TomC

In the few matches that he played under Deano this year, I think that his passing had already improved. Maybe he worked on it during the summer. As for his defending...maybe it's the 3 man midfield and the way we use him in it? I'd have to go back and look how often he played in a 4-3-3 under Deano, but it seems to suit him. Or maybe SG has just given him some good advice in training.

That was a really good performance, at least in the 70 minutes I saw--I missed the first 20, when Leicester apparently had the upper hand. Did anyone have a bad game today? Not that I saw. You could nitpick a few things--Mings with an awful pass that nearly cost us a goal, Watkins really really should have passed the ball to Cash instead of shooting around 55'--but that is nitpicking. MOM for me? I would have said Ramsey until Konsa's second goal, but I have to vote for Konsa after that. I wasn't ready to fire Deano, but I have to say that Gerrard is getting more out of these players than Deano did. It's still early, but it's looking like the right move. If I can nitpick one thing about Gerrard today...the tactics were good, the first two subs were good, but why did he bring on Tuanzebe? Nothing against Tuanzebe's performance...but in the time between the second goal and the third sub, we were in "attack is the best defence" mode. You didn't think Leicester had a chance of getting back in the match because we hogged the ball. We looked a little like Man City Lite. After that sub, we retreated into a shell, and they looked dangerous again. I think that sub backfired. One person who did have an awful game? The ref. I can forgive him for disallowing Ramsey's goal. That was right on the borderline. I think that the ref may have gotten suckered by the slow motion replay; it made it look like Schmeichel had the ball for longer than he did. I think that it should have counted, but it could have gone either way. But...for the disallowed Watkins goal, he got suckered by a dive. Nakamba's yellow card was a joke; Nakamba was the one that was fouled. To be fair, Leicester probably should have had a penalty around 75' (though it's justice that they didn't get it after the wrong decisions the other way). But most annoying of all, and the easiest to get right, was the fact that he kept letting Leicester obstruct our free kicks. Every time we had one in their half, they ran right up to the ball until they set their defence. I reffed for 15 years, and I can tell you: If you caution someone once, that problem will go away immediately. He wouldn't do it. Just terrible. When you have almost as much to say about the ref as the team, either your team was very good or very bad. Fortunately, in this case, it's the former.

I agree. Ash played well enough against Palace to start against City, but I think SG left him out of the starting XI to rest him for this weekend. After being forced to play him 65' against City, he's going to have to sit him this weekend instead. Back 4 are obvious, midfield will probably be Nakamba, Dougie, and McGinn. I suspect we'll see Sanson later in the game. That leaves the forward line...who do you play with Watkins and Buendia? If Bailey is fit, he'll probably start. If not, do you start Ghaza, do you try pushing Ramsey forward on the left side, or do you try to fit Ings and Watkins together again? Choices, choices...I suspect he'll try Ghaza.

But he was consistent. We got away with some of the same stuff. Furthermore, it's not just Dean. All the refs seem more lenient this year.

He's one step short of world class. Which means that he's not world class, but pretty damn good.

I've been one of his biggest defenders on here, but I thought he was just so-so tonight. He was a real threat in the final third, but didn't look quite as impressive in the centre of the park.

This is a good point. I generally liked the way that we tried to play through the press calmly, but some of our most nervous moments were when Konsa, Mings, and Emi started playing the ball among each other while pinned back against our own goal line. When you're the last line, you can't get pinned back like that.

Give him some time. Ramsey never impressed me until this year. Look at him now.

