Team shape, tactics and personnel

[Bazmonkey]

Does 532 work...no

Will 433 work...no

Simple answer is the same issues with either formation will remain...we just get over run in midfield...we don't have good enough midfielders to play in a three.

You play 5 at the back to allow wing backs to bomb on...right...targett is im a left back I will stay at left back...problem 1...problem 2...ball needs to stick in the middle to allow wing backs to get in front....problem 2....if the midfield to get the ball...inevitable they will give it away...mcginn...10 yard pass on...tries a 30 yard arse pick it up..two passes...3rd goal...wing back out of position...problem 3.

Same would happen with a three.

Our ball retention...basics....and design making is our downfall...regardless of the shape and personal until this is addressed the same things will happen every week

 

[foreveryoung]

2 minutes ago, Bazmonkey said:

Does 532 work...no

Will 433 work...no

Simple answer is the same issues with either formation will remain...we just get over run in midfield...we don't have good enough midfielders to play in a three.

You play 5 at the back to allow wing backs to bomb on...right...targett is im a left back I will stay at left back...problem 1...problem 2...ball needs to stick in the middle to allow wing backs to get in front....problem 2....if the midfield to get the ball...inevitable they will give it away...mcginn...10 yard pass on...tries a 30 yard arse pick it up..two passes...3rd goal...wing back out of position...problem 3.

Same would happen with a three.

Our ball retention...basics....and design making is our downfall...regardless of the shape and personal until this is addressed the same things will happen every week

 

There's no doubt, it's a coaching issue at the moment. Players were shite last night becuase it looked like they had no idea of what they were supposed to be doing. it's not a system they have experience with. I've seen man City in a different system, they were poor, so Pep reverted back to the system they know.

[Dale]

38 minutes ago, zenda said:

In recent pressers Dean has said we have a squad to challenge for Europe and after last night he said that we need to make sure we beat West Ham next week. I can't see either happening but I'm glad he's "fronting up".

His in-game reactive mode of management is painful to watch at times. Arsenal were swamping us, clear for all to see. Why wait til half-time to change it? Half an hour was long enough. Be bold, be brave. Instead, he hoped to keep it at 1-0 and he/we deserved the kick in the bollocks that was the penalty. 

And if you're going to play three at the back, Hause has to be one of them. I am certain we wouldn't have conceded five set-piece goals in the last 100 minutes of play had he been playing. Granted, he's like a puppy chasing a balloon with the ball at his feet but in the air he is one of the best and it's set-pieces that rule/ruin us at the moment. So drop one of the blessed Mings, Konsa or Tuanzebe. More fool us if the latter has a "minimum starts" clause in his loan deal.

I mean minimum starts will not be in there. We speculated about this with Barkley last season. 

We had players to switch on field without making subs. 

 

------------------Martinez 

Tuanzebe Konsa Mings Targett

---—----------------Luiz 

-----------McGinn  Buendia

Cash-—----------------------------Watkins 

--------------------Ings

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, Bazmonkey said:

Does 532 work...no

Will 433 work...no

Simple answer is the same issues with either formation will remain...we just get over run in midfield...we don't have good enough midfielders to play in a three.

I'm not sure what you're proposing here - three is the most we can sensibly get into the middle I'd have thought. 

I guess we could play:

--------------------------Martinez-------------------------

Cash---------Konsa-----------Ings--------Targett

-----------------------------Luiz------------------------------

------------McGinn----Ramsey----Sanson-------

---------------Ings-----------------------Watkins-------

But I can't see where the width would come from - I guess we could play Buendia over Ings in that formation and ask him and Watkins to play wider - with the middle three making runs into the box.

I think one of our problems yesterday was that with McGinn, Luiz and Buendia as three - Buendia's natural instinct to play as a support forward means that very often we're only left with two in there - I think one of our problems in 5-3-2 is the idea that we can play Buendia as a central midfielder.

There are a couple of players that are suffering - the strikers because they don't play well as a pair, Buendia because he's expected to be doing defensive work and then McGinn and Luiz who have too much ground to cover without a third man in there.

