Team shape, tactics and personnel

[TRO]

6 hours ago, RichiBoi11 said:

Deano played around with a few formations to be fair. We were 4-3-3 for a majority of his time, but he did switch to a back 3 when we were really struggling. Also the season he did play 4-2-3-1 actually turned out to be our best season, finishing 11th. It fell apart a bit at the end, but I think that was down to the fact it relied on Grealish and Barkely both being ball carriers in the three behind Watkins, and when both were unavailable and Barley lost his form the system fell apart a bit. I think what frustrates me is when managers down't play to their players strengths, and formations are a key component of that in the modern game. You need to be adaptable, but you also need to recognise youer squads strengths and weaknesses, which is something Gerrard doesn't seem very adept at as it stands. 

Dean was a decent manager and still is......but, despite not being his fault, he was not high profile enough in the industry, to attract Foreign players, in particular.

He also lost a player of very special talent, who could make that huge difference to a team......That was very hard on Dean, because we could not replace him, with the attributes he brought to the team.

Dean tried his best, with formations, but he simply hadn't got the players at his disposal, to move mountains....decent players sure, but not top calibre to challenge for European places.

getting formations right, will not necessarily, make up for a players loss of form, or questionable play.

Formations are important, but they are not the holy grail, some fans think they are......they are just a component of getting many things right.

If a player, is have a shit game, for whatever reason, the formation, set up or plan.....won't save us, on its own.

I accept, 11 players deployed righ, on song, on form and ready to rock and roll, then the manager has to galvanise that in to a succesful unit, 2 or 3 off the pace and he has a problem......but we run to criticise managers, too early in the analytics, IMO......and that not just SG, that in general.

 

 

[TomC]

On 03/10/2022 at 06:25, Delphinho123 said:

I don't think this was spoken about enough at the time. 

The underlying problem he had was Ings. We'd just signed him, which was a complete and utter panic buy devoid of any common sense, and we'd put him on 125k a week. There is a demand from within the club that he therefore needs to play. Especially on that kind of money.

Smith had no idea how to fit them both in the team and tbh, nor would I - because you simply cant. Not with the personnel we have. 

Our transfer policy is a joke tbh. We bounce around signing players that don't address our needs and who best play in systems that we don't adopt. Villa need to be careful, we're heading towards a cliff edge at the moment. 

I don't think that Ings was the problem per se, nor do I think that any of the Buendia/Ings/Bailey signings were a panic buy. I think that Deano had a definite plan, but (a) the plan was probably flawed, and (b) developments after the season started ruined the plan, anyway.

I remain convinced that Deano planned to play 4-2-3-1, use Dougie and McGinn as the pivots, with the preferred front 4:

Ings

Watkins-Buendia-Bailey

From his time at Brentford, he knew Watkins had played out wide. This system left various alternatives for injuries (Ings in front with either Watkins-Buendia-Traore or Bailey-Buendia-Traore behind; Watkins in front with Bailey-Buendia-Traore behind).

The plan was probably flawed from the start. Watkins may have played on the left for Brentford, but he didn't seem comfortable doing it anymore. Buendia didn't seem as comfortable playing as a classic, central 10; he preferred to cut in from the right.

Injuries would have undone the plan anyway. I seem to remember that Buendia, Bailey, and Ings played only about 40 minutes together before Christmas because they all had knocks at various points. I think Traore missed some time, too. We didn't always have 4 players from the 5 just mentioned available to play the 3-1 in front.

A further complication, but a positive one, was the unexpectedly early rise of JJ.

Deano seemed to juggle systems trying to fit the parts together around the injuries. He tried the 5-3-2 for one match against Chelsea where we played extremely well despite losing, and then he suddenly became infatuated with the 5-3-2, which was to be his undoing. I can see what he was thinking...it enabled him not only to add JJ to the midfield, but also his "minor" signing Tuanzebe to the back line; it moved Watkins back into a striker position, albeit in a two-striker system; and it worked around all the forward/attacking midfielder injuries. The obvious downside was that, even after he came back from injury, Buendia ended up on the bench.

