Con

Don't get Remy'd. Not those exact words.

A CB needs to cover that position more frequently with a back 3 and WBs than with a traditional back 2 and LB/RB because the WB more-often-than-not has sodded off up the pitch somewhere and left that area exposed. Leaving a big, hulking CB vs a small nippy winger = trouble. Ideally in a CB 3 I would have one Vlaar type CB in the middle and two, shorter (5'10 - 6') and more agile playmaking CBs on either side, because of the extra work they need to do on the wings compared to a traditional CB. As a CB in the Vlaar mold, Baker was playing out of his natural position.

I don't understand how you can be confused. Read the whole lot. I'm saying I want attacking football but I recognise there are circumstances that call for defensive football. I list six circumstances that can apply in a football match, 5/6 I would use offensive tactics 1/6 I would use defensive tactics. Is what I'm saying any clearer?

For a given level of ability the typical CB is not as agile as the typical LB/RB. This is such an easy point to grasp I should not have to explain it because it would patronise too many people who might potentially read this post. Huth, Ivanovic, Cuellar have all played that LB/RB role. They are not as effective in that position as they are at CB. That is my point. It's a common explanation for injury. Was a very cold day and it occurred early in the match. Reasonable hypothesis. If it was a back 3 then we can question why Bennett was playing LWB, as Baker was covering down the left side for Bennett. I would have started Lichaj. All 9 games won this season won with Lichaj in the team.

Never ever in the particular circumstance I listed under "1."

It's not a contradiction it's an "exception to the rule."

Yes, I want our team to play attacking football to win matches. But I do recognise different circumstances call for different tactics. We were 1 - 2 up away from home from two counter-attacking goals and had just gone a goal down at the start of the second half. In this situation do you weaken your side defensively to make it stronger offensively? I would not. I would weaken defensively to make stronger offensively 1. at home in starting line up when we have the advantage of the crowd 2. always against weaker teams 3. when the score is a draw so that we can push for the win 4. when we need to chase the game because we are behind. 5. when we are 2 goals or more up, not many minutes remaining, and we want to rest players/give subs a run out I would never ever weaken the team defensively to make stronger offensively 1. Against a team that had just got a goal back against us while we are still winning by 1 goal. This is what Lambert just did.

If the strikers scored three of 5 good chances, and he had bagged three assists, would you say he had a superb game? I think so. Bannan doing well is important because it means we are attacking. Bannan is an attacking player, I want an attacking team, so I want Bannan to play. When Lambert doesn't play Bannan I feel he is being too defensive. Bannan is mainly a home game player, where we want to take the game to the opposition. Away from home, there is less need if we have Agbonlahor and N'Zogbia who give us a counter-attack option. If not, we need to play Bannan - or someone like him - at away games too, in order to create enough chances to win. With Agbonlahor and N'Zog the sit back and counter-attack becomes a strategy. Technical playmakers are also extremely expensive to buy. If we don't bring one through our youth system then we're never going to get one worth having. Bannan has an important role in the future of the squad IMO. Lambert hasn't started him recently but I now think that is much to do with the return of Agbonlahor and N'Zog which enables the sit-back and counter-attack strategy.

Get a new manager in who will look at the squad with no preconceived ideas? Lambert's reputation is hitched to the success of his youth policy. If it's going wrong he's more likely to go down with the ship than pull the plug. Best mixed metaphor ever.

Bannan was superb against Bradford in the first leg, creating five chances which various players wasted. We have to start our most creative players on Tuesday because we need the goals. Bannan was brought on against West Brom when we needed to bring on a defensive midfielder. It doesn't matter what Lambert wanted Bannan's effect to be, he put the wrong player in that position. It is Lambert's judgement not Bannan's ability that should be under the microscope.

I disagree with your reading of the game. Bannan should never have been brought on. We needed a defensive midfielder in his position to protect the 1 goal lead away from home. Bannan is the furthest you can get from a defensive midfielder, as a midfielder.

Absolutely. He is being criticised for something he should not be doing in the first place.

Well, one thing we can agree on Baker was caught in the LB position facing Odemwingie. If it was a back 3 - which I'm not convinced it was - it didn't do him any favours. In a proper back 4 the LB should be further back and would have taken on the responsibility of tackling or blocking Odemwingie's cross.

Bannan isn't shit and he gives good value for money. How many of our other midfielders are on c£12k a week? He's featured in our every winning game in PL, is best crosser in PL and has created most chances for our team than any other Villa player. Bannan has been played in preference to both Ireland and El Ahamdi by Lambert. He's not a good defensive player though and right now while we are conceding Lambert appears to be going conservative with Westwood and Delph, which worked with N'Zog and Agbonlahor on the counter-attack in the first half yesterday, but failed at home to Soton when we needed Bannan.

