Ratings & Reactions: Spurs v Villa

[PaulC]

49 minutes ago, TRO said:

You are right there, but was it tactics or just a better quality player applying what better skills he has to better effect.....I am inclined to think it is the latter.

Personally, I don't think we can keep throw a lack of creativity at all our ills, because other teams and the better they are the more profound it is, don't let us play.....we have to win the middle ground, before we can confidently seek to win the game.

sure we can make 2 break aways agains the lesser teams and win 2-0 or 2-1.......but if we want to progress properly, in to a European challenging team....we have to perform better in the middle of the park.

Yes I agree there the midfield is just not good enough or consistently good enough and that is the main problem. 

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Yes I agree there the midfield is just not good enough or consistently good enough and that is the main problem. 

It is consistency.....some days they can be very good....and we are all praising the midfield.

Our midfield is very good, when they are allowed to be....when we get clattered, we are easily distracted from our creative work....we find it difficult to win back the initiative in such circumstances.

I think, when it gets a bit physical, there is not enough muscle in there to negate it....and subsequently we lose the edge, we have in other games.

[OutByEaster?]

9 hours ago, TRO said:

We could play 4-4-2....with an asymmetrical midfield using one winger and 3 midfielders....when Bailey is fit.

I was thinking this - a midfield four of Bailey---Sanson-----Luiz-------McGinn maybe?

I'm not entirely convinced.

[TRO]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I was thinking this - a midfield four of Bailey---Sanson-----Luiz-------McGinn maybe?

I'm not entirely convinced.

or 4-3-3 with Bailey -Ings -Watkins

Luiz-McGinn-Buendia or Ramsey.

Not sure about Sanson, just can't appraise him due to absence.

[flashingqwerty]

On 03/10/2021 at 18:43, DCJonah said:

Well this shows things will never change. The usual crowd can't wait to have a moan. 

Starting with the same system wasn't crazy, we've played our best football since Covid hit us these last few games. 

I'd have probably brought Buendia and Traore on earlier but then we got ourselves back into the game. 

For me it wasn't a system error, it was just we had way too many players under perform. Too many bad touches, poor passes and terrible decision making. We might get away with 1 or 2 players off it, but not with so many. Not sure why but I trust us to bounce back. 

Spurs, despite their issues, are still a strong team. Getting annoyed because we haven't beaten Everton, united and spurs in consecutive games just shows the continued progress under Smith. 

You'd think by now people would have realised that this is the life of a mid table premier league team. 

So when you sit and watch our 3 cm's get beaten to every 50-50 and totally outplayed and overrun, you don't think "I should change this"?

Spurs are in dire form and we're there for the taking, and at least 4 of our starting 11 choked.  A few early changes could have turned the game, but we'll never know now cod DS doesn't do early changes despite how much he goes on about options, different ways to play, etc.

He has his favourites and only changes when late in the day, and not to change the game.  It's frustrating and he needs to learn from this.

[flashingqwerty]

On 03/10/2021 at 20:03, hippo said:

I think the options are our problem. Last season BT or AEG would have played.

In place of those we have Ings - a fox in the box - whose seems to play anywhere but the box.

That's not an issue with options though is it?  It's signing a player who doesn't fit our style of play and shoehorning them in anyway.

All 3cms were poor all game, he could have changed that long before 80m to try and change the game and chose not to because he has favourites.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

So when you sit and watch our 3 cm's get beaten to every 50-50 and totally outplayed and overrun, you don't think "I should change this"?

Spurs are in dire form and we're there for the taking, and at least 4 of our starting 11 choked.  A few early changes could have turned the game, but we'll never know now cod DS doesn't do early changes despite how much he goes on about options, different ways to play, etc.

He has his favourites and only changes when late in the day, and not to change the game.  It's frustrating and he needs to learn from this.

I think you are spot on in your observations, as much as I don't want to admit it either.

Spurs intial objective was to stop us,due to their recent form and they had the personnel to do that( That same personnel's application was missing against Arsenal, they was ridiculed and rollicked in to a performance)..... once that intitaitive was secured, they concentrated on winning the game.

Our midfield, not to be too unkind, is lightwieght, with no aerial power or great ability to stop opponents, consequently the defence is exposed a bit too often in certain games.

When teams allow us to play( fancy their chances) we do better....this is evident, when we play the lower placed teams, we can struggle, because they stop us playing as their first objective and we don't have the personnel to negate that....we have 3 central midfielders who are modest in physicality and are easily brushed aside, subsequently creativity dies, because we are chasing the ball back.

We have to sort out this midfield balance, in order to move forward.

ps These comments come with a caveat.......we have done great so far, in our journey, back.....and so much in the football club is right.

Edited October 6, 2021 by TRO

[tom_avfc]

On 04/10/2021 at 14:34, QldVilla said:

Yes and Leicester had 3 players who played 36 games and 3 who played 35 games through the season. The rest played less than 35 games. The point being made is not to rotate every game, but to acknowledge the possibility that after a month of playing Chelsea twice, Everton, Manure and then Spurs that making 1-2 changes may have been advantageous in certain positions. You are kidding yourself if you believe 11 players can play a 38 game season and not be challenged both physically and psychologically and their performance not be affected.

Just looking at this point on Leicester's rotation from a quick Wikipedia search I get the following appearances:

38 - Schmeichel and Morgan; 36 Mahrez (1 sub) and Vardy; 35 - Huth and Drinkwater; 34 - Albrighton (4 subs); 33 - Kante (4 subs); 30 Christian Fuchs (2 subs) and Danny Simpson.

Thats 10 players that started at least 30 games in a Premier League season. Vardy, Drinkwater, Simpson and Huth were all suspended for at least 1 game in that season. Additionally you'd have to take into account the fact that injuries will have reduced some of these appearances. 

I think to say that Leicester won the league without rotating is a pretty valid point given the above. They got on a good run and didn't see any reason to change things with the momentum they were on.

For me it would have been more of an issue if we'd "rested" players the week before an international break and then lost the match. As it is Spurs have one or two players who are head and shoulders above what we have and therefore are capable of beating anybody on their day. Slating a manager for not rotating a team that had just won away at Old Trafford over a week previously seems a bit much to me.

[QldVilla]

29 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

Just looking at this point on Leicester's rotation from a quick Wikipedia search I get the following appearances:

38 - Schmeichel and Morgan; 36 Mahrez (1 sub) and Vardy; 35 - Huth and Drinkwater; 34 - Albrighton (4 subs); 33 - Kante (4 subs); 30 Christian Fuchs (2 subs) and Danny Simpson.

Thats 10 players that started at least 30 games in a Premier League season. Vardy, Drinkwater, Simpson and Huth were all suspended for at least 1 game in that season. Additionally you'd have to take into account the fact that injuries will have reduced some of these appearances. 

I think to say that Leicester won the league without rotating is a pretty valid point given the above. They got on a good run and didn't see any reason to change things with the momentum they were on.

For me it would have been more of an issue if we'd "rested" players the week before an international break and then lost the match. As it is Spurs have one or two players who are head and shoulders above what we have and therefore are capable of beating anybody on their day. Slating a manager for not rotating a team that had just won away at Old Trafford over a week previously seems a bit much to me.

Point out to me where the manager was being slated….??

The original point being made was that the team was flat against Spurs and after the month we had making 2-3 changes may freshen up the team.

Maybe read all the posts before you jump to a conclusion.

PS whether a player is injured, suspended or other it is still a rotation, using Leceister is just a poor argument and showing no understanding of sports science. Realty is today’s game requires some form of rotation of squad to maintain high performance levels over a season. I also made the point in my original post that Spurs have a couple of world class players in their squad that can rip apart any team in the PL on their day, so thanks for quoting me.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

So when you sit and watch our 3 cm's get beaten to every 50-50 and totally outplayed and overrun, you don't think "I should change this"?

Spurs are in dire form and we're there for the taking, and at least 4 of our starting 11 choked.  A few early changes could have turned the game, but we'll never know now cod DS doesn't do early changes despite how much he goes on about options, different ways to play, etc.

