Team shape, tactics and personnel

[bcarpet]

19 hours ago, The Inspiration said:

Wellllll I only thought we changed when Bertie came on tbh, looked like Konsa moved to rb and Ashley lb and Ramsey played off the left with ings dropping in to the hole (McCarthy gif) but hey maybe I’m wrong

I agree, I think we changed formation when Bert came on too

[Rightdm00]

Yeah it was a ballsy sub by Dean. Throwing on Bailey at LWB knowing that he probably wasn't going to be doing much, if any, defending. Love that we have a manager now that isn't happy with a 0-0 and roll the dice on getting all 3 points. 

[nick76]

29 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said:

Yeah it was a ballsy sub by Dean. Throwing on Bailey at LWB knowing that he probably wasn't going to be doing much, if any, defending. Love that we have a manager now that isn't happy with a 0-0 and roll the dice on getting all 3 points. 

I thought it was tactical genius because he could see nothing coming that way from Everton, leaving Matty so much space up the left flank and allowing Matty to be really high up the field.  He knew to take advantage of that with Bailey knowing we still had three at the back.  Great management of the game against a really good tactician in Rafa.  So I agree with you but took it one stage further.

[Wainy316]

We have to use attacking wingers with the wealth of talent we have.  Our bench was crazy strong on Saturday.

I think he went with 5-3-2 again because of how good we looked first half against Chelsea although I 90% put that down to how easy it was to cut through midfield with that Saul having a mare.

Hopefully it's back to wingers, the only issue that gives is accommodating Ings and Watkins.

[TheStagMan]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

xG is a pile of . I hate all these modern stats because some give a false picture.

 

 

I think xG is a pile of poo as well. I tend to treat it with the same distain I have for the "Powered by AWS" overtake percentages and tyre condition graphics on F1.

AWS graphics on Hamilton's car: Rear right at 10%, other 3 at 20%. Hamilton on radio "Tyres are good man"

* sets fastest lap *

Similarly,

Villa xG, 0.3. Leon Bailey "Hold my beer"

* three goals scored *

[Czarnikjak]

3 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

I think xG is a pile of poo as well. I tend to treat it with the same distain I have for the "Powered by AWS" overtake percentages and tyre condition graphics on F1.

AWS graphics on Hamilton's car: Rear right at 10%, other 3 at 20%. Hamilton on radio "Tyres are good man"

* sets fastest lap *

Similarly,

Villa xG, 0.3. Leon Bailey "Hold my beer"

* three goals scored *

Dean Smith is very big on xG, you should tell him that it's a pile of shit and not to look at it anymore.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Czarnikjak

[Rightdm00]

4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Dean Smith is very big on xG, you should tell him that it's a pile of shit and not to look at it anymore.

I'm a fan especially when you're gambling in leagues where you can't sit and watch most games . I will say though that xGs next improvement is to standardize a method of calculation. 

For example per Understat Mings 1st half header off a corner inside the 6 yard box got a score of .07xG. Keanes header in the 2nd half from about 6 yards further out received a score of almost .3xG.  That type of variance for 2 headers off a set play seems far to large. 

People will continue to treat xG as junk science til they develop and easily understood method of calculation. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

We have to use attacking wingers with the wealth of talent we have.  Our bench was crazy strong on Saturday.

I think he went with 5-3-2 again because of how good we looked first half against Chelsea although I 90% put that down to how easy it was to cut through midfield with that Saul having a mare.

Hopefully it's back to wingers, the only issue that gives is accommodating Ings and Watkins.

It was 100% a 3-5-2. Cash and Targett were playing as wingers, in the more traditional sense. They were definitely not full backs. 

[TomC]

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

It was 100% a 3-5-2. Cash and Targett were playing as wingers, in the more traditional sense. They were definitely not full backs. 

There's really no difference between 3-5-2 and 5-3-2. The whole point of the system is that the wide players can defend or join midfield as necessary. That's why they're called wing backs. They're wingers and backs.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

3 hours ago, TomC said:

There's really no difference between 3-5-2 and 5-3-2. The whole point of the system is that the wide players can defend or join midfield as necessary. That's why they're called wing backs. They're wingers and backs.

That's fine but then you are essentially saying that how we discuss formations, prioritising the attacking phase, is nonsense, which is debatable to a degree, and average position doesn't matter.

On Saturday we set up with a back 3, with a centre half and two wide backs, and the 'wing-backs' pushed further up the pitch to create a midfield line of 5. Yes, in the defensive phase they would often drop deeper to form a back 5, but you wouldn't call a 4-4-2 a 6-2-2 just because the wingers drop in the defensive phase to mark the space around the touchline. 

It was a 3-5-2. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by dont_do_it_doug.

[TomC]

6 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

That's fine but then you are essentially saying that how we discuss formations, prioritising the attacking phase, is nonsense, which is debatable to a degree, and average position doesn't matter.

"When journalists ask me how Barcelona plays, I give them a 3-1-2-2-1-1 formation, so that they have an approximate idea. But that's just for the journalists." --Johann Cruyff

"What formation a team is playing, anyway, is often in the eye of the beholder. How deep does the second striker have to be for 4-4-2 to become 4-4-1-1? How advanced do the wide players have to be for that to become 4-2-3-1?" --Jonathan Wilson

The quotes say it all. Using numbers is convenient here because we're dealing with text, or when you're talking. If we could, we'd be better off drawing diagrams with arrows showing where each player moves, which could show differences in defense and attack and asymmetries between what players on the left or right might be asked to do.

