villalad21

Why? Because he plays pretty football that doesn't get results Doesn't get results? Won a cup, 12th in the table, only three points less than us, and is still Europe. Who'd want that. The injuries they have had this season have been ridicilous too. Europa League allways shred teams apart, it's nothing new We're currently second to Arsenal in the injury table according to PhysioRoom But we don't have to cope with the Europa League right? And also Lambert has failed in the cups (with purpose)

Why? Because he plays pretty football that doesn't get results Doesn't get results? Won a cup, 12th in the table, only three points less than us, and is still Europe. Who'd want that. The injuries they have had this season have been ridicilous too. Europa League allways shred teams apart, it's nothing new

Why? Because he plays pretty football that doesn't get results They won a trophy last year and got Europa League, how is that no results?

I would take Laudrup for Lambert any day

I don't think you're right that all out attack is the best way to go about things. It's what we did last season and we only just survived, because we were atrocious defensively. Imo, Lambert has seen this and tried to rectify it this season. A solid defense is something you can build a very good team upon, all you really need to do is plug in a couple of gaps up front (or in our case midfield), it's harder to build from a solid attack, as building up a new defense can require a lot of players and doesn't necessary stop at the back, you need good midfielders as well, something that we've shown isn't completely necessary to have a good attack. Last season, at this stage, we'd conceded 46 goals and only scored 20, we looked certain to go down, because our defense was too open when we tried to take the game to teams. We'd also only won 4 games. This season, we've only conceded 34 and scored 27, still not great but an improvement. We've also won 7 games, again not great but an improvement. We also have 7 clean sheets, 1 more than the whole of last season. It may not be pretty to watch, but I think it's necessary that we improve ourselves defensively so that we have a good foundation to build a team upon, and if that means playing a bit defensively sometimes, so be it. We couldn't continue to play like we did last season, because we wouldn't improve, we got more than our fair share of pastings, and it almost relegated us. We've gotten better defenders this year, one of which is out with a long term injury. And the comparison to McLeish is rubbish imo, at least we've shown this season we can play football and take it to teams, something we never did under McLeish. Of course a defense is a great platform to build on, but the problem is that we have no good defenders exept Vlaar, and no good defensive midtfielders. And therefore there is no defensive platform to build on, you have to look at our overall team, what style of football should we play with our current squad? Imo its not the defensive style, our players look so uncomfortable playing it.

I can understand what people are saying, but i don't agree. If the past 1.5 season has teached us anything it is that we are not a defensive side. We have one good defender and thats Vlaar. Thats it. Everytime we try to park the bus we lose, simple as that.

I'm really jealous at Newcastle here as they have Tiote, Sissoko and Anita -.-

But anyway MessiWillSignForVilla I understand what you are saying, but i also understand i am saying. We are obviously on to different sides about the first half performance. I thought it was terrible and i stand by that. You might agree or disagree with me but thats football.

Of course that happens. And if you have a team that are suitable for two complete styles then ok. But you can't play in a different way if you dont have the players to it.

Lambert did the right thing in the first half? To sit back and defend and basically doing nothing? All i'm saying is that i don't agree with that approach and i dont think that was to "set up well" the goal were coming either way.

You still haven't answered me. What do you mean by us playing different and bader in the second half? We played the exact same way. You obviously agreeing with Lamberts tactics, based on the fact that you said "at certain teams we have to play in a different way". Well i hope for your sake that the guy in your profile pic is back soon, maybe we can nag in some 0-0 draws then. I've not said any different, read my posts properly. 1 page back, and it's not the only time I've said it. And yes, you do have to play certain teams differently. No you dont. You need to play the way your team are most suitable to play. On saturday we did the opposite. We dont have the players to defend for a whole game. If the past 1.5 season has teached us something it is that a free attacking 4-3-3 formation is the only way we can play

You still haven't answered me. What do you mean by us playing different and bader in the second half? We played the exact same way. You obviously agreeing with Lamberts tactics, based on the fact that you said "at certain teams we have to play in a different way". Well i hope for your sake that the guy in your profile pic is back soon, maybe we can nag in some 0-0 draws then.

In Italy they play like ----------------Kee------------------ ---------CB----CB--------CB----------- WB----------------------------------WB--- -------------CM------------CM------------- ------------------CAM------------------------ -----------------CF--------SS------------------ How do we play? --------------------Gk------------------------- --------------CB---CB-------CB-------------- LB-------------------------------------------RB -------------CM---CM-----CM----------------- -----------------CF---------CF-------------------

Don't see how disagreeing with your opinion constitutes not taking a an argument seriously but ok. Just took issue with your downplaying of the significance of performances. It doesn't, it wasn't aimed at you, villalad said he couldn't take me seriously Again what do you mean? You have stated, that we played better in the first half and bad and different in the second. No. We played in the exact same way. But the problem were that in the second half Everton lifted their percormance and played up to their standards. I have been reading your arguments, but i simply don't agree with them, not at all. Your saying that against certain teams you have to play a different way. I don't know. but to me it sound like you agree with Lamberts tactics 100%, which were based on: Hoof the ball up everytime we have it, and lets just defend for the whole game, hope they don't score and maybe we get a lucky goal on a counter. But you are also criticising Lambert? What is your stand on him? You both agree with his tactics for the game and disagrees with it? That doesn't make any sense. I've said this multiple times, that is what I'm criticising Lambert about, again read my posts properly. I have. this is your words. " We set up differently v Liverpool, because they play differently. They attack at pace and play the ball behind the defence, and they way to stop that is get in their faces and stop them making those balls. Everton keep the ball, slowly build up and try exploit lapses in concentration, and they whip in crosses when that doesn't work. The best way to counter a team that does that? Let them have the ball and force them to try do something that unlocks a stubborn defence. If we'd played like that v Liverpool, Suarez would have torn us a new one." How many times do i have to say this? We didn't even set up for counter attack. Look at our lineup. We were set up to defend the whole game and nag a point. Just dont come here and say i havent read your post, i have but i simply dont agree with you.

Again what do you mean? You have stated, that we played better in the first half and bad and different in the second. No. We played in the exact same way. But the problem were that in the second half Everton lifted their percormance and played up to their standards. I have been reading your arguments, but i simply don't agree with them, not at all. Your saying that against certain teams you have to play a different way. I don't know. but to me it sound like you agree with Lamberts tactics 100%, which were based on: Hoof the ball up everytime we have it, and lets just defend for the whole game, hope they don't score and maybe we get a lucky goal on a counter. But you are also criticising Lambert? What is your stand on him? You both agree with his tactics for the game and disagrees with it? That doesn't make any sense.

-----------------Guzan------------------- Lowton------Vlaar-----Okore----Bertrand -------------Sylla--------Delph-------------- Weimann--------------------------Gabby N'Zogbia --------------Benteke------------------------- Just look at this team on the paper. 'there is so many potential goals in this side its frightening