What can you say? We went against a better team, maybe the best in the world, and came up only a little short. We will win a lot of matches playing the way we played today. I thought Gerrard got the tactics right. (It looked entirely different than anything I ever saw us do under Deano.) The first 25 minutes or so, as much possession as City had, we denied them space to threaten the goal. It seemed like Gerrard wanted to funnel the ball along the side, put up a wall of three parallel to the touchline, and then swarm another 2-3 players behind the wall to plug any gaps. It was effective. Plus, we tried to play out with confidence rather than hoofing long balls. The players were committed to the cause and put their best foot forward. The first goal, City exploited the weakness to swarming one side of the pitch. Sterling played a diagonal ball to the opposite side. We had players within range to stop them, and you can argue that maybe Bailey could have challenged Dias better, maybe Targett should have gotten his head to the ball, maybe Martinez was a little out of position. But Dias’s finish was world class. We had to push more players forward chasing the lead. For City’s second, Mings went a little too far forward, and City punished it ruthlessly. I knew as soon as the ball got near the centre line that we were screwed. Again, a world class finish. Plenty of players could have scored there; Silva had all the time in the world. But most players would have settled to play two touches and tap it in. Silva decided to do it with style, and he succeeded. We were good going forward when we had possession. No mindless balls up the wings like we often saw with Deano. Dougie had more license to roam forward and seemed to enjoy it. He was excellent. Watkins was excellent holding up the ball, not to mention the first goal; much better than against Palace. Nakamba gave the best performance I’ve seen him give in a Villa shirt. If he keeps playing this way, maybe we won’t have to buy a DM. My MOM. Buendia had a few good moments, but was frustrating at others. Par for the course, I guess. When Chuk came on, the two of them seemed to read each other well. Speaking of Chuk: Gutsy of Gerrard to put him in when he did. Still green, but he didn’t look bad. Cash’s defending really impressed me. He gave the ball away too easily going forward though. Konsa was excellent today too. The flip side to Dougie going forward was that McGinn seemed more withdrawn. He did not influence the game like he did against Palace. Young; How many other players can go from forward to fullback in the same match? And he looked good at both. His experience shows. What a signing. We didn’t get to see too much of Sanson, but you know the phrase “head on a swivel?” I like the way he is always looking around. Ref: Not often you can say it, but outstanding. No cards and the match was completely under control. He let some stuff go, but was consistent (sure, they got away with some stuff, but we got away with some stuff too). Best of City: All of them? It’s easy to hate them because of the way the team was assembled, i.e. brute force spending of money that wasn’t earned in the game. But if you didn’t know how the team was assembled, they’d be pretty admirable. I do have to say that we made them look mortal in the second half, though.

I think that you hit the nail on the head. Don't burn out the younger players. It may be the same with Young. How do you drop him when he played so well on Saturday? Don't burn out the older players. It might have been different if it weren't a midweek game sandwiched between two weekend games...

To be fair, it was a poor post. I did not explain myself very well and came across as far too pessimistic. When I said "strangely unconvincing," my point was that I should have been ecstatic. (IrishVilla10 is right...if you're not going to enjoy it, what's the point?) We were excellent in the first half. But when McGinn scored, I had more of a feeling of relief than of excitement. Palace had dominated midfield for a long stretch and I had this feeling that we would concede. Which, of course, we eventually did, but after we got the insurance goal. I didn't enjoy the end, and maybe I couldn't quite figure out why. I'm not a natural pessimist...after the Wolves loss, I posted how we could still get to 60 points, and I certainly wasn't a relegation doomsayer after Soton. If nobody else had an uneasy feeling, maybe I was just having a bad day! UTV

Excellent until the goal. He got call ball watching. Did anyone else notice Konsa get angry at him after the goal?

He is still overthinking.

OK, I guess my post isn't too popular, but the last 30-35 minutes didn't look as good as the start...we have a lot of work to do given our next three opponents. I wasn't trying to be overly pessimistic, but let's not get carried away with the euphoria either.

His passing has gotten better, too. He'll never be a playmaker but he didn't give away the ball on the easy passes. That said, I thought he faded in the second half.

A strangely unconvincing victory against a poor Palace side... Martinez: Didn't have to make any saves until 80', but got the job done when he had to, as usual. Defence in general: No, they didn't give up a shot on target until 80', but Palace had good opportunities on many occasions and were just too poor to take them. City or Liverpool would have destroyed us. This is the part that was the least convincing. Still work to do, even if they looked better than during the five straight losses. Mings: Caught ball watching for Palace's goal. Konsa was furious with him. As he should have been. Too bad, because he was the best of the four for most of the match. Those concentration lapses... Targett: Much better under Gerrard, and I'm not saying that just because of the goal. Like last week, our tactics never left him isolated one-on-one against faster players, which is his weakness. Ramsey: Didn't do anything brilliant with the ball today, but I'm happy to see his defending developing. He will need that to be a complete midfielder. Midfield in general: Good at keeping the ball when we got it, which is why we had long spells of possession. Had a hard time winning it, which is why Palace had long spells of possession. I was shocked to see Palace hog the ball after Dougie came on, because Dougie, McGinn, and Nakamba are all capable of winning the ball. We still need a better ball winner in midfield. Dougie: Either wasn't fit or was just plain rusty after a few games out. McGinn: MOM for me. Seemed to be playing more towards the centre in attack today after playing wider last week. But then, the attack seemed to favor the left this week. Young: Excellent again. Underused under Deano. Bailey: Has talent but likes to play hero too much. Has learning to do. Buendia: Made McGinn's goal. I still have faith in him. Watkins: Disappointing. All the people blaming Ings for Watkins' regression this season can be quiet now. He had the middle to himself for the entire match and all his problems were still there. Yes, he did some nice work holding the ball up. But he is still overthinking and overelaborating. His chance in 2nd half stoppage time summed up his entire season. He should have one timed it, but decided to play with it and lost the chance. I think Ings would have buried that. I'd be starting one striker next week and it wouldn't be Watkins. Gerrard: The tactics seems to be working, don't they? Ref: Poor, but I'll cut him some slack because it was his first PM match. Best of Palace: Gallagher was excellent. I would be happy to see him in a Villa shirt.

