Ratings & Reactions: Spurs v Villa

[Sulberto21]

1 hour ago, QldVilla said:

I'm disappointed with the loss, but would have been happy with a point.

For me the game cried out for a bit of rotation, as we have had Chelsea, Everton, Chelsea, Manure & Spurs, and yes I know we played mostly kids in the Cup game, but we have been playing at a high level for 3 weeks against very good teams. There is always going to be a bit of fatigue after a run like that whether physical, mental or both and this is why the better teams have big squads.

As great as Ramsey has been playing, he's 19 and probably deserved a rest, I would have brought Tuanzebe back in and probably Young at LWB for their experience. We could have done with a fresh Sanson today in the midfield had he not been injured and raises the issue that if we want to play 3 midfielders, we are probably short one quality player to rotate and maintain the pressing over 90 minutes each game, week in week out.

Spurs had to win today, they have been under the pump and while they weren't brilliant today they still have players like Son, Kane etc who can hurt any team in the PL at any time. They just got us on a day where we were off by 1%.

And as you say that 1% drop means that the team looks as flat as a pancake especially when 5/6 of them are that 1% off.

[Follyfoot]

In the 352 formation we lack quality getting the balls to the centre forwards. I think we need to abandon the formation and go back to 433 with either Watkins or Ings sitting on the bench. Not ideal but we would be a better attacking unit that way. This would also push the full backs back to defend rather than constantly get caught out in attack. That second goal does not happen with that formation

[thunderball]

1 hour ago, Follyfoot said:

In the 352 formation we lack quality getting the balls to the centre forwards. I think we need to abandon the formation and go back to 433 with either Watkins or Ings sitting on the bench. Not ideal but we would be a better attacking unit that way. This would also push the full backs back to defend rather than constantly get caught out in attack. That second goal does not happen with that formation

Surely we can play this with 3 forwards:     Watkins - Ings - Bailey;

and the three in midfield:                                McGinn - Buendia - Luiz or Sanson 

[delboy54]

It is all my fault - I have to humbly apologise to all at Aston Villa F.C., players and staff and of course all you good people at Villa Talk...

Last week predicting that we would lose against man yoo I decided to wood stain my internal doors with Osmo oil 3033 instead of following the match on here - imagine my surprise later on when I found out that we had won.

This Sunday I decide to replace some guttering anticipating a similar result - imagine my disappointment when I heard that we had lost.

 

Next week during the game I will be switching back to putting another coat of Osma door oil whether they need it or not - obviously working on the guttering was the wrong thing to do at the same time Villa were playing and for this hideous mistake I once again deeply apologise......

Regards to all

Derek

[Awol]

14 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Haha. Very good.

I thought we did a good job of winning the ball, our pressing was the best part of our game. 

I thought we gave the ball away far too often with our passing. 

Computer says yes. Not really sure what explains such bad numbers across the board, unless as a group they lost their nerve after the first 10 mins? 

 

[tomav84]

5 hours ago, QldVilla said:

I'm disappointed with the loss, but would have been happy with a point.

For me the game cried out for a bit of rotation, as we have had Chelsea, Everton, Chelsea, Manure & Spurs, and yes I know we played mostly kids in the Cup game, but we have been playing at a high level for 3 weeks against very good teams. There is always going to be a bit of fatigue after a run like that whether physical, mental or both and this is why the better teams have big squads.

As great as Ramsey has been playing, he's 19 and probably deserved a rest, I would have brought Tuanzebe back in and probably Young at LWB for their experience. We could have done with a fresh Sanson today in the midfield had he not been injured and raises the issue that if we want to play 3 midfielders, we are probably short one quality player to rotate and maintain the pressing over 90 minutes each game, week in week out.

Spurs had to win today, they have been under the pump and while they weren't brilliant today they still have players like Son, Kane etc who can hurt any team in the PL at any time. They just got us on a day where we were off by 1%.

hindsight being a wonderful thing, how many thought when we saw an unchanged line up really thought "hmm...should have rotated this a bit"

[TRO]

I don't think our issues are about formation or missing players, to that degree.....I think the devil is in the detail.

Its the quickness to control the ball, its then the speed to deliver it, its the where the little decisions can be made quicker, its the runs off the ball as Ollie eloquently showed for his goal.....its bits of indecision, that slow us down.

