ozvillafan Posted June 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 2, 2015 I think too much is made of this local lad, villa fan stuff myself. Delph is not a villa fan but has shown more effort and commitment than any other player in my view. This - we need professionals above all. James Milner was another who gave it his all (despite the fact that he knew he was leaving). Talent=Professionalism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Being a 'local lad' like Lee sodding Hendrie Oi! Hands off Hendrie!! Local lads love the club and bleed for it. Others might - but we have had too many mercenaries in our recent history that don't give a rats. The hard part is finding the ones who are talented AND care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I agree - ideally you want a talented professional who genuinely loves the club but failing that, I'll take someone who puts his all in to every game and is talented. Work rate's a great attribute but at this level, if you haven't got the talent it's very noticeable. We need talent. Desperately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikantcpell Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 We need a team of players who all love the villa as much as we do, and dont want to leave when top teams come knocking. 11 local lads who have supported villa all thier life would do, a team full of Jack Grealishs. We need a team of competitive smart skillfull football players. Could careless who they support as long as they put a quality performance Heaton,Richards,Sissoko,Townsend,Austin But what i mean is evrytime we are building a quality team, our best players leave and we end up being s**t again, if we only had loyal players we could build a strong team without the big four messing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Mail say prioritizing young English signings Doesn't mean it's true. Seems like an educated guess with a high probability to me. Sherwood was a youth coach so will know younger players in the English game. It's a relatively safe thing to guess but it doesn't mean there's truth to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'd be surprised if he gets most of his target's if that is correct, I reckon most on that list if indeed they are English players are going go to be probably too expensive for the club. Can't say I'm surprised if he goes down that route based on his background would hope he wouldn't solely look at one market though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Coincidently, not 1 single poster had ever mentioned this problem before it was highlighted by some TV analyst from BT Sport. Complete nonsense. I'll give you that. Having checked the match thread, in the first 10 pages, there are all of two people who express a concern about the high line. There is no mention of it on the first page and certainly no mention of it after 90 secs. I think Stevo is getting himself confused with a comment on page 1 discussing the line in relation to the early offside. Unfortunately, this has no relevance to how high the line was. All the other posts are commenting (quite rightly) on the real cause of the downfall and that was the abysmal defending that took place that day. There is no right or wrong way to play football and people on here need to understand that they are not master tacticians by simply repeating what they hear on TV. Up to the Southampton game, nobody had expressed any concern with how high the defence were setting up. Many will have expressed concern with the quality of the defence, I'm sure but none mentioned us playing too high. If you watch the goals, you will see that none are as a direct result of a high line. Every single one is as a direct result of the most atrocious defending that I have ever witnessed. It doesn't matter where you hold your line, if you defend like that you will concede goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 They may not be in the TS thread but there was a hell of a lot in the actual match day thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Not in the first 10 pages theres not-There may well be after one of the TV analysts first picked up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 2, 2015 There are 4 or 5 posts on the first page referring to how lucky we were and how the defence should wake up. It's because we pushed the line up and they got in over the top but it was given (wrongly IIRC) as offside. So yes, there were posts on the first page about the high line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Up to the Southampton game, nobody had expressed any concern with how high the defence were setting up. Many will have expressed concern with the quality of the defence, I'm sure but none mentioned us playing too high. Yes they had. It's been happening all season. We don't have the defenders to have a high line. It's been that way all season, since before Sherwood. Everytime we've played a high line we've found ourselves in trouble. Just because you apparently don't understand tactics or don't place any importance in them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Edited June 2, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 That is absolute rubbish Stevo and you know it. Nobody is disputing the defence was awful-We know it was. That is my whole point-It was not the high line that cost us goals (it certainly didn't help admittedly) but the dreadful defending. It didn't matter how deep we defended, if we defended like that, the score would have been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) That is absolute rubbish Stevo and you know it. Nobody is disputing the defence was awful-We know it was. That is my whole point-It was not the high line that cost us goals (it certainly didn't help admittedly) but the dreadful defending. It didn't matter how deep we defended, if we defended like that, the score would have been the same. The two things aren't interdependent. I agree that the defending was awful and we'd have lost regardless of what we did when we defended like that But that doesn't mean the high line didn't cause us problems. We were all over the place defensively and the fact Southampton got in over the top every single time was a huge contribution to that. You can deny it all you want but it was obvious. Everybody watching could see it as it was happening. Don't patronise