Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Southampton

[TRO]

On 01/11/2020 at 14:00, M_Afro said:

Just as I think Smith is about to prove me wrong he kind of proves me right! Our midfield balance is awful. You play Luiz and either Barkley or McGinn with a proper box to box, physical midfielder. Why cannot he see the weakness!

I think Luiz and McGinn are decent players.....just not in them roles.

we should have signed at least 1 in the summer......perhaps we can put that right in Jan

I thought it was quite obvious last season, but perhaps Dean wanted to play those 2 there.....not adequate for me, in games like the last 2.....in games like those you need players who stop the gallop of the opposition.

[Dave_jW]

On 01/11/2020 at 18:01, skell said:

I even put Billings name down as an option. Anyone!

So did I, and I'd take him now. We are too nice, need a bit of nastiness.

[Mjvilla]

On 01/11/2020 at 21:13, TRO said:

Different game, different team structure, silly comparison.

I think we struggle to play effectivley against teams who play a high pressing game like Southampton or Leeds.....we was out fought and denied any fluency for us to get in the game, when it mattered.

you either see that or you don't.

No the Leeds performace was not more worrying, just worrying like this one and there is no over reaction, just a reaction.

Yes we are all frustrated....I am just trying to illustrate what went wrong.....if you can't accept constructive criticism, I can't help you.

 

For me, we gave chance after chance away against Leeds. We could've lost about 8-0. We were so so poor. Southampton had 4 efforts on target in the game and they all went in. All top corners or excellent finishes. That really doesn't happen very often. We created more. It doesn't matter what minute they were created in.

You can use excuse after excuse for us playing decent: like the opposition being tired. For me, if we had won that game 3-2, no one could have complained. 

First half wasnt good enough, no chance. Look at Leeds last night, they were hopeless first half and went 2-0 down. They created very, very little after that. We did. We created lots against Southampton and could've score more than 3. Would you say Leeds didn't have the fight? 

IMO, the 'we have no fight' narrative has been in your head for a long time and you're waiting for a bad result to mention it. Since almost day 1 of deanos reign. 

There HAS been a overreaction 100%. I've read that the 'owners won't put up for much longer of this'. After everything he's achieved, if that's not an overreaction in your eyes, I can't help you. You've protected previous managers on far less than that.

[TRO]

7 hours ago, Mjvilla said:

For me, we gave chance after chance away against Leeds. We could've lost about 8-0. We were so so poor. Southampton had 4 efforts on target in the game and they all went in. All top corners or excellent finishes. That really doesn't happen very often. We created more. It doesn't matter what minute they were created in.

You can use excuse after excuse for us playing decent: like the opposition being tired. For me, if we had won that game 3-2, no one could have complained. 

First half wasnt good enough, no chance. Look at Leeds last night, they were hopeless first half and went 2-0 down. They created very, very little after that. We did. We created lots against Southampton and could've score more than 3. Would you say Leeds didn't have the fight? 

IMO, the 'we have no fight' narrative has been in your head for a long time and you're waiting for a bad result to mention it. Since almost day 1 of deanos reign. 

There HAS been a overreaction 100%. I've read that the 'owners won't put up for much longer of this'. After everything he's achieved, if that's not an overreaction in your eyes, I can't help you. You've protected previous managers on far less than that.

I watch the game and not just the moments when the ball hits the onion bag.

What do you want me to do?, complain when we win......now that would take some explaining.

Leeds lost because Leicester closed down the space that Leeds wallowed in against us, and were sharp in transition, their pace up front is legendary, but they cleverly anticipate and read situations to steal the ball in the turn over....they worked as a team in little triangles.

If we had won the game 3-2 the chances are we would have been doing the things, I am not happy,about well.....but the play is the tell tale and the interaction of our players and how they work the opposition or not.

