Petrov - can he play in a 4-4-2?

[barry'sboots]

I think it's some of the posters having problems with Stan that is the problem.

I was the OP and I don't hate Stan as somebody posted earlier or have a problem with him, I just want the Villa to win and I think the way that MON uses Stan is wrong. In case the idiot who posted that I hate Stan hadn't noticed, he played (in all I think) of the ten 4-5-1 games that we won that I am suggesting that we use! Does that same person hate NRC because he's saying that we shouldn't use him?

And for the poster that says thats because we were red hot last Dec/Jan and won games we shouldn't, is it just coincidence that we were also red hot in August/September when we beat Plop, Fulham and Blues with our 4-5-1 (the two away wins in the league this year)?

For me this says that it has to be 4-5-1 away from home and AVPoB is spot on - JC has been useless away from home with the exception of the game against the Scum when the 4-5-1 kept it solid until MON made the switch to 4-4-2 and JC came on as an impact sub and helped us win the game. I am all for this - I think a change in formation/tactical approach in games is what we are crying out for.

At home, I believe Stan can play in a 4-4-2, but only for 60 minutes as he does tire. If you can't see this then I am amazed - I am not an internet expert but the possession stats must be on there somewhere that show that, pro rata, we have significantly less possession, score less and concede more in the last 30 minutes. I suppose that, like the 4-5-1 stats, this is just a coincidence and is to do with everyone else except Stan.

And the difference in the Hull game and the Bolton game (sides of equal standing IMO, in fact Bolton are probably better compared to Hull without JB) was the last 30 minutes again - we kept ticking over against Bolton and, even when they scored their goal, I never felt in any doubt that we were going to win that game comfortably and we scored three goals spread through the second half. So last 30 mins for me is NRC on for Stan or switch to 4-5-1/4-3-3 depending upon the circumstances.

And for Chindie, who says that MON has access to all the information etc.. Is that the same MON that didn't know we had used the least players (and probably made the least subs) in the Premier League last season? MON is human, I think, and has his failings just like everybody. When DOL was our manager, did he get everything right because he was our manager and therefore must know best?

So I don't hate "Stan" or think that he should be discarded and I don't necessarily disagree that he is our most technically gifted CM (although as AVFCPOB points out this should not always guarantee selection if this is not working for the team) BUT I do think that MON should use him differently and recognise that there are times and certain instances when he needs to be given a rest/subbed or supplemented.

[bickster]

And for Chindie, who says that MON has access to all the information etc.. Is that the same MON that didn't know we had used the least players (and probably made the least subs) in the Premier League last season? MON is human, I think, and has his failings just like everybody. When DOL was our manager, did he get everything right because he was our manager and therefore must know best?

What? Why on earth would he want to know that? From a managers POV do you think any manager goes around wondering if he's made more or less substitutions that anybody else or if he's used less players, like it actually means something from his POV, like it makes him a better or worse manager than anybody else

I'm kind of glad MON didn't know, what kind of basket case gets up in the morning and looks at some useless, meaningless statistics and judges himself by them. MON isn't perfect, no-one is but MON not knowing utter rubbish like that is a positive thing not a negative thing

[blandy]

Elements of this conversation are becoming ludicrous in their simplistic approach.

To somehow claim to think that results and formations that occurred 12 months ago, with different personnel, against teams now having different players and /or managers, in different runs of form, in different conditions, with the opponents using different tactics and formations being used as "fact" to "prove" 4-5-1 will work and 4-4-2 won't work is bizarre.

Taking one single element of a whole bunch of variables and using that as some kind of irrefutable "evidence" of how things will happen in the future....if only MO'N would play 4-5-1 then we'd win pretty much all the time...

It's bonkers. It ignores not just all the variables on the day but also the direction and development of the team in the future - how we want to play in terms of possession, creating chances, defending, playing the ball out from the back, marking at free kicks and corners and a zillion other things.

