Team shape, tactics and personnel

[TRO]

1 hour ago, DaveAV1 said:

Why? There are segments called seasons that are made up of 38 games. At the end of the season we know where we are, at the moment over the period of the last two segments that have been completed we finished 17th and 11th. Within those seasons there were highs and lows. Arbitrarily choosing other periods only shows when we did well and when we did badly.
 

We have an army of stats gatherers, who can probably tell you how many times Tyrone Mings blinked or how often Ollie Watkins scratched his left knee. I’d assume there is a purpose to these figures because we’re paying someone to do it and their input may be beneficial somehow in the future. I don’t really see the point in retrospectively dividing results up in to segments over a period of two years. It’s a harmless enough pastime I suppose. I’ve recently taken up fishing, which isn’t proving to be too difficult to analyse. I’m losing and the fish are winning. 

it identifies patterns....sure the league does it...but its more localised and quicker reactions can be mustered.

 why do you think companies create accounts monthly v budget......so they can address any out of control elements in their business and tactically manage them.....if they waited until end of financial year, the problem would be worsened. I guess stats are not for you, apologies for suggesting so.

oh! and sorry to have to hear about your fishing.

Edited October 25, 2021 by TRO

[Tommo_b]

I wouldn’t want to drop Mings for Hause.

Who steps in for McGinn, an unfit Sansom? 

Ollie could be dropped for Ings.

But we’ve played 352 as we haven’t had the wingers fit to play so why not play a formation that has gotten results, you could argue El Ghazi but I’d rather we had played 352 instead, but now Bailey and Troare are fit I expect a change to 1 upfront.

 

[DaveAV1]

10 minutes ago, TRO said:

it identifies patterns....sure the league does it...but its more localised and quicker reactions can be mustered.

 why do you think companies create accounts monthly v budget......so they can address any out of control elements in their business and tactically manage them.....if they waited until end of financial year, the problem would be worsened. I guess stats are not for you, apologies for suggesting so.

oh! and sorry to have to hear about your fishing.

Yes but you’re going back over a period of two years. If I were to go back over two years of your posts I’m pretty sure I’d be quite surprised to find that you now seem so keen on statistics. Perhaps it’s a new hobby like my fishing?

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Yes but you’re going back over a period of two years. If I were to go back over two years of your posts I’m pretty sure I’d be quite surprised to find that you now seem so keen on statistics. Perhaps it’s a new hobby like my fishing?

hahaha......strangely,enough  I'm not......but its hard to ignore facts.....when I watch the game, its my gut feeling and opinion....which I have been known to change.

but its 2 years at 4 increments each.

but when a series of results ( facts) stretched out in a line, form a pattern, I feel I have to consider that......and subsequently, when the patterns have consistent overtones of inconsistent results, it makes me take notice.....The notion of progression is put in to perspective, from an alternative slant.

if as opposed to 7-7-6-6.....it read 11-9-7-6......just as a random example ,I would buy that as progression of results, but its not....its close to static or Plateued

That is of course talking about progression of results, not of league tables.

promotion, then stability, then consolidation, is surely progression in that context of our league positioning......I was merely examining an alternative view, in an effort to unearth our inconsistency of results , not to condemn, anyone or anything.

Edited October 25, 2021 by TRO

[PaulC]

Not interested in talking about other managers while Smith is our manager. I'm more interested in how is he going to turn it. I think he should 

1. Go back to a formation which best suits our players 4-3-3
2.  Pick a more solid midfield maybe Luiz, McGinn and either Ramsey or Sanson
3. Break up the Ings and Watkins Partnership and go with Bailey, Watkins and Buendia

Some might say he should pick Ings but Watkins was brilliant in that lone central role last season and I don't think it suits him playing with Ings and Buendia who we have yet to see the best of can play the wide role as well. 

[Peter Griffin]

32 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Surprising how the odd few managers with the best squads, can afford to rotate players more. 

How often does it happen with every other club?