us and tell us we only repeat what BT pundits say (fwiw I've literally never seen a game on BT Sport so the idea of me just repeating what they say is actually impossible) Edited June 2, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 That is absolute rubbish Stevo and you know it. Nobody is disputing the defence was awful-We know it was. That is my whole point-It was not the high line that cost us goals (it certainly didn't help admittedly) but the dreadful defending. It didn't matter how deep we defended, if we defended like that, the score would have been the same. Any chance that the dreadful defending was caused by extremely rarely used tactics, i.e. a high line, coupled with starting a back four of Bacuna-Okore-Vlaad-Hutton for the first(?) time in the season? It's also not true that people hadn't expressed concerns about the high line until the Southampton game - plenty of examples around here, especially around the Arsenal 5-0 loss under Lambert, which was the last time we played that way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What does it matter about when and what was said what about high-lines? It was either a problem or it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Up to the Southampton game, nobody had expressed any concern with how high the defence were setting up. Many will have expressed concern with the quality of the defence, I'm sure but none mentioned us playing too high. Yes they had. It's been happening all season. We don't have the defenders to have a high line. It's been that way all season, since before Sherwood. Everytime we've played a high line we've found ourselves in trouble. Just because you apparently don't understand tactics or don't place any importance in them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Feel free to go & watch the 6 goals on YT and then come back and tell us all where the defence should have been. If you pass the ball straight to the opposition and fail to mark them in dangerous areas, they will score goals-Simple really & nothing whatsoever to do with your beloved tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 2, 2015 Up to the Southampton game, nobody had expressed any concern with how high the defence were setting up. Many will have expressed concern with the quality of the defence, I'm sure but none mentioned us playing too high. Yes they had. It's been happening all season. We don't have the defenders to have a high line. It's been that way all season, since before Sherwood. Everytime we've played a high line we've found ourselves in trouble. Just because you apparently don't understand tactics or don't place any importance in them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Feel free to go & watch the 6 goals on YT and then come back and tell us all where the defence should have been. If you pass the ball straight to the opposition and fail to mark them in dangerous areas, they will score goals-Simple really & nothing whatsoever to do with your beloved tactics. I'll take the same approach as yesterday and agree to disagree. It's impossible to have a debate about tactics with someone who refuses to believe they exist even when the evidence is staring them in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 That is absolute rubbish Stevo and you know it. Nobody is disputing the defence was awful-We know it was. That is my whole point-It was not the high line that cost us goals (it certainly didn't help admittedly) but the dreadful defending. It didn't matter how deep we defended, if we defended like that, the score would have been the same. Any chance that the dreadful defending was caused by extremely rarely used tactics, i.e. a high line, coupled with starting a back four of Bacuna-Okore-Vlaad-Hutton for the first(?) time in the season? None whatsoever. Failing to mark an opponent and continually giving the ball to the opposition is just plain and simple poor play, regardless of tactics, formation etc. If we were struggling for a left back then the cards were forced regarding Hutton. Had he played there before recently? possibly against WBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 A high line has players out of position the instant the ball is sent over the top and a quicker player gets onto the end of it. It takes an incredibly disciplined and experienced back line to get back into position and mark up after that and as mentioned a few posts up our back line was Bacuna (Not a natural right back), Vlaar, Okore (Playing injured) and Hutton (Not a left back) on the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Up to the Southampton game, nobody had expressed any concern with how high the defence were setting up. Many will have expressed concern with the quality of the defence, I'm sure but none mentioned us playing too high. Yes they had. It's been happening all season. We don't have the defenders to have a high line. It's been that way all season, since before Sherwood. Everytime we've played a high line we've found ourselves in trouble. Just because you apparently don't understand tactics or don't place any importance in them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Feel free to go & watch the 6 goals on YT and then come back and tell us all where the defence should have been. If you pass the ball straight to the opposition and fail to mark them in dangerous areas, they will score goals-Simple really & nothing whatsoever to do with your beloved tactics. I'll take the same approach as yesterday and agree to disagree. It's impossible to have a debate about tactics with someone who refuses to believe they exist even when the evidence is staring them in the face. I don't believe I've ever refused that tactics exist. Still I guess it makes good reading and if you tell yourself that enough times then you may even begin to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 A high line has players out of position the instant the ball is sent over the top and a quicker player gets onto the end of it. It takes an incredibly disciplined and experienced back line to get back into position and mark up after that and as mentioned a few posts up our back line was Bacuna (Not a natural right back), Vlaar, Okore (Playing injured) and Hutton (Not a left back) on the day. I agree-But none of the goals came from balls over the top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts