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

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I said it before, a semi final and 5th in the league so 4-4-2 with stan is fine by me right now.

That there sums it up for me

So our away form doesn't worry you? I'm extremely happy about our position in the league but the fact is we won't challenge the top 4, if we're only picking up 3 points from every 5 games away from home...I don't want us to be content with what we have, because we've got nothing, if we sort out are our away form to at least a decent standard we have a chance of top 4. 4-4-2 isn't the way were going to do that though,

Big John, Yes our away form isn't that bad because we won our first two away games starting 4-5-1.

Big John, If you actually read any posts which you probably won't, you might realise that the we played against Blues is something we'd like to see more often, if you start with 4-5-1, you out number teams in midfield, grind them down abit, especially away from home when the home side looks to attack you, we cripple their threat, they start to tire, it got to around 70 minutes, there players had worked hard all game and by then mentally weren't as sharp to take advantage and we were able to get on top of the game as our midfielders working in a 3 weren't as physically tired and took all 3 points, that's great tactics from O'Neill. I don't know why Carew don't come off the bench more often, he's got 2 goals and an assist in his 3 appearences when he's been used off the bench!

[sled]

its OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, i'm shocked anyone feel the need to ask

Ah, so posting for effect then. Oh hang on. It's only posting for effect when a mod disagrees with it isn't it?

... creating points just to argue - say what you mean - not something that is intended to wind other people up. No Keyboard Warriors please.

[bickster]

its OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, i'm shocked anyone feel the need to ask

Ah, so posting for effect then. Oh hang on. It's only posting for effect when a mod disagrees with it isn't it?

... creating points just to argue - say what you mean - not something that is intended to wind other people up. No Keyboard Warriors please.

Sarcasm isnt PFE especially when its so obvious

[avfc89]

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done.

[bickster]

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done.

how can FACT be hogwash, go do the analysis, Laursen's last ten games and the first ten after he was injured, I've already done it, I know I'm right. Losing Laursen did nothing in terms of results, we were perfectly able to cope without him. Guess what though, ten games later the slump started, which iirc coincides with Curtis Davies first occurence of his shoulder injury and then we were down to the bare bones, we were playing a man at 75% and we suffered for it thereafter. Davies shoulder wasnt the only factor but it was certainly a major one but in reality it has little to do with formation and was more to do with the fact we had so few capable players left in the squad

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done.

how can FACT be hogwash, go do the analysis, Laursen's last ten games and the first ten after he was injured, I've already done it, I know I'm right. Losing Laursen did nothing in terms of results, we were perfectly able to cope without him. Guess what though, ten games later the slump started, which iirc coincides with Curtis Davies first occurence of his shoulder injury and then we were down to the bare bones, we were playing a man at 75% and we suffered for it thereafter. Davies shoulder wasnt the only factor but it was certainly a major one but in reality it has little to do with formation and was more to do with the fact we had so few capable players left in the squad

What's this years excuse BTW? like the 5 games we've been shit in and not won?

[Big_John_10]

So our away form doesn't worry you?

Not really, i pointed out that teams competing with us for 4th place have picked up similar points away from home, either we are all shit or we play in a difficult league where away games are hard to pick up maximum points.

Big John, If you actually read any posts which you probably won't, you might realise that the we played against Blues is something we'd like to see more often

Sorry but i don't see just because that worked against blues would mean it would always work, football isn't that simple.

[MrDuck]

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done.

how can FACT be hogwash, go do the analysis, Laursen's last ten games and the first ten after he was injured, I've already done it, I know I'm right. Losing Laursen did nothing in terms of results, we were perfectly able to cope without him. Guess what though, ten games later the slump started, which iirc coincides with Curtis Davies first occurence of his shoulder injury and then we were down to the bare bones, we were playing a man at 75% and we suffered for it thereafter. Davies shoulder wasnt the only factor but it was certainly a major one but in reality it has little to do with formation and was more to do with the fact we had so few capable players left in the squad

What's this years excuse BTW? like the 5 games we've been shit in and not won?

It's clearly Petrov and 4-4-2 at fault. None of the other players are too blame at all. If we just dropped Stan and played 4-5-1 we'd undoubtably win the league and FA cup, and probably the Champions League too, even though we're not in it - which is also Stan's fault. I heard that us playing 4-4-2 was also the real cause of the global financial crisis.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done.

how can FACT be hogwash, go do the analysis, Laursen's last ten games and the first ten after he was injured, I've already done it, I know I'm right. Losing Laursen did nothing in terms of results, we were perfectly able to cope without him. Guess what though, ten games later the slump started, which iirc coincides with Curtis Davies first occurence of his shoulder injury and then we were down to the bare bones, we were playing a man at 75% and we suffered for it thereafter. Davies shoulder wasnt the only factor but it was certainly a major one but in reality it has little to do with formation and was more to do with the fact we had so few capable players left in the squad

What's this years excuse BTW? like the 5 games we've been shit in and not won?

It's clearly Petrov and 4-4-2 at fault. None of the other players are too blame at all. If we just dropped Stan and played 4-5-1 we'd undoubtably win the league and FA cup, and probably the Champions League too, even though we're not in it - which is also Stan's fault. I heard that us playing 4-4-2 was also the real cause of the global financial crisis.

Actually I'm in a big fan of Petrov in a 4-5-1. Not saying it's Stan's fault at all, he's a good player but not in the way we are currently using him and I don't think away from home in teams who get into our faces, he's really the man for job because the game becomes a battle, Stan isn't a player for this type of game,

Perhaps you should read posts before making assumptions on who I like and don't like as a player?

it's the managers fault for not seeing the faults, the fact we get over-run in midfield everyaway game and the fact we are poor everyaway game and yet then people now on this thread are telling me that's good?

Pathetic post really, Something is currently wrong with what were doing away from home, I'm questioning this, is this wrong? if O'Neill plays Milner at right back, Heskey at right midfield, are we not allowed to question this like he did vs Boro last season?

What's wrong with questioning decisions that don't work?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

So our away form doesn't worry you?

Not really, i pointed out that teams competing with us for 4th place have picked up similar points away from home, either we are all shit or we play in a difficult league where away games are hard to pick up maximum points.

Big John, If you actually read any posts which you probably won't, you might realise that the we played against Blues is something we'd like to see more often

Sorry but i don't see just because that worked against blues would mean it would always work, football isn't that simple.

Big John, I'm talking when we START 4-4-2. Luckily Mon started 4-5-1 against Liverpool and Blues and we won both matches, he's reverted to the tried and failed 4-4-2 and it's failed on us again.

Let me put the question again.

We've started the last 5 away games in a 4-4-2 formation and have picked up 3 points in 5 games where really we should look to be winning, no away games are easy but you have to target winning some of them, are you not worried that if we continue with way were playing in these 5 games we will slide down the table?

I didn't say it would work in everygame, it's just something we should do more often IMO, because what were doing is clearly not working :?

We're playing crap and getting crap results so let's do the same?

Geniune question, what would you personally do? Keep the same as what were doing, change formation, try something new? like Downing, Young and Milner behind Agbonlahor with Petrov and Coker holding or something like that? Or keep 4-4-2?

[Big_John_10]

Geniune question, what would you personally do?

We have changed things now though.

Milner has gone in the middle and downing has come into the side, i'm more than happy to give that a go for awhile.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Geniune question, what would you personally do?

We have changed things now though.

Milner has gone in the middle and downing has come into the side, i'm more than happy to give that a go for awhile.

Actually this was something I was thinking earlier, we've done well last two games, albeit against two very poor sides but I think in the match-thread I said perhaps go with the same team. I'd give us the United and Sunderland game, no improvement and we have to change it. I'd just like to see more changes during a game, Downing's played alot recently and surely on 60 minutes if we're drawing/winning, bringing him off for Coker and putting Milner on the wing and maybe Delph on for a striker and giving him the freedom would sometimes help in games when we are winning just to freshen things up.

[bickster]

we've lost two away games this season both in the dying minutes of the game

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

we've lost two away games this season both in the dying minutes of the game

One was against 10 men Blackburn side,

One was unlucky against WHU mind.

We also grabbed a late goal against Burnley...

We still wouldn't of won those games though if those goals didn't go in? :?

I don't personally get it, Mon's signing have been top class, he's sorted our home form out and tactically at home is spot on, I'm happy with all these things, Yet why am I the only one unhappy with our away form in the past 5 games, I'm not miserable, I just want us to improve, In fact the only thing I gripe about is lack of Subs and Petrov in a 4-4-2 away from home (or 4-4-2 in general away from home, i don't know, not been tested other combination). I might be completly wrong but it has to be questioned surely considering we've yet to gain a positive result using this formation.

[MrDuck]

It's clearly Petrov and 4-4-2 at fault. None of the other players are too blame at all. If we just dropped Stan and played 4-5-1 we'd undoubtably win the league and FA cup, and probably the Champions League too, even though we're not in it - which is also Stan's fault. I heard that us playing 4-4-2 was also the real cause of the global financial crisis.

