NormandyVillan

You would have thought so, but the worrying thing is that if... Sunderland beat Stoke, Wigan beat Swansea, Stoke beat Spurs, Norwich beat WBA; Newcastle win at QPR; Southampton win or draw at Sunderland; Wigan win at Arsenal, Norwich win at Man City, Newcastle beat Arsenal, Southampton beat Stoke, Sunderland win at Spurs, Fulham get 3 points or more off Liverpool and Swansea, and Wigan beat Villa we could still be relegated on goal difference even if we beat Chelsea 8-0. I’m an absolute nervous wreck just thinking about how easily this could happen...

You could even add the other midweek game between Man City and West Brom, in a roundabout way. Looks completely irrelevant to us on paper, but if City slip up and lose or draw and Chelsea beat Spurs, then Chelsea will be only 1 or 2 points behind City, with a superior goal difference. The possibility of an unexpected second place might give them more incentive against us. The best thing for us is Man City win and Chelsea win, meaning Chelsea are certain to finish at least 4th (barring freak results like losing 14-0 to Villa or something...), and will probably finish 3rd whatever their result against Villa. A sizeable points gap above and below Chelsea + a cup final four days later could lead to quite a low-key Chelsea performance.

A win at Norwich will probably be enough to see us safe, but if Wigan win their next two we could still be part of a massive pile-up of relegation candidates with two games to go. For example, a certain set of results in eight matches to be played by next Tuesday would give us the following table (taking each win as being by a single goal): 9. Swansea 36-42 (GD -3) 10. West Ham 36-42 (GD -9) 11. Southampton 36-40 (GD -10) 12. Fulham 36-40 (GD -10) 13. Stoke 36-40 (GD -11) 14. Sunderland 36-40 (GD -11) 15. Villa 36-40 (GD -21) 16. Newcastle 36-40 (GD -22) 17. Wigan 36-38 (GD -21) 18. Norwich 36-38 (GD -22) In that situation, any one of those ten teams could then still be relegated.

The problem is that the same is also true for Norwich, except that in their case a win will make them mathematically safe if Wigan lose or draw at West Brom, or about 99% safe even if Wigan win. On the other hand, like us, they could still find themselves in big trouble if they lose. In fact they could even be in the relegation zone by next Tuesday if they lose to Villa and other results go against them. So the stakes are just as high for them, and they are playing at home where they've still only lost 3 times all season. They may be a poor team, but I don't think it's going to be easy.

This is my fear. I don't think there's any chance they will actually "throw" any games. I do think the West Brom fans' support for their team may be a bit "tepid" if they think a Wigan win could help to send us down, so I suppose there's a danger that could rub off on the team's performance.

I think Saturday’s Wigan v Spurs game is massively important for two reasons: 1) If you look at the League table WITHOUT VILLA, Wigan are very probably going to finish third from bottom of that table (7 points ahead of the bottom two, but 6 points behind the teams above them with a far inferior goal difference, thus needing to make up 7 points on the likes of Stoke and Sunderland). I’d say there’s about an 80 to 90 % chance that Wigan will end up third from bottom of this 19-team League. This means that finishing above Wigan is very probably what we need to do to stay up. Thus, in terms of Villa beating relegation, Wigan’s results are almost as important as our own. 2) The result of the Wigan match may have some effect on the way Sunderland perform at Villa Park. If Wigan lose, then Sunderland will be in a fairly comfortable position (6 point lead over Wigan plus vastly superior goal difference, with 4 games to play) and the game at Villa becomes a little bit less important for them. It goes like this (discounting draws for simplicity): If Wigan beat Spurs, then for Sunderland: Win at Villa = practically safe, Lose at Villa = back under threat. If Wigan lose to Spurs, then for Sunderland: Win at Villa = almost certainly safe, Lose at Villa = still relatively safe. Of course, Sunderland will want to win whatever the Wigan result. It’s their chance to practically guarantee that they stay up, so they’ll have that “carrot” in any case. But if Wigan lose to Spurs, then there won’t be so much of a “stick” in terms of relegation threat if they lose to Villa. I’m not saying that Wigan losing will automatically mean that Villa will beat Sunderland. Far from it. But I do think Sunderland being in a “comfort zone” could improve our chances a bit in that game. It could be case of “one good thing leads to another”. So for Saturday... COYS!!!!

