Kit Symons' Status

I know I went on a bit of a rant in the chat yesterday, before abandoning the game and returning to work (yea, the game was that bad), so sorry if this is repetitive on my part, but after a night to sleep on it I felt I needed to get this out into the universe.

<begin rant>

I was totally on board with hiring Kit after Magath. We needed someone to lift the spirit of the squad and rebuild relationships. Kit did that, and I don't think it was a poor decision to hire him as permanent manager after his stint as caretaker, the team was playing well and moving up the table. All that being said, it's fallen apart on him now. We've taken 8 points from our last 30 and are now undeniably in a relegation fight, especially considering the tough fixtures we have coming up.

My issue with Kit, is that he seems tactically inflexible. He hasn't been able to adjust the team to address our issues, mainly conceding goals. The diamond worked when Kit took over, but it isn't working now. We're playing too open, leaving our (pretty average) defenders totally exposed, especially on the counter attack. Our lack of width is leaving our midfield stretched when we face a team with quality wingers (like Sako yesterday), and is too easy to defend when we attack. I think the diamond caught teams off guard earlier in the season, but it isn't now.

That's the case against Kit, but I also think he's been put in a really tough position. He's taken over a team that is going through an enormous transformation. In one season we've gone from one of the oldest teams in England to one of the youngest. I posted this in another forum earlier in the season, but this is a histogram of our player ages:



Now compare this to Bournemouth, who were top of the table at the time:



We have a real lack of players in their prime, between 23 and 27, and I think that is a big factor in our underachievement this season. Part of of the reason I was supportive of Kit was his track record of developing young players, but as the season has gone on, it's become clear to me that developing players and managing a first team may be very different skills.

Kit also got no support in the transfer market in January. So far it isn't really clear what Mike Rigg is doing for the club, but he didn't appear to make any moves in January. It's possible that Kit didn't feel he needed help from that transfer market. From the quotes he gave during the window I think that's very much a possibility. There was certainly no sense of urgency from the club to bring players in, which is looking more and more like a mistake, especially in our defense.

Moving forward, it isn't clear to me what the club should do. On the one hand, I would love to see Fulham keep a manager around long enough to develop some continuity at the club. I think changing managers every season (along with philosophies and methods) slows player development and hurts performances in the long run. On the other hand, this has gotten totally out of control. We are now 5 points from dropping two divisions in two years and totally undoing 25 years of progress. I'm not sure we can cross our fingers and hope Kit figures it out in time this season.

Of course if you fire Kit (or preferably demote him to the academy) you have to bring someone else in. Right now I don't see a savior on the market. Would we bring in Paul Lambert? Stuart Pearce? Could we lure Michael Laudrup to the club? Someone else? All I know is that I wouldn't want to be the one in charge of making these decisions at the club.

</end rant>

 

Good stuff CC, wouldn't call a post with all those salient posts a rant, but feel free to rant on.

Life in this division has been an education. There is such a fine line between winning and losing. Would the knives be out for Kit if Hugo hadn't been ruled offside against Millwall? There is no doubt that a shakeup is in order. Perhaps the return of Hoogland will help (doesn't sound like Lovebite is close). I would like to see Burn given another chance. Maybe it's time for Cauley to start and Hugo come on as a sub.

As far as what direction to go if Khan chooses to hit the panic button, I'm not in favor of hiring anyone who has been sacked this season (so a big NO to Lambert).

 

A future is difficult to build on a base of instability. Fulham have been the epitome of instability since Hodgson's departure beginning with the erosion of the player base, then the ownership and finally in the managerial department. In a round about way if things are ever going to change at Fulham they have to stop changing at some point. I have no idea if Kit is the way forward but somewhere and at some point the merry-go-round of non-amusement has to come to a halt.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said CC. My issue has been the lack of flexibility that you cited, but not just tactically. Both he and the club failed to adequately plug the holes left by the long term injuries to Hoogland and Amorebieta. We were winning when the starting back line was Hoogland, Bodurov, Burn and Amorebieta. Plus starting Ruiz at the front tip of the diamond. They also failed to plug the hole left by LVC's injury, and he hasn't been as good since he returned. Fofana's been great except for one thing...getting the ball across the goal line between the pipes. The return of Kacanicklic and Tunnicliffe should have helped, but hasn't. And Kit has been reluctant to make wholesale changes to the starting lineup, or to use substitutions to shake things up. Despite a recent drop in form, young Betts has kept the wheels from totally coming off. But they're wobbling a lot. I'd hate to change managers again, but if things continue along their present course, Khan may be left with no option. And Paolo DiCanio is still out there, too.

