Raymond Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I completely disagree. Jack and Nzog were able to carry the ball forward and remove pressure all day, and they were playing well when the change happened. After Cole and Sinclair came on we had no outlet, and that is why the pressure level changed IMO. Completely? Not even a part of you thinks they were the right changes? Cole came on a week earlier against Tottenham and did a fantastic job. So hard to argue with the decision. I think the game would have developed the same regardless. N'Zogbia had certainly ran out of steam. No. I thought they were poor when they were made, and the results in the game flow speak for themselves. In the end we held on, so I suppose it is a bit of who cares. It has been a theme, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 21, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'd argue that tactics are secondary if you have most of the team giving 110% to the cause. I completely agree. The problem we may face is getting the team to give 100% over a short period is one thing. Sustaining that long term is a much more difficult task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'd argue that tactics are secondary if you have most of the team giving 110% to the cause. I completely agree. The problem we may face is getting the team to give 100% over a short period is one thing. Sustaining that long term is a much more difficult task. I think teams that usually rely on players giving their all as a way of winning games tend to have a higher turnover of players to keep the motivation and work rate high. It'll be interesting to see the type of players that Tim brings in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'd argue that tactics are secondary if you have most of the team giving 110% to the cause. I completely agree. The problem we may face is getting the team to give 100% over a short period is one thing. Sustaining that long term is a much more difficult task. I agree. Physically less so than mentally. It's a long old season. I think that mental commitment is one of the bigger intangibles separating the top clubs from the not so top ones. Take John Terry as an example. Not my favourite human, but a fantastic player. Yet he's not the most naturally talented individual, IMO, but what he does have over just about everyone playing the game today is that mentality. He will run through brick walls week in week out. He would die on a football pitch if it meant them winning one solitary game. Players from our recent past like Mellberg, Milner, Gareth Barry, Petrov. If you can get a core group of 4 or 5 of those types and keep them fit they will carry the rest. They will inspire them. I think we have a couple now - Delph, Clark, perhaps Cleverly who has it all to prove still. Grealish doesn't seem one who's head will drop either. You rely on these guys to keep a confidence player like Benteke firing, give N'Zogbia and Sinclair a kick up the arse now and then. So you are right to say it isn't easy, but it can be done. O'Neill got us close with it. I'd take that again, minus the Heskeys of course! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The changes were fine, Sinclair came on with pace and energy to pressure the back line and make sure they couldn't play their way forward. Yes Liverpool went long and if a team wants to play a long ball from the back you can't exactly stop it, its impossible. If they wanted to stick long balls to their tiny forwards though that's fine by me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I completely disagree. Jack and Nzog were able to carry the ball forward and remove pressure all day, and they were playing well when the change happened. After Cole and Sinclair came on we had no outlet, and that is why the pressure level changed IMO.Completely? Not even a part of you thinks they were the right changes? Cole came on a week earlier against Tottenham and did a fantastic job. So hard to argue with the decision. I think the game would have developed the same regardless. N'Zogbia had certainly ran out of steam. No. I thought they were poor when they were made, and the results in the game flow speak for themselves. In the end we held on, so I suppose it is a bit of who cares. It has been a theme, though. My word... He wins a semi final and people still find something negative to say. Imo they were absolutely the right changes. Jack was knackered and nzog was looking ineffective. And of course the game changed, plop were looking for an equaliser! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 http://blob:https%3A//vine.co/6cc8d5ad-0bf5-41c7-9f1b-98336ad104a8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I completely disagree. Jack and Nzog were able to carry the ball forward and remove pressure all day, and they were playing well when the change happened. After Cole and Sinclair came on we had no outlet, and that is why the pressure level changed IMO. Completely? Not even a part of you thinks they were the right changes? Cole came on a week earlier against Tottenham and did a fantastic job. So hard to argue with the decision. I think the game would have developed the same regardless. N'Zogbia had certainly ran out of steam. No. I thought they were poor when they were made, and the results in the game flow speak for themselves. In the end we held on, so I suppose it is a bit of who cares. It has been a theme, though. We would have ended up 'hanging on' regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaid Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Now removed a bit from the glory, the two changes were really bad, and that has been a theme with Sherwood so far. Hope he can improve his ability to make changes on the fly. I don't think they were that bad - they seemed to coincide with Liverpool stepping up a gear but I think that was more down to them than us. It's easy to forget that there's another team sometimes. But still it should be quite difficult to forget that the opposition was Liverpool who arent really as bad as we made them look for the most of that semi. Edited April 21, 2015 by isaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 a bit late but has been a long celebration but Tim Sherwood has put back the relevance and fun in football for Villa fans. For years we have been in the doldrums and playing crap negative football but he has come in and woke up a monster (dont mean benteke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I don't think Liverpool were as bad as some people make out....Yes Villa overall was the better team. during the game , Liverpool was closing our players down, when we wasn't closing them down, we were allowing them space that worried me.....so I do not subscribe to the theory that Liverpool was inferior on the day....They came across a Villa Team with effervescence, energy