He has his favourites and only changes when late in the day, and not to change the game.  It's frustrating and he needs to learn from this.

If he has favourites, that is hard to change, because it borders on how he see's the game.

You seem to think we lost it in midfield, I think we did too, but maybe Dean doesn't think that.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

That's not an issue with options though is it?  It's signing a player who doesn't fit our style of play and shoehorning them in anyway.

All 3cms were poor all game, he could have changed that long before 80m to try and change the game and chose not to because he has favourites.

You say that,( highlighted) "whoscored" rated them all as 6+ 's......I seen too many loose balls lost to the opposition, in such circumstances, how can the forwards prosper....where is the service to them?

We can't just play in the midfield, we have to WIN the midfield, and on some occasions like sunday, we didn't.

I think Danny Ings is becoming a red herring.....leave him out right now and nothing in terms of what we are talking about will change IMO.

[flashingqwerty]

14 hours ago, TRO said:

If he has favourites, that is hard to change, because it borders on how he see's the game.

You seem to think we lost it in midfield, I think we did too, but maybe Dean doesn't think that.

If he doesn't, then we have a bigger problem...

[flashingqwerty]

14 hours ago, TRO said:

You say that,( highlighted) "whoscored" rated them all as 6+ 's......I seen too many loose balls lost to the opposition, in such circumstances, how can the forwards prosper....where is the service to them?

We can't just play in the midfield, we have to WIN the midfield, and on some occasions like sunday, we didn't.

I think Danny Ings is becoming a red herring.....leave him out right now and nothing in terms of what we are talking about will change IMO.

WhoScored appear to have been very generous to Villa, meanwhile many other publications have the same three players rated a 5, which is more in line with what I saw, and more in line with the stats.

Villas 3 cm's had an average passes between them of 22 each, Tottenham had an overage over 50.  Pass completion Villa 72% Spurs 85%, hojberg attempted and completed more passes, through balls, crosses and long balls than our 3 combined

So I have no idea how they rated them so similarly. Similar trends can be seen across all the stats.

[TRO]

10 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

If he doesn't, then we have a bigger problem...

we will see.

[TRO]

11 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

WhoScored appear to have been very generous to Villa, meanwhile many other publications have the same three players rated a 5, which is more in line with what I saw, and more in line with the stats.

Villas 3 cm's had an average passes between them of 22 each, Tottenham had an overage over 50.  Pass completion Villa 72% Spurs 85%, hojberg attempted and completed more passes, through balls, crosses and long balls than our 3 combined

So I have no idea how they rated them so similarly. Similar trends can be seen across all the stats.

My general point is.....we have to do better than that to have any chance of beating a team like Spurs.

[OutByEaster?]

On 06/10/2021 at 17:38, TRO said:

We can't just play in the midfield, we have to WIN the midfield, and on some occasions like sunday, we didn't.

Oddly, against Spurs, I saw the opposite, we competed with them, we won lots of battles and then we were appalling with the ball, wayward passing, poor decisions and a general lack of care. 

 

[TRO]

47 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Oddly, against Spurs, I saw the opposite, we competed with them, we won lots of battles and then we were appalling with the ball, wayward passing, poor decisions and a general lack of care. 

 

Ok...but why was Hojbjerg in the position he was in, to score the goal, if we was winning all the battles?....He is a midfielder, who has ventured forward, why was he allowed in that position unchallenged to do that?

I know its only one incident, but I saw more, than just that.

When opposition midfielders have licence to threaten around the 18 yard area, its a clear indication to me the midfield has been breached.

but hey, just my opinion......I agree with the passing too, though.

Edited October 14, 2021 by TRO

[villalad21]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Ok...but why was Hojbjerg in the position he was in, to score the goal, if we was winning all the battles?....He is a midfielder, who has ventured forward, why was he allowed in that position unchallenged to do that?

I know its only one incident, but I saw more, than just that.

When opposition midfielders have licence to threaten around the 18 yard area, its a clear indication to me the midfield has been breached.

but hey, just my opinion......I agree with the passing too, though.

Sounds like a familiar tune.