It's Everton man, Everton. It's not like we played against Barcelona or something, they are winnable. We played an exellent game against their neighbours which are on the same level as them. Yes you can say that we missed Agbonlahor, but one man alone can't do everything on his own, it was an overall great team performance on the day. You are saying our first half was good while the second half was poor? No. Everton were poor in the first half, in second they played at their average level performance, and completly dominated us. I can't believe some of the fans, i really can't. Still supporting him after that perfoirmance, wow. Any manager that actually line up Benteke and Holt in the same team as a striker duo is completely lost, that alone is enough for me to judge Lambert. You can maybe accept the horrible anti football hes serving us, but i don't. I think Aston Villa is a great club, with a huge history, and i won't accept to see my team in that shape, it's just not acceptable. While everyone were applauding our team in the first half, i think i were the only one who actually were hugely dissapointed with our play, and i were hammered for it, but look what happened in the end? It were allways a matter of time, that we would concede, and of course we did. Fans can be really obsessed with "results" sometimes, but i do allways look behind results, i'm seeing the big picture in games, and i allways knew from the time i saw our lineup that we were going to lose. We had one shot on target in the whole game, ONE. And people were applauding our first half? How was it good? Again we created ONE chance. No, they're not Barca, but that's why playing that way v Barca only works if your Chelsea/Inter. We set up differently v Liverpool, because they play differently. They attack at pace and play the ball behind the defence, and they way to stop that is get in their faces and stop them making those balls. Everton keep the ball, slowly build up and try exploit lapses in concentration, and they whip in crosses when that doesn't work. The best way to counter a team that does that? Let them have the ball and force them to try do something that unlocks a stubborn defence. If we'd played like that v Liverpool, Suarez would have torn us a new one. Ask yourself, why were Everton poor first half? Because we frustrated them and reduced them to pot shots and that one McGeady chance early on. They couldn't work out how to get past us, that's why the first half was good. Of course it would have been better to have some more chances, if Gabby was fit, I'm certain we would have had more. Second half they got better because Lambert failed to adapt to how the game unfolded, and we lost because of it. And that's not even taking into account Vlaar's awful positioning for their equaliser and a world class winner. As for Holt, I've explained a couple times now, and seems to get totally ignored every time, that although he wasn't very good himself, his mere presence forced Jagielka to watch him closely and take some heat off of Benteke. Weimann wouldn't have garnered the same amount of attention, as if you tightly mark him you'll quickly get tired as he runs around a lot so defenders don't tightly mark him. Holt is known to be a bit of a bruiser and was a handful at Norwich if he was allowed to get the ball, so Jagielka didn't let him get the ball, at the expense of not doubling up on Benteke, leaving just Distin to deal with him. Being "obsessed with results", isn't that the whole **** point of football? We lost yesterday, ergo our whole performance wasn't good enough. But I couldn't give two shits if we had 1% possession and 1 shot all game if it meant we win every game 1-0. An extreme example, but at the end of the day if negative tactics get results, performance doesn't matter. It didn't get results yesterday, but it could have if the right changes were made during the match. villarocker, I agree that we couldn't of gotten anything out of the game by keeping it up for 90 minutes, I've criticised Lambert a lot for it over the last few pages, but the starting line-up and formation nullified Everton perfectly how they started game, the main tactical balls up yesterday was not adapting during the game Are you Lambert in disguise? You sound just like him. You are basically saying the only way to stop Everton is to let them have the ball, and hope they make some mistakes so we can take advantage of it. Thats pathetic, its not just a dumb statement, its an hilarious statement. I can't even take you serious. To let such a great side have the ball and let them do as they want is actually what you can't do. Thats what they want you to do. Just to begin with the basics. If you have the ball 20-30 % of the time and your opponent have it 70% who do you think are likely to get a result? It's so obvious, i can't even believe i have to point it out. Do you really think the best way to stop Everton is to basically never have the ball and jsut let them play? Thats hilarious. Martinez were spot on his after match comments, " we were coming back from a dissaponting result, and i think for the first half we were too responsible, the players were thinking too much, we couldnt express ourselfes". He recognised here that they were playing shit and not up to their standards, and he and his team sorted it our in a fantastic way. It was attack against defence, men against boys, the beauty against the uglyness. Whatever you wanna call it. Holt take the heat of Benteke? What do you mean? We never had the ball, our strikers didn't do anything. That game have to be a dream for any defenders, they didn't have anything to do. As I've said it was attack against defence, they didn't even have to defend, Howard rarely touched the ball. You wouldnt mind if we had 1% possession? Then my friend, you are basically saying that you wont mind if we lose every game. Anyways. I hope this was a wake up call for Lambert, and i hope this takes this horrible 3-5-2 formation to bed, for good,

