Fairy In Boots Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 24 minutes ago, Farlz said: I'd rather lose every single remaining game and drop to the Championship than have Sam Allardyce in charge. Ridiculous 9 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said: For those saying if he was at any other club that he would be under a lot of fan pressure. Let's look at Norwich from last year to this year. They stormed the C'ship and won promotion by 11 points off of Leeds in 3rd. They were 18 points ahead of us. Fast forward to this season, and we are still in 17th and Norwich sit rock bottom 7 points off of us. Why don't I see Norwich fans consistently moaning about Farke, that he isn't a good manager for them, or that he should be sacked? I'm still undecided on whether we should sack him in a few, but to do so at this moment in time (before a cup final) imo would be madness. Because they never spent anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 It's all gone Pete Tong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaHatesMe Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Not sure where to bring this up, but bringing it up here after we switched to 4 at the back during the loss. Went and looked back at our actual goals scored per game and allowed, as well as points per match when we played with 4 at the back compared to when we switched to 3. I then did the same thing with xGoals, xGoals Against and xPoints just to see how they differed (Premier League matches only). What the numbers suggest is that our offense performs roughly the same with either, but our defense has been much worse with 3 at the back. Yet we've gotten better results as far as points! Of course, we must also consider the context that the reason we switched to three was to make up for the loss of McGinn. That said, I'm not sure McGinn alone explains the vast difference in goals allowed. 4 AT THE BACK Goals per game: 1.25 Goals allowed per game: 1.80 Points per match: 0.90 xGoals per game: 1.28 xGoals allowed per game: 2.01 xPoints per match: 0.94 3 AT THE BACK Goals per game: 1.29 Goals allowed per game: 2.29 Points per match: 1.0 xGoals per game: 1.10 xGoals allowed per game: 2.61 xPoints per match: 0.51 Final thoughts: The numbers suggest to me that 4 at the back is a better shape for us as we've performed better defensively, and our biggest problem right now is conceding goals and shaky play in the back. Also, the expected goal numbers suggest that while we've gotten better results with 3 at the back, we've gotten quite lucky doing so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughable Chimp Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 21 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said: For those saying if he was at any other club that he would be under a lot of fan pressure. Let's look at Norwich from last year to this year. They stormed the C'ship and won promotion by 11 points off of Leeds in 3rd. They were 18 points ahead of us. Fast forward to this season, and we are still in 17th and Norwich sit rock bottom 7 points off of us. Why don't I see Norwich fans consistently moaning about Farke, that he isn't a good manager for them, or that he should be sacked? I'm still undecided on whether we should sack him in a few, but to do so at this moment in time (before a cup final) imo would be madness. Norwich total transfer expenses: 8million Aston Villa transfer expenses: 143million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted February 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Laughable Chimp said: Norwich total transfer expenses: 8million Aston Villa transfer expenses: 143million We lost our best players and had to pay £25m to keep mings 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughable Chimp Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, VillaHatesMe said: Not sure where to bring this up, but bringing it up here after we switched to 4 at the back during the loss. Went and looked back at our actual goals scored per game and allowed, as well as points per match when we played with 4 at the back compared to when we switched to 3. I then did the same thing with xGoals, xGoals Against and xPoints just to see how they differed (Premier League matches only). What the numbers suggest is that our offense performs roughly the same with either, but our defense has been much worse with 3 at the back. Yet we've gotten better results as far as points! Of course, we must also consider the context that the reason we switched to three was to make up for the loss of McGinn. That said, I'm not sure McGinn alone explains the vast difference in goals allowed. 