Ratings & Reactions: Villa v AZ Alkmaar

[Lochheads twin]

Job done. 

MoM voting reflects the team performance. Many solid performances without an outstanding individual display.

Again the lack of an alternative RB was exposed, doubly so when you do not have Moreno rampaging down the other flank. Digne has performed well this season but is a different player to Moreno. There were times last night when Longlet & Carlos never seem to look for a pass down the left.

Disappointed we could not get Diably more involved in play, not sure if this is the result of some really slow build up play. Fingers crossed he can get a goal on Sunday. I hope Carlos coming off was a precaution and is not serious. The guys cannot seem to get a break & play a full 90 minutes. Very pleased for him he got a goal.

Lovely tribute to Charlie Aitken by both the club & the fans, he was my first hero at Villa Park. Another HEITS.

Last night was not real high intensity, so should not have drained too many of the starting XI.

Onwards.

. 

[FLVillan]

Just saw the highlights on YouTube (I was flying home from Alaska during match).

How on God's Green Earth was that Lenglet goal disallowed?  Bailey has the ball headed directly to him by the AZ player on the line.  Not only was it "deliberately" played by the defender (he prevented a goal being scored), but said defender was on the flipping goal line.  So not offside for two very clear and easy to see reasons.  The mind boggles.  An early goal for us would have completely changed the game. 

Of course, all the mainstream media idiots focus on is that our corner for the second goal shouldn't have been awarded.  I hate the media.  If that had been Citeh or the Dippers the match report would have been headlined "Justice Served on Night of VAR Drama." 

[S-Platt]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

To be fair they did say there were going to be restrictions. 

That immediately has to mean "anywhere that away fans will be getting out will be shut". 

My mate (first game at VP) was due to go past there and I just told him - go around the stands to access in that area.

While it could have been made clearer (100% agreement there) it was pretty obvious to any regular VP visitor what was going to happen. 

Ambiguous is what it was going out those gates and turning left should be allowed.  Turning right to walk down Witton Lane past the way fans ok I get that.

You still have all the Lower North and Witton Lane fans coming out where the away fans are so here is a novel idea.  Keep the away fans in for 30 mins like they do with us at Blues or in certain European games.  

 

[John]

15 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Definitely but really we need to go all put and  beat legia. Its vital we get top and then can play a crap team vs mostar

We will have to ask Wayne, if we can borrow his one from the dark side of the city then... I know what you mean though. 

15 hours ago, brummybloke said:

The Greek lad reminds me of a ronny rosenthal type forward. Doesn't look much of a physical specimen but can put the ball in the net.

I seem to remember him embarrassingly failing to do so, in front of the Holte End once.

 

Bit like the 70s/80s last night when the AZ fans were marched into the stadium from Witton Station by the police last night, or any game against the knuckle draggers. 

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[El Segundo]

1 hour ago, FLVillan said:

Just saw the highlights on YouTube (I was flying home from Alaska during match).

How on God's Green Earth was that Lenglet goal disallowed?  Bailey has the ball headed directly to him by the AZ player on the line.  Not only was it "deliberately" played by the defender (he prevented a goal being scored), but said defender was on the flipping goal line.  So not offside for two very clear and easy to see reasons.  The mind boggles.  An early goal for us would have completely changed the game. 

Of course, all the mainstream media idiots focus on is that our corner for the second goal shouldn't have been awarded.  I hate the media.  If that had been Citeh or the Dippers the match report would have been headlined "Justice Served on Night of VAR Drama." 

From Law 11

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

Looks to me that the offside call was correct, the only error was if the officials told the players they'd made a mistake.  

Still marked the ref as poor though - gave some non-fouls, let clear ones go, and seemed to have left his cards at home.

Edited November 10, 2023 by El Segundo

[AndyM3000]

I can't work out how the AZ goal wasn't offside.

[Louis]

1 hour ago, S-Platt said:

Ambiguous is what it was going out those gates and turning left should be allowed.  Turning right to walk down Witton Lane past the way fans ok I get that.

You still have all the Lower North and Witton Lane fans coming out where the away fans are so here is a novel idea.  Keep the away fans in for 30 mins like they do with us at Blues or in certain European games.  

 

If we did that against Alkmaar last night, we will probably do it again v Legia Warsaw.

In all honesty, are the Warsaw fans that bad?

[El Segundo]

14 minutes ago, AndyM3000 said:

I can't work out how the AZ goal wasn't offside.

That picture indicates he was off and I haven't seen a more detailed one to show otherwise.   

[Zhan_Zhuang]

44 minutes ago, AndyM3000 said:

I can't work out how the AZ goal wasn't offside.

Looked offside to me during the game (watching on Discovery +)

I was surprised it was given...

[OutByEaster?]

So, our first goal was onside and disallowed for offside, their goal was offside but allowed and our second goal that was our first goal was scored from a corner that shouldn't have been a corner - other than that, I thought the official was...well, actually still rubbish. A great advert for the PGMOL.

I thought we controlled the game pretty much throughout, it's another one of those where it feels that the opposition had quite a lot of chances, but they were pretty much all offside - I'd wager that Martinez saved more shots from offside players than onside players.

We struggle to break down teams that want to just sit in and defend and we did again last night - it's hard to quite see why, we've got lots of players who would seem perfectly suited to doing that. I thought early on we looked like we could completely dominate them from crosses, then drifted into trying to play through a whole gang of them in the middle instead - sometimes simple and working would seem to me to be the best way.

We were good i thought, without being great, and certainly any result other than a Villa win would have been a travesty.

The tribute to Charlie Aitken was lovely, the phone torch thing is a beautiful sight and I hope those that knew him were suitable moved. RIP Sir.

Onwards and upwards - it's very unlikely we don't progress now so we should be able to rotate a little more for the last two group games then settle in for fireworks in the new year.

Job done.

 

 

[fruitvilla]

Villa were the better side and deserved the win.

1. Lenglet's goal was not offside
2. Their goal looked offside to me
3. A goal for Diego
4. The corner was part of the comedy of errors that occurred, but was understandable
5. Beautiful assist Dougie, lovely goal Ollie
6. A lot of solid performances, no dreadful ones

Ball in the back of the net three times is hardly "toothless". Three headers ... indicative of a solid low-block defence.

Apart from that, we were awful against a team that is only second in the Netherlands' first division.

[fruitvilla]

8 hours ago, Louis said:

everyone was suddenly crammed in

Practicing for a low-block defence.

[Lichfield Dean]

7 hours ago, FLVillan said:

Just saw the highlights on YouTube (I was flying home from Alaska during match).

How on God's Green Earth was that Lenglet goal disallowed?  Bailey has the ball headed directly to him by the AZ player on the line.  Not only was it "deliberately" played by the defender (he prevented a goal being scored), but said defender was on the flipping goal line.  So not offside for two very clear and easy to see reasons.  The mind boggles.  An early goal for us would have completely changed the game. 

Of course, all the mainstream media idiots focus on is that our corner for the second goal shouldn't have been awarded.  I hate the media.  If that had been Citeh or the Dippers the match report would have been headlined "Justice Served on Night of VAR Drama." 

The defender being on the goal line doesn't render it not offside though if the goalkeeper was further out than Bailey. I think there was only one opposition player closer to the goal than Bailey, therefore it was offside.

I think according to the rules it probably was offside, although I don't personally think it should have been in terms of the reasons why offside was introduced in the first place (I.e. to stop goal hanging).

I'm curious as to why the officials have now said it should have stood though.

[AVTuco]

I want a japanese player at Villa. Let's get that Suguwara, he's a gem.

[FLVillan]

11 hours ago, El Segundo said:

From Law 11

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

Looks to me that the offside call was correct, the only error was if the officials told the players they'd made a mistake.  

Still marked the ref as poor though - gave some non-fouls, let clear ones go, and seemed to have left his cards at home.

6 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

The defender being on the goal line doesn't render it not offside though if the goalkeeper was further out than Bailey. I think there was only one opposition player closer to the goal than Bailey, therefore it was offside.

I think according to the rules it probably was offside, although I don't personally think it should have been in terms of the reasons why offside was introduced in the first place (I.e. to stop goal hanging).

I'm curious as to why the officials have now said it should have stood though.

I would have thought that the ball traveling 30 yards wide to Bailey with all of their team between him and the goal would surely be considered a new phase of play, as it cleared anyone in a direct goalscoring position and the defence had ample time to react/get behind the ball.   If he had headed straight out to a Villa player who had popped it straight in to the goal, then same phase of play for sure, but 30 yards away and wide?  AZ literally had 11 men between Bailey and the goal.

Also, the moment the ball leaves Watkin's head the goalkeeper is falling back with one arm stretched out behind him (he can play the ball with that arm unlike an outfield player) so both he and the player on the line were technically keeping Bailey onside.... 

OK, I'll shut up now... 

[OutByEaster?]

8 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I'm curious as to why the officials have now said it should have stood though.

When the defender heads the ball off the line, Bailey is behind the ball, so not in an offside position.

[Enda]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

When the defender heads the ball off the line, Bailey is behind the ball, so not in an offside position.

Behind the keeper though, wasn’t he?

I’m going to be Mr Unpopular here and say our offside goal was a bloody fantastic call by the linesman. I never would have reached his conclusion. I always think of “last man behind the ball” as the last defender but, in this specific moment, the keeper and the defender on the line have essentially switched places. Very good officiating to notice that, even if it’s a decision against us.

[mattyvilla]

7 minutes ago, Enda said:

Behind the keeper though, wasn’t he?

I’m going to be Mr Unpopular here and say our offside goal was a bloody fantastic call by the linesman. I never would have reached his conclusion. I always think of “last man behind the ball” as the last defender but, in this specific moment, the keeper and the defender on the line have essentially switched places. Very good officiating to notice that, even if it’s a decision against us.

But it was last intentionally played by the defender?

[NeilS]

5 minutes ago, Enda said:

Behind the keeper though, wasn’t he?

I’m going to be Mr Unpopular here and say our offside goal was a bloody fantastic call by the linesman. I never would have reached his conclusion. I always think of “last man behind the ball” as the last defender but, in this specific moment, the keeper and the defender on the line have essentially switched places. Very good officiating to notice that, even if it’s a decision against us.

I need to see it again from a better angle, but if Bailey is not on the goal side of the defender as the defender heads it he can’t be offside, same as if a team mate pulls the ball back to him. I think the ruling was made from Watkins header rather than the defender header, I don’t know if that is correct method anymore.