We then lose bouncing balls, or loose balls and fail to close down crucial passes that lead to goals against.....its all the detailed stuff, we need to do better.

Its the little things....The big things, we have mastered already.....we are not far away, it that bit of consistency of quality.

We are essentially a good team and could have won that game as easily as we could have lost by more.....However, we do need to get Ollie and Danny working better together and we do need to avoid giving the ball away so cheaply.

I think much of our issues is training ground stuff or better quailty of player, if they can't improve.

Edited October 4, 2021 by TRO

[TRO]

13 hours ago, vreitti said:

Well yeah, but it's far too soon for such conclusions, after 7 games. I firmly believe we'll see more consistency this season. 

I'm talking about where we are, what we have done so far......I am talking about facts, not supposition or forecasts.

I too think we will improve, because we are work in progress....i am just talking about events this season only.

[danceoftheshamen]

I think playing this 532 system is basically nullifying our attacking play. It is relying on Cash & Targett to suddenly become consistently good as an attacking threat adding goals & assists to their game in abundance. I just can't see this happening often enough to justify using the system consistently. On the odd occasion maybe but Watkins & Ings, a potentially top notch duo, are chasing shadows in this system and with Cash & Targetts usually poor delivery of crosses & through balls coming to the fore they are getting no service or are nullified by having to go out of position to get the ball.

No coincidence that we suddenly stuck 3 past Everton when Bailey replaced Targett. 

[TRO]

16 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Disagree that scoreline flattered us. It’s not like Spurs had loads of gold plated opportunities. Think 2-1 was about the right result.

(Edit: xG has it Spurs 1.44 - 1.14 Villa, so we were second best but wasn’t a clear win for them. I think a lot of the frustration is more because we all know Spurs are in a rut and could have been beaten with a better performance.)

It depends if the so called rut is just a blip or deep rooted.

Spurs displayed elements of quality on the ball, their touch and their ability to shut us out was there.....Their work on the ball was slicker and showed better control......They are essentially a quaility side who have had a few bad games, unfortunately they gathered their pride and applied themselves, which I suspected they would.

I didn't think we was that bad.....If we had of been a bit quicker to the ball and the loose balls, the score could have been different.

However, The space Hojbjerg had is concerning about our positional play....no one closed him down or made him work for the shot.

Edited October 4, 2021 by TRO

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, thunderball said:

Surely we can play this with 3 forwards:     Watkins - Ings - Bailey;

and the three in midfield:                                McGinn - Buendia - Luiz or Sanson 

The problem with that is that in reality it's four forwards and two midfielders - and we've proved before that having just McGinn and Luiz in there gives us no footing in games.

 

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, danceoftheshamen said:

I think playing this 532 system is basically nullifying our attacking play. It is relying on Cash & Targett to suddenly become consistently good as an attacking threat adding goals & assists to their game in abundance. I just can't see this happening often enough to justify using the system consistently. On the odd occasion maybe but Watkins & Ings, a potentially top notch duo, are chasing shadows in this system and with Cash & Targetts usually poor delivery of crosses & through balls coming to the fore they are getting no service or are nullified by having to go out of position to get the ball.

No coincidence that we suddenly stuck 3 past Everton when Bailey replaced Targett. 

I think its more to do with failing to get any players acheiving an 8.....we are getting 6's and 7's, but not many 8's

Brentford, made a good fist of this formation at West Ham and we did at Old Trafford.......for me its about players dominating the ball and dominating their position.

I accept, not playing with the same formation all season......but we can't keep playing with certain players needing help........change formation and you are robbing Peter, to pay Paul.

These players need to dominate their opposite number, more often, they can't keep looking for help.

We are what we are and have done great.....but if we want to move on, better quality in certain positions needs to be sought.....and I think deep down we know that.

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The problem with that is that in reality it's four forwards and two midfielders - and we've proved before that having just McGinn and Luiz in there gives us no footing in games.

 

Is correct.

There will come a time, when we have to face up to that, if we want to progress to European football.

There are Oodles of formations and theories, for me, I want to see my central 2 in midfield Dominate......Dominate the ball, dominate their opposite number, Dictate the play and pull the strings, and above all stop the opposition gaining initiative in the game.

Despite us coming on leaps and bounds, I still think we have some way to go.....Players have to punch their own weight and we can't keep adding extra bodies to cope.

