Ratings & Reactions: Wolves v Villa

[Teale's 'tache]

I think tactically it's just very tricky to deal with a team so willing to sit deep and hit you on the counter on their home ground.

Ideally, we like to press forward and squeeze the play with our high line, but that's exactly what Wolves wanted us to do, as you can tell by O'Neil's comments after the game.

That we didn't is smart, we didn't walk into their trap, but it did mean we had to try and play in a different way. We also seemed very leggy, and not quite at the races, which is understandable with the number of games and only partial rotation we've been able to employ. I think the combination of these things resulted in a bit of a disjointed performance.

I was worried about this game, just the amount of injuries we are carrying, the number of minutes some have already chalked up, the fact their tales were up after the weekend before and they'd had much more rest and preparation for this game that they always seem most up for.

I think if we had a fully fit and firing squad we'd probably have taken the game to them more, when you consider we are missing the entire left-hand side from last season it's really impressive the work Emery is doing.

We did okay in the end, Emery will of course demand more, but I'm not unhappy with a hard-earned point at a place where we generally walk away with nothing.

[Philosopher]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I agree.

Maybe Agricultural, is the wrong word, but a more athletic type to balance the squad.

for me, taking off Luiz for instance and bring on Tielemans, does not change our play, its just a change of face or energy.

At times, we face lesser quality players, who have a possibly better effect on a game (like this).....my point is, our better quality, is not always as effective as it should be.

The low block, is a particular achilles heel for us, but we have to find a way around it.....I don't think we have enough players in the squad, who feel comfortable with physical engagement....one or two more, to bring on in games of this nature, could be the disrupting force we need.

We will have a similar issue with West Ham , next home game.

 

The aim should always be to increase the quality  of the squad. So I can't get on board with signing lesser players. However if we could say move on Dendonker for a player with similar stature but more aggression and energy, either the ability to carry the ball or with good passing, then we should jump at it. We need players that can contribute on the ball, and off the ball. 

I am starting to have issues with Tielemens, not because his isn't a fine passer (he certainly is) but off the ball he is too slow to react, looks like bambi on ice falling over all the bloody time. He needs a beast or two next to him. But we don't have a beast. 

However I think we potentially have a player like this in young Tim Iroegbunam.

I think this start to the season has been particularly impressive as this has been done without the likes of Ramsey, Moreno,  Mings, Buendia, and Iroegbunam, plus with Carlos, Bailey, and Dendonker struggling with their fitness. It's a testament to the depth we have.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Philosopher

[Milfner]

Just watched the highlights back. So frustrating to have not won, had four glorious chances in stoppage time alone. 

Thought we played well, they didn't really offer much at all and we controlled the game well (something we've not done at Molineux for a long time). 

[DJBOB]

 
Yes, we were the ones sitting back

[TRO]

The last 4 draws, have all been away, and all been 1-1...and all the teams better than Wolves.IMO.

just a bit of useless Info.

[TRO]

4 hours ago, Philosopher said:

The aim should always be to increase the quality  of the squad. So I can't get on board with signing lesser players. However if we could say move on Dendonker for a player with similar stature but more aggression and energy, either the ability to carry the ball or with good passing, then we should jump at it. We need players that can contribute on the ball, and off the ball. 

I am starting to have issues with Tielemens, not because his isn't a fine passer (he certainly is) but off the ball he is too slow to react, looks like bambi on ice falling over all the bloody time. He needs a beast or two next to him. But we don't have a beast. 

However I think we potentially have a player like this in young Tim Iroegbunam.

I think this start to the season has been particularly impressive as this has been done without the likes of Ramsey, Moreno,  Mings, Buendia, and Iroegbunam, plus with Carlos, Bailey, and Dendonker struggling with their fitness. It's a testament to the depth we have.

That's precisely what I mean.....I am not talking about at the expense of technical ability, I'm talking about adding to it.

There are 4/5 players in the Newcastle squad, who we would baulk at if we was linked with them....but they find a way of making them effective in their team.

I guess some would baulk at a modern day Roy Keane or Viera....but Man city have one in Rodri, and look at them when he he's out.

I am not suggesting, we radically change our style, but I do think a combative, athletic player in midfield for the squad, to cover for Kamara, would be helpful...I think a full season with extra competitions in his role is arduous.

If young Tim can be groomed to do that, great.

Tielemans for me, is a symptom of the squad, a tad lighweight, particulalry off the ball, and with so many players, reluctant to move at times, his forte is lost...At Leicster he hade runners in Vardy and Barnes......I think he is a bit too similar to other players, we have already, but not as good.

I think your last line, has credence...but I am only talking about what we have available.....all the teams in the Prem have injury problems, we have to manage it.......and so far, we have made a real fist of it.

