Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Watford

[TRO]

11 hours ago, Adman said:

I agree with you, and I'm probably coming across too harsh and impatient.  I just have real concerns that we will risk the long term stability of the club pursuing Gerrardball, which I'm not sure will ever work.

I'd rather he focussed on the best formation and system based on the players we have, like Southampton, wolves, Brighton, West ham etc do.  When you're paying the money we are for players and staff,  there can't really be any excuses

Those teams you have just picked out have central midfielders who can hold and control things.......Ward Prowse & Romeu........Neves.........Bissouma.......Rice & Soucek.....this issue has been bumping along for some time, way before Gerrard...our midfield is imbalanced in terms of attributes.

If you buy players and they are the wrong fit for the issue a team has, its doesn't matter how much you spend......did we really need Traore, Bailey, Sanson....did we really need Digne......all are talented players in terms of creativity.....but are they talented in terms of defending,or stopping the opposition,  which is what we need.

Watkins and Ings has been a real head scratcher, but we did need cover for Ollie........would a Weghorst ,been a better and cheaper shout.

We struggled yesterday with Emmanuel Dennis, a signing from Brugge, but I'll bet it wasn't expensive.....we sign Westley and Samatta from a similar source...maybe we are just unlucky, but we have so many signings who just end up as damp squibs.

That is the problem with the financial aspect, we sign too many duffs......that is the bit that's unsustainable....not signing the right players.

All teams buy duffs, we know that....we seem to have a history for it.

[striker]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Things can turn around quickly. IF we win at Brighton we're 3 points behind them with a game in hand. Then home to Southampton is a game that puts us into the top half if we win. 

All isn't lost. 

On current form that’s a big if!

[Adman]

32 minutes ago, TRO said:

Those teams you have just picked out have central midfielders who can hold and control things.......Ward Prowse & Romeu........Neves.........Bissouma.......Rice & Soucek.....this issue has been bumping along for some time, way before Gerrard...our midfield is imbalanced in terms of attributes.

If you buy players and they are the wrong fit for the issue a team has, its doesn't matter how much you spend......did we really need Traore, Bailey, Sanson....did we really need Digne......all are talented players in terms of creativity.....but are they talented in terms of defending,or stopping the opposition,  which is what we need.

Watkins and Ings has been a real head scratcher, but we did need cover for Ollie........would a Weghorst ,been a better and cheaper shout.

We struggled yesterday with Emmanuel Dennis, a signing from Brugge, but I'll bet it wasn't expensive.....we sign Westley and Samatta from a similar source...maybe we are just unlucky, but we have so many signings who just end up as damp squibs.

That is the problem with the financial aspect, we sign too many duffs......that is the bit that's unsustainable....not signing the right players.

All teams buy duffs, we know that....we seem to have a history for it.

I agree, but it's also the job of the manager to play a system that plays to our strengths and negate our weaknesses.  If we don't have a combative CDM (I'm not sure this is a panacea for us anyway), then we should look to put numbers in there to make up for it. Do we think the team's managers I mentioned earlier think they've got the perfect squad?

[TRO]

13 hours ago, chappy said:

Back from VP. Tough afternoon. Felt the substitutions lost us the game. Once Young came on for Cash, they were getting in behind him for fun. Then Watkins for Luiz was v cavalier. Sort of understand that as Watford had come for the 0-0 and weren’t really threatening. Bailey should’ve come on for Ings. Thought Ings was lively today but as soon as Watkins wad on the pitch we reverted to their disappointing lack of chemistry.

Worrying that I can’t see where we turn this slump around.

I agree.....Young's days are over as a player.....but I think he brought him on for experience and composure.....but it didn't work.

I think he is best burnt as scalded.....With the present group of players, I can't see how we turn it around either, if we keep playing so open.

 

[OutByEaster?]

Usually, by the time a game ends or an hour or so after, I've got a pretty clear idea in my head as to why I thought we won or lost, it's not necessarily correct, but I'm pretty clear on in my head as my opinion. A player, a tactic, something we did badly, whatever.

Yesterday's game was weird because I can't find anything sensible or reasonable as to why we lost. That's not to say I thought we were robbed or anything like that, the result was the right one, it's just that I can't pin down anything specific that caused it. 