To change from a counter attacking unit that may be able to snatch wins when on form to a team that can control more of the play, win by force of posession and play, not have to desperately hold out with 10 men behind the ball for ever longer periods of play, as they all tire. This change is taking place, it's not there yet by a long way, but it is happening and does need to happen. 4-5-1 may be useful on occasion, but reverting to the tactics from that good run 12 months ago would be a backwards step in many ways, and is no more guaranteed to bring results than 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or anyother formation.

[barry'sboots]

Elements of this conversation are becoming ludicrous in their simplistic approach.

To somehow claim to think that results and formations that occurred 12 months ago, with different personnel, against teams now having different players and /or managers, in different runs of form, in different conditions, with the opponents using different tactics and formations being used as "fact" to "prove" 4-5-1 will work and 4-4-2 won't work is bizarre.

Taking one single element of a whole bunch of variables and using that as some kind of irrefutable "evidence" of how things will happen in the future....if only MO'N would play 4-5-1 then we'd win pretty much all the time...

It's bonkers. It ignores not just all the variables on the day but also the direction and development of the team in the future - how we want to play in terms of possession, creating chances, defending, playing the ball out from the back, marking at free kicks and corners and a zillion other things.

To change from a counter attacking unit that may be able to snatch wins when on form to a team that can control more of the play, win by force of posession and play, not have to desperately hold out with 10 men behind the ball for ever longer periods of play, as they all tire. This change is taking place, it's not there yet by a long way, but it is happening and does need to happen. 4-5-1 may be useful on occasion, but reverting to the tactics from that good run 12 months ago would be a backwards step in many ways, and is no more guaranteed to bring results than 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or anyother formation.

No-one is claiming it is irefutable evidence it merely, in my mind, supports my feelings that with the squad that we have we play better away from home with a 4-5-1/4-3-3, especially if we are using Stan in CM. I don't see why you hold it in so much dread given that Chelski won two consecutive league titles a couple of years back and reached CL Cup and Semis playing 4-5-1/4-3-3 at home and away and no-one accused them of being a counterattacking team looking to snatch wins. Likewise Plop made it work well last season and Arsenal - the best "footballing" side in the country have switched to it this year for exactly the same reason as I am applying - that they are not strong enough in CM playing 4-4-2.

And it is not all twelve months ago. We played 4-5-1 in Aug/Sept and won three from three. I haven't witnessed too much evidence of "the change happening" in our away league games since then?? I would be interested to know what change you think this is given the current personnel that we have?

What? Why on earth would he want to know that? From a managers POV do you think any manager goes around wondering if he's made more or less substitutions that anybody else or if he's used less players, like it actually means something from his POV, like it makes him a better or worse manager than anybody else.

You don't have to study figures every morning etc. to have known this, you just need to watch us play and other games. It was fairly obvious IMO. I would have thought, when we were on a run of 2 wins in 15 games, MON might have done some analysis and thought how he could change things to stop this run. Rotation and substitutions would have been part of this IMO. Stiffening us up when we were ahead in games having conceded late goals in previous games might have been a good idea? Going to Plop with a 4-5-1 that had served us so well (as we did earlier this year) against a rampant, at that time, Plop might have been a good idea. I was merely pointing out that MON does not appear to have all of the information and analysis and does not always get it right, the latter point of which you seem to agree with me.

[HJ]

barry'sboots, just in case you didn't see it in the General thread, this might interest you:

Hi general I know we don't know what it's like in training, what about the opponents and what not but I'd love to state some simple facts really, what I'd love to be shown to Mon (I do think he's a very good manager and right for the job BTW)

Our last 20 away games going on from last year:

Starting 4-5-1: 7 Wins in 7 (Arsenal, Everton, Sunderland, Hull City, West Ham, Liverpool, Blues)

Starting 4-4-2: 2 Wins in 13 games (Blackburn, Portsmouth) and then draws (Bolton, Middlesbrough, Everton, Wolves, Burnley) and losses (Man City, Man United, Liverpool, Fulham, Blackburn, West Ham)

Would he not be interested in these stats? I mean we can say what we like about the opponents videos and what not but at the end of the day, those stats are pretty conclusive in what were more successful with.

