Paul Lambert

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

"We were good in the first half". Not quite. We were comfortable in the first half.

 

That all changed when Martinez substituted Pienaar on at half time to operate down the left, then gave instructions for their right back to push forward, effectively playing a 3-5-2.  Against our horrid 5-2-3 formation that guaranteed control of the football, which was played almost entirely in our half.

 

What was Lambert's response? Swap to 5-3-2 with KEA for Holt. So our midfield is now only outnumbered by 2 instead of 3. Whenever our midfield actually won the ball, the majority of our players are sitting behind them. What other choice do they have but hoof it up to Benteke for a percentage play?

 

Horrid, horrid formation having 5 a the back. He got lucky with it a couple of times, which is a shame because he now persists with it. We have better shape and play more attacking football by limiting our backline to 4 - something that was obvious out of last season. Why do we never learn?

 

I'd argue the game changed when Naismith came on, they still didn't really threaten or create very good chances before then.

 

I agree that Lambert made awful decisions second half, and he didn't adapt which lost us the game, but in the first half, though clinical and rare in attack, we were very good at shutting Everton out and stopping them doing anything.

 

We set up the same v Southampton, who play a very similar game, and we won won 3-1, I'd argue because we had Gabby, but it's also because it's the best way to stop a team who just keep the ball and don't have that spark to break teams down. It's not pretty but it works. It doesn't work against teams who set up in a 352 and go more direct, like Everton after Naismith came on.

[Kwan]

No reason to play 532 at all

[penguin]

Being "obsessed with results", isn't that the whole **** point of football? We lost yesterday, ergo our whole performance wasn't good enough. But I couldn't give two shits if we had 1% possession and 1 shot all game if it meant we win every game 1-0. An extreme example, but at the end of the day if negative tactics get results, performance doesn't matter. It didn't get results yesterday, but it could have if the right changes were made during the match.

What a load of rubbish. We lost so that means our performance wasn't good enough? For sure performance is correlated with the result but one doesn't equal the other. You could have 80% possession, pepper the opponent with shots and they could score from their one lone attempt, the loss wouldn't mean a bad performance it would just mean you didn't have the luck on the day but if you did the same again 9/10 you would win it. Whilst for the other team, 20% possession and one shot, but the win means it was a good performance?

Good performances in the long term will breed good results and bad performances bad results, this is why people are concerned with them. Using your example, say we win the first three games of the season having 1% possession and one shot. Yet we'd got extremely lucky and it all probability if it continues we will start to get spanked, the results don't show this but the performance does.

Edited February 2, 2014 by penguin

[villalad21]

 

 

It's Everton man, Everton. It's not like we played against Barcelona or something, they are winnable. We played an exellent game against their neighbours which are on the same level as them. Yes you can say that we missed Agbonlahor, but one man alone can't do everything on his own, it was an overall great team performance on the day.

You are saying our first half was good while the second half was poor? No. Everton were poor in the first half, in second they played at their average level performance, and completly dominated us.

I can't believe some of the fans, i really can't. Still supporting him after that perfoirmance, wow. Any manager that actually line up Benteke and Holt in the same team as a striker duo is completely lost, that alone is enough for me to judge Lambert. You can maybe accept the horrible anti football hes serving us, but i don't. I think Aston Villa is a great club, with a huge history, and i won't accept to see my team in that shape, it's just not acceptable. 

 

While everyone were applauding our team in the first half, i think i were the only one who actually were hugely dissapointed with our play, and i were hammered for it, but look what happened in the end? It were allways a matter of time, that we would concede, and of course we did. Fans can be really obsessed with "results" sometimes, but i do allways look behind results, i'm seeing the big picture in games, and i allways knew from the time i saw our lineup that we were going to lose.

 

We had one shot on target in the whole game, ONE. And people were applauding our first half? How was it good? Again we created ONE chance. 

 

 

No, they're not Barca, but that's why playing that way v Barca only works if your Chelsea/Inter.

