Jol Can't Win at Fulham: Damned if he Does & Damned if he Doesn't

More often than not, football managers find themselves in a new job because the previous incumbent had failed to meet expectations. It usually means taking over a team said to be ‘in crisis’ and, if you’re Harry Redknapp, might be something worth mentioning at every available opportunity.

Martin Jol is a manager without this luxury. He has taken over a Fulham side that has exceeded expectations in recent seasons. Roy Hodgson guided the club to a Europa League final in 2010 and Mark Hughes followed this up with an impressive eighth place finish last time around. As a result, Jol could well be on a hiding to nothing – do well and he’s reaping the benefits from the work of others; fail and he must be the man to blame.

In terms of playing style, it’s noticeable that Fulham have changed very little over the summer. Last season, the team averaged 23 crosses per game with 64 long balls and 380 short passes. After three games of this season, those statistics stand at 22 crosses, 58 long balls and 374 short passes.

The similarities are unsurprising. Eleven of the players involved in Mark Hughes’ final game in charge have already featured in the Premier League for Jol this season. You can add to that Damien Duff and Moussa Dembélé who missed that game in May but played regularly in Hughes’ side.

And yet, Jol has tinkered with several elements of Fulham's side that had been important to their success. The most controversial was Jol’s decision to split up the much lauded defensive partnership between Breda Hangeland and Aaron Hughes – accommodating Philippe Senderos by shifting Hughes to right-back.

This change was odd because, as Michael Cox has noted, Hughes is perhaps the most underrated centre-back in the Premier League. Moreover, only the top three conceded fewer goals than Fulham last season – the defensive unit was arguably their greatest strength.

This defensive change has had an adverse effect on Fulham’s attacking play too. Hughes is a player now accustomed to life at centre-back and has looked ill-at-ease when venturing forward from right-back. On the opening day against Aston Villa, Hughes played 47% of his passes while in the opponent’s half and this fell to just 37% for the trip to Wolves. Contrast this with the recalled Chris Baird, a more natural right-back, who played 57% of his passes in the Newcastle half on Sunday.

The role of the advancing full-back had become an important one for Fulham as they have been one of the chief exponents of the inverted winger in recent seasons. With Simon Davies or Clint Dempsey cutting in from the left and Damien Duff coming inside from the right, Fulham were able to be solid in the centre of the park with a significant goal threat from midfield. In this formation, the width must come from the full-back – something Hughes is not ideally suited to provide.

But defensive restructuring is not the only change Jol has made to this Fulham side. Against Wolves, Duff spent the first half an hour on the left flank. Indeed, he had the first chance of the game when he cut inside – only to find himself on his weaker right foot and unable to trouble the goalkeeper. Duff was a quick player in his prime but reconverting him to an orthodox winger and asking him to get to the by-line at the age of 32 may not be the most effective use of his talents. 

There were indications from his team selection at St James’ Park that Jol may be about to backtrack from his initial changes. Senderos was dropped with Hughes restored to the centre, while Duff started on the right wing. Given that Hughes was uncharacteristically at fault for Newcastle’s second goal and Duff finished the game on the left, one could forgive Jol for doubting the wisdom of these changes.

But perhaps the lesson had already been learned. A manager must always seek to improve his side. And yet, he must also take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It would seem that Jol may already be inclined to look to the past in order to find a successful path for the future.