Con

Good point (you are at least the second person to make this point). The need to move better would be more obvious to players if they were taught a short passing system. Kick it long all the time, they don't learn that there is any need to learn.

Not necessarily pace, I agree. It's agility. Centre of gravity. The average height of a Premier League LB/RB is much shorter than the average height of a Premier League CB because that position requires greater agility - the ability to stop and start, get up and down, change direction quickly. It's easier to be more agile if you don't look like you've spent the last year eating at McDonalds*. *This doesn't apply to Baker, he's just big-boned. The point is the CB either side of the middle CB in the 3 CB system has to fill in at LB/RB much more often than he would have to if he was one of 2 CBs in a back 4 because the 2 WBs in the back 5 are much more aggressive, go forward and get caught out more often, than 2 traditional FBs. The ideal CB pair in a 2 CB system averages about 6'2 / 6'3 height. But if you move to a 3 CB system although you keep one of these 6'3 guys in the middle his wingmen need to be shorter and lighter: 5'10 - 6', so they are more agile and can cope with the extra wing play, whilst still being tall and strong enough for traditional CB tasks. In other words the wingmen of the alpha CB needs to be hybrid FB/CB. Baker is not one. He's an alpha. Am I making sense?

It can occur without it being our players fault, because 1. the memories (nerves) are retained and then transmitted to the players by the Villa fans (who, unlike the players, don't change) 2. the memories are retained by the opposition players and transmitted to them through the manager and his decisions. All problems can also be thought of as opportunities. We have a completely different team to previous teams that let in late goals. There is no psychological hang-over with respect to our players. The opportunity is that the opposition will be confident enough to take risks to get a goal back against us - so we should make the appropriate defensive substitution 20 minutes to go, dig-in and expect a chance or two to be handed to ourselves by the risk-takers late on and roll out easy winners. McLeish was criticised for playing for draws not the win. That negative mindset that makes players think first about not conceding which makes them instinctively pull pack. If you teach them to think about how many goals they are going to score, they want to get forward. It is then up to the manager to restrain them by making the appropriate defensive sub. Fundamental rule of football is you win games by scoring not by not conceding. I disagree... it need not be, for the reasons above. It's a mentality that can be transmitted to completely new sets of players by the fans. To the extent the opposition is emboldened to take risks toward the end of the game, the right tactics from us and we will exploit the opportunities presented to us and run away with the win.

Are those teams higher in the league because they have better players who can pass short, or because they have worse players (or not much better players) with a superior passing system? We seem to have got the idea from somewhere passing long is easy while passing short is hard. So you need better players to pass short. Really? You could argue passing short requires players with less skill, as you don't need to pass it so far. Plus, if the ball is kept on the floor, rather than bouncing from a height, you only need the side of your foot to control it. Flat passing requires a good surface - Villa Park has it. Pass and move, pass and move. If you are patient spaces open up for you because the opposition eventually switches off and lets you in.

maybe, maybe not. but they can do now if they want... didn't used to have sites that gave us all these football stats for free, like squawka.com and whoscored.com. banter between fans can, and will be, taken to another level. anyone can be an analyst with Statto-like knowledge at their finger tips. maybe the teams with the best fans will help their team most by providing the most informed analysis on forums like this.

Error but mitigating circumstances: 3 CBs are not played that often at this level so we are just becoming aware of the pros and cons... work in progress. if 3 CBs system takes off - and since we are 17th I've no reason to believe yet that it will at this club - it might in future be considered an error to play the Baker-type on the side of the middle guy in the 3, where he has to cover the LB/RB position for WBs gone AWOL.

not an easily resolvable argument - chicken vs egg.

Not necessarily. He would be handling them under different circumstances, in a different area of the pitch. Out on a wing the attacking player runs fast, then stops fast, because he either runs out of pitch/wants to get the cross in. Down the middle the attacking player doesn't do that. Against Odemwingie, Baker simply didn't have the 'brakes' to handle his momentum after Odemwingie stopped and turned inside. In attempting to 'brake' he ripped a muscle. Too big for that position.

After 23 matches of this Premier League season there is a correlation between shorter passing and higher position in the league table. Pass it shorter and it's easier because the guy you are passing to is closer. He takes the free kicks and corners. It's 34 meters to the penalty spot. This bumps up his figure compared to Westwood and Delph. The same thing occurs for Gerrard vs Lucas. Gerrard takes a lot of the set pieces, Lucas doesn't take any.

