Ratings and Reactions: Villa v Fulham

[dont_do_it_doug.]

21 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

You say that, but actually the shape we started the game with didn't work - with two men up front and Ayew with a free role - 

I think you watched a different game to me.

It was 4-5-1. Ayew and Kodjia did swap sides a few times, if that's where the confusion lies?

[blandy]

2 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I think you watched a different game to me.

It was 4-5-1. Ayew and Kodjia did swap sides a few times, if that's where the confusion lies?

I agree with Scott - It didn't work. we can call it 4-5-1 or 4-3-2-1 or whatever you like. It didn't work. If you have a big lump up front then either get crosses into the box for him to attack, or if playing the ball up to him, get someone around him to flick on to, or lay off to. He was isolated and Ayew and Kodjia were neither providing any service for him, nor supporting him, nor linking up. it was all wrong. I'd be surprised if we even try that again, it was that bad.

The players we have in the attacking part of the squad are generally decent ball playing, skillful types - so surely the way we play the game when attacking should be set up to take advantage of that ability to run at people, beat people, play the ball to people with good movement. I think to do that we need to have the forwards/midfield attacking players working on interplay, on linking with each other, on developing an understanding of each other's games.

Under RDM it seemed like the plan, such as it was, was give the ball to one of the forward types and wait for them to do something brilliant all on their own. The talent is there, much more than most other sides have, so we need to use that advantage, rather than adopting run of the mill, big lad up front, hoof ball tactics.

That's not really a criticism of Bruce, he's stopped a bad run and made us more solid, which is brilliant, but it's what I think needs to happen next, particularly in home games.

I thought the atmosphere on Saturday was so flat because of 2 things  - obviously a history of dire performances and results at home that goes back a long, long time and secondly because the team were giving us absolutely nothing to shout about.

In the second half, just that little bit of closing down and visible effort, and the crowd got going. Like Bruce said after, the supporters are desperate for the team to give something to shout about and the team needs to give us that. As soon as they do, then the atmosphere is very good. We've been let down by the club and the team for years, but people still turn up. The team has to now do what any set of fans have a right to expect, and that is to put in the effort they did in the second half, after being set up better by the manager..  

[dont_do_it_doug.]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

I agree with Scott - It didn't work. we can call it 4-5-1 or 4-3-2-1 or whatever you like. It didn't work. If you have a big lump up front then either get crosses into the box for him to attack, or if playing the ball up to him, get someone around him to flick on to, or lay off to. He was isolated and Ayew and Kodjia were neither providing any service for him, nor supporting him, nor linking up. it was all wrong. I'd be surprised if we even try that again, it was that bad.

 

I didn't really comment on the performance. 

I don't think it worked either, certainly not in an attacking sense. Gestede was dreadful. 

[Gary Thomas]

Fulham 5-0!!   Hardly created anything against us.