Surprised you think we don't have the squad to rotate. It is impossible to fit all of our attacking player into the same team, to be that suggests we can rotate. Rotate Ollie and Ings, but oh no, we need to play both at the same time. AEG, Bailey, Traore, Buendia all played their football out wide. So do we play 4 wide players in the same game or do we have an option to rotate? We have 4 CBs and we are playing 3 of them as starters. Just thinking outside the box, if we played 4 at the back instead of 5 maybe we could rotate our CBs.Midfield more difficult for Dean to rotate but I am fairly confident there are enough players there if we wanted to. 

[nick76]

9 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Not interested in talking about other managers while Smith is our manager. I'm more interested in how is he going to turn it. I think he should 

1. Go back to a formation which best suits our players 4-3-3
2.  Pick a more solid midfield maybe Luiz, McGinn and either Ramsey or Sanson
3. Break up the Ings and Watkins Partnership and go with Bailey, Watkins and Buendia

Some might say he should pick Ings but Watkins was brilliant in that lone central role last season and I don't think it suits him playing with Ings and Buendia who we have yet to see the best of can play the wide role as well. 

I agree mostly, I think I’d still pick Ings over Watkins because of form but happy either way.  The rest I agree with.

[Peter Griffin]

8 hours ago, villa4europe said:

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

Over what time period is the spending?

[villa4europe]

27 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

Over what time period is the spending?

Doesn't matter, that's the value of the players that each team used 

The fact that we had to spend that money over a shorter period of time to quickly assemble our team whereas the others have had a few years longer and time to settle is not a stick to beat Smith with 

The "we've spent £350m" criticism holds no weight because in reality that is mid table spending and we are mid table 

[Peter Griffin]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Doesn't matter, that's the value of the players that each team used 

The fact that we had to spend that money over a shorter period of time to quickly assemble our team whereas the others have had a few years longer and time to settle is not a stick to beat Smith with 

The "we've spent £350m" criticism holds no weight because in reality that is mid table spending and we are mid table 

So John McGinn is worth 2.5m and you ignore the money we have on the bench 

[villa4europe]

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

So John McGinn is worth 2.5m and you ignore the money we have on the bench 

Saka cost arsenal £0 and I ignored £75m pepe on the bench... 

Like I said I looked at the value of who played vs the value of who played 

If you want to look in to the value of the 25 man playing squad then go ahead, you won't get the answer you are looking for in the games vs Chelsea, Everton, man utd, spurs or arsenal and maybe wolves too ill also throw in man City, Liverpool, Leicester, West ham and suggest that we have the 11th most expensive squad in the league

Like I said our spending is mid table 

[Richie k]

Random input, havnt been following this thread much, but, anyone ever see ings and watkins link up in open play? it seems we had a plan with our singings, ie bailey and buendia, then we sold Grealish and randomly bought Ings. it seems we abandoned the original plan to accomadate  2 up front. I havnt been comfortablle with that even tho i rate Ings highly. persisting with this means putting pressure on midfield

Edited October 26, 2021 by Richie k

[ozvillafan]

58 minutes ago, Richie k said:

Random input, havnt been following this thread much, but, anyone ever see ings and watkins link up in open play? it seems we had a plan with our singings, ie bailey and buendia, then we sold Grealish and randomly bought Ings. it seems we abandoned the original plan to accomadate  2 up front. I havnt been comfortablle with that even tho i rate Ings highly. persisting with this means putting pressure on midfield

There's something in that.

Ings is a bit of a coup for the club. Excellent striker and we needed another since our backup for Ollie was proving a little underwhelming (Davis and the long-term injured Wesley).

Our issue is trying to fit them both together on the pitch when, imo, they fill the same role.

I still think they can link up - but not as a front 2. Playing wide in a front 3 might be the better option for Ollie.

[Woody1000]

9 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Saka cost arsenal £0 and I ignored £75m pepe on the bench... 

Like I said I looked at the value of who played vs the value of who played 

If you want to look in to the value of the 25 man playing squad then go ahead, you won't get the answer you are looking for in the games vs Chelsea, Everton, man utd, spurs or arsenal and maybe wolves too ill also throw in man City, Liverpool, Leicester, West ham and suggest that we have the 11th most expensive squad in the league

Like I said our spending is mid table 

I see you didn’t get a smug retort to this post then?….

[CVByrne]

Next four games will be key to our season. West Ham, Southamtpon, Brighton & Palace, as we play City, Leicest and Liverpool after those. We need to get some consistency out of the performances this yoyo level of performance is a serious issue. 

