Dean Smith

[Dave-R]

5 hours ago, Blasterpocket68 said:

I agree but would say its not only the top teams cutting us apart its been  the whole division. 

The issue we have had all season is the players at smiths disposal do not fit the style of play he wants to implement. They are either not mobile enough or not physical enough. We can play in patches and have good periods but its just not sustainable. So why we signed Drinkwater i do not know!! why we continue to play so open and offer teams the stroll casually thru the midfield i do not know? Why we play a high line when we are so susceptible to the counter I do not know. This has been happening all season and nothing has changed. Every manager in the league has  worked us out but we still continue the same week in week out.

I dno, against spurs for most the game we ran a Europe top quality team rugged, i think they are picking up speed and physicality now. If can replicate that gameplay yesterday against other teams then were in for some wins soon, it will be a few teams slipping up against us.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Dave-R

[terrytini]

4 hours ago, Mazrim said:

Eh? Committees on Climate Change? 

Continually complaining words removed ?

[terrytini]

4 hours ago, Zatman said:

General consensus from non Villa fans yesterday in the bar I was watching. They said Villa were unlucky and was one of the best games this season 

General consensus around everyone near me in the Upper Holte. Consensus in the Holte Suite after the game. Consensus everywhere except social media methinks.

[briny_ear]

4 hours ago, Zatman said:

General consensus from non Villa fans yesterday in the bar I was watching. They said Villa were unlucky and was one of the best games this season 

I’d much prefer it if they were saying “You didn’t deserve those 3 points you lucky bastards”.

[Blasterpocket68]

2 hours ago, Dave-R said:

I dno, against spurs for most the game we ran a Europe top quality team rugged, i think they are picking up speed and physicality now. If can replicate that gameplay yesterday against other teams then were in for some wins soon, it will be a few teams slipping up against us.

i disagree we once again had a spell 35 mins first half - we cant sustain it and the tactics are appalling defensively . 

[eholm]

2 hours ago, Dave-R said:

I dno, against spurs for most the game we ran a Europe top quality team rugged, i think they are picking up speed and physicality now. If can replicate that gameplay yesterday against other teams then were in for some wins soon, it will be a few teams slipping up against us.

Maybe, Dave...me, I’m not so sure about these ‘improvements’. Pace and physicality are 2 attributes we just do not possess and are vital in the PL. Time is rapidly running out for ‘some wins soon’ as well. 

[The Hawk]

11 hours ago, Blasterpocket68 said:

mate the game is for 90 minutes -  we play for one half - Yesterday spurs should have destroyed us if were honest  Reina kept us in the game.My point is were inconsistent and constantly set up very poorly as a team to defend when we dont have the ball. WE do not learn!!

The alternative is to sit back, invite pressure and try to hit the opposition on the counter with our not-so-speedy wingers. I know which id prefer. 

[Blasterpocket68]

4 minutes ago, The Hawk said:

The alternative is to sit back, invite pressure and try to hit the opposition on the counter with our not-so-speedy wingers. I know which id prefer. 

Relegation then

[villalad21]

29 minutes ago, The Hawk said:

The alternative is to sit back, invite pressure and try to hit the opposition on the counter with our not-so-speedy wingers. I know which id prefer. 

So there can't be a middle ground?

[VillaChris]

Would help if we could improve our set pieces a bit.

Ours were actually good yesterday, scored from one and our CBs were getting our heads on them on a few others but the ball just wouldn't drop to smash in. Probably shows how bad it's been all season when we've actually had decent amount of corners in the game.

Mings scored a few in the championship last season so I really don't understand why we've not threatened more considering Grealish and Hourihane can whip them into the six yard box no problem.

We must've scored fewest goals in league from corner.

[Laughable Chimp]

For those of you who still think the 3-4-3 has improved our defence recently.

Minutes per goal conceded with the 3-4-3-53.25

Minutes per goal conceded with the 4-3-3-56.73

So the 4-3-3 is actually very slightly better in this regard. The following is a comparison in terms of shots.

Minutes per shot conceded with the 3-4-3-5.76

Minutes per shot conceded with the 4-3-3-5.65

So in terms of shots conceded, the 3-4-3 is very slightly better. However, once you take into account the quality of the shots, it paints a much different picture. I'm using the xGA90(which is a measure of the quality AND quantity of shots conceded per 90.