Of course, it all went wrong. Watkins and Ings couldn't work together in a two-striker system and were running the same channels. The three-man midfield of JJ, McGinn, and Dougie was unbalanced and remains unbalanced to this day (even with Kamara in for Dougie); that combo is Deano's worst legacy to the present administration. Tuanzebe was mediocre and unbalanced the chemistry between Konsa and Mings, while Targett had showed up for the season out-of-shape and lacked confidence without Grealish in front of him.

SG came in with a strong preference for 4-3-3. He gave the finally-healthy Sanson a few chances, but clearly lost confidence in him after that notorious bad backpass. Thus, he stuck with the same flawed midfield of JJ-Dougie-McGinn. Meanwhile, he had to shoehorn the forwards he inherited, plus eventually Coutinho, into a three-man front line. Playing Watkins and Ings together meant one of them wider; we had already learned that Watkins didn't look good out wide, though things were a little more successful when he played in the middle with Ings out wide. SG still hasn't figured out a good three-man forward line, which shouldn't be a surprise because, other than Coutinho, they weren't bought to operate as a front 3, and furthermore, they haven't gotten good service because the midfield is broken.

At least Deano had only maybe 5, 6, 7 games with the JJ-McGinn-Dougie midfield, so he can be forgiven for not recognizing in time that it didn't work. SG has had a whole year and still can't see it. Even with Kamara in for Dougie, it looked broken; the real problem is playing McGinn and JJ as the 8s because neither is much of a passer who can link up with the forwards. Obviously, SG likes attacking fullbacks, but that isn't a problem in itself; most teams use attacking fullbacks these days. The problem is that, because of the broken midfield, we've been forced to advance the ball almost exclusively through the attacking fullbacks, which has become predictable and leaves us vulnerable to being pinned along the sides with no good option to advance the ball through the middle. EDIT: Lately we've tried another option to advance the ball, which is hoofing long balls and bypassing midfield completely. That makes Watkins undroppable because of his ability holding up the ball. (I know some people around here don't see that ability, but Michael Owen complimented him about it this weekend, so that's good enough for me.) Of course, Watkins can't strike a ball at the moment, and Ings is sitting on the bench, so we're hoofing long balls to a line that has little chance of finishing them off.

That went longer than I expected, but that's my tactical interpretation of why the team has been so broken the past two seasons.

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by TomC

[Vancvillan]

12 hours ago, TRO said:

I accept, 11 players deployed righ, on song, on form and ready to rock and roll, then the manager has to galvanise that in to a succesful unit, 2 or 3 off the pace and he has a problem......but we run to criticise managers, too early in the analytics, IMO......and that not just SG, that in general.

Some would say picking the right 11 is a manager's job.

Others might even be so bold to suggest that picking a formation that suits said 11 also falls under the manager's remit.

And a crazy bunch of wackos may even go as far as to suggest that 12 months isn't "too early in the analytics".

[Didiersix]

So there seems to be talk of Gerrard being open to the prospect of playing three at the back. 

Birmingham Mail article here

Do we think this would make much of a difference? Ultimately the defence has been solid of late but I'm not so sure if this would give us extra impetus/options going forward.

 

[Zatman]

Throwing a random tactic at the dart board is the sign of a desperate manager, injuries is not an excuse. Ashley Young patrolling left wing up and down the pitch at 37 is not going to help us when the wing backs need to be attacking

Maybe if didnt dump all but one of his widemen

[duke313]

6 minutes ago, Didiersix said:

So there seems to be talk of Gerrard being open to the prospect of playing three at the back. 

Birmingham Mail article here

Do we think this would make much of a difference? Ultimately the defence has been solid of late but I'm not so sure if this would give us extra impetus/options going forward.

This is where things started to unravel for Smith, when we switched to 3 at the back. But I think we have players more suited to it now than we did then.

-------------------------Martinez--------------------------------
---- Bednarek -------- Konsa --------------- Mings-----
Cash --------- Dendoncker--------Luiz---------Young

Then can either go one 10/two strikers or two 10s/one striker.
 

[a m ole]

10 minutes ago, Didiersix said:

So there seems to be talk of Gerrard being open to the prospect of playing three at the back. 

