Jump to content

sam260689

Full Member
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. It's been reported in the press in the last few days that Sherwood might switch the tactics to a 3-5-2 formation. The more I look at it, the more it makes sense given the players we've got. Here's why: 1. Amavi and Bacuna are better going forwards than they are at defending. Having 3 at the back with Sanchez protecting the 3 allows the full backs to try things going forwards, and for it not to be a disaster if they lose the ball. For instance if Amavi tries to go past a player and loses the ball, Clarke will have covered for him at left back and we'd then temporarily have a back 4 until we get the ball back. It also means that Amavi and Bacuna's defensive weaknesses would be less exposed when they are in defensive positions since there's more cover. 2. We've got an abundance of centre halfs. It's a young team in general and having 3 at the back means we can fit Lescott (an experienced head) in, without letting his lack of pace cause us issues (at 33 he can't be the quickest anymore). 3. Having Sanchez protecting 3 at the back allows Gueye and particularly Veretout to get forwards without us being exposed if we lose the ball. Obviously it would be up to Gueye, Veretout, Amavi and Bacuna to decide who gets forward for which attacks, because they can't all go at once. 4. Having 3 in the midfield lets Grealish (or Gil) play in a free role as a second striker without needing to use a lot of energy tracking back. This player will be far more creative if he can save his energy for attacking. I have attached an image showing what I think represents our strongest line up as a 3-5-2 (and I believe our strongest line up full stop, actually). What do you think of 3-5-2? Worth a go? IMO potentially superior to other formations since it theoretically allows our players to play to their strengths.
  2. I would be so happy to be red faced if he proved us wrong. Just can't see it. Not from a manager with a reputation for boring football and taking a club down twice in 4 seasons
  3. Why would appointing a new manager need a smoke screen? I just refuse to believe that Randy Lerner is stupid enough to appoint a manager who has taken the same side down twice recently. It doesn't matter that it's Blues, it could be any side - the problem is that McLeish has proved himself to be a relegation battling manager, and not a successful one. And my god, is his style of football like watching paint dry.
  4. Yeah I thought that we'd lose from there too. If anything, i thought we should have taken Carew off (for NRC) and switched to 4-5-1. That way were almost guarenteed an away point becuase if they matched our 5 in midfield, theyd either have to have 3 at the back (we'd score) or nobody up front in a 4-5-0. Stupidest decision Ive seen MON make. He's good at getting players confident, and hes good at getting them to want to play for him, but tactically, he seems **** clueless to me. That isnt just going on this game, in general. And by saying in public "don't worry about tactics too much" was the stupidest thing ive ever heard a manager say. I'd still keep him in (a club like ours couldnt attract better, only the top4 really could) but I don't think were going to be moving mountains with him at the helm.
  5. we miss Carew in certain games, particularly at home where the opposition are happy to just sit back. I particularly think we missed him in the Fulham game. I thought we would have won if he played.
  6. Hi General, I was sitting in the Holte on Sunday and I think it was chants of "Only one Randy Lerner" started! Which was good and alot of people were chanting. However something that crossed my mind was that I thought perhaps Randy would think it was his money that he has poured into the club that we are singing about him for, and not him as a man also. Well I think I speak for alot of fans here and I would say that 50% of the motive to chant his name was about what he is like as a person. Alot of us fans have met him in person around Villa Park. I certainly got the impression that he was a very down to earth man who seems to be at the club as much for his passion for the game as much as a business investment. To us fans, thats worth alot, and if he wasn't giving off the vibes I have just mentioned to fans, I seriously doubt money alone would have gotten him such a good reception. Agreed, yes, the other 50% of the motive was more than likely because the team were performing very well and he has spent to money to get us into that position...but like I said that alone wouldn't have been enough for such a reception. Up the Villa
  7. i think he'd be an outcast. All the other players speak English as a first language apart from the Scandinavians who we all know speak very good English...Santa Cruz would be the only player with limited English and looking at his Bayern record..when he feels like an outcast he doesnt score goals. For the money he would cost, it would be a bad signing IMO and wouldnt fit the MON signings pattern. Ashton would be a much better signing
  8. Hi General, Do you know if MON reads villa forums such as this one or just hears about what is being said? In some ways I really hope he doesn't read them because of all the negativity at the moment...I hope it does not affect him. Agreed we are frustrated that we have not had too many signings yet but, from what I can remember the prices that clubs demand for players seem to go down abit at the end of a transfer window and I think/hope that MON has players lined up but is waiting until the "last minute" to get them at a better price. I really, really have faith in him, but I wish that other fans would do the same and wait until the window shuts to judge.
  9. i completely agree. whats the point of singing about ally macanally etc (sp?) anymore..i think we should sing for the present and the future, not the past.
  10. i think that the "my old man" song needs updating. "gabby and barry...nigel reo-coker, theyre the boys that are gonna do us fine...
×
×
  • Create New...
Â