Paul Lambert

[Oaks]

We were playing decent until the first Chelsea goal, which was unfortunate to break to Oscar.

Yeah, for all of 6minutes

It wasn't an unfortunate break either it was poor marking.

[bobzy]

 

That is EXACTLY right, its played on a pitch not spreadsheets.

Its played with passion, desire and eagerness.

Each game should be played in the expectation that we can win it, not in accepting that we won't win before a ball has been kicked.

People on here were happy to accept a defeat to chelsea before the game. "They are richer than us, They are better than us, FFP aint fair cos they have all the best players." (paraphrasing)

So, what ? we are in the same league as them. We should try our damnedest to beat them.

 

Because we have been served up shite for 3 years now (and counting) there is a mindset amongst 'supporters' that this in now our lot and that we should accept that we will never challenge again.

That may be so, but it doesn't mean that the style and quality of play should be so frigging sterile that we barely muster a shot between one game and the next.

 

 

Honestly, you're talking about a team that is strolling to the Premier League title.  They've put 6 past Everton and 4 past Swansea - both teams who are currently "better than us".  I think it's entirely fair to accept defeat against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge as being something that is incredibly likely to happen.  Likewise, the only way we'd actually win the game is to sit back, soak up pressure and manage to successfully counter attack.  Chelsea are just far, far too strong.

 

You can't assess that game in terms of "style and quality of play", it's ludicrous.  Look back to Stoke, Newcastle and Hull to bemoan those things if you want.  Personally, I'd take the 7 points we got from those games over some pretty football anyway.

[rodders0223]

 

 

That is EXACTLY right, its played on a pitch not spreadsheets.

Its played with passion, desire and eagerness.

Each game should be played in the expectation that we can win it, not in accepting that we won't win before a ball has been kicked.

People on here were happy to accept a defeat to chelsea before the game. "They are richer than us, They are better than us, FFP aint fair cos they have all the best players." (paraphrasing)

So, what ? we are in the same league as them. We should try our damnedest to beat them.

 

Because we have been served up shite for 3 years now (and counting) there is a mindset amongst 'supporters' that this in now our lot and that we should accept that we will never challenge again.

That may be so, but it doesn't mean that the style and quality of play should be so frigging sterile that we barely muster a shot between one game and the next.

 

 

Honestly, you're talking about a team that is strolling to the Premier League title.  They've put 6 past Everton and 4 past Swansea - both teams who are currently "better than us".  I think it's entirely fair to accept defeat against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge as being something that is incredibly likely to happen.  Likewise, the only way we'd actually win the game is to sit back, soak up pressure and manage to successfully counter attack.  Chelsea are just far, far too strong.

 

You can't assess that game in terms of "style and quality of play", it's ludicrous.  Look back to Stoke, Newcastle and Hull to bemoan those things if you want.  Personally, I'd take the 7 points we got from those games over some pretty football anyway.

 

 

No way, we should put this guy in charge. He will have the players 'rolling up their sleeves', giving '110%', 'running through brick walls'  and 'playing for the shirt.'

[DiegoD]

I feel that some posters don't appreciate just how strong that Chelsea side is. That was their best 11 and it is an incredibly well balanced team. They won't lose a game in the league unless they get a few injuries. 

 

I was a bit disappointed we didn't make a better contest of it but thankfully we don't play Chelsea and Man City every week.

[lapal_fan]

To be fair, after the last couple of visits to Stamford Bridge, I was glad it was only 3.

 

If Lampard had been there, it would have been 5 or 6!

[ozvillafan]

I feel that some posters don't appreciate just how strong that Chelsea side is. That was their best 11 and it is an incredibly well balanced team. They won't lose a game in the league unless they get a few injuries. 

 

I was a bit disappointed we didn't make a better contest of it but thankfully we don't play Chelsea and Man City every week.

 

I don't think that's it, tbh.

 

Nobody is saying that this should be a win for us or that Chelsea aren't a fantastic side. They are top for a reason.

 

The point we are trying to make (well - me at least) is that sitting back hoping against hope that Chelsea don't put a truckload past us is not how we should be approaching our football. Ever. Regardless of the opposition. Or the value/ability of their players.