4 3 3 needs to be reverted to as we need that defensive solidity provided by the full backs not being caught out too far forward. We can return to the 3 5 2 for away games against the top sides, but it's a failure at home. 

Bailey, Traore and Ramsey need to be brought into the side at the expense of Buendia, Watkins and Tuanzebe. 

[bobzy]

4 hours ago, Richie k said:

Random input, havnt been following this thread much, but, anyone ever see ings and watkins link up in open play? it seems we had a plan with our singings, ie bailey and buendia, then we sold Grealish and randomly bought Ings. it seems we abandoned the original plan to accomadate  2 up front. I havnt been comfortablle with that even tho i rate Ings highly. persisting with this means putting pressure on midfield

As has been mentioned many times, I think the injuries to wide players (notably Bailey and Traore) have "forced" Smith into playing the 3-5-2/5-3-2 formation.  As expected, it's been great in some aspects and awful in others.  The open play link up with Watkins and Ings has been a real negative - perhaps they're too similar (and perhaps that's why we went for Ings, to rotate on the most part)  but they haven't clicked together.  That said, they played a massive role in the victory against Man Utd because their pressing - together - was immense and hassled that back line beautifully.  Pros and cons.

[lexicon]

21 minutes ago, bobzy said:

As has been mentioned many times, I think the injuries to wide players (notably Bailey and Traore) have "forced" Smith into playing the 3-5-2/5-3-2 formation.  As expected, it's been great in some aspects and awful in others.  The open play link up with Watkins and Ings has been a real negative - perhaps they're too similar (and perhaps that's why we went for Ings, to rotate on the most part)  but they haven't clicked together.  That said, they played a massive role in the victory against Man Utd because their pressing - together - was immense and hassled that back line beautifully.  Pros and cons.

I don't think the problems we've had have been down to the strikers tbh - it's more the lack of creativity and flair in the side without the use of wingers, as we don't get any inspiration from midfield either. The only one playing recently who you would expect to conjure something has been Buendia, and we all know what happens when we rely on just one person for our creative output. 4-4-2 could theoretically work but I'd be a bit worried about the CM as they're all used to playing in a three and would probably be overwhelmed by a decent side. 

[Zhan_Zhuang]

One thing that is bugging me is the balance of the right and left-side players.

Traore, Bailey and Buendia are all naturally right-side.

Buendia has a lot to do it would seem so theoretically he's out of my team.

For the front three do we go:

 

Watkins       Ings       Bailey 

Or:

Bailey         Watkins       Traore

Or:

Bailey         Ings         Buendia

 

[lexicon]

23 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

One thing that is bugging me is the balance of the right and left-side players.

Traore, Bailey and Buendia are all naturally right-side.

Buendia has a lot to do it would seem so theoretically he's out of my team.

For the front three do we go:

 

Watkins       Ings       Bailey 

Or:

Bailey         Watkins       Traore

Or:

Bailey         Ings         Buendia

 

 

 

Makes sense - I'd go with two or three tbh. We need some creativity and skill on the wing and Watkins doesn't offer that. 

[bobzy]

24 minutes ago, lexicon said:

I don't think the problems we've had have been down to the strikers tbh - it's more the lack of creativity and flair in the side without the use of wingers, as we don't get any inspiration from midfield either. The only one playing recently who you would expect to conjure something has been Buendia, and we all know what happens when we rely on just one person for our creative output. 4-4-2 could theoretically work but I'd be a bit worried about the CM as they're all used to playing in a three and would probably be overwhelmed by a decent side. 

Oh, I agree.  Just OP mentioned that the two strikers hadn't linked up well in open play, and I agree with that even if other elements to their game have been good.

The midfield is the issue.  We need to use McGinn more effectively up the pitch (or, he needs to get further up the pitch).  When he's bursting the ball and breaking lines, we look dangerous.  If he's not doing that, no-one else is.  Ramsey could probably do a similar role - and looks comfortable enough on the ball generally - but, whoever it is, that's what's needed.  Buendia hasn't done that well, even if he's had tidy bits of play (particularly against Wolves).  We need to have a forward runner from the midfield 3 linking with the width and the strikers.