In a 5-3-2 like yesterday's we'd be better balanced with Nakamba playing ahead of Buendia and McGinn playing as a midfielder with licence to get forward and join in, rather than Buendia playing as a forward who is expected to help out in midfield.

 

[avfc1982am]

This is what I want to see with the personnel we have....

 

----------------------------Martinez-----------------------------

Cash---------Konsa---------------Mings-----------Targett

------------------------------Dougie-------------------------------

-----------Sanson----------------------McGinn--------------

Buendia-----------------Watkins-------------------Bailey

 

Then the replacements

-------------------------Martinez-----------------------------

Young---------Axel-----------Hause------------Young

--------------------------Marv----------------------------------

-------------Ramsey------------Chuk--------------------

Traore-------------Ings/Archer-----------------Ghazi

 

Add to that.....JPB, Archer etc. 

 

[Bazmonkey]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd definitely agree that we don't have enough true midfielders - the defining moment of our season so far is missing out on Ward-Prowse who is exactly what we're missing.

I'm not sure I understand your formation though with 4 plus 1 - the four would be Luiz, McGinn, Ramsey and Nakamba?

 

Ward prowse is definitely a player that would fit in nicely 

4 plus 1 would be a a traditional 4 in the middle and no10 say...but the two in the middle would have to be very disciplined if the other two were 'wingers'

But do we have the personal to play that...not sure 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Bazmonkey
Spelling

[OutByEaster?]

46 minutes ago, Bazmonkey said:

4 plus 1 would be a a traditional 4 in the middle and no10 say...but the two in the middle would have to be very disciplined if the other two were 'wingers'

So that would be two in the middle and wingers?

 

[HeyAnty]

2 hours ago, Nabby said:

People saying drop Watkins , realize that Smiths main tactic ( he even mentioned in the Wolves game ) is the long ball into space down the line for Watkins to chase ...its why Mings is always punting it down the line 

Was Bruce tactic as well. Used to drive me mad

[TomC]

4 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

I have continued to watch Targett play like a winger in this formation for Eight games now. We can all see he cannot cross a ball for Sh** and he certainly can't play a creative winger. It looks like he is trying to do the Grealish role, which is insane.

I agree that to expect him to do the Grealish role would be insane. Targett has always come forward, though...our system has always had the fullbacks overlap, although obviously not as often as a wing back does. And Targett can cross a ball pretty well, but he hasn't done it this year. As others have pointed out, that may be because Grealish is gone. He doesn't get the time that he used to.

 

[TomC]

6 hours ago, MaVilla said:

thats the team for me too, although im not convinced by McGinn, my debate is McGinn/Sanson/Ramsey in that double pivot role alongside Luiz.

Other than that, totally agree.

I agree that the double pivot role is the question in that system. I posted about this in the match thread...sorry to repeat myself for those reading both threads...but to elaborate...

In a 4-2-3-1 like we played second half, and even in the way we play 3-5-2 where 2 of the CMs stay deeper, one of the 2 is usually a "pure" defensive midfielder and one is supposed to be a capable DM who also has the ability to launch attacks.

My initial though this year was that we'd be rotating and playing 2 of 3 from Dougie, McGinn, and Sanson. They're all capable DMs who can participate in the attack, though with different skill sets (Dougie is a better passer, McGinn scores goals.) I thought that playing two of them would work: Why wouldn't you want two DMs who can join the attack? But others on this board have convinced me: We do need a pure DM. And that means pairing that person with either McGinn or Dougie (or Sanson) and sitting the other.

Dougie made our goal yesterday. Expecting him to be the main DM is a waste of his talent.

Of course, we're going to have to make do with what we have this year, which means either using Nakamba as the pure DM (he's improved this year but still not someone who would be starting in a top 6 side) or existing without the pure DM. Next year, a pure DM probably should be on the shopping list. That will probably mean selling one of Dougie, McGinn, and Sanson, because that would be 3 players for 1 role.