You're being entirely fair putting them at the same level. I just think that it's good to have DI around. It's still not out of the question that we could be in the Europa League next year, or go on a long FA Cup run this year, or that Watkins could get injured. Cover is good. As you also say, they are different sorts of strikers. Depending on what Gerrard does, there may be tactical situations where one or the other is more appropriate for the tactics on any given day. As for other people's argument that a DM should have been a higher priority...the club said that they were going to buy Buendia even if Grealish stayed. They didn't spend £90m of the Grealish money. They spent £55m of the Grealish money and £35m of other money. I wouldn't rate the Ings signing based on our needs elsewhere. They could have spent more if Deano or Purslow had pushed for it.

Still sussing out everything that Gerrard does, but here's what I noticed... The press is very different. Not as high. The high three tend to move as a wall rather than being staggered or trying to clog particular passing lanes. The goal doesn't always seem to be to win the ball; many times, Watkins and Buendia showed the player the outside and were content to steer them down the wings. As narrow as the front and middle three were when defending, the middle three looked very different in possession. Ramsey and especially McGinn would drift wide, often to cover space left when Targett and Cash pushed forward. Buendia still seemed to have license to roam. He turned up on the left even before the first substitution. Ings participated in the press but didn't seem to track back to our final third like he did under Deano. Maybe SG wants him to stay further forward. I have a vague impression that we played the ball up the middle a little more; Deano always preferred to advance the ball up the wings. But that's only a vague impression. As I mentioned in the Targett thread, the tendency to funnel players down the wings put our fullbacks at the end of cul-de-sacs, which seemed to help Targett. He's good at tackling when he isn't isolated one-on-one against a faster player.

The tactics suited him well. Rather than ending up isolated on the wing one-on-one against a faster player, which happened many times earlier this year, Gerrard's tactic to funnel players down the wings meant that he was essentially at the back of a cul-de-sac where his tackling could be used without getting burned by pace.

Yes, his run helped make Ollie's goal yesterday. And as I've said before, I don't think that he's a bad player. He has some talents, particularly hitting the ball. Unfortunately, keeping possession is not one of those talents. He didn't have much of a chance to give the ball away in a 10 minute cameo, but if/when he starts a match again, watch how many times he gives it away. He's still a sub at best in my book.

He made some great saves against Brighton, but did anyone else think that his distribution was a bit mediocre?

Watkins: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 0 assists. Ings: 10 appearances in the PL, 3 goals, 2 assists. They are our joint top scorers, which is what you would expect from your strikers. Would Watkins have scored more if he had played in the centre the whole time? Probably. But let's not pretend that Ings has been a bad signing when he has more goal contributions than anyone else. Watkins is a fan favorite given what he did last year, but if you're going with only one, you could go with Ings just as easily.

I thought that he was OK the first half. He made our best opportunity in the half, gave the ball away only once, generally did intelligent things with the ball, ran his socks off and did some nice things in the press. He did not look good second half. And I'm saying that as one his biggest fans on this board. I'm wondering if he's fully fit. It's not the first time he's faded.

I didn't think he was that bad on the left. He's always been good at holding up the ball and I saw some of that. However, he tried dribbling a few times when he should have passed. When it comes to scoring goals, clearly he is more comfortable in the centre.

No way of telling, of course. But if we had won it, we would have won it a different way. The most obvious difference for me was the way we pressed. It's more of a mid block and is designed more to force the ball down the wings than to win it high. I thought it worked well. Brighton had stretches of possession but not much in dangerous spots. I liked the tactics. I will be curious to see how much of it is Gerrard's preferred system and how much was tailored to Brighton. Ashley Young played well and who made Watkins' goal. That would not have happened under Deano, who seemed to have lost faith in him. The subs showed a very different way of thinking. Bailey for Ings, giving us a forward line of Buendia - Watkins - Bailey? Never saw that under Deano. Young for Buendia, giving us a forward line of Young - Watkins - Bailey? That never happened under Deano. Then Ghaza for Ramsey giving us Ghaza - Watkins - Bailey (and pushing Young back to midfield)? Don't think that we saw that one under Deano, though I'm not quite as sure on that one. Gerrard clearly has some different ideas about how he's going to fit some players.