Eastie Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 29 minutes ago, striker said: That's a very good point and one which I was going to put out there. How long did it take him to get his other teams promoted? Was it just a season and a half, less than that or longer? I suppose you'd also have to consider financial constraints and the way he has been backed here. None of the other clubs he came into were in the sort of mess that villa were - one win in 19 , no wins away in over a year - a whole team of new players - this is Steve Bruce trying to manage a football club not some magician pulling rabbits from a hat . the club was devoid of confidence totally - the fact he took 23 points from 12 games is astonishing considering the mess he inherited - of course we'd like to have reached the play offs but some people need a touch of realism here . the manager has to be given time without people calling for his head on the back of one bad run of results . This club needs unity and stability and not people stamping their feet and throwing their toys out the pram over a few bad results . give him till the end of the season and let's judge him then . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: Derby didn't play us off the park either, utter nonsense. This. This is the bit I'm taking issue with on Saturday. i feel like people have seen the possession stat and concluded we were played off the park. We weren't. Yes they had a lot of possession, and yes we didn't play well. But they did not play us off the park. They had one good chance and a good penalty shout. That's all they created. You don't play someone off the park and only create that. Things need to get much better than Saturday, but people are exaggerating it. We were the better team, believe it or not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: We had lost 6 out of 7, the other of those being a 2-2 draw after being 2-0 up. What kind of performance were some of you expecting? A scrappy 1-0 win is about as good as it gets under those circumstances. Sure we need to step up a gear from here, but if you can't enjoy the relative highs of winning a game of football then the lows simply aren't worth it. Derby didn't play us off the park either, utter nonsense. Take the win and unless you've already made up your mind about Bruce, he has earned a reprieve and it's on to the next one. I guess it depends on what you determine "playing off the park" is. Derby were far the better side in all areas aside from defence - where we were resolute and, partly, fortunate. If we take the result away from the game, though, I'd much rather see us play like Derby did than how we did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: This. This is the bit I'm taking issue with on Saturday. i feel like people have seen the possession stat and concluded we were played off the park. We weren't. Yes they had a lot of possession, and yes we didn't play well. But they did not play us off the park. They had one good chance and a good penalty shout. That's all they created. You don't play someone off the park and only create that. Things need to get much better than Saturday, but people are exaggerating it. We were the better team, believe it or not. It would have been a very good away performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastie Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Just now, bobzy said: I guess it depends on what you determine "playing off the park" is. Derby were far the better side in all areas aside from defence - where we were resolute and, partly, fortunate. If we take the result away from the game, though, I'd much rather see us play like Derby did than how we did. How many attempts did derby have on target compared to villa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Things need to get much better than Saturday, but people are exaggerating it. We were the better team, believe it or not. We really weren't - we just got the result. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 The one positive I saw against Derby was that we managed to some degree at least to keep the pressing game up for longer than just the first 10 minutes. As the game went on we dropped further back, especially when Jedinak tired, but it was still much better than in previous games. I've yet to see a team in this league that can handle high pressure, but we've not been consistent enough with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Eastie said: How many attempts did derby have on target compared to villa? Derby had 1, Villa had 2. I don't really understand what your point is, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bobzy said: I guess it depends on what you determine "playing off the park" is. Derby were far the better side in all areas aside from defence - where we were resolute and, partly, fortunate. If we take the result away from the game, though, I'd much rather see us play like Derby did than how we did. Derby were toothless. I don't think they had a shot at goal in the first 75 minutes, certainly none that stand out. You can have all the possession in the world and if you do nothing with it, it's pointless. Literally, they left with no points. Aside - defending is part of the game. I know you're not saying it isn't, but I love a bit of a good defending. I'd go as far as to say it's (or used to be) 'the Villa way'. It was faaaaar from a classic performance, but we were also a million miles away from being played off the park. Edited February 27, 2017 by dont_do_it_doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) Derby were the better team for the simple reason that they are a better team! It was plain to see. But thats because they have been put together and played together for several seasons. We will be controlling games the same way one day. It will take time. Bruce