Jump to content

Matt Targett


villan-scott

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, sne said:

Long way to go yet but must say I'm worried that Elmo and Taylor are our starting full backs atm.

With the squad we have it's not going to be enough to have our players having 6/10 performances and being solid.

We need at least a few of the new signings to be playing out of their skins on a regular basis and some of our old players to rise a level or 2 from last season.

I don't see Taylor or Elmo ever doing this, they just don't have it in them. 

Thus the hope lies on Targett and Guilbert to step in and step up. If they don't we are in trouble.

Solid is fine, but it's not enough.

 

We had 20+ shots against Bournemouth. Wouldn't you say that is good enough?

Is it the fullbacks fault we are not scoring on our chances? Is it Elmo's fault Jack missed a sitter from a fine cross?

I get that Taylor is limited offensively, but please don't Bring Elmo in the same boat as him. They are not the same player.

Elmo is creating chances on a consistent basis.

Edited by villalad21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

for now it has to be enough. until we start scoring goals, we need to keep the back 4 solid and settled, and for now it is. none of the 5 goals conceded so far we're fault of the back 4.

once wesley starts firing, and trez/el ghazi start performing, we can afford to be a bit more adventurous

we start targett friday, i honestly think we'll be done by 2 or 3

I see where you're coming from but IMO we need to gamble.

So far we are 0 out of 6 and have shipped 5 scoring 2.

For us to start scoring we need the full backs to take more part in the attacks. Especially Taylor will never do that.

Conceding goals against quality teams will always be an issue, no shame in losing against Spurs, most teams will.

If our game, even at home is to contain the opposition we will not score enough goals.

It will also contradict what they said before the season where we aimed to "win every game" Silly as that was.

Not suggesting we should go all Tim Sherwood gung-ho full retard btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

We had 20+ shots against Bournemouth. Wouldn't you say that is good enough?

Is it the fullbacks fault we are not scoring on our chances? Is it Elmo's fault Jack missed a sitter from a fine cross?

I get that Taylor is limited offensively, but please don't Bring Elmo in the same boat as him. They are not the same player.

Elmo is creating chances on a consistent basis.

Apparently not.

Not saying they are similar players, quite the opposite. But he's also not good enough for where we hope to be.

Hopefully Guilbert will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sne said:

Apparently not.

And who is that down to? Defenders or ineffective attacking players?

Trez should have scored, McGinn should have scored, Jack should have scored. They all had good chances.

This idea of pointing to our fullbacks for a lack of results is madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

for now it has to be enough. until we start scoring goals, we need to keep the back 4 solid and settled, and for now it is.

Unfortunately for me that's a catch 22. 

I think Dean Smith wants free flowing modern football. Thus we implement a DLP and 5 man midfield that ideally reverts to a 433 when attacking. He does however tell our wingers and playmaker to cut inwards a LOT, and thus we are absolutely dependant on wingbacks to charge forward and be part of our attacking play. If we play Taylor and Elmo this just doesn't happen to sufficient degree, especially with Taylor. 

So we might stick with Taylor and Elmo to stay defensively solid, but it will affect our ability to score goals and probably thus win matches. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, villalad21 said:

And who is that down to? Defenders or ineffective attacking players?

Trez should have scored, McGinn should have scored, Jack should have scored. They all had good chances.

This idea of pointing to our fullbacks for a lack of results is madness.

The full backs are just one of the issues obviously.

I think the team as a whole lacks goals and we will likely need to create loads of chances to score on most nights.

If you want to make this out to me solely blaming the full backs on us not winning the first 2 games then go ahead.

It's not at what I'm saying. But unlike at our attacking positions we have options there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, sne said:

I see where you're coming from but IMO we need to gamble.

So far we are 0 out of 6 and have shipped 5 scoring 2.

For us to start scoring we need the full backs to take more part in the attacks. Especially Taylor will never do that.

Conceding goals against quality teams will always be an issue, no shame in losing against Spurs, most teams will.

If our game, even at home is to contain the opposition we will not score enough goals.

It will also contradict what they said before the season where we aimed to "win every game" Silly as that was.

Not suggesting we should go all Tim Sherwood gung-ho full retard btw.

i'm not totally risk adverse. i get your point. i think we could still be playing now and we wouldn't have seen an equaliser vs bournemouth.

i dont think everton is the right time though. they're stronger than us in most areas of the pitch and a point would be a good result. happy to take a gamble in the next two though...palace in particular offer little going forward and are poor at home, so we should be a bit more adventurous then

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

And who is that down to? Defenders or ineffective attacking players?

Trez should have scored, McGinn should have scored, Jack should have scored. They all had good chances.

This idea of pointing to our fullbacks for a lack of results is madness.

How many of our good chances were from Elmo's crosses?

I'm genuinely asking, because the only half chance I can think of from Elmo's crossing was the one where McGinn headed it at goal, but because it was one of Elmo's slow, deep, floaty crosses, it was pretty difficult for McGinn to get any power on it to challenge the keeper. It was a routine catch from the bournemouth keeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

How many of our good chances were from Elmo's crosses?

At least 2 of them. At 3:16 into the video Taylor have a good low cross to Wesley which is a good chance

6:11 Cross from Elmo which ends up in a good chance for Taylor

6:34: Another good cross to Jack where he should have scored but he couldn't hit the target with his header.

Our fullbacks are creating chances, we just aren't good in front of goal.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Elmo playing too much as he isn't terrible going forward. But Taylor is, always has been, always will be. It's not a dig at him either, he just isn't that player.

