allani

"It's a good point. Not easy to come here. Bristol City are a very decent team. They've got some very decent players. We just need some time. We'll get better. We're building a decent squad. We will be there or thereabouts at the end of the season."

Oh no it isn't...

My mate Roger Brendon is also available and would probably have a plan too...

"In some people's eyes, I will never be the answer, that's obvious but the one thing that changes it is results so we need a few results. I do believe we've got the nucleus of a very decent team again, given time." But the trouble is Steve that there is no evidence over the last 2 years that time will do anything. We had one spell in the middle of last season where we looked good (or at least our results looked good - 7 wins in 8 games (and the only defeat being in the cup). Apart from that our results for the last year have been bang average. Your analysis is wrong. We don't need time. We need direction. We need a plan. We need leadership.

"It's difficult at the moment. No matter what I do, in some people's eyes I'm not going to be the right fit." Just **** off. This is not about people being unreasonable. It is not personal attack. It is purely about the fact that over the last 18 months our performances and (more importantly) our results have not been good enough. It was obvious that our defence has been suspect but you have not strengthened it. It is obvious that Mile is not a central defender and yet you keep on playing him there. It is obvious that Chester is not the defender and the leader he should be without a strong partner - yet you keep playing Mile alongside him. This is NOT personal this IS business. And the results are not good enough. There are only so many occasions on which you can blame the players for not turning up before you have to acknowledge that the blame is not entirely with them. As for blaming the fans.....

By the same token in Rotherham had beaten us we would be 3 points from the relegation battle... We are exactly where our performances deserve - mid-table mediocracy.

That is why I compared the results against the results against the teams that finished in the same position last season (so Ipswich are bottom - so compare the result against Sunderland from last season - as that feels more like a direct comparison than comparing last year's result against Ipswich because they finished 12th). Obviously it is still not foolproof as it doesn't reflect that we might have played the team that finished in x position when they were on a good or bad streak. Anyway, the point remains that this season we have played more teams who are in the bottom half of the table than was the case this time last season and that needs to be taken into consideration when comparing the two.

Checking the date. But I don't think that it is April anywhere...

My problem with this is where do the goals come from? Abraham will score a load - but the other 5 would (I think) struggle to score 20-25 goals between them. But a front 2 of Abraham and Kodjia would almost certainly be looking at 40-50 goals between them. I know that 4-4-2 is frowned upon by many these days as "un-sophisticated" or "old-fashioned" but for me 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 depending on how you describe it only works when you have wide players like Hazard, Ronaldo, etc who are going to score 20 odd goals on their own. I don't think we have that type of wide player - we have more traditional wingers. So for me I would prefer: Bolasie McGinn Grealish El Ghazi Abraham Kodjia I guess the worry is whether this would inhibit McGinn and Grealish too much. But I just see the goal threat as being hugely more challenging for the opposition to deal with.

So here is a poser for you all. I'm a bit "old school" in that I like 2 strikers. I think that Kodjia and Abraham will cause chaos with most defences and should both be looking to score 20+ goals this season playing that formation. If you play those 2 through the middle then unless we move to a 3-5-2 formation (which would possibly be suicidal given that we only have 1 centre back) that leaves a midfield 4. I think we are most likely to play two in the middle and two wide men. Jack seems to have been more effective playing if not "in the hole" then as a bit of a "free" midfielder with the right to roam around (or maybe that is just my opinion?). That role pretty much disappears in a 4-4-2 formation. Also I don't see Jack scoring 20+ goals to make a 4-4-1-1 formation as effective as a 4-4-2 with the AK attack above. So do we give him a more "controlled" role in the centre midfield - which given that I think McGinn or Hourihane should be the other will mean he has a bit less freedom to roam. Or do we play him wide and allow a bit more attacking freedom but probably with the view that he is likely to drift infield or be in danger of getting isolated out wide? He might be our best player but I'm wondering whether our best player might not fit well within our best formation? Personally, I think that we are good enough going forward to have a front 6 of: Abraham, Kodjia, El Ghasi, Bolasie, Jack and McGinn. I think that Jack and McGinn are decent enough defensively against most of the teams in the division. However, they'd both have a bit of their creativity curtailed by playing as a centre 2 rather than as part of a central 3. Maybe I am a football dinosaur myself - but I don't see any of our wide attackers scoring as many as Kodjia will if he plays in a more central role so I just can't see a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 or a 4-1-4-1 working as well for us. So at the risk of turning this into a tactics/formation discussion - do we need to sacrifice a little of the quality of Jack in order to improve the overall quality of the team? Or do people think that Jack could be just as good in a 4-4-2 as he is as the "free" midfielder?

Last night's win is very welcome. Hopefully, if nothing else it might highlight that there is room for 2 strikers in the starting XI. The first goal is (in my opinion) how we will get the best success this year. Abraham and Kodjia through the middle should cause panic in most Championship defences and they should be capable of scoring 40-50 goals between them in a season if they stay fit. I personally think that the chances of scoring 40-50 goals drops significantly if JK is pushed onto the wing. It also gives us two targets in the box for any crosses from the wing (rather than 1 as it has been for a while). Bruce said he'd been wanting to play 2 up top for a while so I hope that he gives this a proper crack. Anyway, as an update on the stats: last night's result puts our season projection up to 74 points (7th place based on last year's final table). Which is not bad - although it should be noted that the average league position of teams we have played so far is 14th. On 1/2 season form (23 matches) our form is a little worse - 68 points projected / 11th place. However, our full season form (last 46 matches) is more encouraging - 80 points / 5th place. If you take Bruce's full tenure of 79 matches then our season projection is 73 points / 7th or 8th depending on goal difference. Based on the comparison of matches played against opposition in the same league place last season - last night also helps (we lost the home game against the team that finished in 15th place last season) and so we are only 6 points down on that comparison. Which would put us exactly on the cusp of the play-offs - either 6th/7th depending on goal difference. The weekend match against Sheff Wed will be interesting in terms of: our half season form (we lost our 23rd last match), our full season form (we won our 46th last match). Wednesday are also likely to be top half and our record this season against teams currently in the top half of the table is P3, W1, D1, L1. Hopefully Bruce sticks with the more attacking formation (although hopefully he gets the two centre midfielders to play a little less deep) and plays for the win - as we definitely drew too many home matches against our promotion rivals / teams in top half last season.

