CVByrne Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 against non 2013/14 top 6 teams we are Played 9 Won 4 Draw 4 Lost 1 Goals 8 Conceded 6 Thats not bad form at all except the QPR debacle. If we add more in the Goals column then we are flying More meaningless statistics and 'ifs'. they are actual facts How many more facts are going to be put together by boring people studying record books? It has become an obsession. But wins and draws = points. Football is about winning matches and being consistent in picking up points from the teams around us is key to where we finish in a season. We need the big teams to have an off day to pick up points. If City bring their A game we can't compete. So we can't judge the team on those matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 against non 2013/14 top 6 teams we are Played 9 Won 4 Draw 4 Lost 1 Goals 8 Conceded 6 Thats not bad form at all except the QPR debacle. If we add more in the Goals column then we are flying More meaningless statistics and 'ifs'. they are actual facts How many more facts are going to be put together by boring people studying record books? It has become an obsession. You'd be amazed, but each season the F.A. decides to have these factual things called "league tables". They show things like wins, draws, losses, how many you score, how many you conceed etc. After playing a set amount of games (for some reason, they choose 38 in the Premier League but 46 in the Championship - weird!) they add up points and decide who finishes where. You can even compare home and away records or use other "tables" to see how you performed against certain teams. It's utter madness! All this Madness was started by some Scottish fella called McGregor. So we've him to blame 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I'm glad this forum isn't just a few people saying "that was shit" or "that was good" - it would be awful. As patronising as you're being George, the people using the facts aren't using them for no reason, they're using them to re-enforce a point they're trying to make, which is what facts/statistics are for. It also makes the place more interesting, some of the facts people dig up fascinate me. And if you go to Villa to be entertained, you wouldn't have go up since MON's 2nd season, because since then, we've been a boring team to watch bar a handful of home matches. You're wasting your own money. The football is only 90 mins of the day. We make our own entertainment for the rest of it. Regarding us being boring since that point in O'Neill's tenure, it as a wonder that the home crowd have taken this long to pick that up; only recently dropping by around 10000. If you think about what you've posted here you might realise what a massive contradiction it is relating to your earlier posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Whole heap of stats reeled out in the last few weeks to show how bad we are with people relying on them at every opportunity. Now we see some stats to say actually things arent that bad and stats are meaningless I like the Stewart Lee quote from the taxi driver...."facts,hah, you can prove anything with facts...I prefer to rely on ignorance and blind prejudice !" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Curtis Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I'm glad this forum isn't just a few people saying "that was shit" or "that was good" - it would be awful. As patronising as you're being George, the people using the facts aren't using them for no reason, they're using them to re-enforce a point they're trying to make, which is what facts/statistics are for. It also makes the place more interesting, some of the facts people dig up fascinate me. And if you go to Villa to be entertained, you wouldn't have go up since MON's 2nd season, because since then, we've been a boring team to watch bar a handful of home matches. You're wasting your own money. The football is only 90 mins of the day. We make our own entertainment for the rest of it. Regarding us being boring since that point in O'Neill's tenure, it as a wonder that the home crowd have taken this long to pick that up; only recently dropping by around 10000. If you think about what you've posted here you might realise what a massive contradiction it is relating to your earlier posts. Not in the slightest. The last paragraph in the previous reply suggested that I shouldn't still be going to the matches. I replied that the football is only part of the day. It would be nice for it to be entertaining as well. The bit about crowds being down by 10000 is possibly contradicting my perceived opinion on stats but is simple fact, unlike some of the rubbish being posted. I refer particularly to any references to taking results against the top 6 out of consideration. Since when has it been acceptable to lose to the top 6 all the time? Might as well start a shadow league now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Boobies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 In my view both approaches have merit. Using the full table and results against all sides is obviously reasonable, but missing out the top six isn't bad either. It may be a bit generous, especially with things more fluid now