Birmingham Mail article here

Do we think this would make much of a difference? Ultimately the defence has been solid of late but I'm not so sure if this would give us extra impetus/options going forward.

 

I’d **** vomit. Not because of 3 at the back per se, but just because I can guarantee it will be even worse than the shit we serve up now.

[duke313]

1 minute ago, Zatman said:

Throwing a random tactic at the dart board is the sign of a desperate manager, injuries is not an excuse. Ashley Young patrolling left wing up and down the pitch at 37 is not going to help us when the wing backs need to be attacking

Maybe if didnt dump all but one of his widemen

That's the whole point of playing a back 3, the wing backs have license to go forward, as the back 3 spread out covering the defense, Young won't need to track back as much.

[HeyAnty]

3 at the back stinks of desperation.  Its a system a poor manager reverts to when they have ran out of ideas and need a quick fix.  

[Zatman]

28 minutes ago, duke313 said:

That's the whole point of playing a back 3, the wing backs have license to go forward, as the back 3 spread out covering the defense, Young won't need to track back as much.

Yes but since he has returned he hasnt been really crossing the halfway line in our attack

[duke313]

1 minute ago, Zatman said:

Yes but since he has returned he hasnt been really crossing the halfway line in our attack

Maybe that's part of Gerrard's new pragmaticball.  

[villa4europe]

23 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

3 at the back stinks of desperation.  Its a system a poor manager reverts to when they have ran out of ideas and need a quick fix.  

or a system needed to provide width when the manager has sold all the wide players that he didnt want 

[duke313]

25 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

3 at the back stinks of desperation.  Its a system a poor manager reverts to when they have ran out of ideas and need a quick fix.  

Conte must be a poor manager.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

32 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

3 at the back stinks of desperation.  Its a system a poor manager reverts to when they have ran out of ideas and need a quick fix.  

Like Conte?

[duke313]

3 at the back could be interesting, Forest have played 3 at back so it will at least match them if they go with that again.  It will also mean he has to make a change in midfield, which is what practically everybody on here has been asking for.

[Zatman]

17 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Conte must be a poor manager.

 

10 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Like Conte?

Conte always plays this way. He didnt revert to it in some desperation move as the poster said

He also does this bizarre thing and coaches his players so they can play that system 

[Zatman]

6 minutes ago, duke313 said:

3 at the back could be interesting, Forest have played 3 at back so it will at least match them if they go with that again.  It will also mean he has to make a change in midfield, which is what practically everybody on here has been asking for.

Nakamba for Luiz

[Vive_La_Villa]

54 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

3 at the back stinks of desperation.  Its a system a poor manager reverts to when they have ran out of ideas and need a quick fix.  

Or when 3 out of 4 full backs are unavailable. 
 

Who went to 3 at the back anyway?

Edited October 7, 2022 by Vive_La_Villa

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

31 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Conte always plays this way. He didnt revert to it in some desperation move as the poster said

He also does this bizarre thing and coaches his players so they can play that system 

So Dean Smith was a poor manager then you're admitting?

Edited October 7, 2022 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[DJBOB]

2 hours ago, Didiersix said:

So there seems to be talk of Gerrard being open to the prospect of playing three at the back. 

Birmingham Mail article here

Do we think this would make much of a difference? Ultimately the defence has been solid of late but I'm not so sure if this would give us extra impetus/options going forward.

 

I don't think it's true - but if it is - it is the same death knell that brought about Deano's demise.

Switching to 3 at the back (and let's be honest - it's 5 at the back - only managers who exclusively play with wingbacks like Conte and Teuchel can refer to it as 3 at the back), much like Lambert before Deano is the desperation move. More CB's, more people on the defensive line, hit on the counter and get a few set pieces. Off topic - but do I need to bring up how Southgate's "3 at the back" looks like?

Of course - it is of no surprise to me that this has been bandied about. Suffer a heavy defeat or two against the likes of Chelsea or even Brentford or Newcastle, and I would not be surprised to see it the next match.

Like others have alluded to, Gerrard is now playing for his job - to the detriment of the development of not only our talented players but our youngsters as well.

Just slowly circling the drain at this point.

Edited October 7, 2022 by DJBOB