 

We set up differently v Liverpool, because they play differently. They attack at pace and play the ball behind the defence, and they way to stop that is get in their faces and stop them making those balls. Everton keep the ball, slowly build up and try exploit lapses in concentration, and they whip in crosses when that doesn't work. The best way to counter a team that does that? Let them have the ball and force them to try do something that unlocks a stubborn defence. If we'd played like that v Liverpool, Suarez would have torn us a new one.

 

Ask yourself, why were Everton poor first half? Because we frustrated them and reduced them to pot shots and that one McGeady chance early on. They couldn't work out how to get past us, that's why the first half was good. Of course it would have been better to have some more chances, if Gabby was fit, I'm certain we would have had more. Second half they got better because Lambert failed to adapt to how the game unfolded, and we lost because of it. And that's not even taking into account Vlaar's awful positioning for their equaliser and a world class winner.

 

As for Holt, I've explained a couple times now, and seems to get totally ignored every time, that although he wasn't very good himself, his mere presence forced Jagielka to watch him closely and take some heat off of Benteke. Weimann wouldn't have garnered the same amount of attention, as if you tightly mark him you'll quickly get tired as he runs around a lot so defenders don't tightly mark him. Holt is known to be a bit of a bruiser and was a handful at Norwich if he was allowed to get the ball, so Jagielka didn't let him get the ball, at the expense of not doubling up on Benteke, leaving just Distin to deal with him.

 

Being "obsessed with results", isn't that the whole **** point of football? We lost yesterday, ergo our whole performance wasn't good enough. But I couldn't give two shits if we had 1% possession and 1 shot all game if it meant we win every game 1-0. An extreme example, but at the end of the day if negative tactics get results, performance doesn't matter. It didn't get results yesterday, but it could have if the right changes were made during the match.

 

villarocker, I agree that we couldn't of gotten anything out of the game by keeping it up for 90 minutes, I've criticised Lambert a lot for it over the last few pages, but the starting line-up and formation nullified Everton perfectly how they started game, the main tactical balls up yesterday was not adapting during the game

Are you Lambert in disguise? You sound just like him. You are basically saying the only way to stop Everton is to let them have the ball, and hope they make some mistakes so we can take advantage of it. Thats pathetic, its not just a dumb statement, its an hilarious statement. I can't even take you serious. To let such a great side have the ball and let them do as they want is actually what you can't do. Thats what they want you to do.

 

Just to begin with the basics. If you have the ball 20-30 % of the time and your opponent have it 70% who do you think are likely to get a result? It's so obvious, i can't even believe i have to point it out. Do you really think the best way to stop Everton is to basically never have the ball and jsut let them play? Thats hilarious.

 

Martinez were spot on his after match comments, " we were coming back from a dissaponting result, and i think for the first half we were too responsible, the players were thinking too much, we couldnt express ourselfes". He recognised here that they were playing shit and not up to their standards, and he and his team sorted it our in a fantastic way.

 

It was attack against defence, men against boys, the beauty against the uglyness. Whatever you wanna call it.

 

Holt take the heat of Benteke? What do you mean? We never had the ball, our strikers didn't do anything. That game have to be a dream for any defenders, they didn't have anything to do. As I've said it was attack against defence, they didn't even have to defend, Howard rarely touched the ball.

 

You wouldnt mind if we had 1% possession? Then my friend, you are basically saying that you wont mind if we lose every game. 

 

Anyways. I hope this was a wake up call for Lambert, and i hope this takes this horrible 3-5-2 formation to bed, for good,

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Edited February 2, 2014 by MessiWillSignForVilla

[lmarsha_926]

Out of the 11 teams in relegation trouble we are 2nd in the form table

 

Last 6 games

 

Sunderland - 11 points

Aston Villa - 8 points

West Ham - 8 points

Crystal Palace - 7 points

West Brom - 6 points

Norwich - 5 points

Stoke - 4 points

Cardiff - 4 points

Hull - 4 points

Swansea - 4 points

Fulham - 3 points

 

Also we have played 3 of the current top 5 in those 6 games, Sunderland have lost 1 in 9 and that was against us. We have done ok yet people are moaning about one game against a team 5th in the league who have lost just 2 in 31 games at home. We played poorley but where in the game for 70 minutes and not for a great free kick would of got a well earned point.