than for a while, but it can't be denied that, certainly the big 4, are effectively in a different league. Whilst that doesn't mean it is 'acceptable to always lose' to them it does mean that games against them, and victories, are the modern equivalent of fa cup ties....to be celebrated but something outside the bread and butter. I think a lot of managers view it that way. As such, how we do against the other 14 or 15 isn't a bad guide to our underlying form and position. I think it gets way too much when it becomes last years top 6, this years top 6, somebody else who is on a good run, what nearly happened against someone else, how we could have won one if someone had been fit, or not sent off, etcetc That really is poppycock. So IMO those stats are interesting, and do show that results wise we are not doing too badly. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 One thing stats don't show is how crap our football has been. To say that it hasn't is kidology against Burnley and Leicester we played better yet got battered by Palace so we are a long way from turning a corner. Our squad IMO is a decent mid table one which is where I think we'll finish but if that's playing negative score and defend football he won't win anybody over. If he tries to play more football as he has done of late I think we've a few additions we'll be in for a relatively good season. When was the last time we won by 2 goals? When was the last time we wasn't hanging on at the end? When was the last time you've came away from a Villa game impressed by a 90 min performance ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) I don't even need a 90 minute performance - they are rare for any club - but I agree our football has been poor in the extreme....I'm with you the only genuinely enjoyable one was at the weekend, Burnley was OK....but Burnley ffs !....and we have had a few,very few other good moments. Leicester showed what we could do with the right intent. It doesn't have to be tikki takka but it was so much better than the negative, limited, stuff that went before. I don't buy that we only could do that against Leicester, the players are good enough to play football against all but the top 5\6 when the ten man defence is fine. Someone said there is no good football only winning football.....I, and many I know, disagree. There is such a thing as playing in a positive, watchable, manner, yes, defending well, but having an aggressive and positive mindset to get people forward and use the ball. In fact, just how we played against Leicester. We will lose a fair few to the 14 we really count, but we will win a fair few too and be worth watching. I like a lot of others will be waiting to see what happens this weekend. Play like we did against Leicester and I think a lot will support him whatever the result....revert to what is, at the moment, 'type' and a lot won't support him even if we win. Edited December 11, 2014 by terrytini 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I don't even need a 90 minute performance - they are rare for any club - but I agree our football has been poor in the extreme....I'm with you the only genuinely enjoyable one was at the weekend, Burnley was OK....but Burnley ffs !....and we have had a few,very few other good moments. Leicester showed what we could do with the right intent. It doesn't have to be tikki takka but it was so much better than the negative, limited, stuff that went before. I don't buy that we only could do that against Leicester, the players are good enough to play football against all but the top 5\6 when the ten man defence is fine. Someone said there is no good football only winning football.....I, and many I know, disagree. There is such a thing as playing in a positive, watchable, manner, yes, defending well, but having an aggressive and positive mindset to get people forward and use the ball. In fact, just how we played against Leicester. We will lose a fair few to the 14 we really count, but we will win a fair few too and be worth watching. I like a lot of others will be waiting to see what happens this weekend. Play like we did against Leicester and I think a lot will support him whatever the result....revert to what is, at the moment, 'type' and a lot won't support him even if we win. Spot on and I think the dwindling crowds suggest we are in the majority on this. We currently lose a few against the other 14 and a lot against the remainder so why not just have a go all the time? Play an attacking passing style in all games and you'll get better at it. As you say it doesn't have to be Barca just a Big Rons Villa would do!! I mentioned Burnley as in the 1st half we played some good stuff yet we went back into our shell but I'll put that down to confidence. Confidence should be sky high now so no excuses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted December 11, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 11, 2014 Well, yes and no. We all like gung ho go for it style football, especially when you win. The problem is when you play a side that spanks you off the park because of the space you leave committing men forward. No point being destroyed 8-0 just for the sake of having a go is there? That's really not good for confidence. I'd like to see us play higher up the pitch as a unit, especially when we're 1 goal up, in a effort to get the second but also as a way of keeping posession further up the field and away from our goal. I'd love us to have the players to go balls out at the likes of Man City, but I saw Roma do it last night with far better players than we have and they still came unstuck. That was a City without 4 of their best players too. Roma got spanked by Bayern Munich at home to further underline the point... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 We need to build one step at a time. We've gone unbeaten in 5 now and we need to maintain a difficult to beat solidity for the remainder of the season. I'd love it if we never let in more than 3 goals in any game this season, regardless of how well opposition play. I'd also like us to have the majority of the possession against teams currently in the bottom half. I know people want more attacking play, I do too but we should keep the focus always on defence for this season with slowly expanding play. I'm more concerned about consistency in our points scoring, that we avoid back to back defeats for the rest of the season if possible. All this is a platform to build on. The vast amounts of balance sheet that will be opened up with the departure of Bent & N'Zogbia will be significant. I explained that we could get three £10 mil players on £40k per week in and that's before we factor in other improvements in finances. The best quality Lambert has shown in his time with us is his transfer dealings have been the best of any manager we've had in the past decade. Even last summers massive constraints got us 3 players who on the evidence we have seen looked good value buys, injuries struck down two of them unfortunately. But if we've a base in the summer to build on, dare I say it from 11th in the League. I think we can be looking at a fine season next even if Randy doesn't find a buyer. United have been playing terrible yet winning, I'd love it if we did a job on them in Villa Park next week. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The best quality Lambert has shown in his time with us is his transfer dealings have been the best of any manager we've had in the past decade. Even last summers massive constraints got us 3 players who on the evidence we have seen looked good value buys, injuries struck down two of them unfortunately. Jesus. I can't agree with that at all, his transfer dealings have been mostly appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 11, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 11, 2014 The best quality Lambert has shown in his time with us is his transfer dealings have been the best of any manager we've had in the past decade. Even last summers massive constraints got us 3 players who on the evidence we have seen looked good value buys, injuries struck down two of them unfortunately. Jesus. I can't agree with that at all, his transfer dealings have been mostly appalling. So who do you think was better in this regard? Houllier? McLeish? O'Neill? Because I think Lambert has done better than any of them in terms of what he has got for the money he has spent. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rodders Posted December 11, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) based on what he's had to deal with I think the transfer market has been utilised well. There have been inexpensive gambles that haven't worked out, but for low cost at a time when RL was even more keen on cutting the expenditure and we needed numbers. Westwood has proved to be a very good buy Benteke - outstanding Cissokho - very solid Senderos - better than any of us expected Vlaar - good value for money Kozak - very unfortunate with his injuries, had certainly showed some utility for the side before being injured Guzan - some will dispute this - but he had the choice not to re-sign him, but he did sign him, so he is an acquisition that counts for me, as he soon then replaced Given in the line up early on that season. Okore - again very unlucky with a long term injury but showing signs now of the talent that could see him be a great player for the club Sanchez - jury is still out, but I think many people accept he is developing game by game, and come the season's end may have shown himself to be very valuable, still a way to go so can't say either way yet Cleverley - I like him, others less so, but he's certainly not a flop, and if he does deteriorate in performance we don't have to buy him. Personally I think he has been useful and is improving Richardson - cheap but solid and done better than expected when he's started. Not amazing, but certainly no flop Joe Cole - a cheap gamble, who but for a penalty almost won us 3 points in one of his limited showing's so far. Unlikely to feature heavily, but given the apparent deal is structured on appearances, not expensive, and a useful option in the squad, not a flop Bacuna - cheap, in his first full season he had good and bad games, now out of favour it seems, pushed down the order by better players, but has scored big goals for us before, and for the money paid, again not a flop, he has simply been replaced with upgrades. Lowton - looks