We have double the points tally, we had at this time last season, so yeah its great av 2 pts per game wow.......I'm just looking at tweaks, to be even better.

PS "Quality" as a description, can lack depth of explanation....A quality defender, is likely to have different attibutes to a quality attacker.....Sometimes, its balance and diversity in a squad, not just "Quality" alone, unless we refer to complete players, who have a bit of  everything.

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by TRO

[TRO]

5 hours ago, PaulC said:

Diaby didn't look right and I think that had a  massively negative impact of the potency of our attack. 

A point is respectable it. First draw of the season.  As long as we don't loose away from home then we are on course.

West ham are to similar to Wolves. That will be a tough physical battle 

I agree.

[avfc456]

What was with the weird banner they held up in the stand to the right of the away section pre match?  Read something like "European football, you're welcome"

[TRO]

5 hours ago, smg said:

Depends on how it’s written and a lot of comments are definitely not constructive 

Then you are reading in more area's than me.

We didn't play great, and we didn't play badly.....We was pre-occupied with their anti-football....They, for some reason, seem to find a level of aggression, that eludes them for most of the season.

However, we need to find the tools to deal with it, we have very few in the squad that can, Mings, McGinn can but from a squad of 25 ish....we need a few more, in certain games.

I am not saying, abandone everything we do, I am saying add a few tools to the tools box.....teams with lofty ambitions, cannot rely over 38 games to play the same way, some games like this will rear their ugly heads.

We have had the same issues in the past playing Blues and WBA..... We have to be prepared for it, by making our superior talent count.

Edited October 9, 2023 by TRO

[TRO]

23 minutes ago, avfc456 said:

What was with the weird banner they held up in the stand to the right of the away section pre match?  Read something like "European football, you're welcome"

Haha......was that embarrasing or what?

What armpit thought of that?.....It really is a place to leave a.s.ap isn't it?

The club embarrassed themselves too by allowing it...talk about scraping the barrel.

The Lunatics have certainly taken over the Asylum, there for sure.

[Baldricks Cunning Plan]

32 minutes ago, avfc456 said:

What was with the weird banner they held up in the stand to the right of the away section pre match?  Read something like "European football, you're welcome"

Wolves and the floodlit friendlies in the 50's were the pre cursor to UEFA wanting a European tournament to decide who were the best team in Europe. If a banner has to be explained to those viewing it for them to know what it means suggests to me that it wasn't a very good one. 

 

The summer of 1953 saw Wolverhampton Wanderers play a friendly match against a South African XI to begin a remarkable run of victories over the next months. Wolves played a series of friendlies against foreign opposition such as Racing Club of Argentina, Spartak Moscow of the Soviet Union, among others, before meeting Honvéd of Hungary in a game televised live on the BBC. The Honvéd team included many of the Hungary national team, which was dominating world football at the time. Wolves won the game 3–2, which led their manager Stan Cullis and the British press to proclaim them as "Champions of the World". This was the final spur for Hanot (The UEFA document on the history of the European Cup confirms that Jacques Ferran and Gabriel Hanot, journalists for the French sports newspaper L'Équipe, were the founding fathers of the European Cup) who had long campaigned for a European-wide club tournament to determine who was the best of the continent.

Before we declare that Wolverhampton are invincible, let them go to Moscow and Budapest. And there are other internationally renowned clubs: AC Milan and Real Madrid to name but two. A club world championship, or at least a European one – larger, more meaningful and more prestigious than the Mitropa Cup and more original than a competition for national teams – should be launched.

The UEFA Congress of March 1955 saw the proposal raised, with approval given in April of that year, and the kick-off of the first European Cup the following season. However, the would be no Soviet (until 1967) or English teams in the first tournament.

[Teale's 'tache]

25 minutes ago, avfc456 said:

What was with the weird banner they held up in the stand to the right of the away section pre match?  Read something like "European football, you're welcome"

Wolves won some friendlies against European teams in the 50's and declared themselves 'Champions of the World', as you do.

So somebody set up a competition to prove them wrong, and seeing as they've failed to win it in the 68 years since I'd say that they've been proven very wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Cup_and_UEFA_Champions_League

Quote

The summer of 1953 saw Wolverhampton Wanderers play a friendly match against a South African XI to begin a remarkable run of victories over the next months. Wolves played a series of friendlies against foreign opposition such as Racing Club of Argentina, Spartak Moscow of the Soviet Union, among others, before meeting Honvéd of Hungary in a game televised live on the BBC. The Honvéd team included many of the Hungary national team, which was dominating world football at the time. Wolves won the game 3–2, which led their manager Stan Cullis and the British press to proclaim them as "Champions of the World". This was the final spur for Hanot who had long campaigned for a European-wide club tournament to determine who was the best of the continent.

Before we declare that Wolverhampton are invincible, let them go to Moscow and Budapest. And there are other internationally renowned clubs: AC Milan and Real Madrid to name but two. A club world championship, or at least a European one – larger, more meaningful and more prestigious than the Mitropa Cup and more original than a competition for national teams – should be launched.

The UEFA Congress of March 1955 saw the proposal raised, with approval given in April of that year, and the kick-off of the first European Cup the following season. However, the would be no Soviet (until 1967) or English teams in the first tournament.

 

So humble. I'm glad to see some things never change...

 

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, Baldricks Cunning Plan said:

Wolves and the floodlit friendlies in the 50's were the pre cursor to UEFA wanting a European tournament to decide who were the best team in Europe. If a banner has to be explained to those viewing it for them to know what it means suggests to me that it wasn't a very good one. 

 

The summer of 1953 saw Wolverhampton Wanderers play a friendly match against a South African XI to begin a remarkable run of victories over the next months. Wolves played a series of friendlies against foreign opposition such as Racing Club of Argentina, Spartak Moscow of the Soviet Union, among others, before meeting Honvéd of Hungary in a game televised live on the BBC. The Honvéd team included many of the Hungary national team, which was dominating world football at the time. Wolves won the game 3–2, which led their manager Stan Cullis and the British press to proclaim them as "Champions of the World". This was the final spur for Hanot (The UEFA document on the history of the European Cup confirms that Jacques Ferran and Gabriel Hanot, journalists for the French sports newspaper L'Équipe, were the founding fathers of the European Cup) who had long campaigned for a European-wide club tournament to determine who was the best of the continent.

Before we declare that Wolverhampton are invincible, let them go to Moscow and Budapest. And there are other internationally renowned clubs: AC Milan and Real Madrid to name but two. A club world championship, or at least a European one – larger, more meaningful and more prestigious than the Mitropa Cup and more original than a competition for national teams – should be launched.

The UEFA Congress of March 1955 saw the proposal raised, with approval given in April of that year, and the kick-off of the first European Cup the following season. However, the would be no Soviet (until 1967) or English teams in the first tournament.

Many fans at that game wasn't born, when the era you talk about was in swing......Wolves undoubtedly had a great team, in those days and worthy of remembering.

However, when any statement is made, by anybody, about anything its pretty nifty, for the recipient to understand it...Its incumbent on the author, to make it clear.

I was born in 1951...and I didn't get it.

 

[DJBOB]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Then you are reading in more area's than me.

We didn't play great, and we didn't play badly.....We was pre-occupied with their anti-football....They, for some reason, seem to find a level of aggression, that eludes them for most of the season.

However, we need to find the tools to deal with it, we have very few in the squad that can, Mings, McGinn can but from a squad of 25 ish....we need a few more, in certain games.

I am not saying, abandone everything we do, I am saying add a few tools to the tools box.....teams with lofty ambitions, cannot rely over 38 games to play the same way, some games like this will rear their ugly heads.

We have had the same issues in the past playing Blues and WBA..... We have to be prepared for it, by making our superior talent count.

I think unless you abandon your squad building principles, it's going to continue being tough against the Wolves, Crystal Palace's, and West Ham's of the world. They're built to be shit houses and the game is played out as such.

But over the course of a 38 match season, I think our style will win 3 points more consistently. This Wolves are reminiscent of the Villa of the past 20 years - who were for the most part counter-attacking, tough at the back teams. Could pull a shock result and were always 'hard to beat' but then could come up completely listless against a relegation side because they don't practice keeping the ball and attacking a low block themselves.

Additionally - while it is the manager's remit to win points, I believe you should also entertain. And while there is a sick macabre of entertainment watching Wolves and the next match, West Ham, slug it out and sit back for 75% of the game to then try and counter - I would rather gouge my eyes out than watch a whole season of that (and almost did take my eyes out under certain Villa managers who did the same thing).

Since Unai's take over, Villa are 10-2-2 against bottom half sides. 3 of those negative results are just Wolves.

Edited October 9, 2023 by DJBOB

[briny_ear]

11 hours ago, Teale's 'tache said:

I think tactically it's just very tricky to deal with a team so willing to sit deep and hit you on the counter on their home ground.

Ideally, we like to press forward and squeeze the play with our high line, but that's exactly what Wolves wanted us to do, as you can tell by O'Neil's comments after the game.

That we didn't is smart, we didn't walk into their trap, but it did mean we had to try and play in a different way. We also seemed very leggy, and not quite at the races, which is understandable with the number of games and only partial rotation we've been able to employ. I think the combination of these things resulted in a bit of a disjointed performance.

I was worried about this game, just the amount of injuries we are carrying, the number of minutes some have already chalked up, the fact their tales were up after the weekend before and they'd had much more rest and preparation for this game that they always seem most up for.