...also 63% possession and not had a single corner? Suggests that we aren't carrying much threat with all that possession. Would that be a fair conclusion?

Interesting that we seem to have had 63% possession and yet Rotherham have had more shots and more shots on target. I know we are ahead on the most important stat but that still strikes me as concerning...

The goal sums up exactly why (for me) two central forwards are so important. One gets the ball and attracts the attentions of the centre back(s) - giving the other a split second to find some space, a bit less attention and hey presto...goal. Hopefully Bruce will see the light. These two could rip apart this league given the right service - easily 40-50 goals between them.

The trouble is that from what I have seen the "smack it" seems to be the first option - the defenders appear to look upfield first rather than the area around them. It doesn't look like the defenders are looking for an "easy out" or that their understanding that the "easy out" is the pump it long option.

That and the fact that most of the time they are "receiving" the ball - it has been banged up in the air for 50m by the back line. Meaning that not only is it difficult to control but also that the defender has had 3 seconds to "compete" for the ball or position himself to pressure the player off the ball immediately.

I'm not sure many of us have any expected goals left for Villa. Other than disappointment....

To be fair it isn't an entirely random direction. I mean normally they do at least manage to aim somewhere within the correct 180 degree arc that is permitted! ?

It is no more strange than saying that we have 3 points more than we had after 7 games last season. If we played the 7 worse teams last year and the 7 best teams this year - then being 3 points worse off would suggest that we hadn't started well - whereas actually we'd probably all be quite happy that we'd taken points off our main rivals. Similarly if we had played the top 7 last season and the bottom 7 this year then being 3 points worse off could probably be regarded as a disaster. At the beginning of the season we were told that it was the best start to a season since 1968 (I think) because we had won 3 matches. But those 3 matches were against teams predicted to finish 40th, 41st and 90th in the English league (or thereabouts). To be honest failing to win any of them should have been regarded as a major shock. I would say that actually a win and 2 draws against the teams expected to finish 1st, 5th and 7th is a hell of a lot "better". Context is key.

I used the current position of the team played this season (admittedly I did that based on the results after the weekend rather than the position when we played them) and then compared that with the corresponding match from last season. So Blackburn were / are 13th in the table so I compared the weekend's result (i.e. the away match against the team placed 13th) with the result of the Leeds Utd away match last season. I did this to try and base it on form rather than the side (as in Ipswich's result this season is better compared to Sunderland last season rather than Ipswich - who finished top half - last season). I'm interested to see the direct result comparison that you have done too (and agree that the only real option is to substitute the promoted teams for the relegated ones - in both directions). Either way it seems that this season is considerably worse than last season - despite all the claims that we'd made the best start for 50 seasons (which I think can now be completely dismissed as baloney based on the friendliest possible fixture list rather than the actual performance of the team).

But we'd played better team in terms of their final positions v current positions this season.

If you take Bruce's entire tenure at Villa (P78, W34, D21, L23) and apply that across a full, single season you would get to 73 points. Which would have had us finishing either 7th or 8th last season depending on goal difference. Even accounting for the fact that the team was a mess (I'd argue that it is still a mess now - allbeit a different mess) when he arrived on that form we would still be 17 points off promotion. Also suggests that despite Bruce's assertation that we need more time, our form is going backwards rather than forwards.

Stats can prove most things I agree. But Bruce has said repeatedly that we will get better. It is too early in the season to judge. We didn't start well last season either. But this isn't about the start of the season. This is about our form over the last 6 months. Indeed 22 matches so 1 match short of half a season. Even if you add in that 1 extra match (Wolves) then our half season form (projected out to a full season) is 11th rather than 12th. That is a long way short of 4th. 15 points short of 4th to be precise.

Given the easy start to the fixtures this season it is definitely worse. We picked up 18 points last season against the bottom 3. After a third of the matches against teams in the relegation zone this season we have managed just 2 points. If you compare like-for-like results (based on league position of the clubs we have played) we are 9 points worse off this season compared to last.

I think the point is that the times when the results have been good / performances have been good over the past 12 - 18 months have probably been the exception rather than the rule. The theory seemed to be that if we eliminated the poor spells then our good spells would see us challenge for promotion (after all we got within 90 minutes last season). However, instead our poor spells seem to be extending and the danger is that if we eliminate the good spells then we're suddenly mid-table at best, bottom half more likely and worse case in a run of relegation form. I don't think that it will be as bad as the latter so am happy to dismiss that. But if you eliminate the worst case then you also have to eliminate the best case. All of which means we are exactly where we should be. Bang average, mid-table. A few good results there, a few bad results thereabouts and a whole load of meh results in between. Which at least solves the riddle of Bruce's "there or thereabouts".