Team shape, tactics and personnel

[Tom13]

15 hours ago, Made In Aston said:

I think Dendoncker and Kamara is the best combination. Kamara has the passing and ball retention ability, while dendoncker brings physicality, tackling and energy. Perfect mix. 

Disagree. Not sure how good Dendoncker's ball retention is but I'd be shocked if it's better than Luiz's. We need both him and Kamara. Kamara can't keep it on his own.

Hopefully Gerrard sees this now.

[calcifer]

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This IMO  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[Made In Aston]

45 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

Disagree. Not sure how good Dendoncker's ball retention is but I'd be shocked if it's better than Luiz's. We need both him and Kamara. Kamara can't keep it on his own.

Hopefully Gerrard sees this now.

Dendoncker is more an enforcer type of midfield player - a better version of Nakamba.  He will get the tackles in and make a short pass to someone like Kamara. It's part the reason why neves and neto flourished alongside him. 

[MaVilla]

5 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Ultimately we are still having to cope with an inexperienced manager learning on the job, which we have done without really.

im not sure Gerrard can be accused of doing that though.

Doing the same thing 30+ times and expecting a different outcome, even though it hasnt really worked on any of those occasions, im not sure thats classed as learning.

[Peter Griffin]

25 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

That's good.

I like people who can accept different opinions for their merits, as well as alter opinions and stances based on information, as well as taking account of mitigating factors and circumstances etc.

Being steadfast to one position no matter what is what creates the most head bopping.

I often agree with points from all angles.

Naturally,  we have a plethora of personalities here and we'll never all agree on anything.

Some people naturally lean positive, some negative, some balanced, some analytical, some emotional etc.

How come u have stuck around here so long? 

[nick76]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

I would rewrite your first line as " poor under some of his tenure".

Some? I think an understatement would be “poor under most of his tenure”

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It is twisting. You said people are putting Saturdays result down as a sign that things have changed. Absolutely nobody has said this. If the next 10 games are W7D3 then yes, we will reflect on previous games and correctly say that the Man City point was a turning point. But we do not have the benefit of knowing the results of the next 10 games. The poster said we need to start, as in start to get some points and start to show improvement. It is a fact that we improved on Saturday and got a point. It is not an opinion. All I did was highlight that we appeared to start on Saturday. It is no ways says we have turned a corner

Fair enough! I didn’t read your comment that way but reading above makes sense.  I apologise I wasn’t intent on twisting your words.  

Now I have go back through others comments about turning point? Can I be bothered….do I care now? I know there were some but I’m going to have to concede because I can’t be bothered looking tonight.  I think I’m just bored of the SG conversation these days.  The quicker he leaves the better so we can move on to better days.

[Keener window-cleaner]

8 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

What if it was an O'Neill style of play? Also is a bit odd that you picked West Ham and Wolves to increase the gap given a more conservative style, I'm not sure if you have seen either of those teams play recently but it's hardly tiki-taka. 

That's not a defence of Gerrard or even a suggestion that he's capable of it, but this aversion to compact, counter attacking football is quite frustrating to me. Because it's one of the simplest, most effective ways a club can progress up the table in any given division. It's what we did when Gerrard first came in, and everyone seemed to enjoy winning? 

I actually enjoyed the O'Neill style, even if it wasn't very elaborate, seeing Young and Downing bombing down the wings and Petrov/Milner running the show (am even among the ones who liked Heskey!). I thought the O'Neill style was quite attacking and adventurous if i remember correctly.

Regarding West Ham and Wolves, it wasn't so much their style of play my comparision was aimed at, more that we should be competing with them and me thinking that parking the bus and trying to nick a point wont lift us above midtable. But regarding playing style I think West Ham despite the reputation of Moyes playes quite good, a settled 4-2-3-1 where the 3 behind the striker are purely attacking players. Wolves I haven't seen so much of this season, but I read an interview with Lage where he said he had to play a certain way last year because of the personell and now are trying to evolve after having brought in the kind of players he wanted, going from 3 at the back to 4 at the back for example. The times i've seen Wolves the last years I havenät got the impression of them being a turgid defensive team.

I agree with you about the compact, counter attacking football, and I can enjoy that as well, it depends a bit on how it is set up. My preference of a 4-2-3-1 with speedy wide forwards does include the possibility to play that counter attacking kind of football. But in my view, the effective counter attacking style can be carried out in different ways. The park the bus style that we saw at the beginning, and this week end, I think is not the way forward. I wouldn't for example want Mourinho to come in and play that way, even if it meant that we took more points. I think that style, as in the case of Bruce and McLeish, in the long run squeezes the joy out of the players and the supporters. If we are set up not to lose, not to make a mistake, it after a while makes the players less creative, there will mostly be room in the team for the grafters and it leads to turgid uninspired football that in the long run will lead to disappointment and regression. I want a Villa that plays on the front foot, a team that storms the Holt in the second half no matter what opposition and with players who make you wanna pay to watch the game. 

My main point though was that I don't agree with sacking Dean Smith to revert to this. The communicated vision was us taking steps forward and Gerrard talked about us becoming a possession based team. Only for us one year later after much investment have reverted to the parking the bus style. It was not what was anticipated and I would much rather have Dean Smith still here than this, in my view, regression.

[foreveryoung]

1 hour ago, Keener window-cleaner said:

I actually enjoyed the O'Neill style, even if it wasn't very elaborate, seeing Young and Downing bombing down the wings and Petrov/Milner running the show (am even among the ones who liked Heskey!). I thought the O'Neill style was quite attacking and adventurous if i remember correctly.

Regarding West Ham and Wolves, it wasn't so much their style of play my comparision was aimed at, more that we should be competing with them and me thinking that parking the bus and trying to nick a point wont lift us above midtable. But regarding playing style I think West Ham despite the reputation of Moyes playes quite good, a settled 4-2-3-1 where the 3 behind the striker are purely attacking players. Wolves I haven't seen so much of this season, but I read an interview with Lage where he said he had to play a certain way last year because of the personell and now are trying to evolve after having brought in the kind of players he wanted, going from 3 at the back to 4 at the back for example. The times i've seen Wolves the last years I havenät got the impression of them being a turgid defensive team.

I agree with you about the compact, counter attacking football, and I can enjoy that as well, it depends a bit on how it is set up. My preference of a 4-2-3-1 with speedy wide forwards does include the possibility to play that counter attacking kind of football. But in my view, the effective counter attacking style can be carried out in different ways. The park the bus style that we saw at the beginning, and this week end, I think is not the way forward. I wouldn't for example want Mourinho to come in and play that way, even if it meant that we took more points. I think that style, as in the case of Bruce and McLeish, in the long run squeezes the joy out of the players and the supporters. If we are set up not to lose, not to make a mistake, it after a while makes the players less creative, there will mostly be room in the team for the grafters and it leads to turgid uninspired football that in the long run will lead to disappointment and regression. I want a Villa that plays on the front foot, a team that storms the Holt in the second half no matter what opposition and with players who make you wanna pay to watch the game. 

My main point though was that I don't agree with sacking Dean Smith to revert to this. The communicated vision was us taking steps forward and Gerrard talked about us becoming a possession based team. Only for us one year later after much investment have reverted to the parking the bus style. It was not what was anticipated and I would much rather have Dean Smith still here than this, in my view, regression.

Isn't it shocking how one of the most experienced manages we signed, brought us the most success. Bit of a tip there if Purslow needs it.

[srsmithusa]

I am not very concerned if many agree with me.  This is my own therapy.  This is the strange way I think based on my 40 years playing, coaching and mostly refereeing the game.

I am of the opinion that most teams need to adapt to the opponent.  But the thoughts below are entirely ignoring that.

managing a team with fixed players, it's critical to build around the abilities of each.

Goalkeeper.  I like Emi.  He's solid, he's big, he's quick, he is a master of the dark arts.  Most of the time when he gives up a goal it's poor coverage in front of him, or too crowded in front to see, or a late deflection.

CB  - mings, Konsa, Chambers.  Mings is the strongest physically, but is also the worst at lack of focus producing poor positioning which then creates problems for the keeper and the entire back line.  Konsa and Chambers are  less physically dominant but the same weakness, lack of focus producing poor positioning and poor reaction to immediate threats.  IMO if you can't sign McGrath, then the next best option is to have 2 primarily defensive CM to plug up the holes the back to will inevitably leave. 

DCM - Kamara - guaranteed starter for me.  Nakamba, Luiz.  Luiz gets the nod becuase he's much better with the ball.  But Nakamba is brilliant at reading and disrupting the attack before it gets too deep.  Dendonker might go in here as well.  But with 2 DCM's required that dictates something of the formation.  the midfiled needs to be either 4 or 5 (with one ACM)

ACM - IMO this is where it gets difficult.  Coutinho, Buendia, Luiz, Ramsey, even McGinn for Scotland.  it's probably the best place for all of them.  