to be a failure now, but his first season did show some promise, for whatever reason something's gone on, and I suspect he'll be moved on. Has scored two memorable belters, and any loss on his transfer fee would be negligible at best. Bennett - yup, failure. Not been good enough. Steer - back up goalie, young for the future, clearly wasn't bought for now, so can't call one way or another yet. Helenius - failed - possibly suffered some serious issues last year, we don't know all the details, but either way even when fit didn't add enough to the team to be selectable, but a cheap failure. Sylla - ok failed hasn't been good Bowery - failed but cheap. There's no multimillion write-offs here. Edited December 11, 2014 by Rodders 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) I'd say benteke, okore and guzan are in the excellent catergory. Westwood, vlaar, cissokho, cleverley anf sanchez are in the good category. Cole, senderos, Richardson, bacuna and kozak are in the OK category The rest are poor. Edited December 11, 2014 by DCJonah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) I largely agree with what you have included above Rodders...I'd add that KEA was serviceable for the club in his time, def not poor. I think the overlying theme though, as many have mentioned, is that the budget he has been given each year essentially had to completely rebuild a squad. And to add to that, you can see for the most part in his signings, there is a definite correlation between money spent and quality of the player, Westwood excluded imo. And if the case happens that one of these players flops, there is a very good chance their weekly wage is something that will not kill us...it's not like we have Habib Beye sitting on our bench collecting 50k each week. This yet again points to one person, and while I am not a rampant Lerner basher, he has to take blame here for the lack of quality the squad possesses. Edited December 11, 2014 by LockStockVilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 based on what he's had to deal with I think the transfer market has been utilised well. There have been inexpensive gambles that haven't worked out, but for low cost at a time when RL was even more keen on cutting the expenditure and we needed numbers. Westwood has proved to be a very good buy Benteke - outstanding Cissokho - very solid Senderos - better than any of us expected Vlaar - good value for money Kozak - very unfortunate with his injuries, had certainly showed some utility for the side before being injured Guzan - some will dispute this - but he had the choice not to re-sign him, but he did sign him, so he is an acquisition that counts for me, as he soon then replaced Given in the line up early on that season. Okore - again very unlucky with a long term injury but showing signs now of the talent that could see him be a great player for the club Sanchez - jury is still out, but I think many people accept he is developing game by game, and come the season's end may have shown himself to be very valuable, still a way to go so can't say either way yet Cleverley - I like him, others less so, but he's certainly not a flop, and if he does deteriorate in performance we don't have to buy him. Personally I think he has been useful and is improving Richardson - cheap but solid and done better than expected when he's started. Not amazing, but certainly no flop Joe Cole - a cheap gamble, who but for a penalty almost won us 3 points in one of his limited showing's so far. Unlikely to feature heavily, but given the apparent deal is structured on appearances, not expensive, and a useful option in the squad, not a flop Bacuna - cheap, in his first full season he had good and bad games, now out of favour it seems, pushed down the order by better players, but has scored big goals for us before, and for the money paid, again not a flop, he has simply been replaced with upgrades. Lowton - looks to be a failure now, but his first season did show some promise, for whatever reason something's gone on, and I suspect he'll be moved on. Has scored two memorable belters, and any loss on his transfer fee would be negligible at best. Bennett - yup, failure. Not been good enough. Steer - back up goalie, young for the future, clearly wasn't bought for now, so can't call one way or another yet. Helenius - failed - possibly suffered some serious issues last year, we don't know all the details, but either way even when fit didn't add enough to the team to be selectable, but a cheap failure. Sylla - ok failed hasn't been good Bowery - failed but cheap. There's no multimillion write-offs here. KEA was fairly decent value, not great but a decent signing given the cost. Tonev you can place in the shite category also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 True. Knew I'd miss a couple. KEA was fine, Tonev was not. Generally speaking we have got what we paid for really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 11, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 11, 2014 Generally speaking we have got what we paid for really. Yep, while in some others we haven't but this is more than balanced out by the ones we've got more than we paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts