Team shape, tactics and personnel

[VillanousOne]

352 looked like it was enforced due to injuries as we lacked the wide players needed to play 433 and wanted to get ings on the pitch.

it looked like a formation that could help,us get better ball retention, especially against bigger teams at the top.

We looked decent against Chelsea but still lost 3:0 and didn’t really look like we would score. We beat an Everton side lacking most of their big names and really only won due to a Bailey cameo after we dropped that formation.

we played brilliantly against manure but we were very lucky they missed their penalty

we didn’t need to,play that formation against Spurs we had the players to return to 433, we were mostly awful and deserved to lose that game, spurs had been hammered by Arsenal and were there for the taking, but yet again we are the team other teams regain the form and focus against because we are so predictable.

We weren’t great against Wolves and lucky to be 2:0 up as a dumb mistake handed us the second goal, I predicted we would draw the way we were letting wolves ransack us, I never believed we would lose.

Either way it looked like 352 was done, but it took 45 mins of playing like a pub team vs the gooners for Dean to change it, and even after the game he blamed the players not the formation.

my point being 352 should have been a tactic used against teams that control games and have a lot of possession, now he has Bailey and Buendia fit he has no excuses and has to change it. Axel and Ings haven’t proved they should start games, even if Ings has been better than Ollie.

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

I don't buy into this luck aspect whatsoever. What if Man U scored their pen? if Hause goal ruled offside? Konsa's red against Everton at 0-0?

I didn’t offer it as an excuse, just a scenario. I said in the post that we could, probably should, have been buried by half-time. In fact it was lucky we weren’t!

[bobzy]

7 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

DCJonah, bobzy, Villa4Europe,

 Do none of you see an issue with the lack of team cohesion and the apparent reliance of Jack and Smith's inability to fix it?

Not really, no.  I think the cohesion is pretty good overall but Watkins and Ings hasn't worked out well from a goal point of view and we should probably switch back to a 4-3-3.

Again this whole "reliance" thing.  Grealish is a world class player.  When he didn't play last season it massively cost us... because he's a world class player.  Now that he's left, we look devoid of the creativity, flair and directness that he brought... because he's a world class player.  That isn't being reliant, it's having a very good player in the team.  If Martinez left, we'd be without a world class player.  We're not reliant on Martinez.  He's part of the team.

Even with that, we've made attempts to replace what Grealish gave us and have barely seen Bailey play whilst Buendia is very much getting up to speed.  He's been disappointing so far but also played in a position that I didn't think he'd be utilized in.  I'm hopeful he'll come good and I think Bailey will be an absolutely brilliant player for us.

Edited October 25, 2021 by bobzy

[Peter Griffin]

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

You're happy we got 55 pts but not happy how we got it. This is what I'm on about. You want 55 pts but you want it done in a certain way, like no other midtable teams have ups and downs through the season. 

 

But we didn't have ups and downs. We had an excellent first half and a terrible second half and were dependent on one player. If we had ups and downs throughout the season I would be much happier. Do you not recognise this as a potential problem for Villa?

And yes other clubs had injuries and if a key player gets injured it will hurt a team, but the team should still play as a team and not completely fall apart

[DCJonah]

9 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

DCJonah, bobzy, Villa4Europe,

 Do none of you see an issue with the lack of team cohesion and the apparent reliance of Jack and Smith's inability to fix it?

Not really at this point. 

The reliance on Jack as a negative is absolutely laughable. But I've explained that in a previous post.

The cohesion is lacking at times but in some respects, that's to be expected. You can't moan about relying on Jack too much and then having zero patience when it comes to trying to change that. Especially when the players we've signed to do it, have not hit the ground running yet. 

It might develop into an issue but the panic on here is way OTT

[Peter Griffin]

3 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

I didn’t offer it as an excuse, just a scenario. I said in the post that we could, probably should, have been buried by half-time. In fact it was lucky we weren’t!