believes in himself. We have choice but to believe in him. Edit : I would say we are one of the worst teams in this league. Individuals wise we are one of the best, but as a team we are poor. The table doesn't lie. Edited February 27, 2017 by Vive_La_Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bobzy said: We really weren't - we just got the result. We defended better than them and we created more than them. They kept the ball better. That's about as complimentary as I can be to them. We could still be playing now and we wouldn't have conceded. I was nervous in the last 10 minutes, but on reflection they never came close to scoring. Edited February 27, 2017 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastie Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, bobzy said: Derby had 1, Villa had 2. I don't really understand what your point is, though. My point being your comment derby were far the better side in all areas - they had one effort on target in the whole game - there was little between the teams and whilst derby may have had a lot of possession they did little with it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: We defended better than them and we created more than them. They kept the ball better. That's about as complimentary as I can be to them. We could still be playing now and we wouldn't have conceded. I was nervous in the last 10 minutes, but on reflection they never came close to scoring. Thats only because Bent is pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2017 Just now, Vive_La_Villa said: Thats only because Bent is pants. And? he was playing for Derby was he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 27, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) I thought both sides were pretty equal to be honest. Neither team really did much going forward, we looked a bit better at the back but they pushed forward more in the second half. Didn't think either team got outplayed, was just pretty even. A draw would have been a fair result. Edited February 27, 2017 by PieFacE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: We defended better than them and we created more than them. They kept the ball better. That's about as complimentary as I can be to them. We could still be playing now and we wouldn't have conceded. I was nervous in the last 10 minutes, but on reflection they never came close to scoring. Absolutely agreed on the defending side, not sure about the creation side. I mean, sure, we had 1 more shot on target than them (during the same period of play if I remember correctly? Shot saved -> corner -> goal) but they looked the more threatening team in general. Derby looked like they carried a goal threat despite not getting any real efforts on target (Russell had a decent effort that went wide first half, Ince looked a threat coming inside, Bent's header was won too easily and, of course, they should've been given a penalty too). Aside from Green hitting the post, I cannot remember us once doing anything from open play. That isn't to say that Derby looked great, they just looked better than us. Statistically, apart from the shots on target, it would probably show a similar story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I thought Bent looked good actually, his movement is still there and we could use him right now. Not that we would create chances for him, I suppose. Which has been Derby's problem. All puff and no blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: And? he was playing for Derby was he not? I'm just saying, he is crap. If they had a better striker I would have been more worried near the end. Edited February 27, 2017 by Vive_La_Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Just now, bobzy said: Absolutely agreed on the defending side, not sure about the creation side. I mean, sure, we had 1 more shot on target than them (during the same period of play if I remember correctly? Shot saved -> corner -> goal) but they looked the more threatening team in general. Derby looked like they carried a goal threat despite not getting any real efforts on target (Russell had a decent effort that went wide first half, Ince looked a threat coming inside, Bent's header was won too easily and, of course, they should've been given a penalty too). Aside from Green hitting the post, I cannot remember us once doing anything from open play. That isn't to say that Derby looked great, they just looked better than us. Statistically, apart from the shots on target, it would probably show a similar story. Lansbury and Kodjia had decent efforts early on. There was Bacuna's open goal effort too which he ballooned, though it came at him quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: Absolutely agreed on the defending side, not sure about the creation side. I mean, sure, we had 1 more shot on target than them (during the same period of play if I remember correctly? Shot saved -> corner -> goal) but they looked the more threatening team in general. Derby looked like they carried a goal threat despite not getting any real efforts on target (Russell had a decent effort that went wide first half, Ince looked a threat coming inside, Bent's header was won too easily and, of course, they should've been given a penalty too). Aside from Green hitting the post, I cannot remember us once doing anything from open play. That isn't to say that Derby looked great, they just looked better than us. Statistically, apart from the shots on target, it would probably show a similar story. that's a reasoned opinion. I still disagree but i get it. The original debate was contesting that we were "played off the park". Even if Derby were the better team, which again I disagree with but fine, it's a huge exaggeration to say they played us off the park 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts