barry'sboots

Was at the match but read these ratings on Goal.com and thought that they got it pretty right. ASTON VILLA Brad Friedel - 7 - Enjoyed a quieter night than he would have expected. The few shots that came his way were handled with no fuss. Luke Young - 6 - Dominated Park, but came unstuck when Evra bombed on from full-back. Richard Dunne - 8 - Does exactly what he says on the tin. Solid, obstinate defending is his forte, and there was no sign of those standards slipping. Carlos Cuellar - 7 - Provided the energy next to Dunne. His rangy physique was stretched to the limit a number of times to deny United. Stephen Warnock - 7 - A stiff neck didn't stop him getting the better of Valencia. Linked up with alternating wingers Ashley Young and Stewart Downing to good effect. Collision saw him withdrawn for Collins. Ashley Young - 7 - Stuck to his manager's orders and pumped the ball in to the United area with consistent quality. Picked out Agbonlahor to set up the opener. James Milner - 8 - Is excelling in the close environs of centre midfield. Used his reservoirs of energy to win the ball and his winger's technique to pass the ball out wide with speed. Stiliyan Petrov - 5 - His every involvement seem to end with Martin Atkinson blowing his whistle for a free kick. Broke up play, but tested the letter of the law. Stewart Downing - 7 - Last involvement was to clear Vidic's header off the goal line. Put in a cultured performances before coming off for Reo-Coker. Gabriel Agbonlahor - 8 - Drifted intelligently in to space to nod home the winner and was a constant thorn in the side of the United back line. His pace unsettles even the best of defenders and his record against the 'Big Four' is impeccable. Emile Heskey - 5 - Ambled around the penalty box to little effect. Looked more oafish than international class. Taken off for Carew after hamstring pull.

For me: 1. Warnock 2. Dunne 3. Gabby 4. Milner

I thought we looked horribly balanced 07/08. Of the people that played out there - mainly Petrov and Gardner from memory - none of them looked like a right midfielder and we always had an exposed right side (Mellberg was never gonna overlap) and Ash was very easy to mark as everything went through him. I think if we had bought someone like Gary O'Neill to play out there that season - as a stop gap - we would have been in 5th at least and probably challenging the top 4. IMO, none of the players that we had could be compared to Krancjar who can actually play out wide but does drift in on occassion. We seem to have an obsession with pretty football? Chelski didn't play it at times with their 4-5-1 but won games and titles. I would much rather take a scruffy three points at Plop than try and play pretty football and get stuffed 5-0, although, and I have to admit I didn't see it, despite the possession figures it is my understanding that we were the better side against Plop? Both the Fulham and Blues games this season we have looked better than the following 5 away games I think?? 4-5-1 can work and can be very pretty, especially with our 3 amigos - you only have to look at Barca, Plop last season and now Arsenal - if you have the personnel to suit it and you are well set up. I think we do have the personnel and results have shown this.

Surely if you have been saying it for years then sometime you will have to be right???

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done. how can FACT be hogwash, go do the analysis, Laursen's last ten games and the first ten after he was injured, I've already done it, I know I'm right. Losing Laursen did nothing in terms of results, we were perfectly able to cope without him. Guess what though, ten games later the slump started, which iirc coincides with Curtis Davies first occurence of his shoulder injury and then we were down to the bare bones, we were playing a man at 75% and we suffered for it thereafter. Davies shoulder wasnt the only factor but it was certainly a major one but in reality it has little to do with formation and was more to do with the fact we had so few capable players left in the squad Laursen was a quality player, we struggled without him during the slump period. No Laursen issues this season. 4-5-1 played 3 won 3, even without Dunne, Collins and Warnock! 4-4-2 very different, especially away from home. Everton have made 4-5-1 work for them repeatedly despite the fact that they do not have any genuine width, certainly before the signing of Billy the Russian. As a consequence their 4-5-1 is a very solid "break us down" if you can. Given we have three (four if you include Marc) very good wingers and good full backs I think ours is a much more flexible 4-5-1/4-3-3. And I certainly wouldn't be unhappy if we have 35% possession as in the Plop game but still win comfortably and deservedly and take the plaudits and points .... if it was almost good enough for Chelski in the CL against Barca last season it is good enough for me at the minute. I think you could play it at home as well but instead of 4-2-3-1 you might go 4-1-4-1 and play Delph instead of Stan or NRC. A slight tweak but the same formation with a slightly more attacking intent?

