Was it a lack of imagination? Was it a lack of quality? Was it simply a matter of three horrendous errors that lead to three not exactly brilliant goals? Is Bullard necessary?
Perhaps these errors weren't really all that horrendous. Could Paintsil have simply headed that ball out for a corner rather than taking it on his chest or was he caught in a too tough a position to do anything safe? Was Konchesky in a hopeless situation to begin with, and that challenge was, although looking horribly mistimed and deserving of a straight red, the only way to avert a sure goal? Dickson Etuhu's turnover looked inexcusable but there was a long way for the Hammers to go from when they got the ball at center circle.
Etuhu, despite the apparent athleticism, overall looks much more limited than Andreasen, who replaced him when it was too late. Our midfield looked short of ideas throughout, with the starting quartet's, and Gera's passing, leaving much to be desired in terms of both accuracy and creativity. Johnson battled hard, but seldom to good effect. Zamora, and then Nevland, hardly made an impact. Schwartzer, perhaps affected by his backline's shakiness, himself looked unconvincing in controlling the area. I really have no complaints about Hughes and Hangeland.
Anyway, I don't know what to make of this match except that Andreasen needs to move ahead of Etuhu in the pecking order and Zamora, in that we don't have better options, needs to make better decisions and generally be more influential. Oh well, Konchesky's goal was a beauty.
Fulham player of the match: none - nobody stood out.