I reckon 4 points in the next two games would definitely improve our position. A draw against Reading and a win against QPR would give us: - a 5, 7 or 8 point lead over QPR (depending on the QPR v Sunderland result) - a 1, 3 or 4 point lead over Reading (depending on the Man Utd v Reading result) - a 1, 3 or 4 point lead over Wigan (depending on the Wigan v Newcastle result; Wigan will have their game away to Man City in hand) A win against Reading and a draw against QPR would give us: - a 4, 6 or 7 point lead over QPR - a 2, 4 or 5 point lead over Reading - a 1, 3 or 4 point lead over Wigan So we would at least be out of the relegation zone, and could even have opened up a bit of a gap. In fact, if we consider that Reading have no hope at Man Utd, we would actually just need a Newcastle win at Wigan to put us 4 points above the relegation zone. Obviously 6 points would be even better, but I would be quite happy with 4 at this point.

Why do we necessarily need that many points? We are currently in the relegation zone only on goal difference, so if the other teams carried on picking up points at the same rate as they have been we would only need a very slight improvement to survive (10 points in 10 games would be enough). I'm not saying that WILL be enough, but it might be. We don't know.

Forgetting the Cup defeats, Arsenal have taken 10 points from their last 4 games in the League, which is not that terrible. And looking at Arsenal’s results this season, I see a worrying pattern. They have scored 5 goals or more in a match at least once in every (full) month of the season so far: September: 6-1 v Southampton, 6-1 v Coventry (League Cup) October: 7-5 v Reading (League Cup) November: 5-2 v Spurs December: 5-2 v Reading, 7-3 v Newcastle January: 5-1 v West Ham February: No big scores so far, but there’s still one game to go....

That's quite an extraordinary view to have, if you don't mind me saying so. We have scored 25 goals in 26 games, worse than all but two teams in the premier league - Norwich who also have 25 and QPR who have 19. It is the combination of scoring so few goals and conceding so many that has put is in such a perilous position. Frankly, our goal-scoring record is pathetic. So far it is as bad as last season and further back in time it is the worst for many a long year 25 goals in 26 games is a ratio of 0.96 goals per game, which is lower than in any season Villa have ever played in the top flight (although we did twice manage to score even fewer in the old second division, back in the dark days of the late sixties). We've been scoring a few away from home recently, including some very good ones, but scoring at home has been a problem all season. Our last eight home games have yielded four goals, consisting of two penalties, one direct free kick and a header from a corner. The last goal from open play at Villa Park was in the 2-3 against Man United. Scoring goals is certainly still a problem.

In particular, people need to be prepared for the likelihood of seeing Villa back in the relegation zone after the next match. If we lose at Arsenal, we are CERTAIN to be back in the drop zone, unless the Reading v Wigan match the same day gets postponed for some reason. Whatever the result in that match, one of those two will overtake us at least on goal difference if we lose. Even if we manage to draw at Arsenal, a Reading win would still put us back in the relegation zone. Only a win would be sure to keep us out of it. So we really are odds on to be back in the bottom three in two weeks time. Of course, that won't necessarily mean we're going down. Just as yesterday's result doesn't necessarily mean we're staying up. But we need to prepared for it and realise that it will be a surprise bonus if we are NOT in relegation zone after the next game.

Some of the performances I have seen certainly give that impression. Points-wise there is a big difference, however. Looking at the League table from 5 years ago, I see Derby were already 13 points behind 17th, having managed just 7 points from 23 games. They were obviously past the point of no return by then. They would have had to miraculously start performing like a top four team to have a hope of surviving. Villa are not even (quite) in the relegation zone at the moment. That at least should give us some hope, no matter how terrible the performances. I saw Bolton looking equally woeful last season, but they ended up one goal short of surviving on the final day. Wigan looked even more doomed at one point, but ended up surviving with points to spare. I fear the pessimists may be right, because we currently look flattered by 17th place and there have been too few encouraging signs that we are capable of keeping our noses ahead of the bottom three. But it's not over yet.

We could, but I reckon it would end up being locked about this time next year. By then Villa will be 16th in the Championship, and the early excitement of the January transfer window will have finally subsided into the realisation that Wesley Sneijder is still not coming, nor is Dale Stephens, and that promising young Rochdale midfielder we’ve been linked to wouldn’t want to come either, even if we could afford him. Caretaker tea lady-manager Annie Ferguson (recently appointed following a glowing letter of recommendation from a famous relative) will state in a press conference that, considering the need to budget for the likely “constructive dismissal” payout to Paul Lambert, and the fact that the club’s cost-saving policy has already forced her to switch to a cheaper brand of tea, she thinks it is “highly unlikely” she will have any funds available for new players but is willing to “go with what she’s got”. At that point the “Promotion” thread will be locked on the grounds of excessive bickering and general irrelevance, and posters will migrate to the “Would League One really be that bad?” thread.