Edited February 2, 2014 by lmarsha_926

[Bunnski]

We set-up to be hard to beat, it's worked for us plenty of times this season so why would Lambert not keep faith with it against a high flying Everton side with one of the best home records in the league?   We had an off day, it happens. Were not Man City who can squad rotate and bring in players worth 30 million form the sidelines.  People need to get real about the team and the club as a whole. It seems that the expectation from some supporters is that we are gonna be able to play all out attacking football and be the better team in every game we play. 

 

Something Lambert doesn't get much credit for is the fact that we have been in with a chance of getting points in basically every game this season except for Man Utd and Spuds.  For me the positives far outweigh the negatives this season and without a doubt we are progressing which is what I want to see and as long Lambert is able to bring in the quality we need in the summer then I have no doubt that we will be pushing for Europe next season, although if we lose Benteke in the summer then it could be a different story but the foundations will be their for a solid team regardless. Keep the faith!!

[Kwan]

I'm keeping the faith.

But no reason at all to line up like we did

[LordSepulchrave]

3-5-2 has it's place. It's fairly commonly used in Italy for example. Hull and Liverpool have both used three at the back this season on occasions.

 

This whole "Lambert is poor tactically" seems awfully close to hyperbole at times - on the balance it seems that "Lambert is average tactically" is more true.

[penguin]

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Don't see how disagreeing with your opinion constitutes not taking a an argument seriously but ok. Just took issue with your downplaying of the significance of performances.

[villalad21]

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Again what do you mean? You have stated, that we played better in the first half and bad and different in the second. No. We played in the exact same way. But the problem were that in the second half Everton lifted their percormance and played up to their standards.

 

I have been reading your arguments, but i simply don't agree with them, not at all. Your saying that against certain teams you have to play a different way. I don't know. but to me it sound like you agree with Lamberts tactics 100%, which were based on: Hoof the ball up everytime we have it, and lets just defend for the whole game, hope they don't score and maybe we get a lucky goal on a counter. 

 

But you are also criticising Lambert? What is your stand on him? You both agree with his tactics for the game and disagrees with it? That doesn't make any sense.

Edited February 2, 2014 by villalad21

[Kwan]

Lol it is NOT a 352. We do not play it like a 352 at all.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

 

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Don't see how disagreeing with your opinion constitutes not taking a an argument seriously but ok. Just took issue with your downplaying of the significance of performances.

 

 

It doesn't, it wasn't aimed at you, villalad said he couldn't take me seriously

 

 

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Again what do you mean? You have stated, that we played better in the first half and bad and different in the second. No. We played in the exact same way. But the problem were that in the second half Everton lifted their percormance and played up to their standards.

 

I have been reading your arguments, but i simply don't agree with them, not at all. Your saying that against certain teams you have to play a different way. I don't know. but to me it sound like you agree with Lamberts tactics 100%, which were based on: Hoof the ball up everytime we have it, and lets just defend for the whole game, hope they don't score and maybe we get a lucky goal on a counter. 

 

But you are also criticising Lambert? What is your stand on him? You both agree with his tactics for the game and disagrees with it? That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

I've said this multiple times, that is what I'm criticising Lambert about, again read my posts properly.

[LordSepulchrave]

Lol it is NOT a 352. We do not play it like a 352 at all.

 

Don't we generally, when playing three at the back, use that as a way to flood the midfield and play narrow whilst keeping two players high(er) up the pitch? I guess I'm not sure how that's different from what a 3-5-2 (or 5-3-2 if you want)?

[ozvillafan]

We do NOT play 3-5-2. It is always 5-3-2, unless you are watching a different game to me.