 

Yes, we will be outclassed. Yes, we will lose games against "lesser" sides too this season. But I'd like to see a more positive/aggressive style. We may still have lost 3-0....

 

... but Chelsea would know they had been in a game and our support might have had something to cheer.

[Eastie]

We still have everton and Spurs in the three games after city so it will be a tough October-if we could finish october around 10th it will leave us in a good position to kick on from there with benteke back .

Lambert needs to get a quality wing option in January in my view but there is nothing to stop us finishing in the top 10 .

[bobzy]

 

I don't think that's it, tbh.

 

Nobody is saying that this should be a win for us or that Chelsea aren't a fantastic side. They are top for a reason.

 

The point we are trying to make (well - me at least) is that sitting back hoping against hope that Chelsea don't put a truckload past us is not how we should be approaching our football. Ever. Regardless of the opposition. Or the value/ability of their players.

 

Yes, we will be outclassed. Yes, we will lose games against "lesser" sides too this season. But I'd like to see a more positive/aggressive style. We may still have lost 3-0....

 

... but Chelsea would know they had been in a game and our support might have had something to cheer.

 

 

I disagree - I think it's exactly how we should approach away games against the big teams.  The last thing I'd want to happen in those sorts of matches is for us to play an expansive game and get hammered 8-0 again (by the way, this is more likely than "we may still have lost 3-0").  It completely crushes confidence; not to mention damages our goal difference.  There's simply no point trying to match Chelsea in an attacking sense.  Our win last season at Villa Park was exactly how we should play (and tried to on the weekend).  Sit back, soak up pressure and then break.

 

Doing anything else is just **** stupid to be honest.

[ozvillafan]

I disagree - I think it's exactly how we should approach away games against the big teams.  The last thing I'd want to happen in those sorts of matches is for us to play an expansive game and get hammered 8-0 again (by the way, this is more likely than "we may still have lost 3-0").  It completely crushes confidence; not to mention damages our goal difference.  There's simply no point trying to match Chelsea in an attacking sense.  Our win last season at Villa Park was exactly how we should play (and tried to on the weekend).  Sit back, soak up pressure and then break.

 

Doing anything else is just **** stupid to be honest.

 

 

 

You and I remember our last game against Chelsea very differently.

 

We won last season by constant pressure in midfield higher up the pitch. This time around we sat 2 rows of 5 and 4 in the last third with Gabby alone up front.

 

Now playing aggressively has nothing to do with "going all out attack" or even being "expansive". It has more to do with press and that press needs to happen further up the pitch than anything we showed at Stamford bridge. Don't get me wrong - we were still going to feed on scraps - but pressure does funny things to teams.  Especially when they are expecting an easy run....

 

... which, sadly, is exactly what we gave them on Saturday.

[bobzy]

Didn't Chelsea employ that exact tactic to nullify our counter attacks?

 

By the way, you didn't once say we should "play aggressively" in your post.  What you said was that we shouldn't "sit back" which implies doing the opposite, i.e: go forwards, which is turn would make the game more open and would (in my opinion) see us get absolutely hammered.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

I disagree - I think it's exactly how we should approach away games against the big teams.  The last thing I'd want to happen in those sorts of matches is for us to play an expansive game and get hammered 8-0 again (by the way, this is more likely than "we may still have lost 3-0").  It completely crushes confidence; not to mention damages our goal difference.  There's simply no point trying to match Chelsea in an attacking sense.  Our win last season at Villa Park was exactly how we should play (and tried to on the weekend).  Sit back, soak up pressure and then break.

 

Doing anything else is just **** stupid to be honest.

 

 

 

You and I remember our last game against Chelsea very differently.

 

We won last season by constant pressure in midfield higher up the pitch. This time around we sat 2 rows of 5 and 4 in the last third with Gabby alone up front.

 

Now playing aggressively has nothing to do with "going all out attack" or even being "expansive". It has more to do with press and that press needs to happen further up the pitch than anything we showed at Stamford bridge. Don't get me wrong - we were still going to feed on scraps - but pressure does funny things to teams.  Especially when they are expecting an easy run....