Did we look one dimensional against Plop, Fulham or Blues? And those performances were without Downing. Do the commentators refer to the Chelski of the last 3 seasons as one dimensional or the Plop side for the back end of last year or the Arsenal side this year or the Barcelona side that won the CL. All sides playing this terrible 4-5-1/4-3-3. 4-5-1 with genuine width and a strong ACM (Jimmy) can be a really attacking formation. And even more importantly, if it fits your playing staff, then why shouldn't we run with it. This thread is about Stan in a 4-4-2 and for me, away from home against non-footballing sides he is a liability in this formation. We have seen this in the last 5 or 6 away games. At home he can be good but tires and needs subbing/supplementing for the last 20-30 minutes.

No-one is assuming that. Where have you got that from. I, and AVFCPOB, are merely saying that we think we would have done better in a 4-5-1 than we have in a 4-4-2 and that the evidence of last season and Blues, Fulham and Plop this season, supports this in our opinion. Quantifying it is not possible. But as AVFCPOB points out, we couldn't have done much worse than the last 5 or 6 away games could we?? If we had played well in those games but not got results then I could understand Blandy's logic that the "total football" is on its way BUT we haven't. I think we could play 4-4-2 away from home, but not with Stan in there. It needs a more aggressive DCM like NRC for me, particularly when we are up against the more aggressive and less footballing sides like Bolton, Stoke, Wigan etc..

I could see an argument for leaving Jimmy in CM and Downing out wide sure. Equally I could see an argument for giving DJ a breather after two competitive games in 5 days on his recovery to match fitness and using the squad as MON said he would do. Doesn't stop him coming on for the last 30 if needed. Unsure here. I would play NRC instead of Stan to give us 90 minutes - alongside Jimmy could be good as well. We have had three very good results playing it this season which has included our only two away wins - one being a very good performance against Plop. Didn't see anybody posting after the Plop and Blues games saying we were lucky and that it will run out?? And even if we did return to last December's form and we were getting lucky wins that would certainly be one step up from the last 6 away games in the league wouldn't it?? I may have seen a few posters complaining about those ... hell I might even have posted myself!!

It is not the 4-4-2 I am against. It is Stan in a 4-4-2, particularly away from home against most sides, as I have said. I think he is better against certain sides that will both try and play football and, because of their players and formation, will play in front of him - Chelski in a 4-4-2 as we saw at VP this season, Citeh with Barry and De Jong before they bought on Ireland who can get in behind, United without an ACM - and we could face them away in a 4-4-2. Although, as I have said, I think MON needs to be prepared to sub him or supplement him after 60 minutes. I personally would play the 4-4-2 that beat Bolton against Man U but I know MON wouldn't. However, the poorer sides (Burnley, Wolves, etc) will tend to play a more attacking aggressive games at home and Stan tends to get lost in these games whereas NRC would be in his element. I am a great believer that, unless you have a really good side, you need to set your side up to play the opposition most of the time.

Other than the location of where we are playing and number of supporters we have, what difference does it make if we're home or away? Better ask the players I guess. Its them that seem so comfortable at VP and so poor away playing the same team and formation. Ask Chelski who are invincible at home and yet lost three away. Ask Burnley. Seriously, I think its about having the onus on you to attack when you are at home and being slightly more "up for it" and aggressive in your play when you are at home, especially true of the smaller teams. I think Stan struggles to cope with this more aggressive approach from the opposition from what I have seen. I also think for Chelski that Lampard struggles in a 4-4-2 away from home - look at the game at VP where he was virtually anonymous.

