BigJim

I had very high hopes for Zaniolo at first, don't feel so confident about him now.  But I thought Rogers looked far more the part today. Obviously has a lot to learn but I somehow get the feeling he will adapt very quickly and be a big player for us.

A nice comfortable win against a very poor side. Points to savour were the  masterly passing from Luiz coupled with great running from Watkins and a bit of Bailey magic. Plus great finishes from Tielemans and Moreno.

Aside from that though, I'd say we were mostly a bit predictable and untidy going forward, as we have been quite a lot recently. Still plenty of work to do to reach a consistent level of fluency.

Good to see Tim get a good runout, and a few minutes for the new lad, I expect Emery to play him quite regularly for the rest of the season.

15 hours ago, Ponky said:

To be honest we could still be playing and Chelsea wouldn't have got the ball in the net, despite literally gifting them three one on ones in the box. Martinez was impenetrable.

Had Doug's goal stood it might have been a completely different outcome, but I think the main thing missing is that little bit of crispness from our mids. Poor first touches leaving to turnovers were the order of the first half. It's impossible to beat a full high press when that happens.

Absolutely this. Chelsea's passing was far crisper. Some of our passing is so slow that the receiver is under severe pressure by the time the ball reaches him.  Then add the often poor first touch by same receiver and we've lost the ball very cheaply.

46 minutes ago, limpid said:

I used a quote box the line I quoted. The rest is my interpretation. I don't see how that corrects or changes what I said.

I was being generous and using the bullet about "kicks or attempts to kick", rather than tripping, but contact was made so

Fair enough. 

Your post led me to think that the rule said that any attempt to foul could be penalised. It was my interpretation of your interpretation which sent me down the rabbit-hole. I'm sure we can all agree that Ramsey's challenge was not reckless or dangerous, so contact was necessary for the decision.

7 hours ago, limpid said:

Read Law 12.

If the ref/VAR felt that the defender attempted foul play, it's a foul. The amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" is not relevant.

I just saw that the second paragraph is not part of law 12, but rather your interpretation. I should have noticed that in the first place.

What the law actually says is:

<quote>Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

....

• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

</quote>

14 minutes ago, limpid said:

The Laws of the game are easily found with Google.

Example from the Law (re direct free kick):

It's a refereeing decision as to whether the player was attempting to kick (or strike or trip). The referee can award an indirect free-kick even if there is no contact at all, but the (attempted) foul play only has to meet to "careless" test to mean a direct free kick.

If the referee felt that the defender attempted to kick, strike or trip Durán, it's a direct free kick and therefore a penalty, but not a caution. The referee(s) have to decide the intent of the defender. What the fouled player does afterwards shouldn't come into consideration, neither does any injury sustained, unless the foul play was reckless or used excessive force.

Thanks for that.

So intent is everything: if two opposing players are going hell for leather side by side in pursuit of the ball and the attacker trips over the defender's foot, no penalty. If the defender tries but fails to make contact, penalty.

2 hours ago, limpid said:

A foul is a foul is a foul, even if no contact at all is made. Attempting foul play is a foul.

I don't understand how so many people who've watched football all their lives don't know this. Referees are crap, but when everyone thinks "but he got the ball" is a valid defence, what hope do they have?

Read Law 12.

If the ref/VAR felt that the defender attempted foul play, it's a foul. The amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" is not relevant.

That's interesting, I didn't know that law....

The wording confuses me though. Does attempting foul play mean intending to foul the opponent? 

If not, I'd be grateful if someone could give me an example of how you unintentionally attempt foul play without actually making contact.

If so, no penalty should be given where there is no intent, because amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" cannot apply in one case and not the other.

Anyway I think Duran dived, but the ref was very close and must have thought otherwise, so I guess it's a fair call.

4 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Was far less deliberate than the Sheffield United one

I only meant it a little bit ref, honest.

2 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

I don’t think there is a single Villa fan in the world who genuinely thinks we are going to  win the league. 

Certainly no-one who has watched the last 3 games.

Great pass to Ollie for the first but he should have walked for deliberate handball on the edge of our box.  Seems he always manages to do something very risky, luckily he has got away with it so far.

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Diaby is Bailey's replacement - going to three up top would have been very bold and every time we've tried it we've looked weaker - what we really needed was to be able to bring on a midfielder for Ramsey - but with Tielemans out, Kamara suspended and Iroegbunam untested - we simply don't have any. You're right, we desperately needed a substitution, but the options are in the window, not on the bench.

 

Only positive for me was that Unai finally gave him a few minutes and he didn't do too badly. Probably not enough to expect another run out any time soon though.

9 minutes ago, jim said:

Dog shit. Been coming.

Did Watkins touch the ball?

I counted once second half, when he gave it straight back to the opposition under minimal pressure

3 minutes ago, andym said:

Luiz went to intercept the ball across (and should have easily done so), but for some reason let it go under his foot.

Yeah I think Luiz could have done better there, but neither of them looked likely to stop the threat.