4 AT THE BACK Goals per game: 1.25 Goals allowed per game: 1.80 Points per match: 0.90 xGoals per game: 1.28 xGoals allowed per game: 2.01 xPoints per match: 0.94 3 AT THE BACK Goals per game: 1.29 Goals allowed per game: 2.29 Points per match: 1.0 xGoals per game: 1.10 xGoals allowed per game: 2.61 xPoints per match: 0.51 Final thoughts: The numbers suggest to me that 4 at the back is a better shape for us as we've performed better defensively, and our biggest problem right now is conceding goals and shaky play in the back. Also, the expected goal numbers suggest that while we've gotten better results with 3 at the back, we've gotten quite lucky doing so. Can you summarize the stats for us being 4 at back from the first Leicester game until the first Watford game as well please? Because these were the games where we played a back 4 without Mcginn so you can have a better comparison between the back 4 and back 3. Edited February 22, 2020 by Laughable Chimp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, VillaHatesMe said: Not sure where to bring this up, but bringing it up here after we switched to 4 at the back during the loss. Went and looked back at our actual goals scored per game and allowed, as well as points per match when we played with 4 at the back compared to when we switched to 3. I then did the same thing with xGoals, xGoals Against and xPoints just to see how they differed (Premier League matches only). What the numbers suggest is that our offense performs roughly the same with either, but our defense has been much worse with 3 at the back. Yet we've gotten better results as far as points! Of course, we must also consider the context that the reason we switched to three was to make up for the loss of McGinn. That said, I'm not sure McGinn alone explains the vast difference in goals allowed. 4 AT THE BACK Goals per game: 1.25 Goals allowed per game: 1.80 Points per match: 0.90 xGoals per game: 1.28 xGoals allowed per game: 2.01 xPoints per match: 0.94 3 AT THE BACK Goals per game: 1.29 Goals allowed per game: 2.29 Points per match: 1.0 xGoals per game: 1.10 xGoals allowed per game: 2.61 xPoints per match: 0.51 Final thoughts: The numbers suggest to me that 4 at the back is a better shape for us as we've performed better defensively, and our biggest problem right now is conceding goals and shaky play in the back. Also, the expected goal numbers suggest that while we've gotten better results with 3 at the back, we've gotten quite lucky doing so. Three at the back effectively we have 5 defenders instead of 4 so we are taking out some of the creativity in the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughable Chimp Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, tinker said: We lost our best players and had to pay £25m to keep mings We lost Abraham and Tuanzebe. The rest were cannon fodder. Had Chelsea not had their transfer ban, we probably could've gotten Abraham for something like 25m. I'll be generous and put Tuanzebe at 20m. That's 70m along with Mings(who I still think we overpaid on). We still spent another 70m above that and far more than Norwich did. Edited February 22, 2020 by Laughable Chimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ciggiesnbeer Posted February 22, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 22, 2020 I quite liked Smith's comments today post match. I hope it has an effect. He is a man who cares and wants to stay here. I like that and him. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Smith isn't our core issue (IMO) - which is not to say he isn't flawed or doesn't deserve some flak for recent performances. I think he's here for the long run and I'm happy with that - there are some players who really need to step up though. When McGinn returns we should go back to playing 4 at the back. I really believe he'll make a big difference in terms of fight, quality and threat. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Finding it hard to support him to be honest. I really want to, but the sheer number of games we just don't turn up in is extremely worrying. If we were on the exact same points total as we are now but with at least more promising performances, I'd be far less doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabby Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 34 minutes ago, PaulC said: Three at the back effectively we have 5 defenders instead of 4 so we are taking out some of the creativity in the team Our 3 at the back is not a unit of 3 Cb' it's 2 CB's ( Konsa /Hause ) with Mings there to mop up - that's the issue we have sacrificed a man in CM to have an extra covering CB with the aim of conceding less and yet , as the stats show above we have actually conceded more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zab6359 Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 No point in sacking him now our season is pretty much out of our hands anyway it's a case of hoping Watford and West Ham lose more than we lose because apart from the Palace game I can't see where another win is coming from! I had said keep DS if we go down but have changed my mind on that he needs to go in the summer because even if he was to bring us straight back up we'd be here again in 2 years time having the same conversations, I just don't think he will ever cut it as a PL manager he hasn't got the tactical nous to be successful. Dreading the cup final now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zab6359 Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 7 hours ago, MaVilla said: Too many training ground