kayarcee

Granted, the acquisition of Knight (and especially Harewood, though God bless him for that goal against Liverpool) lacked a certain... prestige. Given our relative stature/status at the time though, I'd even go as far as to say it was one of O'Neill's canniest moves. The acquisition of Knight also had dire consequences as it pretty much sealed the departure of Gary Cahill.

I think it might be a tactical holdover from the Sunderland match- the first half of that match Herd was higher up the pitch, and Sunderland had a bit more initiative to their attack. At parts of that match's second half, meanwhile, Herd was positioned at times as a third center half. Considering how high up the pitch that Hutton gets (and Warnock, though he doesn't fly up the pitch with the abandon his opposite number does), it wouldn't surprise me at all that McLeish's tactical brief to Herd is 1. provide the link between the defense and midfield and 2. protect the center backs while the fullback support the attack. Which is a role I could see Herd thriving and relishing in.

Arsenal may be on a budget relative to Manchester City, but just this past window Wenger spent 52 million pounds on transfer fees (yes, 70 million pounds came in, largely for Fabregas and Nasri). For a bit of comparison, Aston Villa has purchased four players for 10 million pounds or more (Curtis Davies, including his initial loan fee, James Milner, Stewart Downing and Darren Bent) in the club's entire history. Arsene Wenger did that just this summer, and has purchased 12 players for transfer fees above 10 million in his term as Arsenal manager. So please do spare me the "budget" talk. Also, Didier Dechamps has purchased 4 players costing more than 10 million pounds (Gignac, Remy, Lucho, and Mbia) in his two and a quarter seasons as Marseille manager, and has spent at a loss each season. To say he's "working on a budget" is risible.

then why did Houllier not play him last season when Young and Cuellar was out Because Houllier was building. There was no future in playing a 31 yr old average RB, whereas playing Walker, (and trying to sign him) or Lichaj was something Villa could benefit from in future seasons.. So then where's the future in playing a 32 year old average RB over a 25 year old RB who showed great glimpses of potential earlier in his career under his current gaffer? To quote you from another thread, McLeish can obviously see things in Hutton that Redknapp didn't know about, and surely that's got to be down to McLeish's ability as a coach.

This. It was pretty telling that for most of the second half, Herd was positioned almost as a third center back.

The problem is that this is still a team very much set up by O'Neill. Houllier had one transfer window in which to work, and only laid the bare foundations for remaking the team in a continental manner. McLeish was then likely asked to consolidate from the current setup in his first window. He brought in Hutton for much the same reasons O'Neill brought in Agathe, Sutton and Petrov- familiarity and the knowledge that he could get Hutton playing his best football (as he did at Rangers and with the Scottish national side). And Hutton has improved steadily since joining; I don't know, for example, that Cuellar makes the run that set up Petrov's goal. Playing Delph in midfield for the first few matches was a move supporters have been crying for since he came back fit last December- and unfortunately it hasn't worked. But, rather than just let a favorite play through a poor patch, damn the results, McLeish has moved to find something that does work, hence Chris Herd as our midfield anchor for the previous match and a half. Purchasing N'Zogbia was the move everyone liked when Young and Downing left- and McLeish has rotated him in and out of the squad in an effort to find his form, which suddenly went missing. Further, other than the set pieces, we have started to see Villa play better and better football as the season has progressed- we had 60 percent of the possession against Sunderland, which doesn't happen if the team just hoofs and chases. The return has been less than expected so far, but I think McLeish will turn it around in the very near future, and I expect, much like last season and O'Neill's first, the performances in the run-in will leave everyone hopeful.

Good enough for me! As far as Bannan goes, I think the comparison with Scholes was more making the point that the hope is that he can emulate Scholes to a certain degree. Hopefully he can fill that sort of role for us. Of course, it's massively unlikely that Bannan will ever be as good as Scholes, but he might as well try to learn from him seeing as they're similar types of player. Thank you. That is, indeed, all I was trying to say. Of course, I had forgotten that this is Villa Talk, and I'm not allowed to have a positive outlook for any of our players.

Hyperbole though it may be, Bannan's technical ability really is in a class of its own among the Villa squad, and I would hope to see the academy produce more players in his vein (at least as regards on-pitch activities).

His set piece delivery is exemplary. His technique- passing, shooting, controlling is fantastic (for sgc, this more than anything else is what sets Bannan apart from Delph, who often looks like Bambi on ice attempting to control a dribble or pass) His eye for a through-ball is better than anyone in the team, though his decision-making can be a little rushed at times His tackling is all right for his size, but he is certainly unafraid to go into the mixer IF he learns from this mistake, and is given the chance to flourish, I think the lad could be as influential to us as Scholes- a player of similar size- was for Man U.

