Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Leeds

[sne]

7 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Yes it showed in the possession stats at the end of the first half which was 60-40 in favour of Leeds. Doesn't mean everything but it showed they kept the ball better than us. We want to be direct but we are overdoing the long ball a bit. 

And passing accuracy stat ended up 82% - 71% in their favor. They pressured us better than we did them.

[TRO]

18 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

But leeds could have been a couple up as well before then. They were domiantjng the first 15 minutes. Then we came back into it. Then second half we fell apart aftee the first. I thought those days were behind us but clearly not. It was a complete shit show after that.

Basic errors. 

Grealish thinking he is superman wss great to see but he made the wrong decision. Alot of jacks play was wrong yesterday. Not sure why he felt he needed to do everything himself as he has quality round

I think there was ample opportunity for players around him to show that they have that quality, but they didn't....they allowed themselves to be negated by a more willing opponent.

I think if we look too much at Jack, for this, we are barking up the wrong tree......This was a collective effort of not doing to Leeds what they was doing to us and thats a team thing....we lost too many individual battles and some just never got close enough to disrupt.

Jack was a desperate attempt by us to change the game.....Biesla set out to isolate Jack and his tactics worked, Jack was just having to rely on his individual talent as opposed to being harnessed in to a team effort.....Their physicality and intensity just disjointed us and sadly a few poor performances ensued.

Edited October 24, 2020 by TRO

[Brumstopdogs]

48 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

Fitness is certainly something we should be looking at - the difference shown above supports us being outran which was evident when watching the match.

Whether that kind of running is sustainable throughout a season I guess we'll find out!

[bannedfromHandV]

35 minutes ago, sne said:

Very much a "Mom's spaghetti" performance. The manner of the defeat was disheartening. 

They handled us much better than we should allow them to and nullified our midfield pretty much. Some players might have had an off day but that wasn't the real issue. We allowed 23 shots, 9 on target and while we certainly also could have scored we lacked killer instinct and our players took too much time when they got the opportunity to shoot or pass.

They were better than us and deserved the win, was a rout in the end but maybe that's a good thing as it forces us to refocus on what lies ahead. IF we had gotten a bit full of ourselves then this would have knocked the stuffing out again. Up to the leaders on and off the pitch to make sure we handle this the right way and get it right for the Southampton game. No big changes needed, some adjustments and maybe a bit more intensity in trainings so we release the ball quicker in the future.

Genuinely had that song in my head after we went 2-0 down ha! 

[sne]

Just now, Brumstopdogs said:

Fitness is certainly something we should be looking at - the difference shown above supports us being outran which was evident when watching the match.

Whether that kind of running is sustainable throughout a season I guess we'll find out!

You gotta give 100% every game, can't really just give 90% or whatever because it's a long season and we'll be needing energy for those tough games in April. That's why you have a squad of professional athletes who are paid handsomely to be in world class shape for every minute of every game. 

Then again it's not just as simple as put yer boots on and work hard, you gotta work smart too and Leeds does that. We do too on a lot of occasions, maybe not yesterday thou.

[TRO]

32 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Yes it showed in the possession stats at the end of the first half which was 60-40 in favour of Leeds. Doesn't mean everything but it showed they kept the ball better than us. We want to be direct but we are overdoing the long ball a bit. 

teams tend to resort to long ball when they are losing too many duels.....we have to get to the source of the issues.

[Philosopher]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I respect your opinion, I really do and I think the first goal killed us, just like you say.

However, In my humble opinion, it was never even,they was winning the duels, i concede it was in terms of goals but at 0-0 , it was coming, they won the initiative and built on it, and we wilted.....I agree that first goal tipped the scales and their overwhelming intensity forced the error, but it was coming.

Conversely our inability to score in our moments failed to take out their sting and their industry just grew.

There are teams in this league like Leeds, Southampton, Wolves, Leicester, who are good at this sort of high intensity football, we need to be wary, because we seem to like space and time on the ball, to work our magic.

Well we beat Leicester. And Liverpool are renowned for their high workrate and pressing. We certainly lacked intensity i don't disagree. However I don't think we should've left ourselves as open as we did. I think if we had set up to be harder to play through and Jack had put in some decent defensive effort we could've got some out of the game.

If you look at the first half it was even. We had a similar amount of chances and showed we could hurt them. The second half they started well again, got the goal, and took over is how I saw it.

If we played against Leeds how we played against Leicester we would have got a draw at least. 

I'm shocked how no one (other than me) has even said anything about Jack's horrendous workrate and defensive effort last night. I saw exactly why Mount gets picked ahead of Jack last night. Obviously I love Jack and will back him to the hilt, but he did nothing without the ball, absolutely nothing!

[Philosopher]

4 minutes ago, TRO said:

teams tend to resort to long ball when they are losing too many duels.....we have to get to the source of the issues.

I think it was part of the plan to play long out to reduce the likelihood of losing possession in dangerous area when trying to play out. We have all seen how well Leeds press.

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, sne said:

You gotta give 100% every game, can't really just give 90% or whatever because it's a long season and we'll be needing energy for those tough games in April. That's why you have a squad of professional athletes who are paid handsomely to be in world class shape for every minute of every game. 

Then again it's not just as simple as put yer boots on and work hard, you gotta work smart too and Leeds does that. We do too on a lot of occasions, maybe not yesterday thou.

No its not, but then that description is like a reluctant admission, skill is wonderful, but teams like them won't let you display it, you have to fight for the right......when Leeds won that battle, they applied the finesse to confrim it, in goals.

There is no short cut, all the great sides work hard watch Man City and Liverpool on form, even Barcelona....they never stop running and challenging, no one does shadowing,unless they are off form a bit,like now...... they all get stuck in.

[zab6359]

If you compare man for man we are a better team, the difference is the manager much better in pretty much all areas Leeds, that young keeper has a huge future!

[TRO]

27 minutes ago, Philosopher said:

Well we beat Leicester. And Liverpool are renowned for their high workrate and pressing. We certainly lacked intensity i don't disagree. However I don't think we should've left ourselves as open as we did. I think if we had set up to be harder to play through and Jack had put in some decent defensive effort we could've got some out of the game.

If you look at the first half it was even. We had a similar amount of chances and showed we could hurt them. The second half they started well again, got the goal, and took over is how I saw it.

If we played against Leeds how we played against Leicester we would have got a draw at least. 

I'm shocked how no one (other than me) has even said anything about Jack's horrendous workrate and defensive effort last night. I saw exactly why Mount gets picked ahead of Jack last night. Obviously I love Jack and will back him to the hilt, but he did nothing without the ball, absolutely nothing!

I purposely included Leicester to show we did it....last night we didn't.....I agree, had we played like we did at Leicester, we might have got a result.

I understand your reasoning in your observation of Jacks defending .....I am reluctant to agree, let me explain my thoughts.....what you say, is not wrong in isolation by the way.

Players of Jacks calibre are exceptional talents and I am not going to compare names, but there have been many players over the years, who comparisons can be made, who equally were not renowned for their defensive qualities.....its a trade off, I guess.

Players are about a team and when there is one weakness you create a strength.....its Deans job as a coach to get sufficent compensating qualities in our team to allow Jack to flourish....Biesla stopped that last night by negating what players we had to do it.

Jack is not beyond criticism and in terms of decision making, he can do better and releasing the ball better at times,too.... but if we are expecting some of our defensive frailties to land at Jacks door, I think we are barking up the wrong tree.

IMO Jack is more valuable than Mount, that is my opinion.....Despite the huge disappointment from Last Night, there are intriguing solutions to be found.....but looking at Jack as a feature of last nights demise, is slightly misguided.

If I had the job of correcting what went wrong last night, Jack would not be prime in my thoughts.......getting others to get him in the game might have been.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by TRO

[TRO]

26 minutes ago, Philosopher said:

I think it was part of the plan to play long out to reduce the likelihood of losing possession in dangerous area when trying to play out. We have all seen how well Leeds press.

for sure.....in some quarters its called "desperation"

I would like to know what the defintion of this thing they call "Murderball" is.....it sounds novel.

Edited October 24, 2020 by TRO

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

for sure.....in some quarters its called desperation.

 

1 hour ago, sne said:

And passing accuracy stat ended up 82% - 71% in their favor. They pressured us better than we did them.

Its not surprising.....every time we went to pass the ball, we was being challenged by a boot or a body.....everytime they went to pass the ball, they had time to "chalk their cue"......or the recipient was in acres of space.

I thought it was pretty clear what was going on.

Edited October 24, 2020 by TRO

[villaglint]

Hungover and grumpy.

Pain and misery. 

Hello old friend. 

[villa_shere]

2 hours ago, onmeedson said:

What always disappoints me is we never adapt to a game, we put a team out and play that way and only that way. Leeds made a change after 20 mins when they could see a problem and went on to target cash to provide the route to most off our downfall. Cash was not to blame but the lack of help he received was amount to a kid getting a school dinner from the government. We all know if you run through the middle at that defence a gaping hole appears, bielsa knew it and exploited it. Tactics are a major part of the game we just do not use it.

We literally adapted in the last game against lesta by switching McGinn and Barkley

[woody153]

Hello Izzie 

[lapal_fan]

We played really wide for some reason.  Every pass was a 20 yard one at least, that's not our game and I'm wondering why we pandered so much to their style.  We need to do is, which fast transitions, but at least we're usually compact, last night it fell apart and we gave them far too much respect.

On occasion, particularly for the 2nd goal, their full backs were beating our full backs to our own area.

Fair play to Leeds, they absolutely bust a gust last night and we didn't.

If we'd have matched their work rate, we'd have won.  Jack went close a couple of times before they broke the deadlock, one of those goes in and the big gaps Leeds leave get even bigger. It's a bad thing to goal behind them, as it was when we played counter attacking football under MON.

I thought in central midfield we were really pony, minus luiz who I felt did work hard on his recovery runs.

But the stats speak for themselves, they thoroughly deserved the win, which is the most annoying thing.. we simply threw it away, which I didn't foresee!

[ROTTERDAM1982]

We're a team bedding in. Barkley is not yet fully fit, you could argue Mcginn has played too many games this season, Luiz, and Jack were ok, but their energy and pace overwhelmed our midfield last night, in fact, as a football fan, they were a joy to watch.

12 points from 5 games, not  bad 4 games coming up, a lot more positives than negatives, i'd take that.

[Rino8]

15 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

We're a team bedding in. Barkley is not yet fully fit, you could argue Mcginn has played too many games this season, Luiz, and Jack were ok, but their energy and pace overwhelmed our midfield last night, in fact, as a football fan, they were a joy to watch.

12 points from 5 games, not  bad 4 games coming up, a lot more positives than negatives, i'd take that.

I don't know how you could use tired or playing too many games as an excuse tbh. You had a few more days rest than us and we're only 6 games into the season.

Failing to match us for fitness is really poor.

[OutByEaster?]

3 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

I guess what those figures don't show us is how those running numbers relate to our regular stats - are those numbers lower for example than the numbers we put in against Liverpool or are they very good numbers up against something extraordinary; are our numbers our worst of the season, are those Leed's best - the figures tell us that Leeds did more in the game, but it doesn't necessarily say we didn't put in an effort.