NormandyVillan

that's the worry, yes. we really should be beating a team like west ham who were without the only guy who scores goals for them (Cole). I was pleased to hear that Cole was coming off, and then I started worrying again when I heard that Hines was coming on. I saw the West Ham v Liverpool game earlier this season, and he was giving the Liverpool defence (and Carragher in particular) a nightmare. I really don't understand why Zola hasn't used him much since then. I didn't see last night's game, but it sounds like Cole going off and Hines coming on might have turned the game in their favour.

Uh, yes, but they did. I don't know what you're getting at. :| I think the point is that reactions are purely down to the result, nothing to to with how we played, how unlucky we may have been conceed a late winner. If we had of grabbed a slice of luck in the last minute and scored a winner, how many people would be making the same complaints about tactics or certain players etc? Ok, I know we didn't but I can see the point, many posts are more kneejerk reaction than anything, as is always the case on here, win or lose. I recall standing there watching in the 92nd minute thinking this is a shit point and crap performance. I think we were worthy of a draw and my complaints would have been the same but we lost the game not down to our players but due to the refs decisions. Fair enough, I've no doubt some people would be reacting the same. But there are also many that wouldn't. I think it's only natural that people's reactions are swayed by things like last minute winners. Think of the game at Everton last season. We were all gutted by Everton equalising in the last minute of added time, then Young incredibly goes and scores a winner with the last kick of the game. Everyone is euphoric and forgets about what was in all honesty quite a crap performance. Or at least, even if people don't completely forget it, they don't bother thinking too hard about it and posting long diatribes about how abysmal it was that we barely got out of our own half for most of the game. If it had been Everton who had won that game with the last kick, you can be sure that the reactions would have been VERY different! People would have been harshly spotlighting some very real deficiencies. Defeats bring things to a head and focus attention on what is wrong - the sort of things that might just get mentioned in passing if the team plays poorly but still gets a result. And that's surely a good thing - at least if the criticism is in some way constructive. (Not that any discussion on this board is going to have much influence on what happens on the pitch, I suppose, but we can all imagine that Martin O'Neill is sitting somewhere reading it...) I think it's pretty obvious that, before last night, while our results had been generally quite good, the performances had been generally not so good. We seem like a team who are good at destroying (stopping the other team playing) but not at all good at creating. As pointed out by one or two others in this thread, the qualities and deficiences we have mean we can battle it out with the big teams, and can even steal a win with a bit of luck if they have defensive lapses and we don't, but against the lesser teams we are still just battling it out without creating much and it can go the other way if luck is against us. Looking at the League table, I see we have the same defensive record as Man United, and about the same scoring record as West Ham and Bolton. We are seriously lacking as an attacking force. With Carew off form (or perhaps past his best?) we have no top class striker, and very little creativity / attacking threat from our midfield. We will continue to struggle to score goals unless changes are made in personnel and/or style of play. Defeat brings all these problems to the forefront. Yes, some people overreact, but the problems are definitely there to be discussed.

I remember this game. They kept eleven men in and around their own penalty area the whole time while Villa had some ridiculous number of corners (about 30 or something) before finally scoring after about 70 minutes. Same again tonight will do (but hopefully we won't need quite so many corners). Come on lads, lets have a good Cup run at last!

I don't want to jinx this, and I'm not assuming this match is going to be easy, but I'll be looking forward to seeing the League table this weekend if we can beat Portsmouth. With Liverpool not playing until early evening, and the current top four not playing until Sunday, by 5 o'clock on Saturday: A 1-0 win will put us 5th A 3-0 win will put us 3rd A 5-0 win will put us equal 2nd with Man Utd A 6-0 win will put us 2nd (OK, not very likely I suppose...). After Sunday's matches, in which the current top four play each other, there is a chance that ANY win against Portsmouth could leave us in the top four (or even as high as third). We would also have a game in hand on all the other teams at the top except Man City. Yes, I know the League table doesn't mean much at this stage, but it would still be nice to be up there. So let's hope the lads do the business again this weekend. Another scrappy 1-0 win would do for me. Any extra goals (and places gained) would be a nice bonus. Prediction: I'll go for Villa 0 Portsmouth 3 :winkold:

I can't really answer this poll as it needed another option. Option 2 ("very good") is a bit too positive and option 3 is a bit too negative. I would have gone for something like "quite good" or "not bad". On the positive side, it looks like we should now have a good defence with good backups for all positions. On the less positive side, we haven't strengthened in attack (a top goalscorer would have been good) and a top class creative midfielder would also have been very welcome. Delph and Downing (when fit) will give us more options, I suppose. We'll have to wait and see. Overall, it leaves me with the feeling that Villa should be "solid but unspectacular" this year: good enough to compete for the places below the top four but not good enough to be among the top four (which is what I would like to see). Let's hope they prove me wrong!