Sorry, I wasn't having a pop at you. I read so many times that we 'could have' or we were 'unlucky' but it is very rare for people to recognise the times we were lucky in games. I was just making a point on that 

[MrBlack]

13 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Not really, no.  I think the cohesion is pretty good overall but Watkins and Ings hasn't worked out well from a goal point of view and we should probably switch back to a 4-3-3.

Again this whole "reliance" thing.  Grealish is a world class player.  When he didn't play last season it massively cost us... because he's a world class player.  Now that he's left, we look devoid of the creativity, flair and directness that he brought... because he's a world class player.  That isn't being reliant, it's having a very good player in the team.  If Martinez left, we'd be without a world class player.  We're not reliant on Martinez.  He's part of the team.

Even with that, we've made attempts to replace what Grealish gave us and have barely seen Bailey play whilst Buendia is very much getting up to speed.  He's been disappointing so far but also played in a position that I didn't think he'd be utilized in.  I'm hopefully he'll come good and I think Bailey will be an absolutely brilliant player for us.

I'm about there^.

Although slightly further along than "we should probably switch to 433". I feel we absolutely must switch to 433. And if AEG is a better left winger than Watkins then he should play there. If Bailey is fit, he can play there and Buendia should go to the right.  Positions where they're all comfortable and used to playing are what we need right now.

 

On topic: Dean has to be a big man and potentially drop a fully fit big name to benefit the team. I don't think we've had the alternative options fit enough to beat him up over it so far this season. Looks like we do now so time for Dean to work his way out of a selection headache.

Edited October 25, 2021 by MrBlack

[Peter Griffin]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

Not really at this point. 

The reliance on Jack as a negative is absolutely laughable. But I've explained that in a previous post.

The cohesion is lacking at times but in some respects, that's to be expected. You can't moan about relying on Jack too much and then having zero patience when it comes to trying to change that. Especially when the players we've signed to do it, have not hit the ground running yet. 

It might develop into an issue but the panic on here is way OTT

I don't see people panicking. I see people expressing concern and saying if we lose another 3 game or so that he should be sacked. That's not panic

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, Peter Griffin said:

I don't see people panicking. I see people expressing concern and saying if we lose another 3 game or so that he should be sacked. That's not panic

Calling for him to be sacked at this point is IMO panic. 

[Awol]

On 24/10/2021 at 05:49, villalad21 said:

I'd go with this team. 

 

Sanson over Ramsey for me, but yes. If Watkins can’t find his form then Ings comes in, but in a 4-3-3 Watkins was excellent last season. Cash and Targett (especially) are not wing backs. Buendia is not (sadly) a no.10. 

Leaning more and more to Ings being a panic buy to appease the fans, but the pressure to play him has broken the evolution of the team. It can’t be a coincidence that our defence doesn’t know what day it is most games but were solid in a back four last season. 

[DaveAV1]

3 minutes ago, VillanousOne said:

352 looked like it was enforced due to injuries as we lacked the wide players needed to play 433 and wanted to get ings on the pitch.

it looked like a formation that could help,us get better ball retention, especially against bigger teams at the top.

We looked decent against Chelsea but still lost 3:0 and didn’t really look like we would score. We beat an Everton side lacking most of their big names and really only won due to a Bailey cameo after we dropped that formation.

we played brilliantly against manure but we were very lucky they missed their penalty

we didn’t need to,play that formation against Spurs we had the players to return to 433, we were mostly awful and deserved to lose that game, spurs had been hammered by Arsenal and were there for the taking, but yet again we are the team other teams regain the form and focus against because we are so predictable.

We weren’t great against Wolves and lucky to be 2:0 up as a dumb mistake handed us the second goal, I predicted we would draw the way we were letting wolves ransack us, I never believed we would lose.