 

I definitely agree with you Jump, Kits inflexibility applies to personnel as well as shape/tactics. Kit doesn't seem to be willing to change up our lineup, or change things up with subs in games. I agree that Burn and Hoogland deserve to get back in the team. I just hope the Richards loan doesn't force us to play him over Hoog. I would also like to see more of Pat Roberts, but I don't think he fits well into our current shape (so change the shape!!). I was also perplexed and annoyed by Chris David leaving (he just made his debut for Twente this past weekend). He seemed like the natural long term replacement for Ruiz. Finally, why did we leave Matt Smith out on loan? He's scoring for fun for a team that's only 5 places below us and top of League One?

 

After commenting on the winter window in another thread, I looked it up & Rigg is with the FA until March. So we won't see his imprint on the club until this summer. That state of flux may be why we were largely inactive this winter.

Last summer, we effectively shipped out all of our veteran wingers. So while I agree that I'd like to see more flexibility from Kit tactically & formationally, he is rather limited in his options. Especially with the black hole in central mf.

One thing I'd like to see him try is Hoogland at CDM. He played there early (under Magath, I think) and I thought he did well on both ends. I'd also like to see us take a stab at 433 with Ross & Ruiz on the wings & Woodrow (or a recalled Smith) in the middle. Maybe Hugo out wide since he's a willing runner & then either Ross or a Ruiz in the middle. I don't think Hugo is equipped to play the CF slot in part b/c he's terrible in the air. Regardless, it might allow you to play over the midfield and keep 2 of the 3 mids at home for defensive help. You'd need one to get forward & join the attack.

This isn't the first time the club has sat on its hands thinking they were in a more secure position than they are in reality (third in a row by my math) and I doubt it's the last. Unfortunately this lesson is being taught with relegation fights & relegations. More unfortunately, they have yet to demonstrate they understand what the problem is. Hopefully Rigg is the sea change we need. And hopefully we aren't in League 1 before he gets a chance to try.

As for Kit, I have concerns but as stated in another thread, I doubt a change in manager would have a real impact. Maybe if you could get someone like Pulis who is a bit of an expert at consolidating poor sides.

 

Forgot about cutting David loose. And Hyndman was a key sub during our most successful spell too. And I don't understand not recalling Matt Smith last month either. Woodrow earned a couple of starts after scoring and assisting in several matches, but didn't get them. His header back to Ruiz for the winner in our next to last result should've earned him a start, but it didn't. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we need to replicate the lineup that was WORKING after Kit took over as caretaker. The newly arrived and returning players haven't gotten the job done. Look at our record with Fofana, Richards, Tunnicliffe and Kacanicklic. The team I would like to see next time out: Bettinelli, Hoogland, Hutchinson, Burn, Amorebieta (if fit), Parker, Christensen, Stafylidis. Ruiz, Rodallega and McCormack. If Amorebieta isn't ready, then Sean Kavanagh at left back. Stafylidis was in midfield when we were WINNING. Amazing.

 

Dumbest bloody headline I've seen in a while. So Khan's in London for the Jags game, we can ask him about Fulham! What's he gonna say, I hope we continue to tread water in the second tier and risk relegation to the 3rd? The ultimate in lazy journalism.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...-khan-calls-for-kit-symons-to-improve-results

 

What they SHOULD have asked him was something along the lines of "Why should Fulham supporters be optimistic about the club's future, given your track record to date as the Jags owner?" Or words to that effect. NOT, essentially, "when are you going to sack THIS manager?"

 

I'm trying to become a freelance writer for the British rags. They said my first submission, Man Falls in Thames, Gets Wet, showed great promise.

 

Now THIS is worth a read. Lots of salient points here, most of which I agree with.

http://www.shoot.co.uk/until-a-change-is-made-fulham-fans-must-support-symons/

 

Great article. It's refreshing to read pieces like this from rational Fulham observers. Sometimes I get in Twitter/Facebook bubble and think all our fans are idiots that would fire our manager after every loss.

 

It seems a bit unfair to Kit. "Thanks for bringing stability to the club and talent to the squad. But you're not good enough to get us promoted. There's the door."

If he's not the manager to get us promoted, that's fine. But this seems condescending.

 

I think if we're battling for top 6 he'll keep his job until the end of the season. If we make top 6 I think he'll be back next season.

More likely I think we hit a rough stretch of consecutive losses and he loses his job sometime mid-season.

 

I don't find it condescending. He's being given an opportunity to prove he can be that guy. An opportunity he likely wouldn't have found anywhere else at this level. If it turns out (and it's looking that way) that stabilizing the situation is the extent of his current abilities then there will come a time when he no longer fits the needs of the club. Until then, he has every chance to grow into the role & prove he can take us forward.

I think the article is giving Kit some credit that likely belongs to Rigg, but that's just an educated guess.