I'm with the vast majority on Heskey, and like some others I don't want Petrov in the team. Heskey + Petrov = Blunt in attack, dangerously exposed in defence. Agbonlahor + Reo-Coker = Sharper in attack, more solid in defense. If we're playing 4-4-2, those look like the two most obvious changes from last night's starting line-up.

A few thoughts on last night... Reaction to the result: Big disappointment. I would buy the “blessing in disguise / concentrate on the League” argument a bit more if I thought we had a realistic chance of challenging near the top of the table. At the moment there are about six clubs who look significantly better equipped than us (the usual four plus Spurs and Man City) and I really can’t see us finishing above three of those (and everyone else) to get a place in the top four. The best I can see us doing is qualifying for the Europa League again, and you can hardly argue that it’s good to get knocked out in the first round because that gives us a better chance of qualifying again next year! Like most teams, we have no chance of winning the League, but there is always a chance in the cups, and the further you go the more exciting it gets. We had three chances this season, and now it’s one gone and two to go. I hope we take both domestic cups seriously this year, because they are our only chance of winning something at last. We did at least win the game on the night (slightly fortunately, I thought), but that’s a very minor consolation. Reaction to the performance: Mixed feelings. Promising attacking play in patches, but on the whole we looked disjointed and vulnerable. The main problem is in central midfield (as it was in the latter part of last season). Not enough ball-winning ability, drive and energy there, and I think that’s the main reason we look so vulnerable defensively, more than the shortcomings of our actual defenders. I would feel much more confident of us winning with Reo-Coker there instead of Petrov. It wasn’t all bad, of course. Delph looks like he could turn out to be very good for us, and Young looked a potent attacking threat again (just wish he would cut out the diving). I see the makings of a good team there. Hopefully with Warnock and Dunne coming in we’ll have a sounder defence. A top class midfielder is still needed, and a top class striker wouldn’t go amiss. Carew and Agbonlahor are a bit hit and miss (Carew is great on his day, but you can never rely on him even being fit to play), and Heskey just doesn’t seem to pose a goalscoring threat at all. I reckon with just two more top class players in the next few days, and effective team organisation, we would be capable of competing near the top end of the table. The problem is, I don’t think those “top class” players are going to be coming. Thoughts on the opposition: Well done to them. To be honest they deserved it. Their supporters were excellent and the team played some good football (apart from some incredibly bad finishing!) and showed a good positive attitude throughout the game. Even in the dying minutes they were still looking to score rather than time waste. Good luck to them for the rest of the competition.

Close to being outside the the top 10? We were 17 (seventeen) points above the team in 11th place. Even if we hadn't scored the 4 late goals mentioned (which would have meant 7 points less, not 10, by the way), we would still have been 10 points above the bottom half. EDIT: in fact we would still have finished sixth. If we were "bloody close" to being outside the top ten, then you'd have to say we were "only a whisker away" from finishing in the top four!

That's the good thing about it. Nothing to be bothered about if we lose, but if we win (by two goals) we will be in the semi-finals of a tournament with Porto, Juventus and Real Madrid, which would be fun to see. So come on Villa!

I just caught up on this and suddenly realised what a great start to the season we're having. Still in July and already we're going into a game on the brink of a semi-final place against Real Madrid, Porto or Juventus! And all of this without so far winning a point, scoring a goal or even having a shot on target! What a lovely tournament this is .

Not quite true. I voted "no" but I would say I am neither "happy" nor "unhappy". That means I would also have voted "no" if the question had been "are you an unhappy Villa fan?"

Being the "biggest" club in the Championship won't make it any easier for them. Everyone else will be extra keen to beat them.

Perhaps it was a classic case of the "important early goal". I thought United looked very good for the first ten minutes. They rattled Barcelona right from the kickoff and should have been a goal up, but then let Barcelona score from their first attack with some surprisingly weak defending and goalkeeping. After that they never really got going again. Confidence seemed to drain right out of them and into Barcelona. That said, you would have expected United to react better than they did to an early setback. There were a lot of misplaced passes, and on the few occasions they got into dangerous attacking positions they wasted them. Only Ronaldo really showed his class (and even he spoiled his performance with some nasty fouls at the end). So, yes, all in all a pretty poor showing from Man U. As a spectacle I thought the game as a whole was a bit of a disappointment for the neutral. Superb display of passing from Barcelona, but not an exciting game. Wasn't helped by the stadium, which lacks atmosphere. I hope for better in the next two years. Something like: 2010: Real 3 Man Utd 5 in the Bernabeu (Ronaldo scores a hat trick but ends up on the losing side again). 2011: Man Utd 1 Villa 4 at Wembley (thus confirming the theory that no team can retain the Champions League).