Either way it looked like 352 was done, but it took 45 mins of playing like a pub team vs the gooners for Dean to change it, and even after the game he blamed the players not the formation.

my point being 352 should have been a tactic used against teams that control games and have a lot of possession, now he has Bailey and Buendia fit he has no excuses and has to change it. Axel and Ings haven’t proved they should start games, even if Ings has been better than Ollie.

I’d agree with most of that. However I think that Ollie needs a game or two off as Ings is more in form and generally most likely to score. I know we’d miss  Ollie and he adds a lot to the way we play, last season anyway, but he seems jaded. Ings presses well but won’t be able to play 90 minutes of every game. Some swapping between the two and if the situation calls for it both of them at the same time at times. It certainly isn’t working every game any more than 3 at the back is. 

[TRO]

On 24/10/2021 at 10:20, MaVilla said:

i have other posts with graphs and table etc, but if we strip away all the surrounding noise for a while, i think one of my biggest concerns is style of play, or lack there of.

I dont remember the last time that i watched us and saw us have a defined style of play, a methodology, and this from a manager in Deano who was supposed to bring us the "beautiful game".

Deano has been here 3 years now, and my summary of the 20/21 season tactics were "punt it to Grealish" and let him work the magic, in the 21/22 season, it seems to be "punt it down either line and hope something happens", its really concerning that after 3 years and $350m spent, we have a team that regularly cant pass 5 yards and treats the ball like a ticking bomb.

If you look at this season passing stats, we are 18th with an avg. of 359 passes per game, with only Newcastle (339) and Burnley (333) behind us in passing table, read that again....only Newcastle and Burnely pass less than we do, and not by much. Now, i accept "passes" arent a catch all for good or beautiful football, but it does correctly reflect that we are a punt down the lines team, a back to forward asap style team, the exact style we all said we hated historically, and the exact opposite of what we all said we wanted when Deano came in, and the exact opposite of what Deano said he would bring, an "attractive, progressive, entertaining, beautiful" style of football.

As i say, i know this cant be viewed in isolation, as many other factors come in to play, but i will be honest and say that the fact we play how we do (or seem to fail to have any style of play), after how long Deano has been here, and the money invested in the playing squad, is quite disappointing to me.

I think you make some very valid observations, worth pursuing, for further investigation.

Folk say, but we are progressing, but I say that is subjective....let me explain:

From Deans starting point to now, its fair to say we have progressed, albeit marginal and spent some weighty spondoolies on the way....but there is another variant, to consider.

In the last 80 games, divided up in 4  increments of 20 games each, it reads wins.....latest 7-7-6-6. Now that really is, just marginal improvement , so 26 games we have won in 80 played.

In my view, while there has been progress, its not anywhere near as emphatic as some, might suggest. I guess there are many comfort zones to go to....Leeds are not exactly ripping it up, after a good season, so I know, there are examples to balance out.

While Stats are there in factual form....I still glean my inner feelings from our play and my interpretations of it....but thats just subjective, I know.

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by TRO

[TRO]

2 hours ago, VillanousOne said:

352 looked like it was enforced due to injuries as we lacked the wide players needed to play 433 and wanted to get ings on the pitch.

it looked like a formation that could help,us get better ball retention, especially against bigger teams at the top.

We looked decent against Chelsea but still lost 3:0 and didn’t really look like we would score. We beat an Everton side lacking most of their big names and really only won due to a Bailey cameo after we dropped that formation.

we played brilliantly against manure but we were very lucky they missed their penalty

we didn’t need to,play that formation against Spurs we had the players to return to 433, we were mostly awful and deserved to lose that game, spurs had been hammered by Arsenal and were there for the taking, but yet again we are the team other teams regain the form and focus against because we are so predictable.

We weren’t great against Wolves and lucky to be 2:0 up as a dumb mistake handed us the second goal, I predicted we would draw the way we were letting wolves ransack us, I never believed we would lose.

