Did Fulham profit from the absence of de Jong?
Heading into Sunday’s game, for Fulham to have an opportunity of taking something from it I thought that their best option was to exploit the area between City’s midfield and back line – still shorn of the authority of Nigel de Jong and featuring Gareth Barry and Yaya Toure, two players who had played the lions share of the minutes so far in 2011/12.
Thanks to a second half revival Fulham did indeed take something from the game and watching the action it certainly appeared as though when Fulham sensed their opportunity – even at 2-0 down – they utilised the likes of Bobby Zamora, Danny Murphy and Clint Dempsey effectively, using this space and creating opportunities that led to the comeback and saw them take a point to move off the bottom of the table.
But was this the case? Roberto Mancini alluded to his midfield being tired and that there is little option aside from Barry and Toure at present, with de Jong’s absence being felt. The numbers, however, do not wholly reflect this. First up, some overall comparisons between the two sides:
Aside from interceptions (with Fulham breaking up more than three times as much possession as City managed) it is clear that City held the upper hand in all categories; up on their season passing average (86%) whilst Fulham’s was identical to their overall season figure. City too dominated in terms of possessions; yet this did not stop Fulham from letting fly with 14 shots, with the majority coming from outside of the box – perhaps coming from the sort of areas de Jong generally patrols with such applomb?
To take this further, I then looked at the attacking zone stats: both in the opposition half and the attacking third:
Interestingly, and as was the case with their overall numbers, Fulham’s passing stats both in the final third and attacking half were down on the season: final third passing % being 66% to date and attacking half passing % being 68% so far, and City far outweighed the hosts in terms of the number of passes both made and completed, all of which suggests that rather than Fulham exploiting any holes or weaknesses there was little difference in their approach compared to the season as a whole.
This is also backed out in this Guardian Chalkboard:
when you compare where passes were made, broken down below both in terms of the first half and second half to attempt to gage if Fulham did dominate more in the second half. What is more interesting is a breakdown of the shots before and after the break, which shows that whilst in terms of passing there was very little difference between the two halves there was a marked change in terms of the shots Fulham had – the second half being more productive, which ultimately paid off for them as illustrated in this Guardian Chalkboard:
that shows Fulham’s shot comparison.
Rather than pointing to a de Jong sized hole in City’s make-up on Sunday the numbers do point to the fact that in terms of the balance of the game there was no decipherable game plan executed by Fulham but simply a case of them increasing their fairly woeful shot conversion (around the 5% mark heading into the game) – helped by a generous deflection on the equalising goal.
Would de Jong’s presence have prevented this? Whilst his ability to break up play is renowned there is no evidence that shows Fulham profited in this regard and indeed at 2-1, Mancini introduced Pablo Zabaleta in an attempt to shore up this area; no matter though as Fulham clawed their way back into the game not from an increased passing game to exploit gaps in City’s back line but likely profiting through getting off a greater number of shots on goal than they have during the season so far.
Heading into Sunday’s game, for Fulham to have an opportunity of taking something from it I thought that their best option was to exploit the area between City’s midfield and back line – still shorn of the authority of Nigel de Jong and featuring Gareth Barry and Yaya Toure, two players who had played the lions share of the minutes so far in 2011/12.
Thanks to a second half revival Fulham did indeed take something from the game and watching the action it certainly appeared as though when Fulham sensed their opportunity – even at 2-0 down – they utilised the likes of Bobby Zamora, Danny Murphy and Clint Dempsey effectively, using this space and creating opportunities that led to the comeback and saw them take a point to move off the bottom of the table.
But was this the case? Roberto Mancini alluded to his midfield being tired and that there is little option aside from Barry and Toure at present, with de Jong’s absence being felt. The numbers, however, do not wholly reflect this. First up, some overall comparisons between the two sides:
Aside from interceptions (with Fulham breaking up more than three times as much possession as City managed) it is clear that City held the upper hand in all categories; up on their season passing average (86%) whilst Fulham’s was identical to their overall season figure. City too dominated in terms of possessions; yet this did not stop Fulham from letting fly with 14 shots, with the majority coming from outside of the box – perhaps coming from the sort of areas de Jong generally patrols with such applomb?
To take this further, I then looked at the attacking zone stats: both in the opposition half and the attacking third:
Interestingly, and as was the case with their overall numbers, Fulham’s passing stats both in the final third and attacking half were down on the season: final third passing % being 66% to date and attacking half passing % being 68% so far, and City far outweighed the hosts in terms of the number of passes both made and completed, all of which suggests that rather than Fulham exploiting any holes or weaknesses there was little difference in their approach compared to the season as a whole.
This is also backed out in this Guardian Chalkboard:
when you compare where passes were made, broken down below both in terms of the first half and second half to attempt to gage if Fulham did dominate more in the second half. What is more interesting is a breakdown of the shots before and after the break, which shows that whilst in terms of passing there was very little difference between the two halves there was a marked change in terms of the shots Fulham had – the second half being more productive, which ultimately paid off for them as illustrated in this Guardian Chalkboard:
that shows Fulham’s shot comparison.
Rather than pointing to a de Jong sized hole in City’s make-up on Sunday the numbers do point to the fact that in terms of the balance of the game there was no decipherable game plan executed by Fulham but simply a case of them increasing their fairly woeful shot conversion (around the 5% mark heading into the game) – helped by a generous deflection on the equalising goal.
Would de Jong’s presence have prevented this? Whilst his ability to break up play is renowned there is no evidence that shows Fulham profited in this regard and indeed at 2-1, Mancini introduced Pablo Zabaleta in an attempt to shore up this area; no matter though as Fulham clawed their way back into the game not from an increased passing game to exploit gaps in City’s back line but likely profiting through getting off a greater number of shots on goal than they have during the season so far.