 

... which, sadly, is exactly what we gave them on Saturday.

 

 

A big few points your missing to last season's game is this, we didn't have Benteke nor Vlaar, so the midfielders can't press higher as they know the striker currently cannot ocupy the Chelsea backline himself. Second point Chelsea are much stronger than last season, they have added Costa and Fabregas. So comparing it to last season considering we are missing CB and RV is pretty pointless.

[DCJonah]

It is not the 80s anymore, we can't compete, it is a financial game nowadays.

How come lower league teams keep beating us then? How did Leicester beat a team that's spent more this calender year than any team in the history of the sport?

How did we beat Chelsea, arsenal, Liverpool and city last year?

[TrentVilla]

Right, thread open again.

 

Please keep this on topic and off poster or don't bother contributing to the thread.

 

Thanks

[SikhInTrinity]

 

It is not the 80s anymore, we can't compete, it is a financial game nowadays.

How come lower league teams keep beating us then? How did Leicester beat a team that's spent more this calender year than any team in the history of the sport?

How did we beat Chelsea, arsenal, Liverpool and city last year?

 

 

We didn't beat Liverpool last year, but we beat the others by having our best players available (Vlaar & Benteke)

[nazvfc]

 

It is not the 80s anymore, we can't compete, it is a financial game nowadays.

How come lower league teams keep beating us then? How did Leicester beat a team that's spent more this calender year than any team in the history of the sport?

How did we beat Chelsea, arsenal, Liverpool and city last year?

 

Cup upsets have happened longer than just the past three seasons. Even better Villa Managers and Teams (the League And Euro Champs) lost to lower league teams - they raise their games against 'bigger teams' just like we do sometimes against the so-called Sky darlings so sorry not having that argument - Lower leage (and non league teams) have beaten Old Division 1 and Prem Teams - it is NOT a new phenomenon - but let's ignore that - it is Lambert after all isn't it?

[DCJonah]

It is not the 80s anymore, we can't compete, it is a financial game nowadays.

How come lower league teams keep beating us then? How did Leicester beat a team that's spent more this calender year than any team in the history of the sport?

How did we beat Chelsea, arsenal, Liverpool and city last year?

Cup upsets have happened longer than just the past three seasons. Even better Villa Managers and Teams (the League And Euro Champs) lost to lower league teams - they raise their games against 'bigger teams' just like we do sometimes against the so-called Sky darlings so sorry not having that argument - Lower leage (and non league teams) have beaten Old Division 1 and Prem Teams - it is NOT a new phenomenon - but let's ignore that - it is Lambert after all isn't it?

I'm not having a go at Lambert. If you read my final questions I've mentioned us beating the big teams.

I just don't buy the excuse that we can't compete financially so we shouldn't try.

Now again I'm not having a go at Lambert. We've had a good start and I'm seeing improvements. I hope they continue and I hope our approach to games does change from what it was last season.

[DelboyVilla]

 

It is not the 80s anymore, we can't compete, it is a financial game nowadays.

How come lower league teams keep beating us then? How did Leicester beat a team that's spent more this calender year than any team in the history of the sport?

How did we beat Chelsea, arsenal, Liverpool and city last year?

 

 

 

The worrying thing fo rme was how Mourhino described us as passive and not reacting to going behind. Fair enough we are more solid in defence this year, I mean we couldn't have got much worse could we? Fair enough we are no where near as good as Chelsea and won't be without major investment but neither are every other team apart from Man City. The thing that has always bothered me with Lambert is that 'lucky to come away with confidence intact'? It's defeatist and I bet Man City are bricking it for next week? If we play like we did on Saturday then Man City will have the easiest 3 points of the season. Look at Hull, they attacked them and got a couple, OK they lost but at least their fans saw their side have a go.

 

If we sit back against Manure then they will tear us a new one, you have to attack them, sitting back will not work. I wonder if Lambert will work that one out?

[drat01]

 

 

It is not the 80s anymore, we can't compete, it is a financial game nowadays.

How come lower league teams keep beating us then? How did Leicester beat a team that's spent more this calender year than any team in the history of the sport?

How did we beat Chelsea, arsenal, Liverpool and city last year?