Either way it looked like 352 was done, but it took 45 mins of playing like a pub team vs the gooners for Dean to change it, and even after the game he blamed the players not the formation.

my point being 352 should have been a tactic used against teams that control games and have a lot of possession, now he has Bailey and Buendia fit he has no excuses and has to change it. Axel and Ings haven’t proved they should start games, even if Ings has been better than Ollie.

There lies a misconception.....teams are only there for the taking, when the poor games are not just a blip...usually after a weeks work including much debate and soul searching, teams with character can bounce back with more vigour and determination.

My biggest disappoinment, was after the collapse against Wolves, and a weeks preparation for the Spurs game....we dish up that turgid offering.

It beggars many questions why?....but it shows we can't glean anything from an opponents previous defeat or arduous mid week game.

Our problems are intrinsic and no one else's performances are relevant....if we was playing Man U next game or Norwich....I would say the same.....We have to sort ourselves out.

Our character, right now, is on trial.....maybe hooking a few, mid game,( not just for the sake of it, genuine free loaders) might tell us who the fighters are and who the whingers are....We have to dig deep, and fight our way out of these doldrums.

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by TRO

[avfc1982am]

On 24/10/2021 at 10:20, MaVilla said:

i have other posts with graphs and table etc, but if we strip away all the surrounding noise for a while, i think one of my biggest concerns is style of play, or lack there of.

I dont remember the last time that i watched us and saw us have a defined style of play, a methodology, and this from a manager in Deano who was supposed to bring us the "beautiful game".

Deano has been here 3 years now, and my summary of the 20/21 season tactics were "punt it to Grealish" and let him work the magic, in the 21/22 season, it seems to be "punt it down either line and hope something happens", its really concerning that after 3 years and $350m spent, we have a team that regularly cant pass 5 yards and treats the ball like a ticking bomb.

If you look at this season passing stats, we are 18th with an avg. of 359 passes per game, with only Newcastle (339) and Burnley (333) behind us in passing table, read that again....only Newcastle and Burnely pass less than we do, and not by much. Now, i accept "passes" arent a catch all for good or beautiful football, but it does correctly reflect that we are a punt down the lines team, a back to forward asap style team, the exact style we all said we hated historically, and the exact opposite of what we all said we wanted when Deano came in, and the exact opposite of what Deano said he would bring, an "attractive, progressive, entertaining, beautiful" style of football.

As i say, i know this cant be viewed in isolation, as many other factors come in to play, but i will be honest and say that the fact we play how we do (or seem to fail to have any style of play), after how long Deano has been here, and the money invested in the playing squad, is quite disappointing to me.

I think this is a very good summary tbh. Of all the criticisms of Smith the thing that bothers me is our ball retention. It's poor and especially more so that he hasn't been able to replicate what he was doing at Brentford with no real money. Even last season success was based around counter attacking teams. Disappointing to say the least.

[MaVilla]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

There lies a misconception.....teams are only there for the taking, when the poor games are just a blip...usually after a weeks work including much debate and soul searching, team can bounce back with more vigour and determination.

My biggest disappoinment, was after the collapse against Wolves, and a weeks preparation for the Spurs game....we dish up that turgid offering.

It beggars many questions why?....but it shows we can't glean anything from an opponents previous defeat or arduous mid week game.

Our problems are intrinsic and no one else's perfomances are relevant....if we was playing Man U next game or Norwich....I would say the same.....We have to sort ourselves out.

Our character, right now, is on trial.....maybe hooking a few, mid game,( not just for the sake of it, genuine free loaders) might tell us who the fighters are and who the whingers are....We have to dig deep, and fight our way out of these doldrums.

 

Something that concerned me after the Arsenal game, was in Smiths interview, he said something along the lines of:

"we got bullied and muscled off the ball for most of the match, it was disappointing and something that rarely happens to my teams".

My immediate reaction & response was:

1) Double eyebrow raise in shock.