We played defensively against a top 5 team who struggle to break down tough and organised defenses, if Lambert had reacted appropriately to how the game unfolded second half, we would have come away with 3 awesome points. Alas we didn't, one Vlaar mistake and a wonder goal later, we lose. We won't set up in a similar manner against those sides, possibly Newcastle, but I've not really watched them this season and don't know how they play. For West Ham, we'll most likely set up with the diamond again, similar to WBA, and we'll win, as long as Nolan is dealt with. As for Cardiff, don't let a win against Norwich fool you, they're piss poor, they hadn't won in 7 games before yesterday, and with their squad, I can't see them suddenly going on a winning run. We'll probably set up like Plop, close down quickly and try beat them on the counter, I imagine Gabby should be back by then, and I think we'll rip them to shreds, as we did for the first half v Plop. Newcastle, tough to say how we'll play, and they're almost as inconsistent as us, I don't know how we'll set up against them but i think it'll hinge on their next two games, if they hit form again, we may set up defensively, try nullify Ben Arfa, if they continue to slump, I reckon we'll go for the throat. Norwich, I imagine Lambert will desperately want to win and we'll really go at them in that game, and i think we'll set up either with the diamond or go for our 433 from last season. I think we'll set up in the ways I've outlined above, and that will get us between 7-10 points, possibly even 12, although that is a stretch. I don't think yesterday showed Lambert's "true picture", he set up in a way that stopped Everton, it worked, but he made poor decisions in the second half which cost us inevitably. We have good enough players to deal with the teams around us, but aren't quite good enough to deal with teams above us yet, hence the more defensive formations. You can't approach every game in the same manner, if you're not world class, you get quickly found out and exploited, you need to tweak for each game and sometimes even play completely different systems to counter teams. It's Everton man, Everton. It's not like we played against Barcelona or something, they are winnable. We played an exellent game against their neighbours which are on the same level as them. Yes you can say that we missed Agbonlahor, but one man alone can't do everything on his own, it was an overall great team performance on the day. You are saying our first half was good while the second half was poor? No. Everton were poor in the first half, in second they played at their average level performance, and completly dominated us. I can't believe some of the fans, i really can't. Still supporting him after that perfoirmance, wow. Any manager that actually line up Benteke and Holt in the same team as a striker duo is completely lost, that alone is enough for me to judge Lambert. You can maybe accept the horrible anti football hes serving us, but i don't. I think Aston Villa is a great club, with a huge history, and i won't accept to see my team in that shape, it's just not acceptable. While everyone were applauding our team in the first half, i think i were the only one who actually were hugely dissapointed with our play, and i were hammered for it, but look what happened in the end? It were allways a matter of time, that we would concede, and of course we did. Fans can be really obsessed with "results" sometimes, but i do allways look behind results, i'm seeing the big picture in games, and i allways knew from the time i saw our lineup that we were going to lose. We had one shot on target in the whole game, ONE. And people were applauding our first half? How was it good? Again we created ONE chance.

Do you really think an actual "football" player wants to play for a hoofball side? No he won't

We got rid of the " Why Paul Lambert should get the sack" too early imo. It's all the same story, we get a good result and then in the following games we take 2 steps back. How is this progression? These next weeks will be crucial for us! West Ham (h) 1 pt Cardiff (a) 0 pts Newcastle (a) 0 pts Norwich (h) 1 pt We are relegation condenders, I can't see us picking up many points in the upcoming games. I thought Lambert where on to something, but yesterday he really showed he's true picture.

Crystal Palace with 27 % of the ball. Are they turning into the new Villa?

I think we draw against West Ham and lose against Cardiff

Wigan are probably laughing their ass of us now. Pathetic signing. A fat, disgusting pub player, thats what he is.

It's not like we're playing 3 centre forwards in the 4-3-3 system. When we have the ball, yes they have the freedom to roam inside, but they also at times cuts in out wide with sucsess. The way we've been playing recently has been with two up front, with Weimann behind the strikers (which incidentally I feel is our best set up), Gabby's role in that is to just bomb past the defence when we counter and keep the opposition on their toes. Albrighton has nowhere near the pace required to make that effective. Even with 433, Gabby and Weimann still aren't wingers really, and again Gabby's main weapon in this tactic is his pace breaking through the middle, and his sudden finding of dribbling and crossing ability. Albrighton isn't fast enough to hang off the shoulder like Gabby, he doesn't have enough in his locker to beat a man - his main "trick" seems to be knock it past and chase, which he is again, not fast enough, or strong enough, to do - and although his crosses look pretty, they rarely beat the first man. He doesn't have the ability Gabby has, nor physical aspects of his game. And then, when Gabby is out, its best to revert the tactics and play hoofball football right? You obviosly have a point when comparing the offensive abilities to the two players, but i don't agree with the formation change and the Holt usage. Playing Albrighton, probably wouldnt be as effective, but it's for sure would have been way better than what we saw today.

It's not like we're playing 3 centre forwards in the 4-3-3 system. When we have the ball, yes they have the freedom to roam inside, but they also at times cuts in out wide with success.