2 quality centre backs and 2 quality central midfielders should cope on their own....if we have to give them reinforcements, something is not quite right.

 

[TRO]

16 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

You do know we are only 7 games in right?  Chill

I think what he is saying is......those that see things to improve on, see them in games we win as well as when we lose.

not so easy to talk about when we win, though.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

I don’t think the formation was the issue yesterday, we had plenty of the ball and plenty of opportunities - they didn’t always translate into an effort on goal so won’t show up in the stats but that was down to combinations of poor passes and poor decisions.

The reality is that if we were to persist with 3 at the back the squad just isn’t well set up for it, it would leave us with one senior backup central defender and would render Bailey, El Ghazi, Traore, Trezeguet and possibly Buendia as largely redundant, so I don’t think we’ll stick with it.

That said, we have looked relatively solid and appear to have a better level of control of games with 3 at the back, so it’s a bit of a tough one for Smith et al.

I guess it may come down to the fitness and availability of Bailey in particular, it’s almost worth it alone (potentially, based on what we’ve seen so far) to play the 4-3-3 to have him in the starting XI but without him, there’s a good basis for sticking with the 3-5-2/5-3-2.

[TRO]

We was too easy to nullify yesterday.

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I don't think our issues are about formation or missing players, to that degree.....I think the devil is in the detail.

Its the quickness to control the ball, its then the speed to deliver it, its the where the little decisions can be made quicker, its the runs off the ball as Ollie eloquently showed for his goal.....its bits of indecision, that slow us down.

We then lose bouncing balls, or loose balls and fail to close down crucial passes that lead to goals against.....its all the detailed stuff, we need to do better.

Its the little things....The big things, we have mastered already.....we are not far away, it that bit of consistency of quality.

We are essentially a good team and could have won that game as easily as we could have lost by more.....However, we do need to get Ollie and Danny working better together and we do need to avoid giving the ball away so cheaply.

I think much of our issues is training ground stuff or better quailty of player, if they can't improve.

But then by having players with lesser technical ability to provide the service it proves that formation is an issue. 

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, PaulC said:

But then by having players with lesser technical ability to provide the service it proves that formation is an issue. 

In that context yes.....but to extrapolate that, you can't have an extra player for every dep't.....defence, midfield & up front.

We are just redeploying a similar problem and in some cases the outcome is the same....i.e robbing Peter to pay Paul.

My point is certain  players individually have to do better, to contribute collectively, to the outcome.

i.e Its like giving a salesman a personal administrator, eventually they all want one.

Edited October 4, 2021 by TRO

[QldVilla]

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

hindsight being a wonderful thing, how many thought when we saw an unchanged line up really thought "hmm...should have rotated this a bit"

Geez I don’t know, maybe understanding sport at an elite level and knowing that elite teams rotate their squads to maintain high performance levels would be a hint. It is impossible to maintain high levels week in week out without rotation especially when playing elite teams in the PL. Asking a 20 year old without a full season playing week in week out at a high level and not expecting a performance drop regularly??

The point you missed was Smith couldn’t rotate the midfield because Sanson is injured and Nakamba isn’t strong enough to play 90 minutes consistently. But certainly Tuanzebe and Young could have come in. It also sends a message to the whole squad no matter the performance high standards must be maintained.

PS no hindsight in my comments, I just don’t write every thought I have on this forum, I expected some form of rotation.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Is correct.

There will come a time, when we have to face up to that, if we want to progress to European football.

There are Oodles of formations and theories, for me, I want to see my central 2 in midfield Dominate......Dominate the ball, dominate their opposite number, Dictate the play and pull the strings, and above all stop the opposition gaining initiative in the game.

Despite us coming on leaps and bounds, I still think we have some way to go.....Players have to punch their own weight and we can't keep adding extra bodies to cope.

2 quality centre backs and 2 quality central midfielders should cope on their own....if we have to give them reinforcements, something is not quite right.

 

I'm not sure that's true anymore - in order to play just two, you've got to have an exceptional two and then you've got to hugely limit them in terms of what you ask them to do - think Rice and Phillips for England. In the modern game, good teams put three in there - PSG with all the resources in the world have three in the middle, Liverpool do, Man City do, Chelsea do and one of theirs is N'Golo Kante. Things always change, but certainly in the modern era, two men dominating the middle of the park isn't something we see anymore.