XGA90 of the 3-4-3-2.42

XGA90 of the 4-3-3-1.74

So yeah, significant difference here, a 0.68 difference in expected goals conceded per 90. What it suggests is that whilst we've conceded slightly less shots using the 3-4-3, the quality of the chances we've conceded under it have been significantly higher than in the 4-3-3.

All in all, there's pretty much no evidence so far that suggests that 3-4-3 has improved our defence whatsoever. Honestly, I think its gotten worse.

Edit: Gonna cover the shots for part quickly here. We are scoring at a slightly higher rate with the 3-4-3 compared to the 4-3-3 but we're not creating better chances under the 3-4-3 compared to the 4-3-3 so that one is a bit more debatable. We've just been a lot more clinical under the 3-4-3.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Laughable Chimp

[sne]

8 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Would help if we could improve our set pieces a bit.

Ours were actually good yesterday, scored from one and our CBs were getting our heads on them on a few others but the ball just wouldn't drop to smash in. Probably shows how bad it's been all season when we've actually had decent amount of corners in the game.

Mings scored a few in the championship last season so I really don't understand why we've not threatened more considering Grealish and Hourihane can whip them into the six yard box no problem.

We must've scored fewest goals in league from corner.

Yeah those set piece instructions that our players are given when they are subbed on must be utter garbage.

I know a lot of (most?) teams use zonal marking on set pieces these days but I don't like it. Or at least it's not working for Villa (or for the Swedish national side)

Also don't like that we are not leaving a guy near the halfway line when defending so we have an outlet and a attack threat.

Or deliveries on set pieces is pretty rank but the movement patters must be an area where we can improve surely.

[KentVillan]

2 hours ago, Laughable Chimp said:

All in all, there's pretty much no evidence so far that suggests that 3-4-3 has improved our defence whatsoever.

I didn't believe it, but ran it all myself, and you're right on the stats. Here is the median xG for back 3 / 4 broken by home / away:

These look pretty shocking. There are some big caveats though:

• Most of the 4-3-3 games featured John McGinn, versus none of the 3-4-3 games.
• The home games with a back 3 have mainly been against tough opposition: Man City, Watford and Spurs.
• It's a very small sample of games with a back 3 to be drawing conclusions from.

One thing that did shock me looking at the xG (taken from https://fbref.com/en/comps/9/schedule/Premier-League-Fixtures - not quoting as it's a massive spreadsheet) is that we haven't won a game on xG since Newcastle on 25th November!!!

But here's perhaps a more useful visual - median xG when Mings and McGinn are playing / not available (counted the Leicester game as Mings out since he left the pitch after 20 mins):

That's a huge difference - from -0.7 xG with them both in the team to -1.9 xG with them both out. The former isn't great, but definitely good enough to be fighting for points in most matches and probably staying up. The latter is the kind of form that sends you down.

Smith needs McGinn back or Drinkwater/Nakamba/Luiz to really step up.

(P.S. I know all of this is based on small samples and there are loads of other factors that need to be controlled like quality of opposition, etc. so take it all with a pinch of salt.)

(PPS. Before someone says it - yes I know Brian Clough would be turning in his grave at all this xG bollocks, but in this case I think it lines up with what we've seen with our own eyes.)

 

[Laughable Chimp]

35 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

 

• The home games with a back 3 have mainly been against tough opposition: Man City, Watford and Spurs.

 

We didn't play a back 3 against City. We played a back 5. There is no way we played a back 3 when we had Taylor and Elmo on the pitch.

Edit: Also, not dismissing the rest of your analysis at all. Just a small point I disagree with. Although it does make the sample of home games awfully small to really make any kind of reasonable inference from. .

Edited February 18, 2020 by Laughable Chimp

[KentVillan]

25 minutes ago, Laughable Chimp said:

We didn't play a back 3 against City. We played a back 5. There is no way we played a back 3 when we had Taylor and Elmo on the pitch.

Edit: Also, not dismissing the rest of your analysis at all. Just a small point I disagree with. Although it does make the sample of home games awfully small to really make any kind of reasonable inference from. .

Fair enough. It doesn't really matter. The broader point is that too many games without McGinn (8 and counting) and Mings (6) have cost us, and formation is a secondary problem.

We've played 13 games with Grealish, Mings and McGinn all fit. We've won 4 of those on xG (Bournemouth H, West Ham H, Brighton H, Newcastle H). Of the ones we lost on xG, another four were very tight: Everton H (minus 0.1), Burnley H (minus 0.6), Norwich A (minus 0.5 somehow), Man Utd A (minus 0.5).

Ever since we lost Mings in that Leicester game, soon followed by McGinn in the Southampton game, our form has deteriorated, regardless of formation.

Do I think the back 3 has helped? Yes, I think on balance, it has made a really bad situation into a slightly less bad situation. But I'm just going on what I can see on the pitch, not any stats here.

I actually think (as I said earlier in this thread) we have improved as a squad. Our weaker players have upped their levels. Targett, Hause, Trez, Luiz, Nakamba - they're all looking better now than they did earlier in the season. Grealish has gone up a gear as well.

But we are playing too many games without McGinn and Mings. An injury to Grealish and it's game over. On the flip side, an early return for McGinn and we could yet put on a little run of results.

 

[LakotaDakota]

Great, How many points did we get  for beating Bournemouth & West Ham on xG? Absolute load of wank.

[Talldarkandransome]

Stats will prove that an elephant could hang from a tree by his tail. In reality the elephant would plummet to the ground. 

The only thing we could hope for is that he falls on Danny Drinkwater to end his pain and ours.

[PussEKatt]

On 17/02/2020 at 20:27, lexicon said:

Don't worry, Pulis will get another job soon enough so you can enjoy watching a team play for a draw at home in the most dour way possible. 

 

The way I see it ,is.Split the PL into 4 parts.Thetop5,the bottom 5 and the middle 10.We should tyr to thrash the bottom 5.thr to win against the middle 10 and pack the defence and go for a draw against the top 5

[avfc1982am]

20 hours ago, Laughable Chimp said:

For those of you who still think the 3-4-3 has improved our defence recently.

Minutes per goal conceded with the 3-4-3-53.25

Minutes per goal conceded with the 4-3-3-56.73

So the 4-3-3 is actually very slightly better in this regard. The following is a comparison in terms of shots.

Minutes per shot conceded with the 3-4-3-5.76

Minutes per shot conceded with the 4-3-3-5.65

So in terms of shots conceded, the 3-4-3 is very slightly better. However, once you take into account the quality of the shots, it paints a much different picture. I'm using the xGA90(which is a measure of the quality AND quantity of shots conceded per 90.

XGA90 of the 3-4-3-2.42

XGA90 of the 4-3-3-1.74

So yeah, significant difference here, a 0.68 difference in expected goals conceded per 90. What it suggests is that whilst we've conceded slightly less shots using the 3-4-3, the quality of the chances we've conceded under it have been significantly higher than in the 4-3-3.

All in all, there's pretty much no evidence so far that suggests that 3-4-3 has improved our defence whatsoever. Honestly, I think its gotten worse.

Edit: Gonna cover the shots for part quickly here. We are scoring at a slightly higher rate with the 3-4-3 compared to the 4-3-3 but we're not creating better chances under the 3-4-3 compared to the 4-3-3 so that one is a bit more debatable. We've just been a lot more clinical under the 3-4-3.

 

 

I like this post. 

I also cannot fathom why we have all of a sudden dispensed with the 4-3-3? We still leak goals in ridiculous moments. The defence still continually look exposed and not only that but we are a midfielder down to compensate for this.  

Surely now players are more settled we should be able to revert to this at times. Not every game but at least at home. I hate the idea of constantly relying on the back 3 not to cock up when fannying around with the ball at the back. Something which never happens anyway. You can almost guarantee they will at some point. I'm just not convinced the 3 at the back has really been that effective and think that we would have been better with the additional body in the middle. 

[M_Afro]

I really hope Deano was watching Ath Madrid tonight. What an absolute lesson in defending a lead. Unbelievable discipline and quality concentration. Not a single shot on target for Liverpool despite having 72% possession. I wonder how many shots Southampton will have on target at the weekend.10 minimum probably!