Having Targett bombing on and providing extra width and being able to naturally cross the ball from the left will help El-Ghazi out. 

When El-Ghazi has the ball in the final third, if he has someone like Targett overlapping it will create space for him to either cut inside or to simply play the ball through to Targett. Taylor doesn't seem to overlap much, and when he does nothing ever comes of it. Has he even had an assist from a cross in the 3 or 4 years he's been with us? 

For me Targett needs to play now. The extra width, ability to cross, opening up space for others is a necessity at this point and will help out El-Ghazi who's clearly struggling to influence any game. Taylor has done nothing wrong however. 

Edited by PieFacE
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

I don't mind Elmo playing too much as he isn't terrible going forward. But Taylor is, always has been, always will be. It's not a dig at him either, he just isn't that player.

Having Targett bombing on and providing extra width and being able to naturally cross the ball from the left will help El-Ghazi out. 

When El-Ghazi has the ball in the final third, if he has someone like Targett overlapping it will create space for him to either cut inside or to simply play the ball through to Targett. Taylor doesn't seem to overlap much, and when he does nothing ever comes of it. Has he even had an assist from a cross in the 3 or 4 years he's been with us? 

For me Targett needs to play now. The extra width, ability to cross, opening up space for others is a necessity at this point and will help out El-Ghazi who's clearly struggling to influence any game. Taylor has done nothing wrong however. 

My question mark is he's defensive abilities.

Targett didn't look good in pre season which is why i think Taylor is playing.

Edited by villalad21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, villalad21 said:

My question mark is he's defensive abilities.

Targett didn't look good in pre season which is why i think Taylor is playing.

Fair point. 
I'd rather we force teams to think about us more than we think about them, especially at home. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

At least 2 of them. At 3:16 into the video Taylor have a good low cross to Wesley which is a good chance

6:11 Cross from Elmo which ends up in a good chance for Taylor

6:34: Another good cross to Jack where he should have scored but he couldn't hit the target with his header.

Our fullbacks are creating chances, we just aren't good in front of goal.

 

Thanks. I can't watch that video atm as I'm at work, but that's good to know.

I don't know if it's just my unconscious bias around Elmo being 'good/unspectacular' at attacking, but I always just feel like a lot of his crosses are fairly 'floaty', in the same way that Westwood's corners used to be.

When looking at stats/ 'crosses'/ 'key chances created' etc, I'm sure they all go down in his favour, but on the occasions where his crosses are akin to a Westwood corner, I'd prefer we tried something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with both Elmo and Taylor are that they are, as someone has said previously, "momentum killers". 

Elmo will often receive the ball in an advanced position when he is ahead (further forward offensively) than the opposition winger/full back but will always check back rather than driving on.  He can clearly deliver, as the clips above show BUT typically only does so when we are dominating possession/camped in the other half.  If this is is not the case, his crosses are typically from deep - as the first one was above (for Jack's missed header) or as for AEG's goal in the play off final.  What I saw of Guilbert was much more dynamism, energy and drive and an ability to interact/interchange with his winger.

Taylor rarely gets forward and, on the occasions he does will often look a bit clueless.  Again, if we are having a period of dominance, as above, he can join in, but neither are good at turning defence into attack.  If not Targett, I would prefer Hause here.  He was solid defensively and the crosses he was putting in when he had the run at left back were as good as any I have seen from a Villa full back in recent years.

Their lack of dynamism also means that we can sometimes struggle to retain possession - as for the Spurs game - as you are effectively 2 men down in the midfield.

I am hoping they are both replaced, as I think both Guilbert and Targett will give us more energy/allow us to play at a higher tempo.  However, I should say that I am not been overly unhappy with either Taylor or Elmo's performance and am more comfortable with them as back up/in the squad than I thought I would be at the back end of last season, I just think we would be a better team with Guilbert and Targett playing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We play with 3 "forwards" , two central midfielders who makes plenty of runs. And quite offensive fullbacks. Where one of them are ineffective in the final third. 

We produce plenty of chances, top 5 i think But we're also in the top at conceding chances. 

However we've conceded very few chances from the left side compared to the right. About half. Taylor is doing a great job defensively, and is decent enough going forward in two thirds of the pitch. 

Dropping Taylor for Targett would leave us far more exposed. As we're not struggling to create chances, I don't see the benefit. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of those who feels that Taylor has done fine, but that Targett would be the bolder choice for our next PL game, I thought I would take a look at how he fared against Crystal Palace last time round.

01.09.18 Crystal Palace 0-2 Southampton (Used sub. 1 assist to Højberg for the second).

30.01.19 Southampton 1-1 Crystal Palace (Starter. 1 assist to Ward-Prowse for the equaliser).

A few extracts from the SouthamptonFC report of the second game give an interesting insight into the areas where Targett may offer something different to Taylor:

"Matt Targett had got forward well, motoring towards the by-line before standing the ball up centrally, where Ings headed marginally wide of the mark."

"Saints were straight on the front foot in the second half. Targett won and took a well-positioned free kick, but Vestergaard couldn't arch his neck high enough to connect."

"Redmond and Armstrong were involved down the left, skilfully exchanging passes and waiting for the overlapping run of Targett. The best move of the game, the full-back received the ball and fizzed it across the face of the box, where Ward-Prowse was positioned to side foot home."

https://www.southamptonfc.com/news/2019-01-30/report-southampton-crystal-palace-premier-league-1819

I would have no qualms about Matt Targett facing Crystal Palace again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â