We Got It Wrong: What Fulham Changed to Draw 0-0 at Anfield - A Data Breakdown
Before Gameweek 4 we published a straightforward call: Liverpool's joint-top scorer, at home, against a Fulham side with zero points from three games, was the cleanest pick of the round. The match finished 0-0. Fulham took a point at Anfield, Liverpool missed all four of their big chances, and our recommended striker managed fifteen touches in ninety minutes. This is what the data says Fulham actually changed - and why our own analysis should have warned us.
What Fulham Changed: They Stopped Conceding Quality
The headline shift is defensive, and it is not subtle. Across their first three matches Fulham conceded an average of 2.08 expected goals per game. At Anfield they conceded 1.28. More importantly, the quality of shots they allowed on target collapsed.
xG and xGOT conceded by gameweek - FotMob data
| Defensive metric | GW1-3 average | GW4 at Liverpool | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| xG conceded | 2.08 | 1.28 | -38% |
| xGOT conceded | 1.97 | 0.90 | -54% |
| Box touches conceded | 25.3 | 18 | -29% |
| Big chances conceded | 4.7 | 4 | -14% |
The xGOT number is the one that matters most. Expected goals on target measures how dangerous the shots that actually reached the goalkeeper were. Cutting that from 1.97 to 0.90 means Fulham were not just blocking shots - they were forcing Liverpool into worse ones.
The Trade: They Gave Up the Ball on Purpose
Fulham were not a passive side in their first three games. They averaged 61.7% possession and 543 completed passes, and in Gameweek 3 against Crystal Palace they produced 3.14 xG from 25 shots with 64 touches in the opposition box - and still lost 2-3.
GW1-3 average versus the Anfield performance - FotMob data
| Gameweek | Opponent | Result | Possession | Fulham xG | xG conceded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GW1 | Chelsea (H) | 2-3 L | 62% | 1.33 | 2.24 |
| GW2 | Sunderland (A) | 0-1 L | 59% | 0.95 | 2.02 |
| GW3 | Crystal Palace (H) | 2-3 L | 64% | 3.14 | 1.97 |
| GW4 | Liverpool (A) | 0-0 D | 44% | 0.70 | 1.28 |
Possession fell by roughly eighteen points and completed passes dropped 44%, from 543 to 305. Every defensive indicator improved at the same time. That is not a team being pinned back by a better side - it is a team that decided controlling the ball was not working and swapped it for a compact shape.
The Crystal Palace game is the proof. Fulham dominated every attacking metric that day and lost, because Palace generated six big chances from just ten shots. Playing open football was costing them more than it earned.
Anfield in Detail: Fulham Out-Threatened Liverpool
The most surprising numbers from the draw are not defensive at all. With 44% possession, Fulham had more shots on target than Liverpool (4 to 3) and more touches in the opposition box (24 to 18).
| Stat | Liverpool | Fulham |
|---|---|---|
| Possession | 56% | 44% |
| Total shots | 14 | 10 |
| Shots on target | 3 | 4 |
| Touches in opposition box | 18 | 24 |
| Big chances | 4 | 1 |
| Big chances missed | 4 | 1 |
| Corners | 5 | 8 |
| Distance covered | 110.3km | 115.7km |
Fulham ran 5.4km further than Liverpool. They also led the league for distance covered before this round, so the work rate is a season-long trait, not a one-off effort.
Bernd Leno made three saves, kept the clean sheet and registered 0.90 goals prevented - essentially saving a full goal's worth of on-target chances. His 7.9 was the highest rating on the pitch, with Fulham's back line of Bassey (7.5), Robinson (7.4) and Affengruber (7.1) all solid behind him.
Why the Striker Pick Failed
Liverpool's forward finished with a 6.5 rating, 0.50 xG and one missed big chance. The number that explains the performance is his touch count: fifteen touches in ninety minutes, only three of them in the opposition box. He completed all five of his passes and both his dribbles, and created zero chances - he simply never got the ball in dangerous areas.
A striker in a side with 56% possession touching the ball fifteen times is a service problem, not a finishing problem. Fulham's low block did exactly what it was designed to do.
Scoring Our Own Calls
Our published Gameweek 4 calls, scored against results - FotMob data
Two calls landed. Our Hull City trap warning held up exactly as argued: Hull took a point at Chelsea and remain unbeaten after four, despite the fixture ticker rating them the easiest opponent in the league. And the bottom-five review that flagged Fulham as underrated was vindicated at Anfield.
The striker call was the miss, and the reason is uncomfortable. We had already identified Fulham twice as a team whose underlying numbers were far better than its league position. Then, when it came to making a recommendation, we reached for the table and treated "zero points" as shorthand for "weak opponent" - the precise error that our own four-step filter was written to prevent.
The Corrected Rule
Step one of that filter says to identify the genuinely worst team using underlying metrics rather than the table. Fulham never qualified. They were bottom on points while ranking first in the league for distance covered and mid-table for xG. A side like that is a bad fixture to target, not a good one.
| Check | What we should have asked |
|---|---|
| Is the opponent genuinely weak? | Do their underlying metrics match their league position, or contradict it? |
| Have they just changed shape? | A possession drop of 15+ points usually signals a deliberate tactical switch |
| What are they conceding? | xGOT conceded is a better read on defensive quality than goals or shots allowed |
| Is the striker getting service? | Touches in the opposition box, not team possession |
Fulham travel to West Ham next. On this evidence they are no longer a fixture to target blindly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What did Fulham change to draw 0-0 at Liverpool?
They abandoned a possession-based approach for a compact low block. Possession fell from a 61.7% average in the first three games to 44%, while xGOT conceded more than halved from 1.97 to 0.90 and box touches conceded dropped 29%.
Q2. Did Fulham actually create anything at Anfield?
Yes. Despite having only 44% possession, Fulham recorded more shots on target than Liverpool (4 to 3), more touches in the opposition box (24 to 18) and more corners (8 to 5).
Q3. Why did Liverpool fail to score with 1.28 xG?
They created four big chances and missed all four. Bernd Leno made three saves and prevented 0.90 goals, posting the highest rating on the pitch at 7.9.
Q4. Why was the Liverpool striker a bad FPL pick?
He had only fifteen touches in ninety minutes, three of them in the opposition box, and created zero chances. In a team with 56% possession that is a service problem caused by Fulham's defensive shape.
Q5. What is the lesson for picking fixtures?
League position is not a substitute for underlying metrics. Fulham were bottom on points while ranking first in the league for distance covered, which made them a much harder opponent than their record implied.
Data sources: FotMob match statistics (as of 13 September 2026)
Related reading: How to Pick the Right Player Against a Bottom Team | The Hull City Trap | Bottom 5 Reality Check
댓글
댓글 쓰기