I think if we had a fully fit and firing squad we'd probably have taken the game to them more, when you consider we are missing the entire left-hand side from last season it's really impressive the work Emery is doing.

We did okay in the end, Emery will of course demand more, but I'm not unhappy with a hard-earned point at a place where we generally walk away with nothing.

Couldn’t agree more with all these points.

I think with all the issues we are facing this season, we have to expect performances to be a bit up and down.

Not sure those people making shopping lists for new players are necessarily going to get what they want. We basically have to make do with the squad we have.

I do think we could probably have won that game with a little more focus and I am sure that is the position Emery will be trying to get them to. 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by briny_ear

[onmeedson]

The dog heads set out to stop us playing and counter with netto hoping to snatch the win. Dawson at the centre of their defence had a tremendous game and marshalled all their defensive line as he did with Harland last week. It was one they could not afford to lose so the tactics payed off for them but that was a stone wall penalty at the end and the Ref went with the home side. 

[stewiek2]

Rewatched the game. I think we need a proper striking coach. Nearly every single decent strike is low and straight into a defender. It's been a problem for at least 5 seasons now. We don't get any height on shots unless it's from Ramsey. It's low flashing shots or toe pokes. It's also why Ollie is a very lucky boy to get such a lucrative new deal. He can't get a shot high apart from that period last season. Overwise back to type toe poke finish.

Nigh on every player panicked when the ball came to them near the Wolves area and just blazed it or toe poked it. They just panicked.

Edited October 9, 2023 by stewiek2

[briny_ear]

6 minutes ago, stewiek2 said:

Rewatched the game. I think we need a proper striking coach. Nearly every single decent strike is low and straight into a defender. It's been a problem for at least 5 seasons now. We don't get any height on shots unless it's from Ramsey. It's low flashing shots or toe pokes. It's also why Ollie is a very lucky boy to get such a lucrative new deal. He ‘can't get a shot high apart from that period last season. Overwise back to type toe poke finish.

Apart from the one on 46 minutes where he very nearly scored with an excellent shot on the turn to the top left hand corner of the Wolves goal. 

[S-Platt]

6 hours ago, Baldricks Cunning Plan said:

Wolves and the floodlit friendlies in the 50's were the pre cursor to UEFA wanting a European tournament to decide who were the best team in Europe. If a banner has to be explained to those viewing it for them to know what it means suggests to me that it wasn't a very good one. 

 

The summer of 1953 saw Wolverhampton Wanderers play a friendly match against a South African XI to begin a remarkable run of victories over the next months. Wolves played a series of friendlies against foreign opposition such as Racing Club of Argentina, Spartak Moscow of the Soviet Union, among others, before meeting Honvéd of Hungary in a game televised live on the BBC. The Honvéd team included many of the Hungary national team, which was dominating world football at the time. Wolves won the game 3–2, which led their manager Stan Cullis and the British press to proclaim them as "Champions of the World". This was the final spur for Hanot (The UEFA document on the history of the European Cup confirms that Jacques Ferran and Gabriel Hanot, journalists for the French sports newspaper L'Équipe, were the founding fathers of the European Cup) who had long campaigned for a European-wide club tournament to determine who was the best of the continent.

Before we declare that Wolverhampton are invincible, let them go to Moscow and Budapest. And there are other internationally renowned clubs: AC Milan and Real Madrid to name but two. A club world championship, or at least a European one – larger, more meaningful and more prestigious than the Mitropa Cup and more original than a competition for national teams – should be launched.

The UEFA Congress of March 1955 saw the proposal raised, with approval given in April of that year, and the kick-off of the first European Cup the following season. However, the would be no Soviet (until 1967) or English teams in the first tournament.

But we invented League Football you're welcome  

[TRO]

On 09/10/2023 at 11:15, Teale's 'tache said:

I think tactically it's just very tricky to deal with a team so willing to sit deep and hit you on the counter on their home ground.

Ideally, we like to press forward and squeeze the play with our high line, but that's exactly what Wolves wanted us to do, as you can tell by O'Neil's comments after the game.

That we didn't is smart, we didn't walk into their trap, but it did mean we had to try and play in a different way. We also seemed very leggy, and not quite at the races, which is understandable with the number of games and only partial rotation we've been able to employ. I think the combination of these things resulted in a bit of a disjointed performance.

I was worried about this game, just the amount of injuries we are carrying, the number of minutes some have already chalked up, the fact their tales were up after the weekend before and they'd had much more rest and preparation for this game that they always seem most up for.

I think if we had a fully fit and firing squad we'd probably have taken the game to them more, when you consider we are missing the entire left-hand side from last season it's really impressive the work Emery is doing.

We did okay in the end, Emery will of course demand more, but I'm not unhappy with a hard-earned point at a place where we generally walk away with nothing.

I agree, my sentiments too.