We defended reasonably well, and in fairness we did at Newcastle too, we haven't kept a clean sheet in either game, but we've not looked like conceding a lot of goals in those games either, it's not perfect, but it's been good enough.

I thought our build up play was much better yesterday than against Newcastle, we played out carefully from the back for the most part and we did the sensible think where in our own half we played really conservatively, occasionally going backward when the crowd wanted forward, then played bolder football when we got the ball into the feet of our bolder footballers. I wondered if tempo was our problem, but I thought for the most part that was okay - we were at our best yesterday when we played slow, patient football out from the back and waited for the ball to be worked forward before quickening it up. It was for want of a better word, good.

Individually, I thought most everyone did their thing well enough too - I'm struggling to pick out a player who was a disaster - being picky I thought Chambers tried a few too many longer balls over the top to the full backs, Digne's crossing was poor again and I thought Ings looked done after an hour - but none of them were appalling. Buendia was bright, Coutinho did classy things, Mings was very good - in general everyone seemed to be doing their job sort of...okay.

The substitutions seemed to make sense to me -- we were having such ease and control in getting the ball out from the back with our centrebacks that we didn't need the extra body in there so we could sacrifice Luiz for a striker, Cash was on a booking so Young was sensible, and with Buendia tired having worn out the Watford back four, bringing on the pace of Bailey looked like it might give us something different. 

We controlled the game, possession was largely ours, we set the pattern of the game and restricted them to breakaway attacks - like we wanted to - that was our plan I think and the plan was being carried out effectively.

And we didn't win, or look like winning.

And indeed, much more worryingly than that, we didn't force Foster into a single save of note, just as we hadn't forced the Newcastle keeper into a save of note over ninety minutes last week.

That's a very serious concern.

If we're moving the ball well, defending reasonably, if everyone if performing at a reasonable level, we're working to our plan and we're dominating possession, playing the game the way we want to and still not creating any clear efforts on goal - then we've got a real problem.

Other than the one really good chance we created where Ings hit the post, I'm struggling to think of things that weren't from long range. We had twenty efforts on goal and only one on target - that's an extraordinary statistic and suggests that we either can't finish for toffee or we create a lot of chances that are very difficult to put away - even if it's the latter, you'd expect one out of twenty to be a wonderstrike that finds the net. It's outright weird.

It was cold, it was bright and the atmosphere was dead as a dodo - a feeling that it was only Watford maybe, or some trepidation that's crept into the crowd following our recent run - I don't know, but it was almost surreally quiet - like we'd kicked off at eight in the morning. It didn't help, but in fairness we didn't look any the worse for it.

Someone tuning in from space might have thought it was a really good side playing a friendly against a lower side where they didn't want to score - like when you play a game against a kid and you don't want to upset them - it was just odd.

There are no excuses though - this isn't that, we're a professional football club for whom points mean millions of pounds - and people that are paid a lot of money need to figure out very quickly how we can do some many things pretty well for what looks like absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

And whilst I can't figure out why, and I have no idea how to fix it, I think that's the key for me; maybe the reason why we lost.

We kept the ball well, we moved them around, we have good players, we have a pattern and we are physically capable, but we don't seem to playing to the aim of scoring goals - there's too much activity and not enough purpose - and that's what we need to find, we need to find a way to make the way we play create clear cut chances - which I know is absolutely obvious and much easier said than done, but I think we're the clearest example of it I've ever seen.

I know it's a difficult thing to accept, but for large parts of yesterday's game, we were good, and in large areas of the pitch we played good football. But you get nothing for that and if we can't find way to get in scoring positions and score goals, and quickly, we're going to remain a horrible football team to watch.

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, Adman said:

I agree, but it's also the job of the manager to play a system that plays to our strengths and negate our weaknesses.  If we don't have a combative CDM (I'm not sure this is a panacea for us anyway), then we should look to put numbers in there to make up for it. Do we think the team's managers I mentioned earlier think they've got the perfect squad?

I can go through most squads in the division and most of them have a reasonable player to play the role of stopping the opposition....lets be clear here, one player is not enough, but an inspirational one can motivate others to do something similar.

Teams attack as a group and defend as a group.....but when you have a midfield all with attack minded tendencies, an imbalance occurs, because they all want to do a similar thing, also they lack the intrinsic nose of a defender.....a defensive minded soul is a hunter, his buzz, is hunting you down and breaking up play, that is what they get off on cutting out sorties and disrupting the oppositions play.....attacking players are all looking to get forward and score is their holy grail.

We have too many attack minded players in our squad to affect much change, its kinda change for change sake.....SG is snookered in that sense, so was DS but he presided over that for 3 years.

 

[Icarium]

11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Usually, by the time a game ends or an hour or so after, I've got a pretty clear idea in my head as to why I thought we won or lost, it's not necessarily correct, but I'm pretty clear on in my head as my opinion. A player, a tactic, something we did badly, whatever.

Yesterday's game was weird because I can't find anything sensible or reasonable as to why we lost. That's not to say I thought we were robbed or anything like that, the result was the right one, it's just that I can't pin down anything specific that caused it. 

We defended reasonably well, and in fairness we did at Newcastle too, we haven't kept a clean sheet in either game, but we've not looked like conceding a lot of goals in those games either, it's not perfect, but it's been good enough.

I thought our build up play was much better yesterday than against Newcastle, we played out carefully from the back for the most part and we did the sensible think where in our own half we played really conservatively, occasionally going backward when the crowd wanted forward, then played bolder football when we got the ball into the feet of our bolder footballers. I wondered if tempo was our problem, but I thought for the most part that was okay - we were at our best yesterday when we played slow, patient football out from the back and waited for the ball to be worked forward before quickening it up. It was for want of a better word, good.

Individually, I thought most everyone did their thing well enough too - I'm struggling to pick out a player who was a disaster - being picky I thought Chambers tried a few too many longer balls over the top to the full backs, Digne's crossing was poor again and I thought Ings looked done after an hour - but none of them were appalling. Buendia was bright, Coutinho did classy things, Mings was very good - in general everyone seemed to be doing their job sort of...okay.

The substitutions seemed to make sense to me -- we were having such ease and control in getting the ball out from the back with our centrebacks that we didn't need the extra body in there so we could sacrifice Luiz for a striker, Cash was on a booking so Young was sensible, and with Buendia tired having worn out the Watford back four, bringing on the pace of Bailey looked like it might give us something different. 

We controlled the game, possession was largely ours, we set the pattern of the game and restricted them to breakaway attacks - like we wanted to - that was our plan I think and the plan was being carried out effectively.

And we didn't win, or look like winning.

And indeed, much more worryingly than that, we didn't force Foster into a single save of note, just as we hadn't forced the Newcastle keeper into a save of note over ninety minutes last week.

That's a very serious concern.

If we're moving the ball well, defending reasonably, if everyone if performing at a reasonable level, we're working to our plan and we're dominating possession, playing the game the way we want to and still not creating any clear efforts on goal - then we've got a real problem.

Other than the one really good chance we created where Ings hit the post, I'm struggling to think of things that weren't from long range. We had twenty efforts on goal and only one on target - that's an extraordinary statistic and suggests that we either can't finish for toffee or we create a lot of chances that are very difficult to put away - even if it's the latter, you'd expect one out of twenty to be a wonderstrike that finds the net. It's outright weird.

It was cold, it was bright and the atmosphere was dead as a dodo - a feeling that it was only Watford maybe, or some trepidation that's crept into the crowd following our recent run - I don't know, but it was almost surreally quiet - like we'd kicked off at eight in the morning. It didn't help, but in fairness we didn't look any the worse for it.

Someone tuning in from space might have thought it was a really good side playing a friendly against a lower side where they didn't want to score - like when you play a game against a kid and you don't want to upset them - it was just odd.

There are no excuses though - this isn't that, we're a professional football club for whom points mean millions of pounds - and people that are paid a lot of money need to figure out very quickly how we can do some many things pretty well for what looks like absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

And whilst I can't figure out why, and I have no idea how to fix it, I think that's the key for me; maybe the reason why we lost.

We kept the ball well, we moved them around, we have good players, we have a pattern and we are physically capable, but we don't seem to playing to the aim of scoring goals - there's too much activity and not enough purpose - and that's what we need to find, we need to find a way to make the way we play create clear cut chances - which I know is absolutely obvious and much easier said than done, but I think we're the clearest example of it I've ever seen.

I know it's a difficult thing to accept, but for large parts of yesterday's game, we were good, and in large areas of the pitch we played good football. But you get nothing for that and if we can't find way to get in scoring positions and score goals, and quickly, we're going to remain a horrible football team to watch.

The reason we lost today is simple

20 shots at goal

1 on target

[OutByEaster?]

13 minutes ago, Icarium said:

The reason we lost today is simple

20 shots at goal

1 on target

Well maybe As I said, it's an extraordinary statistic - I'd really love to see a map of where those shots were taken from, I'm struggling to remember much from inside the box. If we've ended up with eighteen pot shots from twenty five yards, one of which was on target (I think it was Buendia's floated one which Foster caught comfortably) then maybe we lost because we can't develop better shooting opportunities. We might be a better side creating five good chances than twenty hopeful punts.

 

[danceoftheshamen]

18 minutes ago, Icarium said:

The reason we lost today is simple

20 shots at goal

1 on target

Indeed, & 36 crosses to nobody!!!
 

[Zhan_Zhuang]

A very odd game, we had the control early on and didn't capitalise.

We are just a soft touch unfortunately and we really need an overhaul of the midfield.

Emi Martinez, Mings and Ramsey are the only ones who had solid games.

I do think we need to get rid of a couple though at the very least.

I'm personally blaming the players, they need to go out and score goals and we are often so wasteful.

Gerrard needs a preseason to get the team resembling his philosophy.

[danceoftheshamen]

For me having watched it close up it was because our play, although intricate and decent at times, was simply too slow! This meant we never truly opened up chances (The Ings post hit aside which was one of the few occasions we passed at pace and directly at the same time). Because it was too slow we never dagged them out of their defensive positions enough, or if we did there was plenty of time for someone to get in position to cover. We started the second half better i felt but then as the subs came on we reverted to slow predictable build up play as the players tried to re-work things out so to speak. 

It was like everytime we had chance to create a space or a clear scoring opportunity the player in possesion would take one turn too many or play the wrong pass or misshit the cross or something, then there were times they played a decent ball but nobody had made the right run, so in the end someone would try a shot from a difficult position as the golden opportunity to create a better chance had been missed. 

It was a bit like they were all on different wavelengths which for me is down to mainly the uncertainty created by the change in tactics Gerrard has imposed in the winter break as well as the constant changes of personel such as the new signings coming in (Coutinho & Digne), players not being fully fit (Bailey, Ings), and of course others being woefully down on confidence or out of form. 

So for me it's a combination of factors

Really b****dy frustrating to watch. 

They always had a goal in them as had been witnessed before this season so it was no surprise at all when they nicked it as we were never going to score in a month of Sundays.

On a positive note i do feel it will improve as the players get used to it,  the ones who've been out get match fit etc. We need a few wins of course but hopefully we have enough talent in the squad to get them at some point.

Edited February 20, 2022 by danceoftheshamen

[danceoftheshamen]

Just had to add this...

My 14 year old daughter for me has just nailed it, She, like me, is a ST holder in the Holte. She has not said anything since the debacle yesterday until now.

She plays under 15's girls football (they recently beat Port Vale 3-2 in a cup game, nothing major i know but still a great buzz when one of your own is involved  )

Well here's what she said....

""Why did Gerrard change to a different system in the middle of the season Dad? He's only brought in a couple of players & my coach would have said "you don't change the system before you have the players needed to play that system properly", so surely he should have waited till he had built his team more first?"""

How could i disagree with that?

Edited February 20, 2022 by danceoftheshamen

[Keyblade]

1 hour ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Was about to post the same. Players lacklustre and confused. Crowd flat and tetchy. Pointless subs. All felt so (depressingly) familiar.

It reminded me of that game Palace won at VP, with Dwight Gale scoring a similar late winner against the run of play.

[rjw63]

1 hour ago, striker said:

On current form that’s a big if!

And that's putting it extremely mildly.

[Adman]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I can go through most squads in the division and most of them have a reasonable player to play the role of stopping the opposition....lets be clear here, one player is not enough, but an inspirational one can motivate others to do something similar.

Teams attack as a group and defend as a group.....but when you have a midfield all with attack minded tendencies, an imbalance occurs, because they all want to do a similar thing, also they lack the intrinsic nose of a defender.....a defensive minded soul is a hunter, his buzz, is hunting you down and breaking up play, that is what they get off on cutting out sorties and disrupting the oppositions play.....attacking players are all looking to get forward and score is their holy grail.

We have too many attack minded players in our squad to affect much change, its kinda change for change sake.....SG is snookered in that sense, so was DS but he presided over that for 3 years.

 

I'm not disagreeing. We did look a better team with nakamba in there for instance. However, I would also suggest that we are trying to dictate play and become a possession based team before we have the team to do it.  For me, we were at our most dangerous going forward when we were breaking quickly and getting into wide positions. Our offensive players then had space to run and play into.  As we look to dominate possession, our attacks are compressed and well defended against. We don't seem to have the skill to even create anything of note when this happens. From my poor memory of recent games, most of the chances and goals against us have been when we lose possession up field and they counter effectively. 

A CDM may help to "rewin" the ball back after we've lost it, but I'm not so sure.  He'll likely be ran /played past like everyone else in the midfield as we are now as he'll be facing the wrong way and be out of position. 

My opinion is this is one reason we lose against weaker teams and play better against stronger ones.

[tinker]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

I can go through most squads in the division and most of them have a reasonable player to play the role of stopping the opposition....lets be clear here, one player is not enough, but an inspirational one can motivate others to do something similar.

Teams attack as a group and defend as a group.....but when you have a midfield all with attack minded tendencies, an imbalance occurs, because they all want to do a similar thing, also they lack the intrinsic nose of a defender.....a defensive minded soul is a hunter, his buzz, is hunting you down and breaking up play, that is what they get off on cutting out sorties and disrupting the oppositions play.....attacking players are all looking to get forward and score is their holy grail.

We have too many attack minded players in our squad to affect much change, its kinda change for change sake.....SG is snookered in that sense, so was DS but he presided over that for 3 years.

 

I see your point on the lack of DM but the midfield we have are covering the full backs while they push on, it's further exposing us. If you wanted to pick a system that exposed the weaknesses in our squad then the system Gerrard is playing is the perfect one. Its inexcusable. 

[skell]

17 hours ago, VillaParkAvenue said:

We’ve had quite a lot of possession today and against Newcastle without creating anything. Hardly any shots on goal. So in these games I can’t see it make much difference.

As for earlier games, I agree.

True but it would stop us being so easy to go through. Hopefully!

[The Fun Factory]

The reason we lost yesterday is that we barely got Foster to work apart from a couple of chances. Yes we had 20 shots but most were aimless shots outside of the penalty area as we had no clue seemingly to move the ball quicker, or to have some actual width. Hodgson always has well organised sides and for most of the time we just passed the ball square in the middle of the pitch for most of the game. And yet again the goal game from losing the ball and conceding a counter attack goal. We are so predictable at the moment.

[Zero7]

We didn’t move the ball quick enough. Every time they played out and their attack broke down, we allowed them to get back into shape and all 11 men behind the ball. Our build up play was slow and insipid. We had something like 6 corners in the first 18 minutes and the shame shit ball was delivered in time and time again. We are a small team, especially compared to Watford, should have mixed it up with short corners.

We lacked invention too, our play was ponderous once we were in their 3rd, we also lacked a certain directness which was much needed. Half the players looked they wanted to be somewhere else. (Luiz, McGinn, Watkins).

A lack of togetherness and team spirit, pretty sure they know, come summer they will be gone. 

[briny_ear]

5 hours ago, danceoftheshamen said:

Just had to add this...

My 14 year old daughter for me has just nailed it, She, like me, is a ST holder in the Holte. She has not said anything since the debacle yesterday until now.

She plays under 15's girls football (they recently beat Port Vale 3-2 in a cup game, nothing major i know but still a great buzz when one of your own is involved  )

Well here's what she said....

""Why did Gerrard change to a different system in the middle of the season Dad? He's only brought in a couple of players & my coach would have said "you don't change the system before you have the players needed to play that system properly", so surely he should have waited till he had built his team more first?"""

How could i disagree with that?

Probably would gently point out to your daughter and her coach that the "system" that was being played before Gerrard came on the scene had delivered us six straight defeats and sunk us to the edge of the drop zone. So the feeling that something needed to change was not entirely crazy.