A win takes us up to 16th. A 15-0 win takes us up to 15th. I'll settle for just the win.

I think you may have touched here on a major problem that has escaped the attention of many posters on this site. This is the fact that the squad is actually so oozing with world-class or potentially world-class players that the inexperienced (at this level) Lambert is having difficulty in finding the best way to organise this exceptional array of talent and keep all his galacticos happy. This over-abundance of talent in all areas of the pitch unfortunately appears to have led to one or two on-field problems such as scoring fewer goals than any other team while at the same time letting in more than everybody else, problems which can sometimes have a negative impact on points return and have so far been holding us back in our bid to challenge at the top of the table. While we can of course confidently expect to win the majority of our remaining fixtures, it is disappointing to note that this slow start now means we will probably be unable to finish above mid-table.

I wouldn't say that started the rot. It was more like the day the dream ended. That seems strange to say when you consider that despite throwing away two points at the end of that match we were still six points clear in fourth place (which was our goal). In that context it should have been just a bit of a setback. But I think everyone sensed that day that we weren't going to make it because the team just wasn't good enough for what we were hoping for. We knew we were in a false position and had no confidence in the team to hold onto it.

That's about how I see it, but I'm going to cling to my assumption that the bookmakers must know what they are doing, because Villa certainly don't look like they do!

At the moment, the bookmaker’s odds are the most reassuring thing I can see in the current situation! I don’t know much about bookmakers and betting, and I’ve never bet on anything, but I noted the following odds on Skybet. Villa to go down: 13/8 Villa to stay up: 4/9 By my calculations, those odds (if they reflected reality) would mean that Villa have a 38 % chance of being relegated, and a 69% chance of staying up. Now that doesn’t quite add up, of course! I presume this is because the bookmaker’s quoted odds have to be a bit shorter than what the bookmaker perceives as being the real odds on something happening, to ensure that bookmaker makes an overall profit on all the money being bet. I therefore assume that the reality (as they bookmaker sees it) is somewhere in between the odds quoted on “being relegated” and “staying up” respectively. In other words: The bookmaker thinks Villa have about a 35 % chance of being relegated and about a 65 % chance of staying up. Now some people might argue that those odds are very wrong, but it seems logical to me that bookmakers must generally have a reasonable idea about the likelihood of something happening when they quote odds on it. Otherwise they would lose too much money to people who know better than them. In particular, if Villa are so bad that they’re almost certain to go down (which is admittedly the way things have been looking recently), then those odds of 13/8 are silly and betting people should be piling money on it! But bookmakers can’t afford to offer silly odds (and the odds are actually always fairly similar from one bookmaker to another). So, on the basis of this reasoning, you have to conclude that Villa are still, for whatever reasons, more likely to stay up than go down. QED Or have I missed something in my reasoning?

We've already played Spurs twice, so we can't lose to them again. Against the other 5 teams listed, we've so far managed 4 points from 5 games. You can't say were certain to lose to them all second time around. There are obviously games left that we're heavily odds on to lose. But the same applied to the other relegation candidates. We have enough to worry about without looking at the fixture list and seeing problems that aren't there!

It is certainly abysmal, but I’ll have a go at arguing with it (or at least making it sound not quite so bad). 1) The fact that we only won 6 League games in the whole of 2012 (in fact, counting the one game so far in 2013, we’ve now won 6 out of 40 since January 1st 2012) is indeed truly dreadful. On the other hand, we have had a lot of draws (it’s 6 wins, 16 draws and 18 defeats in the last 40). So, since the beginning of 2012, we have actually picked up at least a point in the majority of our games (55 % of them). “Picking up points in the majority of our games” is a more positive interpretation of that period than “winning less games than any team in the country”. Both are true, but the first one sounds a lot better! 2) A lot of those figures include matches from the latter (very bad) part of McLeish’s tenure. Although Lambert’s record is a bit worse than McLeish’s overall, you could divide the last season and a half into three periods: First half of last season: 19 games 23 points. Mediocre, but enough for lower mid-table. Second half of last season: 19 games 15 points. Dire. Clearly a relegation-level points return. First half (just over) of this season: 21 games, 19 points. Very poor, but not quite as dire. A points return that would probably lead to relegation in most seasons, but not all. So we have at least seen a slight improvement in points return compared to the second half of last season, and it’s been just enough to keep us a fraction ahead of the relegation zone as things stand. [/special pleading]. There are other figures which are less encouraging, however. Even compared to the second (dire) half of the season under McLeish, our goal-scoring rate so far this season is practically as bad (17 in 21 compared to 15 in 19), and our defensive record is considerably worse (41 in 21 compared to 29 in 19). This not only handicaps us with a very bad goal difference in a tight race for points, but also suggests that we have been a bit lucky to get as many points as we have so far. If no team scores fewer goals than us, and no team lets in so many, we must be pretty bad. So, beyond any arguments about who has done worse out of McLeish and Lambert, I’d say the bottom line is: Villa are in big trouble and if we don’t improve we’re very likely to go down.