It's not necessarily a 'psychology thing' with our own players at all. You can change the whole personnel to a set who have no experience of conceding later, and it could still happen again and again. Why? Supporters don't change. Their memories aren't erased. And as important, as the psychology of our own players, is the opposition belief. They will have a reserve of confidence that you will be weak toward the end of the game. This weakness at times may be transmitted through the fans, who get less vocal, to the players. They will be encouraged to push forward in the belief your resistance will crumble.

Good point. Another good reason for the defence to make the short pass forward or sideways into midfield. It reduces the distance between the ball and the dangerzone a bit more. Lack of experience. Lack of patience. Trying to do too much. The system we are playing (extra defender, fewer midfielders). Perhaps our midfielders need better movement and/or to demand possession better. It's probably a mix of many things.

If this is the case our midfielders need to move more, and be more demanding of posession. True. We do more often play 1 extra defender, who will contribute more to total long passes compared to teams who play 4. Even so, the figure of 27% for long balls from our midfield as proportion of total, seems very low and it doesn't change the point that the defenders, with their lesser long passing skill, should let the midfielders do the hard stuff. If the midfielders, whom often only number 3, are all marked and cannot be found by the defence, then we should consider ditching the 5 defender system because they are wasting too much possession with their wayward long passes.

Good point. Teams performing poorly - run out of ideas or lack patience. The diagonal into the box is the fastest way to get the ball into the danger zone, even if it has low probability of resulting in a goal - do not control possession in the middle of the pitch. Players are forced wide, where they have to cross long from a wide position, especially if the opposition defence is solid and defending deep.

I was astonished how accurate the Man Utd players were. Of the 16/17% difference between them and West Brom/Villa, I guess: some of that will be "form". some will be "better movement" (of the receiver) some will be "possession dominance" e.g. extravagant cross-field ball from one unmarked fullback to another some of that will be "better passer"

Here are two sites where you can get free statistics on the performances of Aston Villa players and statistics on players of other teams. Whoscored.com Squawka.com Statistics help to provide a better understanding of an individual players/teams style and performance but I will say from the start that they always require interpretation, and fallible to coincidence when the sample size is small. Here's some statistics to get started with. In another thread it was mentioned Aston Villa team - of January 2013 - had become a long ball team. I had to check this, and the statistics agreed. Aston Villa is in the group of teams in the Premier League who pass the ball the longest, on average. Not all of them are crap, but most of them are, Everton being the exception. Now are Aston Villa 17th in the Premier League because we pass the ball long or because our long balls are shit? The data says although the Manchester Utd team that is leading the Premier League has a long ball accuracy 17% greater than Villa's (an impressive 73% to a rubbish 56%), our long ball accuracy is only 1% less than West Brom's. If the West Brom team is as crap as Villa's at long ball passing, why do they have 34 points to our 20 (14 more than us) and lie 8th in the league, in range of the European places? West Brom's 19 players have kicked 857 long balls this season compared to our 790 long balls over 23 matches - it can't be, unlike us, they know they are crap and are deliberately keeping their long ball kicking to a minimum. Aston Villa's crap long ball kicking does not appear to explain why we are hovering above relegation, rather than fighting for a European place. Even so, I've approached this question of long balls from another angle because I still believe it is relevant. Edit: 24 Jan. Error - get your facepalm gifs. ready The chart and following analysis contains an error. Midfield has actually kicked 40% long balls. when calculating the percentage I accidentally used total midfield crosses not total midfield long balls. The figure for the defence was correct. They have kicked 52% of our long balls. This is far too many, but the midfield have only kicked 3% and 9% fewer long balls than their counterparts at Man Utd and West Brom. This suggests that the defence do kick too many long balls and the midfield should kick more of them (so the defence should pass to the midfield more often), but that it's not as dramatic as before the error. The analysis stays the same but it becomes less important. When you kick a ball long and you don't hit your man, you have given possession of the ball back to the opposition cheaply. I want to know WHO in the team was crap at kicking long balls, and whether there was a difference between Man Utd, West Brom and Villa on this. West Brom could have kicked more long balls than us this season because they had more possession. Villa could have kicked more long balls than West Brom because our midfield is shit and the defenders want to by-pass it because they don't trust them to kick the long balls. What is true? I decided not to pick on individual players, instead I grouped players by their positions: defenders and midfielders. The statistics show that both West Brom defenders and midfielders are no better than ours at kicking long balls. Compared to the West Brom team, however, the Villa defenders kicked a greater percentage of all long balls kicked. Since the Villa defenders are far worse at kicking accurate long balls than the Villa midfielders this is an area of tactical weakness in the side. If only the defenders would pass the ball to a midfielder more often, the long balls would on average be more accurate, we would retain possession, and score more points. The statistics of the Premier League leaders, Man Utd, support this conclusion. Although their defenders long passing ability appears to equal West Brom and Villa's midfielders long passing, the Man Utd defence is still worse at long passing than the Man Utd midfield. The Man Utd defence also seems to know it is weaker at long passing because it kicks far fewer long passes as a percentage of the whole team. Man Utd midfielders kick 49% of all the long passes, whilst these figures fall to 43% and 27% for West Brom and Aston Villa. Conclusion - Teams do better when they restrict the number of long ball passes made by their defenders. One reason Aston Villa is doing shit is because our defenders can't wait to kick it long. Aston Villa defenders are not patient enough, they attempt to distribute the ball long far too quickly. They kick 52% of all our long balls. The team would do better if they give it short to a midfielder, and let the midfielder decide when and if to kick it long. Every single Villa central midfielder is better at long ball passing than our best long ball passing defender. There is no excuse not to restrict the number of long passes made by the Villa defence, and it could be a relatively easy way to improve our performances, as West Brom who have so many more points are no better than us at long passing.