 

Cup upsets have happened longer than just the past three seasons. Even better Villa Managers and Teams (the League And Euro Champs) lost to lower league teams - they raise their games against 'bigger teams' just like we do sometimes against the so-called Sky darlings so sorry not having that argument - Lower leage (and non league teams) have beaten Old Division 1 and Prem Teams - it is NOT a new phenomenon - but let's ignore that - it is Lambert after all isn't it?

 

 

Naz - the issue is a fundamental one though. As you know, you and I have followed Villa for a heck of a long time now and you rightly say we have had cup upsets in the past. I remember very well losing away at Cambridge on a Tuesday night in the days of Saunders, BUT under Lambert there has become an increasing regularity to the embarrassment of these far more than we have seen previously.

 

Also I think that all aspects of club's football from first to other teams reflect a managers philosophy and we are seeing that a lot of the other teams struggling to build into any sort of attacking philosophy and plan B etc. I saw this at the start of the season when we played Chesterfield, a team made up of mainly fringe players played exactly as we have seen from the first team for the past two years, with a complete inability to change things etc. It's no good saying these players are not first team, because they are involved in the training sessions so you see what is happening behind the scenes etc.

 

Let's hope he can turn it around but there is little, IMO, real evidence that the previous two years dross is going to significantly improve this year - but hey lets hope it does because that will mean we are doing well

[mikeyp102]

I disagree - I think it's exactly how we should approach away games against the big teams. The last thing I'd want to happen in those sorts of matches is for us to play an expansive game and get hammered 8-0 again (by the way, this is more likely than "we may still have lost 3-0"). It completely crushes confidence; not to mention damages our goal difference. There's simply no point trying to match Chelsea in an attacking sense. Our win last season at Villa Park was exactly how we should play (and tried to on the weekend). Sit back, soak up pressure and then break.

Doing anything else is just **** stupid to be honest.

You and I remember our last game against Chelsea very differently.

We won last season by constant pressure in midfield higher up the pitch. This time around we sat 2 rows of 5 and 4 in the last third with Gabby alone up front.

Now playing aggressively has nothing to do with "going all out attack" or even being "expansive". It has more to do with press and that press needs to happen further up the pitch than anything we showed at Stamford bridge. Don't get me wrong - we were still going to feed on scraps - but pressure does funny things to teams. Especially when they are expecting an easy run....

... which, sadly, is exactly what we gave them on Saturday.

A big few points your missing to last season's game is this, we didn't have Benteke nor Vlaar, so the midfielders can't press higher as they know the striker currently cannot ocupy the Chelsea backline himself. Second point Chelsea are much stronger than last season, they have added Costa and Fabregas. So comparing it to last season considering we are missing CB and RV is pretty pointless.

Yes it was a different team, but it still can easily be compared or should we never compare seasons as teams will always be different.

As for the game lets not forget that whilst scoring goals Chelsea had only kept one clean sheet beforehand. Yes I expected us to lose, but surely we should have at least tried to play something. Once Chelsea scored it was game over.

[Matt1874]

IMO we have a much better squad than our tactics seem to suggest. We have a gk and back 4 that (collectively) are top 6 quality and a midfield trio (Westwood, Delph and Cleverley) that (individually/arguably) are good enough to play for a top 6 team.

So how can it be that our default tactic is to get behind the ball, hope for a clean sheet and hope for a goal from a counter attack?

And whether we are home or away, 0-0 or 0-3 this is the tactic.

We should have greater ambition than this and Lambert should have more belief in his players than this.

I am not completely against the tactic (especially against the top teams and/or away from home) but where I think it fails is in the selection of the remaining 3 players in the team.

If we are to sit deep and look to counter then surely the 3 remaining picks should be more attack minded/creative. I.E. Grealish has got to be starting! Weimann and Richardson's work rate isn't enough when we've already got 8 players behind them doing that job. N'Zogbia should play over them. When Benteke is fit then Grealish should start with 1 of Gabby (mainly away from home) and Nzogbia (mainly at home) making up the XI.

We have a very strong spine to our team and should be capable of taking the game to teams/creating chances/scoring goals. Especially at Villa Park.