The "have no fight narrative" is relevant IMO....but is significant in some games but not, all.....I accept that many factors can contribute to that and I am not privvy to the training methods, but I watch the game, not just the goals and my eyes don't lie to me, when we fail to stop opposing players, when they make a good fist of stopping us.....I see the distinction, quite clearly......as an example.....I see the difference between us making Harrison look like garrincha and Jack getting denied by a 3 man leeds raiding party....I see us making Bamford look like Harry Kane, by standing, ball watching.

sorry to upset you....but I see those things

Edited November 3, 2020 by TRO

[TRO]

On 02/11/2020 at 09:39, PaulC said:

At the end of the day it was individual errors that cost us that match. it wasnt the same as the Leeds match where we were second best for much as it. First three goals we gifted them. Free header and giving away freekicks just outside the box against when they have one of the most deadly set piece takers in the game. Other than that we would have won. 

The incidents leading up to giving those free kicks away, was instrumental in the defeat.....we was being outplayed.....they resulted in desperate attempts and the free kicks was the consequence.....at 4-0 up the game was over, the comeback was a token gesture, albeit useful in goal difference.

 

[PaulC]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

The incidents leading up to giving those free kicks away, was instrumental in the defeat.....we was being outplayed.....they resulted in desperate attempts and the free kicks was the consequence.....at 4-0 up the game was over, the comeback was a token gesture, albeit useful in goal difference.

 

I thought we were well in the game but for those mistakes. Yes Leicester did close the space when they played Leeds but I saw a different Leeds against us. one that was really up for it and Bamford had the game of his life. he missed an absolute sitter before Leicester scored.  I respect your opinion as always and no doubt you know a lot more about football than I do but i didnt think we were outplayed against the saints. 

[TRO]

12 minutes ago, PaulC said:

I thought we were well in the game but for those mistakes. Yes Leicester did close the space when they played Leeds but I saw a different Leeds against us. one that was really up for it and Bamford had the game of his life. he missed an absolute sitter before Leicester scored.  I respect your opinion as always and no doubt you know a lot more about football than I do but i didnt think we were outplayed against the saints. 

I just didn't see it the same as you and I usually agree with your views.........Leeds was the same Leeds as the one that played us, Leicester just got under their skin and stopped them playing to the degree they did against us....Leicester did to them, what they did to us.....its all about who secures the initiative in a game and dictates the tempo....then turns it in to goals.

Bamford's first touch wasn't quite there for that chance and he hesitated slightly.....good teams, who get at you, cause those scenario's, they force errors......against us, we never played him tight and his confidence grew as a result.....we don't disrupt enough, we just ball watch and shadow too much in games like that.

Edited November 3, 2020 by TRO

[PaulC]

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

I just didn't see it the same as you and I usually agree with your views.........Leeds was the same Leeds as the one that played us, Leicester just got under their skin and stopped them playing to the degree they did against us....Leicester did to them, what they did to us.....its all about who secures the initiative in a game and dictates the tempo....then turns it in to goals.

Bamford's first touch wasn't quite there for that chance and he hesitated slightly.....good teams, who get at you, cause those scenario's, they force errors......against us, we never played him tight and his confidence grew as a result.....we don't disrupt enough, we just ball watch and shadow too much in games like that.

I'll be back to agreeing with you after Arsenal 

[A'Villan]

Wish I had been able to see the game in full.

From the 10 minutes of highlights the narrative seems to be that we've conceded three poor fouls around the box and we've been punished by quality free kicks every time. We go into HT licking our wounds as a consequence of a slow start, one that sees the game seemingly out of reach. Second half we come into the game and show we're capable of threatening goal, only for Ings to score their 4th with a quality finish, making it 4-0. Minutes later Grealish crafts a delivery for Mings to score. We then continue to get forward and Trezeguet narrowly misses out on two great chances due to solid defending, had they gone in, we'd of had over ten minutes to make up a one goal deficit, well and truly game on. Not to be. We continue attacking and are rewarded for our efforts with two consolation goals in added time.

Not super worrying. Half the Villa XI that started are newcomers this season, and we're playing a new formation, there's bound to be growing pains while we cut our teeth.

Disappointing, as had we played for 90 minutes, rather than 45, we take another 3 points from this fixture in my opinion. Three first half fouls have cost us here.

 

[A'Villan]

6 hours ago, TRO said:

The incidents leading up to giving those free kicks away, was instrumental in the defeat.....we was being outplayed.....they resulted in desperate attempts and the free kicks was the consequence.....at 4-0 up the game was over, the comeback was a token gesture, albeit useful in goal difference.

 

Agree with everything up until you say at 4-0 the game was over. It really didn't seem to be insurmountable.

If Grealish's header saved off the line by their keeper, or either of Trezeguet's chances find their way into the goal, then we draw or even win this game.

Unfortunately we offered three mistakes and they converted on each. The second half belonged to us, and we created enough quality chances to overturn the score line. 

[TRO]

10 hours ago, PaulC said:

I'll be back to agreeing with you after Arsenal 

Well.....I hope we learn and impliment a style that is not so benevolent.

I don't know the answer, WHY we play as we do at times, but it was in contrast to the first 4 games.

I hope Dean Smith, can see it and gets consensus with the players and they buy in to it.....it could be more than one factor.....but if we don't get it right, we will end up like pre lockdown last season.

We have some really good players.....we need to get them working correctly.

Brendan Rodgers showed us how to do it.....its clear IMV.

[TRO]

5 hours ago, A'Villan said:

Agree with everything up until you say at 4-0 the game was over. It really didn't seem to be insurmountable.

If Grealish's header saved off the line by their keeper, or either of Trezeguet's chances find their way into the goal, then we draw or even win this game.

Unfortunately we offered three mistakes and they converted on each. The second half belonged to us, and we created enough quality chances to overturn the score line. 

If my Auntie had Balls, she would be my Uncle.

I respectfully disagree.....When I say the game was over, i meant the initiative was lost....they was in control, they just took their foot off the gas,(which is common when you have won the initiative and are 4 goals up) and allowed us back in to a degree, but it was too late......we illustrated perfectly the point that when teams back off, we can play and we did.

The chances you mention are correct, but they had chances too, that they never converted and one marginal reversal by VAR.....how many teams convert ALL their chances......its about the general play, where the cornerstone of our issues lie.

I am not talking about the final score, which IMO flattered us....we were out played, in terms of controlling the game.....the 2 crucial incidents that resulted in free kicks was a reflection of the lack of control we had in the game.....their final goal, was a player standing off and not getting close to disrupt the shot.....too many of our players were floundering around, like a spare wotsit at a wedding, chasing shadows.....no conviction.

Edited November 4, 2020 by TRO

[PaulC]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

If my Auntie had Balls, she would be my Uncle.

I respectfully disagree.....When I say the game was over, i meant the initiative was lost....they was in control, they just took their foot off the gas,(which is common when you have won the initiative and are 4 goals up) and allowed us back in to a degree, but it was too late......we illustrated perfectly the point that when teams back off, we can play and we did.

The chances you mention are correct, but they had chances too, that they never converted and one marginal reversal by VAR.....how many teams convert ALL their chances......its about the general play, where the cornerstone of our issues lie.

I am not talking about the final score, which IMO flattered us....we were out played, in terms of controlling the game.....the 2 crucial incidents that resulted in free kicks was a reflection of the lack of control we had in the game.....their final goal, was a player standing off and not getting close to disrupt the shot.....too many of our players were floundering around, like a spare wotsit at a wedding, chasing shadows.....no conviction.

yes have we ever come back from 4-0 down in our history. Tottenham? It just rarely happens the game was lost

[TRO]

25 minutes ago, PaulC said:

yes have we ever come back from 4-0 down in our history. Tottenham? It just rarely happens the game was lost

It can be done Paul, but you have to win the battle of the middle of the park and exert your dominance, to have a chance of creating opportunities.....We didn't, we just played the game out, they sat back and we got 2 late chances to make the score LOOK more respectable.

When the business had to be done in the game, we was left wanting.

It pains me to say it....but its there.....I get its opinons, but there you go.

When we play well again, I will say so....and wallow in that.

but when we don't I say it as I see it.

Edited November 4, 2020 by TRO

[A'Villan]

30 minutes ago, TRO said:

If my Auntie had Balls, she would be my Uncle.

I respectfully disagree.....When I say the game was over, i meant the initiative was lost....they was in control, they just took their foot off the gas,(which is common when you have won the initiative and are 4 goals up) and allowed us back in to a degree, but it was too late......we illustrated perfectly the point that when teams back off, we can play and we did.

The chances you mention are correct, but they had chances too, that they never converted and one marginal reversal by VAR.....how many teams convert ALL their chances......its about the general play, where the cornerstone of our issues lie.

I am not talking about the final score, which IMO flattered us....we were out played, in terms of controlling the game.....the 2 crucial incidents that resulted in free kicks was a reflection of the lack of control we had in the game.....their final goal, was a player standing off and not getting close to disrupt the shot.....too many of our players were floundering around, like a spare wotsit at a wedding, chasing shadows.....no conviction.

As I said, I'm only going off the narrative I saw in ten minutes of highlights, as you saw the game, your observations are going to be more informed and perhaps accurate.

Still, looking at the numbers and totals for the match, as well as watching the Southampton FC highlights reel, which is going to show their major chances, I have a point.

We had over double the chances on target, more of the ball, and if it weren't for three clumsy and unnecessary fouls in a poor first half, you seriously think Southampton win?

I also think you're being harsh on the defender closest to Ings for their fourth, whom I'm guessing was Targett, even though obviously it was no defensive masterclass..

We were on the back foot from a turnover and transition in play that went end to end in seconds and had us out of position and pants down.

The closest Villa defender to Ings is running at Ings but doesn't want to overcommit his run and leave Ings through on goal, so he puts himself in place to narrow the angles.

Ings recognises we're on the back foot, and that our man is running at him full pelt, and takes a weighted touch in the opposite direction to our man's run, and finishes deft.

 

[barry'sboots]

On 01/11/2020 at 21:13, TRO said:

I think we struggle to play effectively against teams who play a high pressing game like Southampton or Leeds.....we was out fought and denied any fluency for us to get in the game, when it mattered.

But Liverpool are the arch high press team and we absolutely mullered them.

The difference was, imho, in that game, SJM played really well and bettered their midfield and Barkley drove forward and broke their lines time and time again.  Our midfield functioned very well that day. In the Leeds and Southampton games, although I haven't seen those games fully, it appears that SJM hasn't played as well and Barkley - maybe he is not fully fit as he was supposedly 50:50 before the Leicester game - contributed little as well.  I think, functioning well, a midfield three of Luiz ("6"), SJM ("8") and Barkley ("10") in the more advanced role is a top CM.  However, SJM seems to have lost his consistency since his injury last year - one good game followed by two or three average/poor games. Barkley, imho, is still unproven - great if we can get the Ross Barkley who was in his final year at Everton but not so good if we get the Chelsea Barkley - although, after the Liverpool game, it looked as though we were getting the former!

I should say as well that I think that we also faced two sides in a decent run of form who both hit peak at the wrong time for us (maybe in the same way that we did against Plop) - Bamford will probably never finish again like he did for his second and, particularly, his third (he certainly didn't against Leicester the other night) and JWP, as good a free kick taker as he is, will probably not hit consecutive free kicks again as he did on Sunday.

As I state above, I think, functioning well, a midfield three of Luiz, SJM and Barkley in the more advanced role is a top CM, as they showed against Liverpool.  I think our big issue is that there is no plan "B" for that midfield, when parts of it are not functioning.  Plan B, for me, could consist of replacement players that slot seamlessly into the same formation OR a different way of playing that accommodates the attributes of the different player options.  And a plan "B" can be utilised either from the off to rotate/cover injury or in game if plan "A" is not working.