I suspect our defenders are making far many long passes than they should, compared to defenders in the better teams. Players like Clark, Lowton, Bennett should be giving possession to the midfielders, not kicking it long. In the great teams, long balls are made by the player in your team with the best passing skill: Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard, not Martin Skrtel or Branislav Ivanovic. I'm going to check the stats on this.

We are passing long already so that implies we need to pass shorter and rely on the big ball up to Benteke less.

Average pass length Arsenal: 18m Swansea: 19m Chelsea: 19m Manchester City: 19m Wigan: 19m Liverpool: 19m Manchester Utd: 19m Southampton: 19m Fulham: 20m QPR: 20m Tottenham: 20m Aston Villa: 21m Everton: 21m Reading: 21m Stoke: 21m Sunderland: 21m WBA: 21m West Ham: 21m Newcastle: 22m Norwich: 22m Comparison: Barcelona 17m 17-18 m = Short passing team 19-20 = Mixed passing team 21-22 = Long passing team We are passing longer than we should be by at least 2 meters, on average.

Excellent post. Experience counts but we also should consider the role of the manager in the second half: tactics and substitutions. You could look at this chart to pick out the good managers who can turn the game around after half time (- and the bad ones who lose it). Is it a coincidence Sunderland have the same problem, managed by MON - Lambert's role model? Do our tactics change in the second half: do we sit back, when we should go for the win?

Having played FB before does not give him any credentials to play FB again, let alone "easily". N'Zogbia has played FB before. He has no credentials as a full back. And it's not how easily they play there, it's how well they play there. Baker is a good FB? Good is not good enough against an excellent winger. Baker should stay at CB where he is superb. Not at fullback, obviously. That is where the nippy wingers are at their nippiest. This is exactly my point. You don't want your rangy players caught trying to defend the corners. At centre back Baker and those like him do have a future. Why? Because of the need to defend against tall, powerful forwards like Benteke. If you reduce the height and bulk of your centrebacks too much the opposition will stick a big guy up front and you will get run over and concede a lot of goals from crosses and at set pieces. If he can earn his place, start him. I wouldn't play him FB or in a three CB system where he could become exposed in a FB position.

How do you think Bradford will play? With respect to N'Zog...

Bradford are practising 10 man behind the ball defending (and penalties). They probably won't have a shot on the Villa goal in the entire match. N'Zog won't get an opportunity to get in behind. They'll be doubling up and asking him to cross. So put him behind Bowery and Benteke instead? We'll need good shooters. A long range shot, deflected shot, could be a way through them. Guzan Lowton Vlaar Clark Lichaj Westwood Delph Bannan N'Zogbia Bowery Benteke

Against Southampton N'Zogbia's crossing was poor and his corners didn't get passed the first man. If he plays it will be a different test. Against West Brom he had a lot of space - in the first half - to run, dribble and pass short. He didn't have to knock accurate crosses into the box. Different game. Different set of skills required. Does N'Zog have them? I would play him because you would expect him to be full of confidence, and you want confident players on your pitch. But I'm not expecting the kind of performance of the West Brom game. The Bradford game will be a siege. They are aiming for 2-0 Villa and win on penalties.

Bradford will be defending much deeper this time, he won't have much room to dribble.

Bradford will be playing Park Le Bus. N'Zogbia won't have so much space to run into as he did against West Brom. It will be a completely different test for him. Against Bradford, we will have their goal under siege for 90 minutes. We need good crossing, and players who can get on the end of them - players good in the air. I'd start Bowery and Benteke, with Bannan and N'Zogbia on wings to give them service.