avfc_pride of brum seems to be I don't think he is saying that the results/points alone are causing him to take this view, but he can and will correct me no doubt if he is. I think he's saying the results plus what he is seeing and hearing with his own eyes and ears, i.e. poor performances this season away from home in a 4-4-2 compared to good performances in a 4-5-1, provide him what what he feels is conclusive evidence. And I agree with this. Both AVFCPOB and myself, and others, are not just looking at the results page of the web site and drawing these conclusions. We are also watching and listening to games and putting the two together. I have yet to see anybody put a persuasive argument together for sticking with 4-4-2 away from home. Although, and this might surprise you, I would actually advocate it this weekend!! I take this view for the following reasons: - they have defensive problems with only one recognised CB so JC and Gabby would cause real problems; - they will play in front of us as they don't really have an ACM (now Scholes is knocking on) who can really get in behind Stan; and - we matched their 4-4-2 last year with our 4-4-2 until the latter stages when we were ahead and, IMO, should have switched to 4-5-1 with an extra man in CM to stop the Man U onslaught and help out a tiring Stan. As long as Stan is used appropriately I think he can be a valuable player for us.

No-one is claiming it is irefutable evidence it merely, in my mind, supports my feelings that with the squad that we have we play better away from home with a 4-5-1/4-3-3, especially if we are using Stan in CM. I don't see why you hold it in so much dread given that Chelski won two consecutive league titles a couple of years back and reached CL Cup and Semis playing 4-5-1/4-3-3 at home and away and no-one accused them of being a counterattacking team looking to snatch wins. Likewise Plop made it work well last season and Arsenal - the best "footballing" side in the country have switched to it this year for exactly the same reason as I am applying - that they are not strong enough in CM playing 4-4-2. And it is not all twelve months ago. We played 4-5-1 in Aug/Sept and won three from three. I haven't witnessed too much evidence of "the change happening" in our away league games since then?? I would be interested to know what change you think this is given the current personnel that we have? You don't have to study figures every morning etc. to have known this, you just need to watch us play and other games. It was fairly obvious IMO. I would have thought, when we were on a run of 2 wins in 15 games, MON might have done some analysis and thought how he could change things to stop this run. Rotation and substitutions would have been part of this IMO. Stiffening us up when we were ahead in games having conceded late goals in previous games might have been a good idea? Going to Plop with a 4-5-1 that had served us so well (as we did earlier this year) against a rampant, at that time, Plop might have been a good idea. I was merely pointing out that MON does not appear to have all of the information and analysis and does not always get it right, the latter point of which you seem to agree with me.

Totally agree. I would normally want to see a 4-5-1 away from home but would go 4-4-2 for this one for a number of reasons: - weak defence - I think Manure's midfield will play in front of Stan as they don't really have anyone in CM (now Scholes is knocking on) who can get in behind Stan - we pretty much outplayed them last year with a 4-4-2 as they do play quite open football and that works for us I would play JC aswell as Carrick really struggled against height at the weekend despite a comfortable win, although Vidic should pick up our Big Man. I do hope that, if we get our noses in front as last year, MON reacts early and either replaces what I'm sure will be a tiring Stan for the last 25-30 minutes or supplements him and switches to a 4-5-1. Here's to a 3 wins from 3 record against the Sky 4 with only our whipping boys - Arsenal - left to play in the first half!

I was the OP and I don't hate Stan as somebody posted earlier or have a problem with him, I just want the Villa to win and I think the way that MON uses Stan is wrong. In case the idiot who posted that I hate Stan hadn't noticed, he played (in all I think) of the ten 4-5-1 games that we won that I am suggesting that we use! Does that same person hate NRC because he's saying that we shouldn't use him? And for the poster that says thats because we were red hot last Dec/Jan and won games we shouldn't, is it just coincidence that we were also red hot in August/September when we beat Plop, Fulham and Blues with our 4-5-1 (the two away wins in the league this year)? For me this says that it has to be 4-5-1 away from home and AVPoB is spot on - JC has been useless away from home with the exception of the game against the Scum when the 4-5-1 kept it solid until MON made the switch to 4-4-2 and JC came on as an impact sub and helped us win the game. I am all for this - I think a change in formation/tactical approach in games is what we are crying out for. At home, I believe Stan can play in a 4-4-2, but only for 60 minutes as he does tire. If you can't see this then I am amazed - I am not an internet expert but the possession stats must be on there somewhere that show that, pro rata, we have significantly less possession, score less and concede more in the last 30 minutes. I suppose that, like the 4-5-1 stats, this is just a coincidence and is to do with everyone else except Stan. And the difference in the Hull game and the Bolton game (sides of equal standing IMO, in fact Bolton are probably better compared to Hull without JB) was the last 30 minutes again - we kept ticking over against Bolton and, even when they scored their goal, I never felt in any doubt that we were going to win that game comfortably and we scored three goals spread through the second half. So last 30 mins for me is NRC on for Stan or switch to 4-5-1/4-3-3 depending upon the circumstances. And for Chindie, who says that MON has access to all the information etc.. Is that the same MON that didn't know we had used the least players (and probably made the least subs) in the Premier League last season? MON is human, I think, and has his failings just like everybody. When DOL was our manager, did he get everything right because he was our manager and therefore must know best? So I don't hate "Stan" or think that he should be discarded and I don't necessarily disagree that he is our most technically gifted CM (although as AVFCPOB points out this should not always guarantee selection if this is not working for the team) BUT I do think that MON should use him differently and recognise that there are times and certain instances when he needs to be given a rest/subbed or supplemented.