and belief and some of the improvisation was a joy to watch. We did have more energy Liverpool did not play badly, we just played better on the day. Edited April 21, 2015 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted April 21, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 21, 2015 I find nothing negative to say about Tim. The changes were absolutely the right ones, excactly what I would've done at the time. And the result speaks for itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Liverpool were bad but we made them look bad and thats what people are forgetting, we dominated midfield and Benteke bullied their defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danishlad Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'd argue that tactics are secondary if you have most of the team giving 110% to the cause. Yes it helps to have them all pulling in the same direction as well, but the biggest battle is morale and confidence and Tim Sherwood has had that conquered for a while now. Don't agree with this. The team responds to good tactics. They start to believe. Lambert tactics were woeful. Hence the belief had gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Wow I see some are sticking to the advance pr from spurs that Tim knows less than fans about tactics and sub's. Not only pretty patronising but also totally without foundation. Also, even if it were true, which it isn't, how high would a fans expectations and standards have to be to find fault with anything just now ? Edited April 21, 2015 by terrytini 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I can't believe there is anyone left who has watched us since he got here that still thinks he doesn't do tactics ! That is far more an indication of their lack of insight than his. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Sherwood didn't do a whole lot wrong on Sunday. Just because Liverpool's only real sustained period of attack coincided with Sinclair and Cole coming on does not mean it was due to that, Liverpool were always going to have a go at some point. Personally we should be praising Sherwood for not altering anything despite going a goal down, something Rodgers did a lot on Sunday. We may actually have Rodgers to thank for some of our fortunes as when they went 1-0 up he changed formation which screwed them over, he went on to change formation I believe three times over the course of the match. Sherwood had a game plan and he stuck to it through thick and thin and it worked for us as we're in the final and Liverpool aren't. As they say correlation does not imply causation, just because Liverpool's mounted offensive coincided with our substitutions does not imply it was due to that in any way. I have always been a bit dubious about tactics, I think it is a bit subjective.....and every fan will have his/her own take on it....I'm not discarding it as pointless, just think that , will to win, Individual/team belief, camararderie,confidence, Energy,is more important overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Was Ron Saunders & Tony Barton Tacticians ? I just thought they played the same most weeks with Highly motivated players, who knew exactly what their jobs was and was selected because they done it well. round pegs in round holes........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danishlad Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Sherwood didn't do a whole lot wrong on Sunday. Just because Liverpool's only real sustained period of attack coincided with Sinclair and Cole coming on does not mean it was due to that, Liverpool were always going to have a go at some point. Personally we should be praising Sherwood for not altering anything despite going a goal down, something Rodgers did a lot on Sunday. We may actually have Rodgers to thank for some of our fortunes as when they went 1-0 up he changed formation which screwed them over, he went on to change formation I believe three times over the course of the match. Sherwood had a game plan and he stuck to it through thick and thin and it worked for us as we're in the final and Liverpool aren't. As they say correlation does not imply causation, just because Liverpool's mounted offensive coincided with our substitutions does not imply it was due to that in any way. I have always been a bit dubious about tactics, I think it is a bit subjective.....and every fan will have his/her own take on it....I'm not discarding it as pointless, just think that , will to win, Individual/team belief, camararderie,confidence, Energy,is more important overall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look at Guardiola, Mourinho. Tactics are so important. Otherwise an army general would be a good football coach. In my opinion Tims tactics have been spot on. This is why the team is reacting. People seem to forget we were losing 2-3 to QPR. We came back and got a point. Why isn't Sherwood getting credit for this. Edited April 21, 2015 by Danishlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Sherwood didn't do a whole lot wrong on Sunday. Just because Liverpool's only real sustained period of attack coincided with Sinclair and Cole coming on does not mean it was due to that, Liverpool were always going to have a go at some point. Personally we should be praising Sherwood for not altering anything despite going a goal down, something Rodgers did a lot on Sunday. We may actually have Rodgers to thank for some of our fortunes as when they went 1-0 up he changed formation which screwed them over, he went on to change formation I believe three times over the course of the match. Sherwood had a game plan and he stuck to it through thick and thin and it worked for us as we're in the final and Liverpool aren't. As they say correlation does not imply causation, just because Liverpool's mounted offensive coincided with our substitutions does not imply it was due to that in any way. I have always been a bit dubious about tactics, I think it is a bit subjective.....and every fan will have his/her own take on it....I'm not discarding it as pointless, just think that , will to win, Individual/team belief, camararderie,confidence, Energy,is more important overall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look at Guardiola, Mourinho. Tactics are so important. Otherwise an army general would be a good football coach. In my opinion Tims tactics have been spot on. This is why the team is reacting. People seem to forget we were losing 2-3 to QPR. We came back and got a point. Why isn't Sherwood getting credit for this. Because according to some he didn't play Gil and qpr are shit and we should have ripped them a new a•••hole like Spurs were allegedly going to do to us a couple of weeks ago. But football doesn't work like that at all but some 'experts' seem to think it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts