Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Southampton

[TRO]

3 hours 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?

No, I think, he is wrong.

Southampton was pulled up for 17 challenges......we was pulled up for 12 ( which surprised me)

They got 2 yellows and we got 1 

I think he is being precious in his appraisal......I guess Danny Ings being out will take out his edge and he is narked.

[A'Villan]

4 minutes ago, TRO said:

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.

 

I see what you are saying, and I know what you mean when you say it's not luck, I play basketball semi-professionally and the amount of training I do so that my finesse is there and jump shot reliable from up to 10 meters from the ring, is both deliberate and concentrated as well as time and energy consuming. Though come game time, I'm never reluctant to fire a shot if I've got space as you can only make what you take. Without the initiative as you say, and drive to influence the game, then you're at the whims of your opponent. As they say, the ball doesn't have lungs, and it becomes hard work chasing shadows for the course of a fixture. In this dance it pays handsomely to take the lead I suppose.

I also agree the goals in the first half came as a consequence of us being second best in the contest, and exposed on all three occasions to the point where one of our players has decided to make a play that results in a free kick being given in dangerous territory, so I'm not trying to downplay how we lacked influence and impetus in the first half.

Ultimately we lost and deservedly, because of our first half showing, the game goes for 90 minutes. You'd hope that we have learned this lesson from the number of games that got away from us for not having a foothold in the game over ninety minutes last season. As I said though, half this starting XI was made up of newcomers who are at best 6 games in, and we are playing a new formation, with altered roles in some instances, however slightly, an adjustment is an adjustment.

As for Liverpool, we were the beneficiaries of three deflections landing favorably in the net and resulting in goals. On another day they go wide or over the bar, or are back into play for a clearance or another effort on goal. Yes you have to make concerted and concentrated efforts to create your own luck and make things happen for your team, no arguments there, however you will find I disagree if you are denying we did exactly that, and to a much greater degree than Southampton, in the second half.

[TRO]

4 hours ago, barry'sboots said:

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!

They are amongst the best around, when they are in top gear......I think they relaxed the press against us, for reasons that belong to them, maybe took us for granted......I think they have not started as well as last season......not sure what happened in the Atalanta game, maybe they found their form.

I have not as much faith in Luiz and John McGinn in the holding role on current form....hoping they find some. ..If not we need to sign somebody who has a natural nose for it.

 

[barry'sboots]

4 minutes ago, TRO said:

They are amongst the best around, when they are in top gear......I think they relaxed the press against us, for reasons that belong to them, maybe took us for granted......I think they have not started as well as last season......not sure what happened in the Atalanta game, maybe they found their form.

I have not as much faith in Luiz and John McGinn in the holding role on current form....hoping they find some. ..If not we need to sign somebody who has a natural nose for it.

 

I agree that they have not started as well BUT we are still their only defeat and they have let in 8 goals in 6 games and 7 against us.  Odd that the top two sides have lost three games and two have been against us.

I think its can sometimes be really hard to say whether a team played poorly or whether the opposition played really well.  In the Liverpool game, because they are a top side and lost so badly, the pundits immediately went to the Liverpool errors (including their press) and not so much the Villa's good play.  I thought SJM was magnificent/everywhere in that game and back to his best.  I couldn't say that of his last two performances!! 

[TRO]

33 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I see what you are saying, and I know what you mean when you say it's not luck, I play basketball semi-professionally and the amount of training I do so that my finesse is there and jump shot reliable from up to 10 meters from the ring, is both deliberate and concentrated as well as time and energy consuming. Though come game time, I'm never reluctant to fire a shot if I've got space as you can only make what you take. Without the initiative as you say, and drive to influence the game, then you're at the whims of your opponent. As they say, the ball doesn't have lungs, and it becomes hard work chasing shadows for the course of a fixture. In this dance it pays handsomely to take the lead I suppose.

I also agree the goals in the first half came as a consequence of us being second best in the contest, and exposed on all three occasions to the point where one of our players has decided to make a play that results in a free kick being given in dangerous territory, so I'm not trying to downplay how we lacked influence and impetus in the first half.

Ultimately we lost and deservedly, because of our first half showing, the game goes for 90 minutes. You'd hope that we have learned this lesson from the number of games that got away from us for not having a foothold in the game over ninety minutes last season. As I said though, half this starting XI was made up of newcomers who are at best 6 games in, and we are playing a new formation, with altered roles in some instances, however slightly, an adjustment is an adjustment.

As for Liverpool, we were the beneficiaries of three deflections landing favorably in the net and resulting in goals. On another day they go wide or over the bar, or are back into play for a clearance or another effort on goal. Yes you have to make concerted and concentrated efforts to create your own luck and make things happen for your team, no arguments there, however you will find I disagree if you are denying we did exactly that, and to a much greater degree than Southampton, in the second half.

Interesting points.

Its is rare to claim the initiative for 90 odd minutes, invariably a team will have moments in a game where they steal it back....our was at the end of the contest in the main, thats where we made the game respectable and who was the architect, yes Jack, once again.

Let me explain in boxing terms.....In a 12 round fight,a boxer is 8 rounds up on points, having shown more energy, landed more punches and defended himself better, but he tires and loses a bit of control of the fight, but rallys on.....In the last 4 rounds the opponent has a second wind and wins the remaining rounds on points.

My description of that fight would be the boxer who won the 8 rounds " won on points" .....the 4 rounds would not be mentioned, the guy won on points, end of.

back to football......Southampton for all intents and purposes had the game sewn up, before we responded, our reponse was token in comparison.....I am not rubbishing the 3 goals or the chances, but it was a gesture....it was closing the door after the horse had bolted, sorry...I don't mean to be harsh...and not saying they shouldn't have fought back, but they give themselves a mountain to climb.

I still think in boxing terms, we were outpointed......not sure if there is a word in football to describe it the same way?.....but I hope you know what I mean, even if you disagree.

Edited November 4, 2020 by TRO

[TRO]

21 minutes ago, barry'sboots said:

I agree that they have not started as well BUT we are still their only defeat and they have let in 8 goals in 6 games and 7 against us.  Odd that the top two sides have lost three games and two have been against us.

I think its can sometimes be really hard to say whether a team played poorly or whether the opposition played really well.  In the Liverpool game, because they are a top side and lost so badly, the pundits immediately went to the Liverpool errors (including their press) and not so much the Villa's good play.  I thought SJM was magnificent/everywhere in that game and back to his best.  I couldn't say that of his last two performances!! 

BB and I agree with all that.....If Liverpool let us play, that's their look out.....We just capitalised, quite rightly.

I too think we was magnificent on the day, with every player " at it"

but we are analysing what went wrong in the last 2 .....The first 4 were fine, no complaints whatsoever.....its what changed is the intriguing bit.

Its not complaining, its observing and analysing.

ps Maybe its time to turn our attentions to the Arsenal Game

Edited November 4, 2020 by TRO

[A'Villan]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Interesting points.

Its is rare to claim the initiative for 90 odd minutes, invariably a team will have moments in a game where they steal it back....our was at the end of the contest in the main, thats where we made the game respectable and who was the architect, yes Jack, once again.

Let me explain in boxing terms.....In a 12 round fight,a boxer is 8 rounds up on points, having shown more energy, landed more punches and defended himself better, but he tires and loses a bit of control of the fight, but rallys on.....In the last 4 rounds the opponent has a second wind and wins the remaining rounds on points.

My description of that fight would be the boxer who won the 8 rounds " won on points" .....the 4 rounds would not be mentioned, the guy won on points, end of.

back to football......Southampton for all intents and purposes had the game sewn up, before we responded, our reponse was token in comparison.....I am not rubbishing the 3 goals or the chances, but it was a gesture....it was closing the door after the horse had bolted, sorry...I don't mean to be harsh...and not saying they shouldn't have fought back, but they give themselves a mountain to climb.

I still think in boxing terms, we were outpointed......not sure if there is a word in football to describe it the same way?.....but I hope you know what I mean, even if you disagree.

I'm with you. Well said. I'll try and speak in similar language. We were caught cold in this bout, and punished.

Southampton came out of their corner ready in the first round, some errors in footwork and anticipation leads to three Mike Tyson haymakers landing.

A Tyson haymaker is a hefty blow and enough to swing momentum swiftly in any bout, and in this one we copped three of them in the first few rounds.

Most of the time, one is down and out for the count after that, but we endured and went on to swing the fight firmly in our favour in the latter rounds.

For the last thirty minutes we had them on the ropes and they did a reasonable job of picking off our punches, three of which might've won us or drawn the match.

Instead of focusing on whether we're in agreeance or not, I'd like to take say moral of my post is, while disappointing, I'm not concerned by the loss.

Any team in this division allowed to find their rhythm and play to their strengths will have us as passengers on a quick ride to defeat.

I have confidence in Smith and the players we have to rectify the organisational mishaps that allowed us to be caught out.

There's undeniable quality in our team and that is what was on display for me as opposed to Saints getting complacent.

[barry'sboots]

13 hours ago, TRO said:

BB and I agree with all that.....If Liverpool let us play, that's their look out.....We just capitalised, quite rightly.

I too think we was magnificent on the day, with every player " at it"

but we are analysing what went wrong in the last 2 .....The first 4 were fine, no complaints whatsoever.....its what changed is the intriguing bit.

Its not complaining, its observing and analysing.

ps Maybe its time to turn our attentions to the Arsenal Game

TRO, I agree with you.  All I was trying to say is that when it works - i.e. SJM and Barkley perform - our first choice midfield is right up there with the best.  However, when it misfires, as it has in the last two games with SJM and Barkley being largely ineffective, we struggle and the current lack of a plan B is denying us a chance to get back into games. 

[TRO]

5 hours ago, barry'sboots said:

TRO, I agree with you.  All I was trying to say is that when it works - i.e. SJM and Barkley perform - our first choice midfield is right up there with the best.  However, when it misfires, as it has in the last two games with SJM and Barkley being largely ineffective, we struggle and the current lack of a plan B is denying us a chance to get back into games. 

Barry, i agree too....I'm just delving to ascertain .....Why?...went it don't work.

i have my suspicions....folk will have their own suspicions.

[Podster]

On 01/11/2020 at 14:54, Hobbit Feet said:

Easily done play Davies up top move Watkins left jack inside trez on right Conor and luiz centre mid 

The problem is that Smith hasnt worked that out

[villalad21]

It's very evident we need 2 holding midfielders.

McGinn and Barkley are both too attacking minded. We can only afford to play one of them.

Luiz needs help.

[Sam-AVFC]

6 hours ago, Podster said:

The problem is that Smith hasnt worked that out

I'm sure he's aware of the possibility, just doesn't think it's worth replacing Barkley and McGinn for a striker that can do anything but score and a CM who can do nothing but score.

[villalad21]

2 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I'm sure he's aware of the possibility, just doesn't think it's worth replacing Barkley and McGinn for a striker that can do anything but score and a CM who can do nothing but score.

We've won in 3 of the games where Watkins haven't scored.

If Davis can do the basics well like holding the ball up and linking up the play which we know he can do, i don't see our goalscoring suffering very much.

[Sam-AVFC]

1 minute ago, villalad21 said:

We've won in 3 of the games where Watkins haven't scored.

If Davis can do the basics well like holding the ball up and linking up the play which we know he can do, i don't see our goalscoring suffering very much.

I was exaggerating a bit when I said "can do anything", he simply isn't as good as McGinn and Barkley, although they do both need to improve their form from the last couple of games quickly to keep their places.

Anyone saying Smith should have made those changes already is saying he should have made them directly after wins against Liverpool and Leicester or after one bad performance against Leeds.

[TRO]

I will be interested to see how they get on against Newcastle tonight....

Its a game I am looking forward to analysing.

[villalad21]

6 hours ago, TRO said:

I will be interested to see how they get on against Newcastle tonight....

Its a game I am looking forward to analysing.

Newcastle didn't give them much of a game to be fair 

[TRO]

12 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Newcastle didn't give them much of a game to be fair 

I thought Adams, looked a threat as did Walcott.....Ward Prowse was a bumble bee, covering every blade of grass...good player.....fabulous back heeled pass from Djenepo.

Newcastle, just stayed in the game, up until the hour, ...and I stopped watching it....but they didn't offer much of a threat.....Southampton dominated the game.

Edited November 7, 2020 by TRO