 

As for "It has worked in the past" - it has also spectacularly failed in the past. Has everyone forgotten West Ham away earlier this season?

 

Fluking wins against Man City and Southampton is not a reason to persist with this formation when last season (and even recent performances) strongly suggest our best results come from 4-3-3

[villalad21]

 

 

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Don't see how disagreeing with your opinion constitutes not taking a an argument seriously but ok. Just took issue with your downplaying of the significance of performances.

 

 

It doesn't, it wasn't aimed at you, villalad said he couldn't take me seriously

 

 

You act as if I don't have any qualms with our performance yesterday, read my posts properly, I actually criticise Lambert quite a lot,.

 

If you can't take a reasoned argument seriously, then there's no point persisting. I'm going to watch the Superbowl.

Again what do you mean? You have stated, that we played better in the first half and bad and different in the second. No. We played in the exact same way. But the problem were that in the second half Everton lifted their percormance and played up to their standards.

 

I have been reading your arguments, but i simply don't agree with them, not at all. Your saying that against certain teams you have to play a different way. I don't know. but to me it sound like you agree with Lamberts tactics 100%, which were based on: Hoof the ball up everytime we have it, and lets just defend for the whole game, hope they don't score and maybe we get a lucky goal on a counter. 

 

But you are also criticising Lambert? What is your stand on him? You both agree with his tactics for the game and disagrees with it? That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

I've said this multiple times, that is what I'm criticising Lambert about, again read my posts properly.

 

I have. this is your words. " We set up differently v Liverpool, because they play differently. They attack at pace and play the ball behind the defence, and they way to stop that is get in their faces and stop them making those balls. Everton keep the ball, slowly build up and try exploit lapses in concentration, and they whip in crosses when that doesn't work. The best way to counter a team that does that? Let them have the ball and force them to try do something that unlocks a stubborn defence. If we'd played like that v Liverpool, Suarez would have torn us a new one." 

 

How many times do i have to say this? We didn't even set up for counter attack. Look at our lineup. We were set up to defend the whole game and nag a point.

 

Just dont come here and say i havent read your post, i have but i simply dont agree with you.

[villalad21]

We do NOT play 3-5-2. It is always 5-3-2, unless you are watching a different game to me.

 

As for "It has worked in the past" - it has also spectacularly failed in the past. Has everyone forgotten West Ham away earlier this season?

 

Fluking wins against Man City and Southampton is not a reason to persist with this formation when last season (and even recent performances) strongly suggest our best results come from 4-3-3

In Italy they play like

 

----------------Kee------------------

 

---------CB----CB--------CB-----------

 

 

 

WB----------------------------------WB---

 

 

 

-------------CM------------CM-------------

 

------------------CAM------------------------

 

-----------------CF--------SS------------------

 

 

How do we play?

 

--------------------Gk-------------------------

--------------CB---CB-------CB--------------

LB-------------------------------------------RB

-------------CM---CM-----CM-----------------

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------CF---------CF-------------------

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

villalad, you aren't reading my posts properly, the point you've just argued has nothing to with what that post you've just quoted says. Read the bit in bold, then read my post. Maybe I should have bolded the sentence before too.

[LordSepulchrave]

Haha, I guess I should clarify that I didn't mean to compare us directly to the way Italian football can be played, just making the point that it isn't necessarily dead as a concept to have 3 at the back.

[villalad21]

villalad, you aren't reading my posts properly, the point you've just argued has nothing to with what that post you've just quoted says. Read the bit in bold, then read my post. Maybe I should have bolded the sentence before too.

You still haven't answered me. What do you mean by us playing different and bader in the second half? We played the exact same way.

 

You obviously agreeing with Lamberts tactics, based on the fact that you said "at certain teams we have to play in a different way". Well i hope for your sake that the guy in your profile pic is back soon, maybe we can nag in some 0-0 draws then.

Edited February 3, 2014 by villalad21