General Krulak here:

1. AVFC-Prideofbrum: Please let me assure you that all the statistics you have commented on plus MUCH, MUCH, more are kept at Bodymoor Heath. The detail of individual, squad and formation statistics would amaze you. Seriously, you would be surprised at the technology employed to determine who has done what in every single game we have played over the past few years. On top of the statistics that are extremely accurate and complete, the Manager and his Coaches have film, personal observation at practices and during games, a sense of the fitness of the players, a good sense of our opponents based, again, on films and scouting. With all of this input, MON makes his decisions as to who is playing and what formation. Fans have every right in the world to question the Manager...the Fan pays for the ticket and has the right to question. At the same time, the same Fans need to understand that the Manager is working with a great deal more information than the Fans.

[alienvillan]

About the General's (or MON's) information sources above: I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone (these days). After that it's the manager's capability to use that information that matters. And again, after that it's about the managers philosophy and his approach to the game.

If we as spectators had the same information we probably would change our opinions. Or not.

And if there were 10 different (real) managers with the same information and players, there would be 10 different looking teams.

Our ideal formation and starting line-up would be something like this:

------------------- Friedel

------- Cuellar -- Collins -- Dunne

L.Young ----------------------------- Warnock

----------------- Reo-Coker

---------- Sidwell -------- Petrov

Downing -------- Milner ----------- A.Young

----------- Carew ----- Agbonlahor

Of course the rest of the footballing world would struggle accepting this.

[Hanky]

I think we get too caught up in formations at times. Yes they win you games but it was not the reason we lost 5-0 at Liverpool last year. We had a centre midfielder playing at right back and Heskey and Carew up front to name two problems at first. I think now we have a pretty strong unit at the back (players wise) we can now afford to start playing 442. I secretly (or not so now) hope we play in on saturday and really go at them and I think we will.

[ED]

To somehow claim to think that results and formations that occurred 12 months ago, with different personnel, against teams now having different players and /or managers, in different runs of form, in different conditions, with the opponents using different tactics and formations being used as "fact" to "prove" 4-5-1 will work and 4-4-2 won't work is bizarre.

Well put, this is what I've been trying to say all along.

[ED]

We were shit hot during December and January, we could have played 1 1 8 and we'd have won. It's not just down to formations, you could argue vs Everton, Hull and West Ham we were incredibly lucky to get anything as they were complete rearguard actions.

The difference being that we didn't actually concede many chances, I can still remember those games, against Hull apart from the last minute drama, Hull didn't threaten Friedel at all, against West Ham, he had a shot straight at him late on but once again rarely chances,

Yes but neither did we, you're using two average performances against poor sides where we scraped wins with late own goals as proof we should change formation just because that was the formation we had when we won those games?

Its madness, how can you not see there are a million other factors in play, you're acting like 4-5-1 is a guaranteed win just because it contributed to some close wins A YEAR AGO in games that could easily have gone either way.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

To change from a counter attacking unit that may be able to snatch wins when on form to a team that can control more of the play, win by force of posession and play, not have to desperately hold out with 10 men behind the ball for ever longer periods of play, as they all tire. This change is taking place, it's not there yet by a long way, but it is happening and does need to happen. 4-5-1 may be useful on occasion, but reverting to the tactics from that good run 12 months ago would be a backwards step in many ways, and is no more guaranteed to bring results than 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or anyother formation.