Forward. Watkins and Ings are each OK with different strenghts, but neither one works in a front two.  One of them with Archer might work but haven't seen it enough to know.

To me -  that is our problem.  How do you play our strongest players in their best positions with those limitations.

three ideaa to solve....

a. 3 in the back.  six in midfield 2 DCM, 2 wide 2 ACM.  1 forward

b. 3 4 2 1  maybe the ssame as the above depending on the coaching and mindset of the two ACM or withdrawn forwards

c. 4 2 3 1

All of those provide width that our current set up is missing.

lot's of options within those formations.  But personally, I would try 4 2 3 1  - kamara and nakamba (or dendonker) as the two.  with the three any combination of Coutinho, Buendia, Bailey, Luiz, Ramsey.

McGinn creates his own problem.  He is not the crap that some on this board say.  But he doesn't fit in any of these formations.  Unless perhaps he is in the DCM.  Which Scotland shows is not really his best place.  

TBH,  was very pleasantly surprised that the midfield three of Kamara, Luiz, and McGinn worked so well against Man City.  IMO - they key is that all three played defense first and only forrayed forward on rare occaisions and then only one at  time.  It created a replacement for the two DCM idea.  Maybe even more so - which against ManC may have been the right thing  

 

[Aston_Villan4]

7 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Well this is where I reserve judgment for now. If he tinkers with the side again and reverts to "his system" or whatever he calls it, then I will be concerned.

If he takes on board the obvious facts that:

• Watkins looks so much more comfortable as the striker in a front 3
• Luiz and Kamara playing together makes us much tidier in possession, and positionally / defensively
• Playing 2 wingers (even if one of them is Ramsey) gives us more natural width
• McGinn shouldn't be getting 90 mins

...and applies those lessons to the coming matches, then I'm willing to give him more time.

It is very much a question of whether we trust Gerrard's ability to learn, adapt, reflect, and so on. I think he's shown that our fears about losing the dressing room are probably wrong.

In my view, the thing that has really harmed both Smith and Gerrard has been trying to shoehorn these slow, technical, 10 / support striker type players into the side (Buendia, Ings, Coutinho) and it's noticeable how much better we look when we just bench all of them. They're all good players, but I think the rest of our squad was built around variations of 4-3-3, and it was almost like a weight had been lifted off everyone's chests when they could play their natural game.

I reckon Bailey had been lined up before the Grealish move was confirmed, and was a natural upgrade on what we had (Traore). Whereas Ings and Buendia were panic signings to cover for Grealish going, and then Coutinho was a similar roll of the dice because of the personal connection.

If you look back at the last few seasons, I think it's clear that some players have been signed with a specific purpose in mind (Watkins, Kamara, all the defenders), and others have been signed just because they were good players and available at a fair price. Gerrard being inexperienced, and Smith perhaps lacking confidence handling a more expensive squad, in both cases I think they felt pressure to start the expensive signings, even when it didn't make tactical sense.

It may be that Gerrard has now learnt that the price tag is irrelevant, and you need to just go with who is performing for you and delivering results.

Buendia wasn’t a panic signing though?

[ozvillafan]

1 minute ago, Aston_Villan4 said:

Buendia wasn’t a panic signing though?

Agreed. He was our replacement for Ross Barkley.

[KentVillan]

6 minutes ago, Aston_Villan4 said:

Buendia wasn’t a panic signing though?

Yeah "panic" probably the wrong word - just a bit ill conceived. We thought we were getting a versatile winger / 10 (Smith said so at the time), but he's just not very good on the wing IMO. So he hasn't turned out to be a replacement for Grealish at all.

I think Buendia, Coutinho, Chukwuemeka (last season), and arguably Ings all want to play in the same bit of the pitch. Hovering around the D, linking up in the attacking third, playing fairly centrally, with pace moving around them.

So both Smith and Gerrard have been working with expensive, but unbalanced squads. I don't think it was so much that Smith relied on Grealish, but that we didn't really replace that position. Similarly with Gerrard, I don't think the "narrowness" of his teams is entirely his own fault. It's noticeable that he's solved it by playing someone (Ramsey) out of position, which hints at the problems.