He started LB, Bennett was on LW.

Lambert has made one pointless signing - El Ahmadi... he's not a bad player but he's the wrong kind of player, and the budget should not have been blown on him. In addition to El Ahmadi we have Ireland and Bannan. That's three playmakers. Three playmakers in the squad but only one proper defensive midfielder - Herd. Westwood and Delph are not defensive midfielders. I'm guessing Lambert didn't realise how good Bannan was, so he bought El Ahmadi because he thought he needed back-up for Ireland. Maybe he thought he would be allowedto sign a defensive mid in the January transfer window.

That's not fair. He's not made of glass, he is a tall centre back who should not have been played SB. Side backs are usually short in height for a reason. They are up against fast wingers and need to turn quickly. Tall, bulky centre backs can't turn quickly. When they try they risk injury, especially if it's very cold and they've not warmed up properly.

We had five defenders out there. Guzan Lichaj Lowton Vlaar Bennett Clark Obvious. Don't patronise... this is fair comment. Replace Delph with Holman, who you must agree is better defensively than Bannan. Keep N'Zogbia on who was playing well an you keep playing counter-attack.

Not so much concerned about the two assists. Anyone could have passed to Benteke for him to score that screamer. Benteke made it out of nothing. Okay, the second assist was good, noticed Agbonlahor in better position and did not hold on to the ball too long before giving it to him. What matters more than assists was his ability to make the ball stick at the other end of the pitch. When we are playing within shooting distance assists will follow without effort. In the first half he could have had 3 assists, nice inter-play between him and Lichaj. With Agbonlahor and N'Zogbia we can be electrifying on the counter-attack and for a while it was very enjoyable to watch. In the second half, they didn't make it stick, and it all went a bit pear-shaped. Not entirely their fault, we need to be more dynamic as a team.

I know what you mean and I agree, but after the atrocious, simple, glaring misses against Southampton and Bradford that deserves a facepalm.

When attacking a ball from a corner you only need to watch the ball. When defending a corner, you need to watch your man and the ball. If you're not used to doing that, especially at a high level, then that's really tough, because good attackers will squirm all over the place.

I wouldn't have put it like he put it but after we failed to win today, we should get another manager. Paul Lambert is good at some aspects of management, but when it comes to picking the team, substitutions and tactics, he's getting it wrong. After losing to Wigan and Southampton and only getting a draw at Swansea today was a must win game and we didn't win. Manager has to take responsibility for that. We had a 0 - 2 lead. With that lead at half-time, we should have won the game. What did he say in the team talk? The decision not to replace Delph, when he got injured, with a ball-winning midfielder (e.g. by moving Clark into midfield) was naive. Manager has to be better than this tactically in the Premier League.

Bannan and Westwood have won matches together. Westwood and Delph have yet to win one. Westwood and Delph paired together is a more defensive unit than Delph and Bannan or Bannan and Westwood. They are used together because we don't have one specialist DM. It is also a less creative midfield. The two goals we scored today were counter-attacks. We did not dominate possession and create chances through our central midfield. This is sometimes an okay strategy playing away. At home, it's not so good. You need the creativity of a player like Bannan. Delph had a good game before he was injured. Very proud of his performance in the first half. Pity he got injured.

That's why we had to move Lowton or Clark into DM, I wouldn't necessarily have even brought Bannan on at all, the score as it was. If I had to do so, would have put him on the wing. Don't over-exaggerate my position. Reading back over my previous statements I have not said Bannan is a world class player. I would love to use the words "potentially world class" to describe Villa players other than Gardner and Bannan... but I tell you what, I won't say a word.

I've not called him world class. If you read back you will find that is not what I said at all. I have used the term "world class" . I would say if he ends the season as consistently as he has begun it (in terms of crossing) I'd probably say he has world class crossing ability. The season is not over, so right now he is just a c12k a week cheap as chips ex-academy player. Lichaj was RB. He would have stayed there. When Baker got injured we had 3 CBs - Lowton, Vlaar, Clark, and 2 WB, Lichaj (RWB) and Bennett (LWB) Once we were 0 - 2 up I didn't want any substitutions. Right, it doesn't make sense Bannan would be brought on to do a defensive role, does it? I accept that. I don't know how could we could expect to control possession of the ball though without a ball-winner in midfield to give us possession of the ball. When Delph went off we didn't have even a half-approximation of a ball-winner in midfield. And Lambert expected us to control possession? Bad management.