Sorry but look at our league performances and results away from home? Our best two results came playing in a 4-5-1 formations and our best away performance (Liverpool)

I'm not talking about home performances, I've already said 10000000000 times that at home is completly different but the facts are simple, we haven't won a single game in a 4-4-2 formation AWAY from home since February. It's a FACT it doesn't work away from home, there is simply no arguement for 4-4-2. I mean at least in the summer people could say "Well we went into 4-4-2 when we were tired and had a poor defence" but now we have an exceptionally solid defence, brilliant home form, players are fit and ready, arguably our best squad in years and 4-4-2 just doesn't work, we've played

West Ham, Burnley, Blackburn, Wolves, Everton and have picked up 3 points. I don't see how clearer things have become, none of those games we have put good performances in BECAUSE we can't win the ball back, teams come onto us and because we don't have that extra man in midfield we don't win the ball back, JC is incredibly poor away from home and so it's like playing with 10 men. Do you really think formations has nothing to do with it? Of course it does, it changes the whole line up, the roles of players, the way a team plays.

Blandy you say it's a formation thats defensive and has us holding on with 10 men behind the ball, but isn't that better than having being pushed back with 8 men behind the ball? Because that's what it's likes when we've been playing teams this year, all our away games apart from Liverpool and maybe Blues have we deserves to actually win a game and nor have we dominated that game. At home it's a similar story in second halves of games once we tire, the midfield two get through so much work in the first half, by the time the second half comes they are knackered and it comes easier for teams to play through us, we don't press as quickly.

You say 4-5-1 defensive and away from home it is, BUT it gives you the stability defensively to go and win games. if we were dominating games in a 4-4-2, having alot of chances but not getting the right results, there is an arguement for it saying we're playing well just not getting that luck but the fact is were getting dominated and over-run in a 4-4-2 so a tactical switch has to be made.

4-5-1 Can produce some of the best performances too, look at Arsenal away, our best performance all season...in a 4-5-1, could of been alot more. When we used the formation at home, Arsenal at home, could of smashed them 4/5 in the first half. Wigan we drew 0-0 but hit the woodwork 4 times and had something like 3 of the line. I'd stick with 4-4-2 at home but change it while in the game to keep things fresh for us. Away from home, there is no arguement, you have to start 4-5-1 and if were behind or want a goal like the Blues match, then you can turn to 4-4-2. We've kept 4 clean sheets all season, 2 of them came in a 4-5-1 (3 games..), 2 of them came in a 4-4-2 (11 games)

[blandy]

..To somehow claim to think that results and formations that occurred 12 months ago, with different personnel, against teams now having different players and /or managers, in different runs of form, in different conditions, with the opponents using different tactics and formations being used as "fact" to "prove" 4-5-1 will work and 4-4-2 won't work is bizarre.

Taking one single element of a whole bunch of variables and using that as some kind of irrefutable "evidence" of how things will happen in the future....if only MO'N would play 4-5-1 then we'd win pretty much all the time...

It's bonkers. It ignores not just all the variables on the day but also the direction and development of the team in the future - how we want to play in terms of possession, creating chances, defending, playing the ball out from the back, marking at free kicks and corners and a zillion other things.....

No-one is claiming it is irefutable evidence....

avfc_pride of brum seems to be

] The fact is starting with a 4-5-1, we are way way way more successful away from home.....The fact is we will always score a goal or two away from home whatever formation....It's a FACT it doesn't work away from home, there is simply no arguement for 4-4-2

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

..To somehow claim to think that results and formations that occurred 12 months ago, with different personnel, against teams now having different players and /or managers, in different runs of form, in different conditions, with the opponents using different tactics and formations being used as "fact" to "prove" 4-5-1 will work and 4-4-2 won't work is bizarre.

Taking one single element of a whole bunch of variables and using that as some kind of irrefutable "evidence" of how things will happen in the future....if only MO'N would play 4-5-1 then we'd win pretty much all the time...

It's bonkers. It ignores not just all the variables on the day but also the direction and development of the team in the future - how we want to play in terms of possession, creating chances, defending, playing the ball out from the back, marking at free kicks and corners and a zillion other things.....