I could actually have included the Swansea match because the reaction to letting in fifteen goals in the previous three games was to carry on being so inept that we could have been four or five down after half an hour. It looked like it was luck more than an ability to react that meant we hadn't already been beaten out of sight again by half time. The Ipswich game was one where most fans seemed to have a "hope we win but not too bothered about this" attitude. It's not the sort of game where people are expecting a "big reaction". And a 2-1 win at home to a team who, like us, have the worst goal difference in their League (only a lower one) doesn't really count as one. In our current situation it was OK, a welcome win, but that's about all.

I don't know if I'm alone here, but after the Chelsea-Swansea result I'm now actually a bit more optimistic about our chances of finally winning a trophy than I was before yesterday's debacle. Before yesterday, I was thinking we would probably beat Bradford, but would almost certainly be playing Chelsea in the final. A team that recently beat us 8-0 and that we didn't look even remotely capable of competing against. A final you're almost certain to lose is not something you can get very excited about. I was thinking we might even need to bring McLeish back for a few days on some kind of short-term "keep the score down" contract to at least keep it out of the record books. Swansea, though, is a very different prospect. Yes, they're clearly currently better than us. Who isn't? But we've still beaten them and drawn with them in the two games we've played against them season. So even though they might be favourites, you'd still feel that anything could happen over ninety minutes and that we had a real chance. Terrible as our result was, the results in the first legs actually make the second leg against Bradford a lot more exciting than it would have been if, say, VIlla had won 3-1 and Chelsea had beaten Swansea 3-0. Poor as our team is, we still have a chance of being in the final. Beating a Fourth Division team by two goals over ninety minutes (which would take us to extra time) is not an impossible challenge.

I'm quite calm, but I must say I’ve been getting a bit skeptical about the chances of seeing any “reaction” from this side recently. Two and half weeks ago we lost 8-0 at Chelsea to record our heaviest defeat ever. A defeat so humiliating that the history books needed updating. I’d say that’s the sort of thing that really calls for some reaction. So what did we see against Spurs? Well, we didn’t exactly come out all guns blazing. In fact, after 40 minutes of play we seemed to have crossed the halfway line with the ball about once, and the corner count was 15-0 to Spurs (it actually would have been 17-0 but for a couple of wrongly awarded goal kicks). And the final score was 4-0 to Spurs. Not an all-time record this time, but still our biggest home defeat for 15 years, or in other words our worst so far this century. Was that a good reaction? Well, we’d managed to let in only half as many goals as in the previous game, and gone from setting an all-time low to merely a “worst of the 21st century” type record. At a stretch you could say that constituted a slight improvement, but all in all I’d still say it was a tad disappointing as reactions go. We really needed a proper reaction in the next game against Wigan. So what did we get there? Once again the early signs were not too good. Within about five minutes we had been lucky to get away with a corner instead of a penalty for an inexplicable needless handball, let in a goal anyway from said corner by giving their player a free header from five yards, and been very lucky not to concede another penalty for a clear foul in the area. Perhaps encouraged by this early luck, we were able this time to go on to lose only 3-0. So once again there was a tenuous case for saying that we had improved a bit. Once again we’d lost by fewer goals than in the previous match, and this time we hadn’t even set any kind of negative record. But I still found it a little bit unsatisfactory. 0-3 at home to Wigan isn’t all that good, after all. And considering that the result was far more damaging to our chances of avoiding relegation than the previous two maulings, it was actually even more worrying. So now, after this new setback of losing 3-1 to a Fourth Division side, what are the chances of seeing some real reaction against Southampton? I don’t know, but I’m certainly not expecting anything. Can the fans get behind the team and spur them on to tear into the opposition, or would that be too much like trying to goad a corpse?

Yes, that's about it, although around a point game is borderline. Two seasons ago McLeish took Birmingham down with 39 points, and they would still have gone down on goals scored with 40 points if they hadn't let in a last-minute goal in their last game. Last season he "kept us up" (all hail to him!) with 38 points. So it can go either way. To be safe, I'd say we need the blue line in that graph to be more above the 1.0 mark than below it over the rest of the season.