To lighten up the thread:

no we dont, the 4-2-3-1 formation is the reason why everything is so dire. It's a piss poor tactic and its dull and negative. It's basically 4-5-1 which leaves Bent isolated and its the reason why we create so few chances and have had least shots on target tahn anybody else in the premier league. There is no need for 2 holding midfielders at all. The formation is horible and the sooner its ditched the better IMO. We need to play Gabby and Bent up top together Completely disagree with this. Barca play 4-6-0 effectively but they are anything but defensive. A 4-2-3-1 can be attacking as any formation if you get the right players playing it properly. Look at the Plop side a few years back with Mascherano and Alonso holding and Gerard, Kuyt and one other supporting Torres - probably the best football they have played in years. Playing Heskey on the right of the three and not having a DCM in the two is a big part of the reason, IMO, it is pretty ineffective for us.

This also all ignores the fact that as of the sale of Young and just before the purchase of Hutton, Lichaj went down for the season with a tear in his hip labrum. So we were even thinner at the position, especially since Herd is recognized as a CM, and did the fullback job as an emergency. Last time we had a CM playing fullback regularly, it wasn't all that pretty.

Centerbacks were marking Pavyluchenko and a midfielder that had made a run; Defoe's run was angling originally toward the back post. Stevens had even signaled before the cross came in that he'd pick up Defoe's run.

I was talking about the third and the Defoe header. He needed to be over quicker to cut that cross out.

Two of 'em.

I'd rather have Laursen too, but the Great Dane has retired. Would you really rather have Carthorse Jerome than Gabby? Agent Ridgewell than Warnock

I am in no way defending the Muppet McLeish BUT have you seen Forest's results with the Wally in charge? :winkold: Or Jol's at Fulham, for that matter. . .

The words of someone who had their mind made up the second McLeish was appointed. I said this in the match thread- we haven't hoofed the ball forward nearly as much as we did under St. Martin (who, as others have said, guided us to plenty of crap cup runs as well). McLeish's Villa so far have played the ball largely on the carpet, and Petrov has turned up in the opposition box more times in the last seven matches than he did the whole of last season. The attacking thrust of the team isn't quite the issue. Where the issue is, however, is in pressing when the other team has the ball. That leaves us having to build every attack from our own half, which results in us struggling to break teams down as well as we should. Oddly enough, it's our defending that isn't aggressive enough. And right now, we don't have the center backs to play the high line necessary to pressure up the pitch- just ask Gerard Houllier about that- or we might have had them if today's opposing number five hadn't been sold for a song. weird because the prediction by 90% of fans was that we would start playing negative unatactive unsuccessful football tell me, how thats going? Well, so far it has us sixth in the table (early doors, I know), and out of the League Cup. So it's been a mixed bag. I have a more positive view of the performances against Newcastle and Fulham, and I certainly wouldn't call it negative football that Villa are playing. Not while Stoke is still in the league. Now you tell me, how is your daily pity party going? Have you taken off your mourning veil for McLeish's appointment, or are there still crocodile tears in there?

The words of someone who had their mind made up the second McLeish was appointed. I said this in the match thread- we haven't hoofed the ball forward nearly as much as we did under St. Martin (who, as others have said, guided us to plenty of crap cup runs as well). McLeish's Villa so far have played the ball largely on the carpet, and Petrov has turned up in the opposition box more times in the last seven matches than he did the whole of last season. The attacking thrust of the team isn't quite the issue. Where the issue is, however, is in pressing when the other team has the ball. That leaves us having to build every attack from our own half, which results in us struggling to break teams down as well as we should. Oddly enough, it's our defending that isn't aggressive enough. And right now, we don't have the center backs to play the high line necessary to pressure up the pitch- just ask Gerard Houllier about that- or we might have had them if today's opposing number five hadn't been sold for a song.

POB pointed it out in the playing style thread. It's not that we're afraid to attack- when we have the ball, we've done our damndest to get forward. Petrov's been in the opposition box more in seven games under McLeish than he was the whole of last season or the season prior. We play the occasional hoof, but the majority of the passing has been on the carpet. But when our opposition is in possession, we don't have anyone pressing hard to regain possession in an attacking position. And against Newcastle, the strikers didn't drop deep enough to cut out the "reset" ball- there were countless times that Newcastle stepped into a blind alley, only to play it back across the center circle, where Gabby and Bent should have been cutting off that outlet pass.

It's the standard back five, Petrov and Bannan in front of them, Ireland in the trequartista role, and Gabby, Marc and the Fonz as the front three.

It could be worse. We could be Arsenal.

I'm more worried about no Bannan in the starting lineup. I'm not sure what the lad has to do to get a start.

Considering that within 2 minutes of moving infield Barry Bannan almost grabbed an assist, he absolutely has to start in the no. 10 role against Everton. Thought Herd was excellent at keeping Jarvis, who has been a real worry, out of the match. Gabby was our dangerman throughout, and N'Zogbia had a few decent runs, though his shooting and final balls were poor, as were his set piece deliveries. McLeish just missed getting it right by about 10 minutes, but another clean sheet and good defensive organization is a wonderful platform from which to build.

Get the sense from the text it's been a bunch of "nearly" balls cancelled by either offside or a solid piece of defending from Hereford.