Ramsey's distribution from deep is excellent and probably better than his passing in the final third, so he could be the second pivot alongside the pure DM as well. But he hasn't been trained as a DM (see that penalty-giving tackle against Wolves) and then you would have a 4th player competing for that role.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by TomC
Added comment about Ramsey

[wilko154]

2 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

Agree with all of this. It’s almost like we’re spoilt for choice in certain positions and he’s too scared to drop certain players. If we have to start with Ings, Tuanzebe, Watkins or Buendia on the bench then so be it.

We don’t have the presence in midfield to play with Buendia as a 10 and the 3-5-2 doesn’t work for a plethora of reasons. That leaves a 4-3-3. Its pretty much the only formation we can play with the personnel we have at our disposal. The club decided not to bring in another central midfielder in the Summer which somewhat limited our options and now we have to live with that. 

———————Martinez———————
Cash——Konsa——Mings——Targett
————————Luiz—————————
————Sanson——McGinn—————
Buendia————————————Bailey
———————Watkins————————

I know some might prefer Ings over Watkins and that’s a fair shout but Watkins was superb last season in this formation so give him a chance this season in it with Bailey and Buendia playing outside of him. Ings is a good player, I just feel Watkins pace, energy and pressing works well in this system. 

It’s about balance. As long as we play that formation, I think we’ll finish safely in midtable. Smith will lose his job if he keeps shoehorning players into the team, I said it could be a problem the moment we signed Ings. 

Exactly what I would go with.

You can rotate Sanson with Ramsey, Buendia with Traore and Watkins with Ings.

Some may be suited to different games, and it gives us the option to freshen it up from the bench.

[maqroll]

The root of the problem is the Ings signing. It's shattered Watkins' confidence and forced Smith to try to crowbar them both in the side resulting in this goofy formation. The obvious fix is dropping Ings or Ollie and reverting back to 4-3-3. But because they've spent big money on a top striker like Ings, Smith feels compelled to start him every game. As much as I like Ings, Ollie was the real investment. Ings seemed like a luxury signing and maybe even a desperation signing made to appease the fans post-Jack. We should have settled for Ollie-Wesley-Archer and used the Ings money on Alvarez. Ings has thrown everything off balance, through no fault of his own. It's a conundrum. 

[gwi1890]

59 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

To be fair he isn't exactly doing himself any favors playing a formation which is completely dependent of the fullbacks for an attacking outlet.

I wonder how many points we'd be on had we played 4-3-3 from the start of the season. I suspect we'd be on more.

I’d feel different if they weren’t the defend first type of fullback, yes I know Matty Cash used to be a winger, Ashley young from 10 years ago is the modern wingback tbf

[foreveryoung]

Typical Villa, poach a quality striker under many other teams noses, which was brilliant business, for us not to know what to do with him.

 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

13 minutes ago, maqroll said:

The root of the problem is the Ings signing. It's shattered Watkins' confidence and forced Smith to try to crowbar them both in the side resulting in this goofy formation. The obvious fix is dropping Ings or Ollie and reverting back to 4-3-3. But because they've spent big money on a top striker like Ings, Smith feels compelled to start him every game. As much as I like Ings, Ollie was the real investment. Ings seemed like a luxury signing and maybe even a desperation signing made to appease the fans post-Jack. We should have settled for Ollie-Wesley-Archer and used the Ings money on Alvarez. Ings has thrown everything off balance, through no fault of his own. It's a conundrum. 

He's a grown man and professional athlete.

He had a good season and is/was well loved by everyone at the club, and highly rated.

I'm  not sure why signing another striker should or would " shatter his confidence ".

If this were the logic, we'd never sign any players in starters positions, how do you improve?

Can you picture someone like McGinn whimpering due to us signing another midfielder? Nah he just works harder.

I'm not buying it, as a part of the squad, if anything, Ollie should be happy we are trying to put better players in the squad and around him.

I'd suggest that, taking off Ings, instead of Ollie each time, even when he has clearly been the better player, might be damaging Ings if anything!

[maqroll]

4 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

He's a grown man and professional athlete.

He had a good season and is/was well loved by everyone at the club, and highly rated.

I'm  not sure why signing another striker should or would " shatter his confidence ".

If this were the logic, we'd never sign any players in starters positions, how do you improve?

Can you picture someone like McGinn whimpering due to us signing another midfielder? Nah he just works harder.

I'm not buying it, as a part of the squad, if anything, Ollie should be happy we are trying to put better players in the squad and around him.

I'd suggest that, taking off Ings, instead of Ollie each time, even when he has clearly been the better player, might be damaging Ings if anything!

It's pure speculation, but I do think that Ollie is a confidence player, a sensitive type of guy who needs to be nurtured and feel like he is the top banana. Signing Ings may have made him feel like management wasn't 100% confident in him.

[OLDVILLAIN]

1 minute ago, maqroll said:

It's pure speculation, but I do think that Ollie is a confidence player, a sensitive type of guy who needs to be nurtured and feel like he is the top banana. Signing Ings may have made him feel like management wasn't 100% confident in him.

Exactly my train of thought maqroll..Its obvious..even down to watkins not passing to ings.

Im sure there are major problems between the team and the manager now and with edens at last weeks game im fairly sure they will protect their investment sooner or later

[hippo]

4 minutes ago, OLDVILLAIN said:

Exactly my train of thought maqroll..Its obvious..even down to watkins not passing to ings.

Im sure there are major problems between the team and the manager now and with edens at last weeks game im fairly sure they will protect their investment sooner or later

I clocked it in a pre season game. Ings scored and Watkins could barely look at him in the celebrations. Surprising as he always seems so laid back.

[DCJonah]

5 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Do you think they have a far surperior 11 to us though?

Pickford isn't better than Martinez, defences are of similar standard imo unless you think Mina and Keane are world class CBs (they're not). Allan-Doucoure is better than what we have but Tom Davies is playing today and he wouldn't be starting for us.

Upfront Calvert-Lewin and Ings, not much difference there. Richarlison is sort of lively wide attacker we lack though.

Think that's my point, no way should Everton be 10 points clear of us at any stage of the season and it could very easily happen next weekend. Swop the managers and we'd likely be ahead of them in the table I reckon as I doubt DS would've come up with a good gameplan to get regular points with Richarlison and DCL injured for over a month.

It's o.k playing "all these teams spending millions more" than us card but eventually we need a bit more than 11th to show for the millions we've spent as we do actually have some good players in the squad spread over several positions.

I think we should be competing with Everton, but they have also had a big advantage over us for years. 

They're doing very similar to us, in that some weeks they look good and then other times are awful. Like a lot of midtable sides. 

We need to sort it out though, because we are slipping away from even that level. 

[hippo]

2 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Do you think they have a far surperior 11 to us though?

Pickford isn't better than Martinez, defences are of similar standard imo unless you think Mina and Keane are world class CBs (they're not). Allan-Doucoure is better than what we have but Tom Davies is playing today and he wouldn't be starting for us.

Upfront Calvert-Lewin and Ings, not much difference there. Richarlison is sort of lively wide attacker we lack though.

Think that's my point, no way should Everton be 10 points clear of us at any stage of the season and it could very easily happen next weekend. Swop the managers and we'd likely be ahead of them in the table I reckon as I doubt DS would've come up with a good gameplan to get regular points with Richarlison and DCL injured for over a month.

It's o.k playing "all these teams spending millions more" than us card but eventually we need a bit more than 11th to show for the millions we've spent as we do actually have some good players in the squad spread over several positions.

We've basically built a prem team from scratch for a net spend of £200m. We've seen promoted sides add £100m to the squad then bomb out of the prem with a whimper.

£200m over 3 years isn't really a lot. Esp when £80m has been spent on wingers.- this from a club with a sporting director to (in part ) ensure players are brought to compliment each other. Somehow we have achieved the opposite. !