No-one is claiming it is irefutable evidence....

avfc_pride of brum seems to be

] The fact is starting with a 4-5-1, we are way way way more successful away from home.....The fact is we will always score a goal or two away from home whatever formation....It's a FACT it doesn't work away from home, there is simply no arguement for 4-4-2

They are facts. In fact arguing that 4-4-2 away from home is working would just be arguing for the sake of it.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

There would be an arguement if there was stats showing things like 5 wins in 7 away from home in a 4-5-1 and 3 wins in 7 in a 4-4-2, because that could be down to different teams, differemt viarable than just a formation.

However 4-5-1 it's 7 in 7.

In a 4-4-2 it's 0 in 11.

Okay I might not be a football manager, I might not be an expert but it's not hard to realise in where were more successful?

[barry'sboots]

No-one is claiming it is irefutable evidence....

avfc_pride of brum seems to be

] The fact is starting with a 4-5-1, we are way way way more successful away from home.....The fact is we will always score a goal or two away from home whatever formation....It's a FACT it doesn't work away from home, there is simply no arguement for 4-4-2

I don't think he is saying that the results/points alone are causing him to take this view, but he can and will correct me no doubt if he is. I think he's saying the results plus what he is seeing and hearing with his own eyes and ears, i.e. poor performances this season away from home in a 4-4-2 compared to good performances in a 4-5-1, provide him what what he feels is conclusive evidence. And I agree with this.

Both AVFCPOB and myself, and others, are not just looking at the results page of the web site and drawing these conclusions. We are also watching and listening to games and putting the two together.

I have yet to see anybody put a persuasive argument together for sticking with 4-4-2 away from home.

Although, and this might surprise you, I would actually advocate it this weekend!! I take this view for the following reasons:

- they have defensive problems with only one recognised CB so JC and Gabby would cause real problems;

- they will play in front of us as they don't really have an ACM (now Scholes is knocking on) who can really get in behind Stan; and

- we matched their 4-4-2 last year with our 4-4-2 until the latter stages when we were ahead and, IMO, should have switched to 4-5-1 with an extra man in CM to stop the Man U onslaught and help out a tiring Stan.

As long as Stan is used appropriately I think he can be a valuable player for us.

[sled]

When I read that some people can't see that Petrov tends to tire late in games, I shake my head.

[HJ]

In cups we need to play 4-4-2 away though since its

4-4-2 : 2 of 2

4-5-1 : 0 of 1

[mtb_wm]

I have yet to see anybody put a persuasive argument together for sticking with 4-4-2 away from home.

Other than the location of where we are playing and number of supporters we have, what difference does it make if we're home or away?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I have yet to see anybody put a persuasive argument together for sticking with 4-4-2 away from home.

Other than the location of where we are playing and number of supporters we have, what difference does it make if we're home or away?

Teams will attack us more. Set their stall out to attack rather than defend, where as at VP, most teams sit back and defend apart from top 6/7.

[blandy]

Following your own logic, then, surely if you advocate 4-4-2 against the Champions, in their own ground, albeit they have some players injured, then you muust be able to see the logic of doing the same against weaker teams?

Mention of Utd. away reminds me of last season - we were deservedly ahead, there, and but for a terrible linesman who erroneously flagged twice when we were clean through in the second half, we'd have won - late comeback by Utd. or not. It's that kind of variable that gets overlooked in this analysis of stats v performance that is being used to calim as fact that 4-5-1 is better.

Still, we've done this to death now.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

In cups we need to play 4-4-2 away though since its

4-4-2 : 2 of 2

4-5-1 : 0 of 1

Okay I didn't previously add it but if people remember any of my comments from the summer, I said a target man don't suit our 4-5-1 away from home because we play on the break and Gabby's running into the channels is far superior to what Carew can offer which is a lack of mobility. I think this was during threads which basically said what should our team be and people said 4-5-1 with Carew upfront. (in Vienna's case, it was Heskey)