If you're using just numbers, the argument for priortising defense is that the shape means more: the defense tries to funnel the other team into predictable positions where they can be dealt with. Attack is less structured: players frequently drift either because they spot an opportunity or because they want to confuse the defense.

And to some extent, we do prioritse defense: As much as Cash and Targett (or Young) get forward when we play 4-3-3, you could call it a 2-5-3 in attack, but nobody does that.

In the end, whether you tell me 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, I'm expecting the same system.

 

[CVByrne]

18 hours ago, TheStagMan said:

I think xG is a pile of poo as well. I tend to treat it with the same distain I have for the "Powered by AWS" overtake percentages and tyre condition graphics on F1.

AWS graphics on Hamilton's car: Rear right at 10%, other 3 at 20%. Hamilton on radio "Tyres are good man"

* sets fastest lap *

Similarly,

Villa xG, 0.3. Leon Bailey "Hold my beer"

* three goals scored *

 

All xG tells you is from the shot creating chances we made, what on average would you expect in terms of goals from those chances. If we score more than our xG (which is always the target) that means we finished our chances. If we are having higher xG than our opponents in games and not winning that's an issue. 

Last season we had issues from open play finishing our chances, our xG to Goals when Penalties are excluded was not great and that is something we want to improve on and hopefully are. 

[CVByrne]

I feel the 3 5 2 worked well against Chelsea, I think we stuck with it for Everton because it deserved another go, plus Bailey probably wasn't ready to start yet and Buendia was out.

I can't see 3 5 2 as being our most used formation this season as I can't see how Buendia or Bailey becoming wing backs. Targett also doesn't look comfortable as a wing back either. 

What we get from it is the three man defence gives the midfield a bit more cover behind them and allows the three man midfield to impose on the game and get forward a bit more. 

I think we need to test out the 4 4 2 with unfortunately Ramsey and Tuanzebe being dropped for Bailey and Buendia. This needs to be our home formation to bottom half teams at least.

I think what is a headache right now will not be so when we have 2 or 3 players our injured

[Vive_La_Villa]

I don’t think the 3-5-2 was working great until we got the goal. But it was keeping it as an even game.  Cash was getting forward well but Target was struggling a bit. He hasn’t looked the same player yet, hopefully it’s just a blip. 

I’m not sure 3-5-2 will become our main formation but I trust Smith knows what he’s doing. 

I think one of the big differences this season already is how dangerous we look from set pieces. So regardless of the system we play it does seem we’ll always create chances from dead ball situations which is great to see. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Vive_La_Villa

[dont_do_it_doug.]

7 hours ago, TomC said:

If we could, we'd be better off drawing diagrams with arrows showing where each player moves, which could show differences in defense and attack and asymmetries between what players on the left or right might be asked to do.

With the availability of positional data these days, we can. My eyes can do it too. 

At the end of the day I don't really care what you call it. The problem occurs when people start using the tired old arguments surrounding a 'back 5' as a stick to beat the manager with, when we can surely all see it isn't a defensive setup at all. 

Just as people do Southgate for using 2 defensive midfielders, when one of them plays nothing like you would expect from a DM. 

[Czarnikjak]

2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I don’t think the 3-5-2 was working great until we got the goal. But it was keeping it as an even game.  Cash was getting forward well but Target was struggling a bit. He hasn’t looked the same player yet, hopefully it’s just a blip. 

I’m not sure 3-5-2 will become our main formation but I trust Smith knows what he’s doing. 

I think one of the big differences this season already is how dangerous we look from set pieces. So regardless of the system we play it does seem we’ll always create chances from dead ball situations which is great to see. 

I don't think our wing backs (especially Target) provide enough of a threat going forward to warrant playing 3-5-2 against average/weaker opposition. I know Cash scored in this game, but he is better defensively than in attack.

The midfield 3 of JJ-Doug-SJM seems to have a very good balance and I wouldn't tinker with it.

For most matches i would sacrifice one striker, switch to 4-3-3 and play Bailey, Buendia on the wings.

PS. All the above assumes everyone is fit and available 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Czarnikjak

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

 

All xG tells you is from the shot creating chances we made, what on average would you expect in terms of goals from those chances. If we score more than our xG (which is always the target) that means we finished our chances. If we are having higher xG than our opponents in games and not winning that's an issue. 

Last season we had issues from open play finishing our chances, our xG to Goals when Penalties are excluded was not great and that is something we want to improve on and hopefully are. 

Not sure about this. I’d be more worried if our xG was consistently lower than the opposition even if we were winning some these games. Would suggest we aren’t creating as much as the opposition but have been more clinical. This is never sustainable.
 

 As long we keep creating chances the goals will inevitably come with the finishers we have in our team. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

On 20/09/2021 at 13:41, TheStagMan said:

I think xG is a pile of poo as well. I tend to treat it with the same distain I have for the "Powered by AWS" overtake percentages and tyre condition graphics on F1.

AWS graphics on Hamilton's car: Rear right at 10%, other 3 at 20%. Hamilton on radio "Tyres are good man"

* sets fastest lap *

Similarly,

Villa xG, 0.3. Leon Bailey "Hold my beer"

* three goals scored *

I think it’s a fair reflection of the game. It wasn’t a 3-0 but we deserved the win.

[romavillan]

How's about...

[TomC]

3 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

At the end of the day I don't really care what you call it. The problem occurs when people start using the tired old arguments surrounding a 'back 5' as a stick to beat the manager with, when we can surely all see it isn't a defensive setup at all. 

Agreed 100%! It is not intended to be a defensive setup. It's intended to maximize attack and defense.