Just wondering how we are all feeling about this after the last couple of months performances including a poor run away from home? Personally I feel that he has been poor in a 4-4-2 away from Villa Park and has done little to drive the team on (as you would expect from a skipper in CM) - and I would prefer to see us play 4-5-1 with NRC in there as well - and has been good for the first half of of home games but lacking in the second half as he tires. Hull was a prime example of this IMO when they came back into it later on and could have made it 2-1 and squeeky bum time if the shot that hit the post/bar had gone in. The Bolton game, where Stan didn't play, was the first time I have seen us dominate a side that convincingly for a long time and there was, again IMO, no let up later on in that game. I still think the stats are telling: 4-4-2 with Stan since mid Jan circa 32 points from 27 games 4-5-1 30 points from 10 games over the last 18 months or so (and mostly away games) 4-4-2 without Stan this year shows 3 points from 1 game, admittedly a small sample

I think its more to do with playing with a strong partner. Last season, when he got his chance, he was alongside a rookie in CD. I think if he had played alongside Laursen we would have seen a better Cuellar instantly.

Great first 10 minutes until we scored the goal. I thought we were going to see a severe thrashing today. Average performance against a very poor team for the last 80 minutes. I didn't think we were anywhere near as good as the Bolton game? Millie was good and worked very hard BUT it will be a different test against Manure and I'm not sure he will stand up to that.

...... and he doesn't even fold it!!

I would hope that any side MON puts out can take three points at home against Hull. I would go with the side that mullered Bolton but he will never do that. I just hope that, whatever side he picks, if it is not performing, he tries to change it tactically early enough to give us a chance. I hope he doesn't need to though.

I'm sure he was in that Harrison Ford film with Kelly McGillis about the Armish??

Or perhaps, realizing they are currently going out of a cup competition, Portsmouth have started to play a bit? Exactly, for some reason unless we dominate for 90 mins it means we've decided to change the way we play. Teams will usually have good spells during a game. They certainly do against us. Strange that it is always the last 30 minutes or so!

Its not "sitting back". It wasn't sitting back for many of the last 15 games of last season. It wasn't sitting back against Citeh and Spuds. It's Stan tiring and us losing the momentum in the centre of the park. If MON is going to play Stan in a 4-4-2 he has to make a sub after 60 mins or so to either replace him or supplement him and go 4-5-1. Made even worse in this game with DJ getting his first game and probably tiring. FFS MON, use your bench before Pompey get back in to this game!!!

Thought he showed his tactical naivety again today. For me, I couldn't understand why NRC was the one to be taken off - his energy and athletic defending was vital when they were starting to get on top. Stan was comfortably the more tired of the two IMO and was ineffective in the last 30 minutes. JC for Heskey didn't help us at all, although I'd have had to eat humble pie if that header had gone in I suppose. The game was crying out for an extra midfielder - DJ or Delph - to come on and take control of the midfield.

Our best player today by a country mile IMO. JD barely got a sniff.

If I were Redknob I would play Jenas instead of Huddlestone. Jenas will get in behind Petrov in the same way that Ireland did for Citeh and find a lot of space. Huddlestone will play his football in front of Stan and it will be a lot easier to cope. I would love to think that MON would respond to Jenas with the more energetic NRC over Stan but I have given up on this thought now!