8 points behind ... they have to win three more than us in 16 games, not likely Everton also have to play Man Utd away after the Arsenal game (another1-0 win for Utd, surely), so with luck they can do us a favour by beating Arsenal but still stay a comfortable distance behind us. (Reasonable) requests to God for next 2 rounds of matches: 2 Villa wins (obviously). Liverpool lose/draw at Wigan and draw with Chelsea. Everton beat Arsenal. We will then be second, with Arsenal trailing at least six points behind in fifth. I'll get my prayer mat out alreadly.If those prayers are answered, I might even start believing in Him. Any other results in our favour on top of those, and I will have to consider some serious worship!

Yes please! we don't ask for much us Villa fans do we Draw would be OK, but surely we want an Everton win, don't we?

Can't decide between a draw and an Everton win (so that makes me almost an optimist, but with a tinge of pessimism). Everton v Arsenal in the next game will be easy: we want Everton to beat them. This one's a bit more difficult. If they win tonight AND beat Arsenal, they're going to be really in the hunt. A draw would keep Liverpool within reach, and leave Everton trailing eight points behind us, so maybe that's the best result: two points dropped for both. Bit boring to root for a draw, however...

Speaking of shots on target, does anyone know the record for the lowest number of shots on target in a game? The recent Hull v Villa game must have come pretty close. At the end of the game I could only recall 1 shot on target for us (a rather weak effort by Barry) and none for them. If that is correct, it could only be beaten by a game with no shots on target at all.

Strictly speaking there is no "target" when someone shoots. The aim is to cause the ball to pass through a vertical plane formed by the goal line, goalposts and crossbar, but there is no concrete thing you have to hit (not even the net). Pedantry aside, I would say that a shot that hits the post/bar but does not go in is obviously "off target". If it goes in off the post/bar then it is "on target". As regards deflected/saved shots, they are "on target" if they would have gone in if no one had touched them. That all seems quite clear to me. On the other hand, if you have game stats listing "shots on target", "shots off target" and "shots blocked", then there must be some cases that are difficult to categorise. If a shot is cleared off the line by a defender, it presumably goes down as "on target", but what if it's blocked two yards out, four yards out, six yards out... ? At what point does a "shot on target" become a mere "blocked shot"?

On the other hand, he has played in half of the games we have won this season (6 out of 12), despite only starting 9 out of 21. What fun you can have with statistics...

So what you're saying is... Liverpool get more points when Torres plays. How is that similar to our massive points gains when Carew doesn't play? As I said above, if you include Carew's two substitute appearances (in which we scored five times with him on the pitch), the stats are: With Carew: 11 games, 19 goals, 20 points Without Carew: 10 games, 16 goals, 21 points. How is that a "massive points gain" when he doesn't play? OK, we got one point more from one fewer games, but that's hardly "massive", and hardly a significant statistic.

Torres is a good player, but I don't think Liverpool miss him nearly as much when he's out as we miss Carew. When I watched Liverpool tearing Newcastle apart over Christmas, they looked like they were doing fine without him. There could even be a case for saying their team play is better without him, however good he is, although I haven't seen enough of them overall to judge.

Actually your totals are wrong, we've scored 23 goals in games where Carew didn't start (even more grist to your mill, there). However, if your point is to prove that we dont need Carew, you really shouldn't include his two substitute appearances against Wigan and Blackburn in your list of "games in which we did so well without Carew" (which is what you have done). After all, we scored 5 goals (including one by Carew himself) in the total of 81 minutes he was on the pitch in those two games. It would therefore be fairer to compare games in which Carew played, and games in which he did not play, which gives us: With Carew: 11 games, 19 goals, 20 points Without Carew: 10 games, 16 goals, 21 points. Conclusion: the statistics don't really prove anything one way or the other. Looking at the evidence of what I've seen on the pitch, however, it's pretty clear to me we miss him. We've been getting good results despite him not being there, not because of it. Since he arrived, he has a striking rate of about 2 in every 5 games, which is better than Agbonlahor or probably anyone else for quite a few years. He was also looking very good this season until his injury problems. I think we need him back - or a very good striker to come in this transfer window - if we want to have a good chance of being in the top 4 at the end of the season.

45 Villa debut: vs Birmingham City (A), Division 2, March 1970 (won 2-0 ) Home debut: vs Plymouth Argyle, Division 3 :cry: , August 1970 (drew 1-1 ) Started supporting Villa at the lowest point in their history, so nobody can accuse me of being a "glory seeker"!

What a beautifully poetical report! I would, however, have preferred a more climactic ending – something along the lines of: "… night’s sombre mantle slowly shrouding the Stadium of Light as the last seconds ticked away, when suddenly the chill December air was pierced by a thousand cries of “YEEEESSSS!!!” as the ball hurtled from Barry’s boot into the frosty netting, showering the rejoicing Villa faithful with a myriad hoary white specks glinting magically in the floodlights.” Or something like that. Still, I suppose you can’t just make it up if it didn’t happen.