plan on being one of the bottom end sides? In the end poor tactics and bad luck (late goals, dubious officiating) lead to the end of Lawrie's days at Fulham.

When news of his sacking hit the papers, TV, and web, I think most Fulham fans were relieved; I know I was. But now, two and a half months later, I am getting this nagging feeling that we made a mistake. As bad as Sanchez was, as bad as the results were, as ugly as the football was, we would be closer to safety right now had he stayed on through the end of the campaign.

When a club makes a managerial change at mid season in a year where relegation looms on the horizon, they need to find a man who can get immediate results. An ability to build a strong club that will compete over the long haul is not necessary. A knack for signing just the right couple transfers to fit in with the squad is not a necessary requirement either. Frankly the man Fulham needed to replace Lawrie Sanchez was a guy like Lawrie Sanchez.

They needed someone who could get mediocre results (with 23 matches left mediocre would have kept us up) out of team whose results had been poor. When you combine Sanchez's history of doing just that with the fact that any coaching change requires an adjustment period, Sanchez staying on was the clear choice.

I cheered it when it happened, so I will not criticize the firing now. That won't stop me from wondering where we might be if Lawrie was still in charge.