Anyway, this is turning into a chat about shape. My point re Gerrard is he may come to realise that some of his expensive players can't play together, and he just has to go with what offers natural shape and solidity. It's the same dilemma a lot of recent Man Utd managers have had, and Ten Hag has come in with the confidence and experience to bench expensive players who aren't working.

[Zatman]

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Yeah "panic" probably the wrong word - just a bit ill conceived. We thought we were getting a versatile winger / 10 (Smith said so at the time), but he's just not very good on the wing IMO. So he hasn't turned out to be a replacement for Grealish at all.

I think Buendia, Coutinho, Chukwuemeka (last season), and arguably Ings all want to play in the same bit of the pitch. Hovering around the D, linking up in the attacking third, playing fairly centrally, with pace moving around them.

So both Smith and Gerrard have been working with expensive, but unbalanced squads. I don't think it was so much that Smith relied on Grealish, but that we didn't really replace that position. Similarly with Gerrard, I don't think the "narrowness" of his teams is entirely his own fault. It's noticeable that he's solved it by playing someone (Ramsey) out of position, which hints at the problems.

Anyway, this is turning into a chat about shape. My point re Gerrard is he may come to realise that some of his expensive players can't play together, and he just has to go with what offers natural shape and solidity. It's the same dilemma a lot of recent Man Utd managers have had, and Ten Hag has come in with the confidence and experience to bench expensive players who aren't working.

We have never played Buendia on the wing though. Snith had injuries so played him narrow and not sure what Gerrard is trying to play him as but at Norwich he was sat on the right wing and he has never had that chance with us

[KentVillan]

9 minutes ago, Zatman said:

We have never played Buendia on the wing though. Snith had injuries so played him narrow and not sure what Gerrard is trying to play him as but at Norwich he was sat on the right wing and he has never had that chance with us

Well I assume when we play that stupid 4-3-2-1 shape that he's expected to drift wide? To me he always seems to want to come inside, but maybe that's the coaching... don't know.

From what I remember of him at Norwich, he actually came in off his wing most of the time, and wasn't really a conventional winger. I guess you could say same about Grealish, but I always felt like Grealish could take on a full back like a conventional winger and swing in a cross or cut back, whereas we haven't seen much of that from Buendia.

As ever with these things, it could be Gerrard being shit, or it could be players not following instructions. Didn't Bailey imply that it was the latter after the City game?

[Anything11]

20 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This IMO

Konsa will be there. He had a good game on the weekend and could be working his way back into some form.

Otherwise I think we go with this. Rumours that we tried to sign Kondogbia on deadline day - Dendoncker looks the be able to fill a similar role.

[SuffolkVillan]

19 hours ago, calcifer said:

20 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This IMO  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

If Dendonker is fit, agreed. If not I'd love to see Sanson given a shot

[KentVillan]

6 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said:

Steven has had 2 windows. If he was desperate for a left winger he could have purchased one by now. Ramsey ended up on the wing out of desperation. It's not even where he should be playing. Ramsey is our biggest goal threat from midfield. He should be the furthest advanced midfielder, in and around the box. Out on the wing you nullify his greatest skill. 

For me, this all looks to similar. Steven just throwing things against wall and waiting to see what magically works out. More square pegs in round holes for me. As long as he keeps doing that then this squad will continue to underachieve. 

Well there was apparent interest in Ismaila Sarr, so maybe he has asked for another winger.

I thought Ramsey looked useful wide left tbh. And besides him (and arguably McGinn...) everyone else was playing their natural position?

[Rightdm00]

59 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Well there was apparent interest in Ismaila Sarr, so maybe he has asked for another winger.

I thought Ramsey looked useful wide left tbh. And besides him (and arguably McGinn...) everyone else was playing their natural position?

I agree on the other players. Vs Man City was the closes he's come yet to a balanced formation. I just can't get with this unbalanced squad issue. I think the squad is set up exactly how Steven likes, he just can't get it to work with his favored system. So now he's desperate throwing Ramsey out wide when he easily could have purchased a left winger and allowed Ramsey to attack through the middle where he is most dangerous. 

I think we see a reversion to form from Steven next match. He almost has to. The squad is not setup long-term to play the way we did versus City. We have one real winger and Ramsey deputizing with no depth of any kind on the bench. 

[PussEKatt]

Quite simply.HOW MUCH TIME DOES HE NEED to get it right ????