players? Wonder what he means by that exactly. He means they put the effort in during training to get selected but don't replicate that on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jackbauer24 Posted February 23, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 23, 2020 So many questions have to be asked of Smith at the moment; 1 "players aren't fighting" - you've said this a few times now. Words along lines that we're not commited or didn't show up or started slowly. Can't keep saying it - fix it, it's your job. 2 Why insist on playing it out from the back when clearly none of our defenders can pass?! We have the most mistakes leading to a goal because Hause, Konsa, Engels and even Mings sometimes, aren't comfortable on the ball or, worse still, far too relaxed/lazy with the pass. Southampton are not the first team to see that if you put our defenders under pressure they will crumble. After the first half we were lucky it wasn't far more given the number of mistakes. 3 How do you not know your best midfield yet? Think I can count on one hand the number of times we've had the same midfield from one game to the next. How can't you see that Nakamba and Luiz don't work together? How can you think Drinkwater was a solution? Do you have any idea what to do with Grealish? 4 Why do subs invariably come in the 60th minute regardless of the game? Why aren't we reacting to what is happening? 5 Why are players turning to the bench for advice during the game? Surely they should be drilled to tactics and changes during the week? Today I saw, I think it was Trez, asking who to cover as Hause was out of position. Then when Konsa went off there was mass confusion through the whole team for a good five minutes - if there was a message it clearly wasn't being communicated clearly from the sidelines. Players should be being instructed, not seeking help. I could go on... It's shambolic and only getting worse week in, week out. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhan_Zhuang Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 If that's the case then he (Smith) should take some of the blame for what happens on the training pitch. It does all seem, from the outside looking in to be too nice and friendly of an atmosphere....Remember when Steve Mclaren was England manager and used to refer to Steven Gerard as Stevie G all the time....it just seemed too close and wrong. I don't know if that is the case but.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, VillaHatesMe said: Final thoughts: The numbers suggest to me that 4 at the back is a better shape for us as we've performed better defensively, and our biggest problem right now is conceding goals and shaky play in the back. Also, the expected goal numbers suggest that while we've gotten better results with 3 at the back, we've gotten quite lucky doing so. As I mentioned earlier in the week (in this thread, I think) our back 3 vs back 4 stats are massively affected by McGinn’s availability. TBH if McGinn was fit I think Smith would never have switched to a back 3. Anyway the idea that a football team’s tactics are best described by a formation is bollocks really. You have your attacking shape, defensive shape, transitions, set pieces, how high you press, how wide or narrow your wingers play, how you build up an attack, etc. Our problems are more complicated than back 4 vs back 3, but also simpler. More complicated problems: we leave too much space between the lines, we shift the ball too slowly into dead ends near the left touch line (because we’re always looking for Grealish), we leave pockets of space behind our wing backs and wide centre backs. Simpler problems: most of our players are too soft, too technically limited and too slow. Edited February 23, 2020 by KentVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 22 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said: If that's the case then he (Smith) should take some of the blame for what happens on the training pitch. It does all seem, from the outside looking in to be too nice and friendly of an atmosphere....Remember when Steve Mclaren was England manager and used to refer to Steven Gerard as Stevie G all the time....it just seemed too close and wrong. I don't know if that is the case but.... You might be on to something there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Klopp uses nicknames for his players as well. Calling them Mr Grealish and Mings Esquire isn’t going to fix anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwdriver Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) deano has said "I’m not bothered about our cup final next week." So now the biggest worry we have is Stubborn smith might play the under 23's against man city next week to prove a point. to have any chance we need all the big hitters on the pitch so smith needs to find a way of motivating the lads he's slaughtered to the worlds media tonight. ron atkinson was brave throwing in graham fenton but any more than one will be an anal massacre....no lube Edited February 23, 2020 by screwdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts