Ratings & Reactions: Leeds v Villa

[Keyblade]

57 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

Interesting how different we see things, it's why opinions are important.

Personally I thought we shaded the first half and looked livelier after the break up until the sending off. 11 v 11 I thought we had the better chances through Watkins and Coutinho amongst others.

Most predicted a difficult game and most consequently felt we should have won it.

We had chances to win the game, but watch back how these chances came about. Especially in the first half, most of them were from hopeful punts into Watkins that either bounced off him or the defender or he achieved the herculean task of controlling it and fashioning a shot (it's why I'm not going crazy about his finishing, he had to do so much else). We were relying on being first to second balls, which to be fair we often were. The problem with this approach is that it's simply not sustainable, and quite frankly is beneath a club with our stated ambitions. Maybe I'm wrong about these ambitions and I should just be happy with scraping survival, I don't know. But right now this isn't sitting right with me.

[Vive_La_Villa]

5 hours ago, Keyblade said:

We had chances to win the game, but watch back how these chances came about. Especially in the first half, most of them were from hopeful punts into Watkins that either bounced off him or the defender or he achieved the herculean task of controlling it and fashioning a shot (it's why I'm not going crazy about his finishing, he had to do so much else). We were relying on being first to second balls, which to be fair we often were. The problem with this approach is that it's simply not sustainable, and quite frankly is beneath a club with our stated ambitions. Maybe I'm wrong about these ambitions and I should just be happy with scraping survival, I don't know. But right now this isn't sitting right with me.

This is spot on.  How long will this approach continue for and is it what the board expect their club / brand to entertain ? Let’s just say it’s a short term approach and will change as we get points on the board, what then? Chances are we return to his previous attempts of us playing football and look incredibly vulnerable. 

If the ambition has now become just to stay in the league then the last 2 / 3 games suffers Gerrard is fine to stick with.  I’ll continue to support and go to games either way.  It’s just pretty shit if that’s what it’s now become. Back to season 1 in the premier league almost.

[desensitized43]

9 hours ago, Keyblade said:

11 v 11 it seemed to me that Leeds were controlling the game for the first 20 minutes or so, but their influence waned as we seemed to (successfully) suck the life out of the game as if we were Levante against 2010 Barcelona or something. By the end of the half it was pretty even, and it looked like the match would end 0-0. Honestly, it's not acceptable to me for Villa to be approaching matches against the likes of Leeds in this way. 

Their manager was 100% correct in everything he said after the game. We play at a snails pace and our game plan was to annoy, frustrate and waste time from the first minute as if we are vastly inferior to the opposition. Unacceptable.

We limp on. Hopefully they’ll use the international break to make a change of manager.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

38 minutes ago, Zatman said:

McGinn popping a shot 20 yards over the bar from 25 yards out is a chance?

Gerrard is as persuasive as Scientology to some

It's funny what people try to argue over to defend their subjectivity...it is negativity for the sake of negativity!

Just looking at a few independent match reports here:

"Aston Villa created a high number of chances relative to their possession".

"Were effective at creating goal-scoring chances"

19 shots, 7 of which were on target. Ok not all were goal-scoring opportunities but they were still good chances which many agree we should have scored from.

Watkins, Coutinho, Konsa and McGinn to name a few were guilty.

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

It's funny what people try to argue over to defend their subjectivity...it is negativity for the sake of negativity!

Just looking at a few independent match reports here:

"Aston Villa created a high number of chances relative to their possession".

"Were effective at creating goal-scoring chances"

19 shots, 7 of which were on target. Ok not all were goal-scoring opportunities but they were still good chances which many agree we should have scored from.

Watkins, Coutinho, Konsa and McGinn to name a few were guilty.

Coutinho was unlucky. Watkins definitely should have scored. 
 

Gerrard is right we should have won. But I don’t agree we were the better team before the sending off. We were playing a smash and grab game.

[CVByrne]

17 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

It's funny what people try to argue over to defend their subjectivity...it is negativity for the sake of negativity!

Just looking at a few independent match reports here:

"Aston Villa created a high number of chances relative to their possession".

"Were effective at creating goal-scoring chances"

19 shots, 7 of which were on target. Ok not all were goal-scoring opportunities but they were still good chances which many agree we should have scored from.

Watkins, Coutinho, Konsa and McGinn to name a few were guilty.

I just look at xG as a gauge of what chances we created. It's better than shots on goal or shots on target etc..

[Stevo985]

39 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

It's funny what people try to argue over to defend their subjectivity...it is negativity for the sake of negativity!

Just looking at a few independent match reports here:

"Aston Villa created a high number of chances relative to their possession".

"Were effective at creating goal-scoring chances"

19 shots, 7 of which were on target. Ok not all were goal-scoring opportunities but they were still good chances which many agree we should have scored from.

Watkins, Coutinho, Konsa and McGinn to name a few were guilty.

 

21 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I just look at xG as a gauge of what chances we created. It's better than shots on goal or shots on target etc..

xG is a far better indicator of chances created than shots or shots on target. Shots on target is a nonsense really. It only gives a very very vague idea of how a game went.

As a very loose indication of that, a 40 yard shot that dribbles into the keeper's arms is a shot on target. A chance missed from 3 yards out over the bar isn't. I know which chance I'd rather us have.

And, to be fair, the xG was heavily in our favour vs Leeds, but I imagine them being down to 10 men was a bit contributor to that

[CVByrne]

20 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

 

xG is a far better indicator of chances created than shots or shots on target. Shots on target is a nonsense really. It only gives a very very vague idea of how a game went.

As a very loose indication of that, a 40 yard shot that dribbles into the keeper's arms is a shot on target. A chance missed from 3 yards out over the bar isn't. I know which chance I'd rather us have.

And, to be fair, the xG was heavily in our favour vs Leeds, but I imagine them being down to 10 men was a bit contributor to that

Yeah so looking at xG for and xG against is a good way to judge the coaching. All they can do is prepare a team to concede fewer good goal scoring chances than they create. The rest is down to individual moments.

As an aside, I enjoy reading your views as you make consistently good posts on a variety of topics here and on OT Stevo. 

 

[Stevo985]

21 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yeah so looking at xG for and xG against is a good way to judge the coaching. All they can do is prepare a team to concede fewer good goal scoring chances than they create. The rest is down to individual moments.

Yep, as a general rule if your xG is higher than your xGA for the season, you're doing alright. We're on -3.5 for the season which isn't great.

There are exceptions of course (Bournemouth in 8th place with an xGD of -9.7 for example), but these are generally unsustainable. Teams will usually regress to the mean over time.

28 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

As an aside, I enjoy reading your views as you make consistently good posts on a variety of topics here and on OT Stevo. 

 

Aw shucks 

[Delphouneso]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Yep, as a general rule if your xG is higher than your xGA for the season, you're doing alright. We're on -3.5 for the season which isn't great.

We're also 19th for total xG, which would support the idea that aside from anything else the football is **** dull.

[Stevo985]

Just now, Delphouneso said:

We're also 19th for total xG, which would support the idea that aside from anything else the football is **** dull.

Yep. You can accept that if you've also got an excellent defence (although it would be very dull)

But we don't