Con

I think you're making much more of it than there was. Given controlled it. He's not great with the football. If he controlled it then it couldn't have been that bad. At least Bannan saved the corner. The substitution was 'tactical'. He had done his open play job as midfield lynch-pin well. We bossed the game in the first half. He wasn't at fault for the goal and only had 15 minutes of play in the second. The really 'bad' part of the match began after he went off.

Didn't realise that. Well done Bent.

Getting and giving is an unappreciated art in our team. Bannan was the only player on the pitch who had patience. His job might have been a very simple one but it gave the team structure. He was an outlet in the middle who could switch play, dragging Bradford's defence side-to-side.

Confident and competent. We were playing a Division Two side. Terms like "psychotic" are silly and make any reasonable argument you may have look over-stretched.

True. Who was going to supply him? Only had 3 midfielders left when Bannan went off. After Bennett was subbed, the two players involved in creating the first goal were no longer on the pitch. Sometimes you have to question the management. This is a new one!

Given. Punted clearance up field, nodded on by Benteke into the path of Weimann. That's a lucky goal.

Delph and Ireland were playing in attacking positions in front of him. While we were attacking Bannan's position was often on the edge of the centre circle, which was his role as a deep lying playmaker. He received the ball and spread it to the other side where there was more space (because Bradford had all men behind the ball). He could have got further forward if the players had held the ball up better, more patient, but we rushed the crosses in. We still created 7 chances in the first half. Far more organised attack set up than we had after he went off in the second. Bent didn't bring anything to the party.

Lambert had to go after he didn't win against West Brom. It's the Premier League that counts. He had one good year with Norwich, when they were full of confidence after promotion. Not able to bring the same results out with a team that has more talent but is not so confident. Yes, he can spot a player. He should be a scout.

We already know he can't defend, against any opposition, but he'd be great as a winger who can tackle a bit. That would have been an excellent whipped in cross against any opposition.

Hoof ball. One of them resulted in a goal right at the end, but it's not football. Bannan created space by spreading it around. It's not spectacular stuff. It's patient stuff. We need more patience. Hoof ball for the rest of the match in the second half after Bannan went off.

Great cross.

He's a deep lying playmaker tonight. Delph and Ireland are playing more attacking positions.

Tonight is a good night to identify his style of play. It's been difficult to do that with him playing in an under-performing side, with defensive duties. Not so many defensive duties tonight, Villa should be on top all match. He's been frustrating a corners so far - over-hit. One cross over-hit. Not the only Villa player making mistakes. I like the way Delph is playing but if we minutely analyse his performance you could trash him. Villa team on top all half. Bannan passing it around "pulling the strings". I think that is his game. It's not spectacular stuff.

After MON this is the one thing that I would be worried about by sacking Lambert... our scouting seems to have undergone a revolution from 'non-existent' to potentially world class. On the playing side, he has made multiple bizarre tactical decisions in game and team selections that threaten to cost us our place in the Premier League. One would like to believe the latter is because he is a young manager making mistakes he won't make again. We know he has some good qualities. Do we have time to let him learn on the job to iron out his failures?

I'm referring to the letter that was posted to this forum. It was well written, I think it's authentic. How much more ITK than that do people want. It basically said exactly what you are saying, so if you didn't get your info from that letter, your source provides a second confirmation of what's in it.

If you're getting your info where I think you are, then I'm ITK too. As are many people here are also ITK, if they took the time to read. I also would agree with everything you said. There is money available. That we've not made signings yet is strategy. Keeping options open, including the option of sacking Lambert.

Then bring Bannan on and play him in the crucial middle of the pitch and make our defense even weaker. Bizarre. I like Bannan but he is an offensive player. You wouldn't bring on Iniesta if you wanted to close out a game. If he wanted to win the game even more than 1-2, that's just gambling, which is not something I would do.

Not sure I'd trust the TV version. Formation here http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/615154/Live 3-4-2-1 or 3-4-3

Baker is the flour of our academy. If gets much butter he'll be scone.

CB not playing WB, covering WB when he gets caught out of position. So the wingmen CBs in the 3 need more skills similar to a fullback than traditional CBs in a back 2. He's 6'1. That's just above my 5'10 - 6' range I suggested would be appropriate for a great wingman in a back 3. Perhaps I could extend that range to 6'1 for the slower Italian league. Nothing about him contradicts what I have said. I agree. They hog the ball and kick long balls that go nowhere. BTW, Baker is currently the Villa player with the highest long ball accuracy, which surprised me. I thought Clark or Vlaar, if not Bennett or Lowton. Relatively small sample size though.

Yes. They have a much better chance than the other three relegation rivals of staying up, so withholding Bent won't make much difference. With the Bent money we will improve the squad dramatically and out-point the teams below us. Newcastle also still have to play QPR and Wigan. With Bent they could beat them and help us out. Plus, we need the karma after those Villa fans unveiled that "Sob on the Tyne" banner when they were last relegated at Villa Park. You know it's going to be "Sob on the Villa" next weekend if we are not careful.

Wikipage has him down as a 6'1 central defender. He would be a good wingman on a 3 CB back line. The Italian league where he plays FB? (your implication?) is not as quick as the Premiership. 6'1 is beyond the upper limit for what I think would be required for a great FB so I suspect he would not do so well in the Premier League at FB. Since he is noted as a CB his most favoured position is probably CB, not FB. I'm not claiming that CBs can't play RB/LB. Ivanovic and Huth, of all defenders, have played there. I'm saying the best ones, on average, won't be built like CBs. Play them FB, their relative lack of agility will be exploited all day by speedy, nippy wingers. This applies to the wingmen in a CB back 3 who have to cover the attacking WBs.

Our central midfield should be dominating the match, passing the long balls and dictating a shorter passing play. Currently our game is dominated by the defence, especially the WBs Lowton and Bennett who get a disproportionate number of touches and passes compared to their ball skill/passing ability. When our defenders kick the majority of long balls they do they only have 50/50 chance of being on target. So half the time when we kick it long it's a defender doing so, and half the time a defender passes long it hands the ball back to the opposition. How do we get the midfield more involved in the match? This is the question to which everyone knows the answer: we need a defensive mid. It would also help to train our defenders to pass the ball short in-field more often so the more talented ball-players get more possession. Just because Delph, Bannan, Westwood, El Ahmadi has passed the ball short backwards or sideways to them, doesn't mean they don't want to see the ball again!