Ratings & Reactions: Spurs v Villa

[bannedfromHandV]

31 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

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.

Impossible?

Ask Leicester and Ranieri how impossible’ it is to not rotate.

If a team is not in Europe and assuming that long runs in both cups are unlikely then rotation really shouldn’t be that necessary.

[QldVilla]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Impossible?

Ask Leicester and Ranieri how impossible’ it is to not rotate.

If a team is not in Europe and assuming that long runs in both cups are unlikely then rotation really shouldn’t be that necessary.

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.

Edited October 4, 2021 by limpid
fixed formatting

[TRO]

25 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

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.

 

I think it depends how you interpret it.

as you say Phillips and Rice do for England.

Liverpool have Henderson and Fabinho

Man city have Rodri sometimes Fernandinho

Chelsea have Kante and Jorginho

Man Utd have McTominay & Fred, sometimes matic.

Leicester have Ndidi 

Southampton have Romeu & JWP

And so on......

When you play 3 one at least takes on the dominant role, in some cases 2 do......and the other/s take on a more creative role.

If you play 3 none-Dominant or relatively passive midfielders, you are putting pressure on the back line and possibly failing to secure the midfield initiative.....They might be great passers of the ball, but one at least has to dig in and stop the oppositions passages of play.

You might think the Graeme Souness days have gone, but in a more veiled way, they haven't.....its more stealthier today, to sync with the rules...but dominating midfield, is still there, in whatever format you wish to see it in.

Just being a good passer of the ball, is not enough, albeit essential......to progress to a higher level

[RicRic]

21 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Random note, I've always thought it's bizarre that none of the " Elite " teams have ever made a serious attempt for Son.

I'd have him over the likes of Kane all day, incredible player.

Seen him at a restaurant after the game and told him you always come alive against us he put his hand to his chest and said “ sorry sorry” with a huge smile. I said its all good man your a special player . I thought wow what a genuine guy ... not better than seeing Cash after last weeks game against United though of course

Edited October 4, 2021 by RicRic

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

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.

Thats what we have done robbed Peter to pay Paul.  We're taking away an attacking player to really accomodate Ings and watkins. You might say it worked against Everton and Man U but i'm convinced we'd have beaten Everton with a 4-3-3 system and in essence when Bailey came on thats what we were anyway. Against Man U it worked. Last season at Spurs we played a 4-3-3- and won.  Yes individuals didnt perform to the best of their ability. I honestly dont think they better technically than us. Kane and Son are top class players but they are not the side they used to be. We're using the long ball too much. The Cash long throw ins is becoming predictable. 

[tinker]

Close game and that tells us how far we have come, watching Spurs wasting time at the end..... 

[villaglint]

8 minutes ago, tinker said:

Close game and that tells us how far we have come, watching Spurs wasting time at the end..... 

Maybe a little but probably says more about how Spurs have dropped off in recent years. Thought both sides were poor, it was an opportunity to put a win on the board against a rival in the section of the league we want to see ourselves in. That’s the disappointment.

I thought the shape did us no favours yesterday but agree it’s difficult for Smith to change it for yesterday. Hopefully now the horses for courses route will get more trust. 

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Thats what we have done robbed Peter to pay Paul.  We're taking away an attacking player to really accomodate Ings and watkins. You might say it worked against Everton and Man U but i'm convinced we'd have beaten Everton with a 4-3-3 system and in essence when Bailey came on thats what we were anyway. Against Man U it worked. Last season at Spurs we played a 4-3-3- and won.  Yes individuals didnt perform to the best of their ability. I honestly dont think they better technically than us. Kane and Son are top class players but they are not the side they used to be. We're using the long ball too much. The Cash long throw ins is becoming predictable. 

its not if they get their head on it.....Its not the throw in ,is predictable, its the execution of heading the ball on thats predictable...We have to fight for the blessed thing.

but Ings and Watkins are attacking players, you can only have so many, before it becomes imbalanced.

Lets be fair here, their central midfielder opened the scoring, despite having 2 world class goal scorers on the pitch.

[thunderball]

2 hours 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.

 

To an extent, depends on the game: opponent and home/away. I dont expect us to play the same 11 or formation every week, we surely have a squad broad enough, when fit, to change it up. I was only responding to the previous post suggesting we could play that formation and keep Watkins and INgs in the same side.

When we beat Liverpool 7-2 last season, the team was 4-3-3 with Trez and Grealish either side of Watkins up front, and Barkley in the advanced 10 role (i.e. almost as second striker and with little defensive output). In this set up you can see how we could swap out Buendia for Barkley, and then Bailey and Watkins for Grealish and Trez, if you wanted Ings up top as the most forward placed striker. I am sure Watkins played wide forward for Brentford in the “BMW” front three pairing? 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

56 minutes ago, RicRic said:

Seen him at a restaurant after the game and told him you always come alive against us he put his hand to his chest and said “ sorry sorry” with a huge smile. I said its all good man your a special player . I thought wow what a genuine guy ... not better than seeing Cash after last weeks game against United though of course

He's always come across as a brilliant and humble bloke to be honest.

The kind of player it's hard not to support.

Staying humble, having all that talent and being in places like " LANDAN " has gotten to lesser players heads!

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, tinker said:

Close game and that tells us how far we have come, watching Spurs wasting time at the end..... 

Yeah I'd say the ball was in play for less than 1 minute of that 5 added on.

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

but Ings and Watkins are attacking players, you can only have so many, before it becomes imbalanced.

Two attackers and you are expecting fullbacks to provide the width and service is a negative system. Its ok in certain games where other teams are better than us but I hope we got back to back 4 against wolves. 

[bannedfromHandV]

11 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

mmm… your quick little retort was proven to be wrong, so you come up with a response to make yourself feel better. I expected Smith to make some changes, just because you have no original thought isn’t an excuse to try to drag down others.

So if we had rotated, and we’d still lost the game, would you then have commended Smith for the rotation?

I fancy the same debates would be ongoing except the same folks (in the main) would be bashing him for not having kept a winning team/formation.

Oh and nothing was ‘proven wrong’, unless your opinion is now gospel.

[Icarium]

I think the most disappointing thing about this game was how utterly predictable the result was, we had a chance to make a statement with a victory, bit once again have fallen short. Seems to happen a lot with villa recently, just lacking that extra 5-10% to really kick on. 

Unfortunately I don't think there was too much wrong with the approach, other than the usual slow reaction from the bench when we struggled to get a hold in the game, the players just failed to deliver.

Hopefully its not something that continues next game

 

[QldVilla]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

So if we had rotated, and we’d still lost the game, would you then have commended Smith for the rotation?

I fancy the same debates would be ongoing except the same folks (in the main) would be bashing him for not having kept a winning team/formation.

Oh and nothing was ‘proven wrong’, unless your opinion is now gospel.

Ok champ, the comment was regarding your Leicester comment, they rotated.

Yes I would have commended him for the rotation if he could have made them. As stated previously you missed the point that he couldn’t rotate in the midfield as the only choice was Nakamba and not the right player for the game and not a like for like for Ramsey who is the player who needed a rest. The experience of Young and Tuanzebe would have definitely helped.

Its not the 1990’s any more the game has changed and we play a high press. It will take its toll and as good as Ramsey has been he’s still not ready to play several games on the bounce, especially against the quality teams we have played in the past month. Players also knowing that there’s small rotation will help maintain high standards as players would rather play than be rested.

[TRO]

19 hours ago, PaulC said:

Two attackers and you are expecting fullbacks to provide the width and service is a negative system. Its ok in certain games where other teams are better than us but I hope we got back to back 4 against wolves. 

This game today relies on industry and productivity.....If you play wingers, they have to be effective....even Alf Ramsey wasn't convinced and didn't play them.....Ron Saunders played with one....To play with 2 IMO you need high level central midfielders and we haven't.....yet.

I am not against wingers and I do see their value, but they have a tendency to become passengers....thats no good.

When your midfielders are averaging 6's in their performances, is it any wonder the service is not getting to the front men.

I get it, when Dean says he is not worried about them......its behind them is the issue, to me...they get nullified too easy to create anything.

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

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by TRO

[PaulC]

16 minutes ago, TRO said:

This game today relies on industry and productivity.....If you play wingers, they have to be effective....even Alf Ramsey wasn't convinced and didn't play them.....Ron Saunders played with one....To play with 2 IMO you need high level central midfielders and we haven't.....yet.

I am not against wingers and I do see their value, but they have a tendency to become passengers....thats no good.

When your midfielders are averaging 6's in their performances, is it any wonder the service is not getting to the front men.

I get it, when Dean says he is not worried about them......its behind them is the issue, to me...they get nullified too easy to create anything.

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

 

I'm not really talking about wingers but having your productivity coming from your fullbacks. Even Liverpool play a front 3 when they have two of the best attacking fullbacks in the world. You shouldn't need 3 cbs in the modern game unless your team is vastly inferior to the opposition. we are one attacking player short. its a balance like you say but the balance is the other and its the not the way we should be moving forward. 

[TRO]

5 minutes ago, PaulC said:

I'm not really talking about wingers but having your productivity coming from your fullbacks. Even Liverpool play a front 3 when they have two of the best attacking fullbacks in the world. You shouldn't need 3 cbs in the modern game unless your team is vastly inferior to the opposition. we are one attacking player short. its a balance like you say but the balance is the other and its the not the way we should be moving forward. 

but, we still scored enough goals to win that game....we lost because we conceded too many....might sound blindingly obvious, but it is......its harder to score, than deny.

Against Everton (home) and Man U away it worked.....so It would take a brave man to change it, 2 clean sheets was the cornerstone of those 2 great wins.....I still think its down to the detail of individual players not applying themselves well enough to win the game.

I saw so many occasions when loose balls or 50/50 balls were lost in the middle of the park for varying reasons.....when you do that, you surrender the initiative and the opposition seize it, and put your backline under pressure.....thats what happened....both their goals were avoidably, with better application from us.

 

[PaulC]

Just now, TRO said:

but, we still scored enough goals to win that game....we lost because we conceded too many....might sound blindingly obvious, but it is......its harder to score, than deny.

Against Everton (home) and Man U away it worked.....so It would take a brave man to change it, 2 clean sheets was the cornerstone of those 2 great wins.....I still think its down to the detail of individual players not applying themselves well enough to win the game.

I saw so many occasions when loose balls or 50/50 balls were lost in the middle of the park for varying reasons.....when you do that, you surrender the initiative and the opposition seize it, and put your backline under pressure.....thats what happened....both their goals were avoidably, with better application from us.

 

Against Everton it worked when we brought Bailey on for Targett. I give you United. I just hope we get Bailey fit again asap and we can integrate Buendia and him into the side successfully. You have to give your record signing  time to find his form in the team. I know its a results business but the process is important too and I dont like the process at the moment. 

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Against Everton it worked when we brought Bailey on for Targett. I give you United. I just hope we get Bailey fit again asap and we can integrate Buendia and him into the side successfully. You have to give your record signing  time to find his form in the team. I know its a results business but the process is important too and I dont like the process at the moment. 

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.