Jack could drop in to the "10" to replace Barkley but that weakens us up top.  I am not sure of Ramsey's capabilities as an "8" or a "10", but if we have kept him at the club and not bought another CM'er in I would hope that he is able to contribute.  I don't believe that Hourihane has the energy/dynamism to play as an "8" in a three man CM, but could possibly play as a "10" where his delivery and finishing could be a weapon but we would lose the ability to carry the ball which Barkley potentially has.  For me, the plan "B", at least until January, would be a diamond with CH and SJM in front of Luiz and Barkley at "10".  I would then play Jack off Ollie and just give him a free role. I think, if Jack were to be given a roaming brief this could really put defences on the back foot.  It was evident on Sunday that Walker Peters was not getting forward as they were concerned about Jack but Bertrand was bombing forward.  If Jack moved around this would give a different challenge.  Equally, I think Jack and Barkley playing off Ollie would be somewhat reminiscent of the Jack and NZogbia pairing (at more inside forwards than wingers) that worked so well against Liverpool in the FA Cup semi-final.  However, Smith appears to be pretty wedded to his 4-3-3/4-2-3-1!

[barry'sboots]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

If my Auntie had Balls, she would be my Uncle.

I'm not sure that you can definitively say that.  She might assume the neutral pro noun approach that seems to be so popular nowadays?? 

[Zhan_Zhuang]

So Ings is out for 4-6 weeks after the Villa match and Hasenhuttl has lamented what was a tough game for them in terms of physicality.

You know I'm actually glad to hear we are physically matching teams, obviously I don't think we are deliberately hurting the likes of Ings though.

Maybe we aren't as soft as we think?

[barry'sboots]

13 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

So Ings is out for 4-6 weeks after the Villa match and Hasenhuttl has lamented what was a tough game for them in terms of physicality.

You know I'm actually glad to hear we are physically matching teams, obviously I don't think we are deliberately hurting the likes of Ings though.

Maybe we aren't as soft as we think?

They got 2 yellows and we got 1.  They were called up for 17 fouls and we gave 12 away.  I know the ref doesn't always getting everything right but I am not aware of any major incidents missed?  Seems like Ralph is talking out of his behind!!?

[TRO]

6 hours ago, A'Villan said:

As I said, I'm only going off the narrative I saw in ten minutes of highlights, as you saw the game, your observations are going to be more informed and perhaps accurate.

Still, looking at the numbers and totals for the match, as well as watching the Southampton FC highlights reel, which is going to show their major chances, I have a point.

We had over double the chances on target, more of the ball, and if it weren't for three clumsy and unnecessary fouls in a poor first half, you seriously think Southampton win?

I also think you're being harsh on the defender closest to Ings for their fourth, whom I'm guessing was Targett, even though obviously it was no defensive masterclass..

We were on the back foot from a turnover and transition in play that went end to end in seconds and had us out of position and pants down.

The closest Villa defender to Ings is running at Ings but doesn't want to overcommit his run and leave Ings through on goal, so he puts himself in place to narrow the angles.

Ings recognises we're on the back foot, and that our man is running at him full pelt, and takes a weighted touch in the opposite direction to our man's run, and finishes deft.

 

Its only my opinion....my interpretation and I accept, some folk won't agree.....thats what forums are about.

In my opinion, the three clumsy challenges was a result of our general poor play, not necessarily the source, just partial source, issues were manifested before the clumsy play, that resulted in it......it wasn't like we was playing well and had unlucky moments, I didn't see it like that at all.

I think if we played Southampton tonight, they would still win, unless we altered our approach and application.....you can look at chances on either team,and they missed some, but it was the general play that dictated the initiative and subsequently set the tone for the game

• The defender closest to Ings when he unleashed a fine shot was Cash.

When you win the initiative, like we did against Liverpool ( Their normal press was missing) all kinds of things open up for you......some call it luck, it is not necessarily luck, its things happen as a result of dominating the opponent....it appears to be luck, but its not.....its what happens when you dominate the ball...the opponent loses the grip or the control.....thats what we did against Liverpool and created chances.