Jump to content

Team shape, tactics and personnel


MaVilla

Recommended Posts

this with our spending...take the figures from transfermarkt and work out the 11-14 players taht featured for each team, give or take a few million of rinaccuracy of the reported figures - 

villa £217m vs arsenal £329m

villa £191m vs wolves £195m

villa £198m vs spurs £290m

put it in the bin...the only teams we will have played this season that we spent more than on the pitch at the time will be watford, brentford and probably newcastle, our spend is not a measuring stick or an argument, we are not blowing teams away with our spending, not even close

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

We should have had at least 2 goals first half, proper, proper chances 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Willard said:

Back to 433 please. 

Bailey Ings Buendia 

Ramsey DL McGinn  

Usual back 4. 

 

 

 

Sanson for Ramsey and Ollie wide instead of Buendia, rest I agree with 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Chelsea match, I don't think the 3-5-2 formation was actually the reason we were good in the first half. It was more Saul having one of the worst debuts I've ever seen, constantly losing the ball away in dangerous positions to our midfield press. Once he was removed out of the equation, Chelsea were fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Sanson for Ramsey and Ollie wide instead of Buendia, rest I agree with 

Yeah, id even be tempted to play Traore if fit, over Buendia atm. I don't like Ollie wide, he is too selfish to play that role, shown that too many times this season already. 

I think Ramsey deserves his chance over Sanson but which ever of the 3 isn't performing can easily be dropped for Sanson. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Laughable Chimp said:

On the Chelsea match, I don't think the 3-5-2 formation was actually the reason we were good in the first half. It was more Saul having one of the worst debuts I've ever seen, constantly losing the ball away in dangerous positions to our midfield press. Once he was removed out of the equation, Chelsea were fine.

I think that's harsh on us, we pressed him really well, he isn't a bum they picked up the day before we played them, we got after him by design 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, villalad21 said:

What is he going to do with Bailey fit?

Play Ings and Watkins and a 2 man midfield? I think this will create a different set of problems.

Don't think we're good enough to get away with a 2 man midfield.

You stopped reading after I said that he now has Bailey back.

I said that we should play a 3 man midfield, and then 3 of Traore, Buendia, Bailey, Ings and Watkins in attack.

I would like to see a midfield 3 of Luiz, McGinn and Sanson get a run of games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, villa4europe said:

I think that's harsh on us, we pressed him really well, he isn't a bum they picked up the day before we played them, we got after him by design 

Nah, I'm standing my ground on this. Just asked a mate of mine who's a Chelsea fan and apparently he's barely played since the match against us and he's not even sure he would make the matchday squad if everyone was really fit. There is a reason Simeone let him go.

It seems like he is just genuinely that bad and that match against us was just a trial by fire for him by Tuchel. A trial he failed spectacularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Willard said:

Back to 433 please. 

Bailey Ings Buendia 

Ramsey DL McGinn  

Usual back 4. 

 

 

 

Would be happy with this.

Surely before Grealish‘d sale was forced on us, we were buying Buendia to play on the right opposite Jack, so a forward three of:

Grealish - Watkins - Buendia

So with Grealish now gone the only fundamental change would be Bailey in lieu of Grealish? 

Integrating two new creatives in a side in one go is a big ask, so why then further complicate it by shoe-horning Ings into a forward line and going 3 at the back when there was nothing wrong with our defence last season??

Ings is a very good player, we needed another forward in the squad, but don’t play them all at once, let them compete and rotate, keep each other on their toes? Lots of other teams seem to be able to do that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

I would like to see a midfield 3 of Luiz, McGinn and Sanson get a run of games.

Yeah, to me that sounds like the strongest midfield we have. I appreciate we haven't see Sanson play so I am making some assumptions but I think Sanson looks a good player. I also fell like Smith will play those 3 in the middle when he feels they are all fit. But if we are to play that it will mean Smith playing 4 at the back. I am assuming that following the showing at Arsenal that Smith has learned his lesson and we will start 433. So the big question is; will Deano drop either Ings or Ollie. I hope he has the balls to do so, it would be quite telling if he doesn't

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be 4-3-3 really.

Dosen't mean we're going to turn over West ham but will surely mean we're far more competitive in general spells of the game against probable top 8 team.

Other option would be back to 4-2-3-1 but that just feels Man. United esque, too top heavy in final third particularly with it not clicking for our forward players yet in terms of link up play.

I think an easy win would be to start Bailey on Sunday as that will lift the crowd massively seeing him actually start a game so for a spell the likely nervous atmosphere won't be a thing and it's up to the team to get on the front foot and try to unsettle West Ham and then as ever Holte end will respond to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lord Willard said:

Back to 433 please. 

Bailey Ings Buendia 

Ramsey DL McGinn  

Usual back 4. 

 

 

 

This is it for me, only with Sanson in for JJ assuming he's fit and not halfway back to France after apparently throwing the biggest fit the world has ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Indigo said:

This is it for me, only with Sanson in for JJ assuming he's fit and not halfway back to France after apparently throwing the biggest fit the world has ever seen.

what fit, can you elaborate ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get this cohesion complaint to be honest. 

In the summer, most accepted that losing Jack late in the window was going to be an issue.

Against Watford, we started with young and el ghazi out wide. Against Brentford, we started with carney and young in CM.

Buendia, after a year in the championship, is not up to full prem speed. Bailey, arguably could be our best player, hasn't been able to start a game for us. 

Ings and Watkins are learning to play together and we've tried a different formation. 

And yet, people are surprised that cohesion might be an issue early on in the season. 

And the same people who seem to have no patience, are the same people that criticise the manager for relying on Jack too much in previous years. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

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.

sorry typo, missed "not" out between are and just on my top line.

 

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

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.

I couldn't have put it any better....but you do realise, we are in the minority ,on here.

I still see it as a derivative of our main problem.....I have concerns of the application and mental approach to our games and the culture of that being bred....or are we just simply missing a trick in recruitment....do we need some strong characters to join the squad, to help us impliment and apply the talent thats is dormant at times.

I think he ( Dean)was right, by the way, on this occasion, just a bit late admitting it.....and I am yet to see any compelling evidence of " The system " being the main culprit, despite the clamour for such.....Having said that, I don't favour 3-5-2...so changing it has not complaints from me.

Some of our attemts at defending set pieces, mainly corners are "wimp" like and I make no apologies for such disparaging remarks....I look at other teams with envy, how they attack the ball with gusto and determination...They say goals change games, but some of the half soaked, attempts we make at getting a grip of the ball, are enough to see us floundering in a game.....I could talk around the line for hours....but "we are too easy to play against".....if Dean and the coaches, can't see that, I fear for them.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

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.

In terms of pressing, I think we are a middling team.....not the best, not the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â