2) Thinking - im not sure you watch the same games as me Deano, because if i had to point to our one biggest weakness, its that we get out muscled and bullied a lot, and the one, single, biggest thing that an opposition team can do to roll us over is to bully and out muscle us, if they do we tend to fall apart quickly and lose our composure.

 

Now, i dont know if Deano was just saying it, knowing that it wasnt true to trying and defend/back the players, but my actual concern was that if he actually believes that, its really quite concerning, because even an amateur viewing our play, should know thats exactly how to get at us, and we dont like it when teams do.

Finally, i find it amazingly ironic, that we got bullied and out muscled by Arsenal, a team renowned over the last 10+ years for being soft as wet toilet paper, and quicker to fold than Superman on laundry day.

[villa4europe]

23 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Calling for him to be sacked at this point is IMO panic. 

agree

on the cohesion, i also agree that its not very good, the future of this team is not 5 at the back, absolutely **** not but at the same time i do think that when he gets the squad up to full strength and then gets the likes of watkins and buendia fitter we will see a different villa team

so far its a mixture of new players, international breaks, shit disrupted pre season, niggling injuries and poor fitness but we will get there

the 3 losses on the trot...gets away with it a bit thanks to the utd and everton results but the next 4 games are all winnable if we play our stuff or losable if we dont...i can see that its a test but at the same time i dont be negative for negative sake and automatically think we will lose them all

if we do lose them all then we should be around 17th / 18th double digits away from the top half and yeah he probably wont survive that run, if we only pick up a couple of draws with no formation change then he'll also be in toruble - but people need to at least give him the chance! at the moment we have fans arranging the funeral for a man who hasnt died yet

and the talk of "not good for anyone else in the league let alone us" needs to get in the **** bin, absolute bollocks that's embarrassing to read

[DaveAV1]

11 minutes ago, TRO said:

From Deans starting point to now, its fair to say we have progressed, albeit marginal and spent some weighty spondoolies on the way

Mid Championship to mid PL is hardly marginal. Secondly this constant mention of the money spent needs some context. We were virtually bankrupt having thrown away tens of millions through terrible financial and football management. So much so that we couldn’t pay our bills let alone attract or afford any decent players on to the books. So we had a squad full of players who were at the end of their careers or here only on loan. But you know that. 
 

The money we spent in the first summer after promotion was hardly enough to put a competitive squad together and in fact it was only just enough. The second summer after huge changes to our recruitment team we improved from relegation fodder to mid table. 
 

Third summer we lost our talisman and probably the single most important player we have had for I don’t remember how long. We sold him for £100m and spent £95m. We’ve hardly been Man City or Chelsea. Does it only count if we win matches on a shoestring? We’ll be waiting a long time if it does. 
 

Dean makes mistakes there is no doubt, but criticism of his ability in relation to his budget is way wide of the mark. 

[Cizzler]

The only team’s we’ve beaten playing this 3-5-2 system both conceded 5 goals apiece this weekend.

If Smith doesn’t revert back to four at the back and one up top, he’s clueless.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Listening to Sky in their analytics of Man U......I saw some similarities to our team too.

Sure, they have better individuals than us, but in terms of the team, and its way of playing and their weaknesses, I see similar traits with us.

Yep, I think there's definitely something to learn for us from United - trying to make a shape to accommodate as many of their attacking players as possible has left them weak in the middle - we can't be tempted into the same error by trying to force Bailey, Buendia, Watkins and and Ings into the same line up.

In terms of style, I think our strength is their weakness, we're good at chasing teams, getting at them, nipping the ball away and getting it forward quickly, and both in terms of shape and individuals they don't seem to have that in them. In terms of our weaknesses, we can definitely learn a lot from Liverpool, they also chase and harry well, but when they win the ball, they take care of it and don't just give it straight back.

[bobzy]

7 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

The only team’s we’ve beaten playing this 3-5-2 system both conceded 5 goals apiece this weekend.

If Smith doesn’t revert back to four at the back and one up top, he’s clueless.