2 minutes ago, Lochheads twin said:

Emi Martinez a clear Villa man of the match. He cannot be happy playing behind that lopsided defence.

This is a real worry.  He will be off if we don't improve smartish.

55 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

That is probably the worst criteria to go by. How can you possibly asses if someone intended to do anything? 

Even if an arm is stretched out, you don't know if it's intentional or the body movement carried the arm that way.

Surely you can't use intent- there must be better criteria. 

I agree it's not always easy, and technology and views from multiple angles seem to have made it harder. But that's how I remember the law from way back. If intent wasn't clear and obvious (haha) it wasn't given.

Intent ought to be the sole criterion. Isn't that how it used to be?  Quite simple really.  The position of the arms is already included in that, i.e. if you extend your arms intentionally to give you a better chance of blocking the ball, then it's a penalty. 

I don't think that anything else - proximity, or the speed of the ball, or the fact that it hit another part of the body first - should affect that. If you have moved your arms in a deliberate attempt to improve your chances of blocking the ball, you deserve to be penalised.  If the ball strikes you in any other circumstances, no penalty.

The difficulty is in the determination of the intent. But I can't see that the other stuff they have tried to add to the law makes it any easier to apply, on the contrary.

6 hours ago, PieFacE said:

Really? 

Tbh, Livro was in such close proximity I'm not sure it should be a penalty even without the fact it deflected off his chest first. The fact it did bounce off his body onto his arm makes the decision scandalous. There's literally nothing a defender can do to prevent that. If that's a pen, players may as well just start aiming for defenders arms when crossing/shooting. 

Funny how we all see the game so differently. 

When they're not doing exactly that already, they're certainly hoping for contact of that sort.

I was critical of Pau in his early appearances but his contribution is obviously improving with each match and he's getting more confident  as a consequence.

His performance in individual battles remains a worry though. Looking at our two centre backs on Sunday, I would wish for a little more aggressiveness from one and a little less from the other.

On 27/11/2023 at 03:14, Tom13 said:

I didn't think McGinn was at his best yesterday, but his battling helped us in parts.

Agreed, he was up against some very tough opponents.

Even still, he brilliantly laid on two gilt-edged chances, for Matty in the first half and Ollie in the second.

18 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Unai got it wrong first half, Konsa's not a right back and Catty Mash is not a midfielder.  Fortunately he put it right second half and we looked much better with Bailey and Tielemans down our right.  Glad Diaby went off too, for me he's been mostly mediocre since September.

They were faster and stronger first half and we were very lucky to be anywhere near level at half time, but I think the intensity of their first half cost them as they looked tired after about 70 minutes and didn't have much in the way of fresh legs on the bench.  We really should have killed them off in the 70th-80th minutes but didn't make the most of some good breaks, and almost let them back into it.

Three offside goals for them - it's a heart stopper but it works.

I'd say a bit lucky to win it, but we hung in there first half and were probably the better side second half.

 

Absolutely this. Even once or twice in the first half we won the ball back high up the pitch and totally wasted it.

Fond memories of the first game back in the PL and SJM opening the scoring.... but then the feeling of inevitability when we went on to lose. 

Whoever concedes the least goals is the way I look at it this time.

If we get an even rub of the green and a fair set of officials we can do it.

I wish I could be more confident of the latter. 

1 hour ago, rubberman said:

It's going to be interesting to see over the next few games. For me, those were aberrations caused by the injuries to Mings/Carlos (I think) early in the games and before Emery had a chance to drill the replacements as it was so early in the season - Pau had only been here a couple of weeks. I think both the first choice and back up defenders now have it nailed and while the high line may get occasionally beaten, i don't expect us to be done over in the same way, even by the best attackers.

I don't feel quite as confident. Even Fulham very nearly got through several times.

Happy birthday and welcome to the Villa Talk Septuagenarians!

6 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

He’s not as good as Mings. So I disagree. 

I have to agree with this. Mings looks faster, stronger, more aggressive, better in the air, though Torres is a clear winner with the ball at his feet.

He's getting a quite extraordinary amount of praise on here for his performance against Brighton. I don't think he deserves it quite yet, though I certainly hope he will turn out to be an elite performer for us.

I just watched the game again to study a couple of things, because our general performance seemed a bit different from usual in terms of playing out from the back.

I counted how many times we did that v Brighton and I found that when he had the ball, Emi went long about twice as often as playing it out short (I counted 19 times out of 29). I think this was a big factor in our success and for sure Brighton weren't expecting it.

This meant Torres saw less of the ball than usual. By my calculation he had about a 77% success rate with his passing, though nearly all his passes were short and backwards or square. He did attempt a few adventurous passes but mostly didn't find his man with them. He had three or four forward surges but didn't really have much success with the ball at the end of them.  He made one or two blocks and tackles. I don't remember him heading the ball once.  I think Konsa had a far busier time as most of Brighton's threatening approaches came on his side.

In sum, not the majestic performance some are making out, but he certainly looked a bit better than he has in other games, and I'm confident he will carry on improving.