Actually I'm in a big fan of Petrov in a 4-5-1. Not saying it's Stan's fault at all, he's a good player but not in the way we are currently using him and I don't think away from home in teams who get into our faces, he's really the man for job because the game becomes a battle, Stan isn't a player for this type of game,

Perhaps you should read posts before making assumptions on who I like and don't like as a player?

it's the managers fault for not seeing the faults, the fact we get over-run in midfield everyaway game and the fact we are poor everyaway game and yet then people now on this thread are telling me that's good?

Pathetic post really, Something is currently wrong with what were doing away from home, I'm questioning this, is this wrong? if O'Neill plays Milner at right back, Heskey at right midfield, are we not allowed to question this like he did vs Boro last season?

What's wrong with questioning decisions that don't work?

Easy tiger. I wasn't particularly directing my sarcasm at you, it was a general remark. Every day I drop in here and every day see the same posts about 4-4-2/4-5-1/Petrov and it does my head in.

I don't always agree with MON's decisions, and there is nothing wrong with questioning them, but he does far more right than wrong and knows a millions times more about football and our players than anyone on this forum. We are not poor every away game and we don't get overrun in midfield in every away game like you say... the fact of the matter is we're right up in the mix for a top 4 spot and in a semi-final. As a Villa fan I'm chuffed to bits with this, and I'm realistic enough to know we can't expect a lot more. Hope for more, yes, but not expect it. There are a small selection of posters like yourself that give the impression that anything less than being top of the league is unacceptable, and that top is exactly where we'd be if MON wasn't such an inept manager.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

It's clearly Petrov and 4-4-2 at fault. None of the other players are too blame at all. If we just dropped Stan and played 4-5-1 we'd undoubtably win the league and FA cup, and probably the Champions League too, even though we're not in it - which is also Stan's fault. I heard that us playing 4-4-2 was also the real cause of the global financial crisis.

Actually I'm in a big fan of Petrov in a 4-5-1. Not saying it's Stan's fault at all, he's a good player but not in the way we are currently using him and I don't think away from home in teams who get into our faces, he's really the man for job because the game becomes a battle, Stan isn't a player for this type of game,

Perhaps you should read posts before making assumptions on who I like and don't like as a player?

it's the managers fault for not seeing the faults, the fact we get over-run in midfield everyaway game and the fact we are poor everyaway game and yet then people now on this thread are telling me that's good?

Pathetic post really, Something is currently wrong with what were doing away from home, I'm questioning this, is this wrong? if O'Neill plays Milner at right back, Heskey at right midfield, are we not allowed to question this like he did vs Boro last season?

What's wrong with questioning decisions that don't work?

Easy tiger. I wasn't particularly directing my sarcasm at you, it was a general remark. Every day I drop in here and every day see the same posts about 4-4-2/4-5-1/Petrov and it does my head in.

I don't always agree with MON's decisions, and there is nothing wrong with questioning them, but he does far more right than wrong and knows a millions times more about football and our players than anyone on this forum. We are not poor every away game and we don't get overrun in midfield in every away game like you say... the fact of the matter is we're right up in the mix for a top 4 spot and in a semi-final. As a Villa fan I'm chuffed to bits with this, and I'm realistic enough to know we can't expect a lot more. Hope for more, yes, but not expect it. There are a small selection of posters like yourself that give the impression that anything less than being top of the league is unacceptable, and that top is exactly where we'd be if MON wasn't such an inept manager.

In my whole time on this forum, I done nothing but defend the manager, when we didn't win in however many games last year, I defended him on here and was labelled Blind for not seeing the obvious by posters, yet this it's just really fustrated me and I realise now, I was wrong to fully defend the manager last year, Yes what he did in the first half of the season was absolutely brilliant but when it got to the important part and when something clearly wasn't working, we didn't act quick enough to rectify it.

I don't expect us to be top or in the top 4 at all but I can't help but feel had we kept the same team away from home as we started the season we might be in a better position this season and that's what fustrates me. I'd be geniunally more happy had we lost to Liverpool and Chelsea and beat say Blackburn and West Ham because it would of shown that the reason we're behind the pack is quality of player rather than choice of tactics and line-up, which I currently feel it is. It seems some sort of obvious decisions aswell, Man City, Spurs, Vienna all games me and my old man have watched and around 60 minutes screeming for a subsitution as the opposition get closer and closer and dominate more and more, yet we do nothing about it until the goal is scored. I can see it, my Dad can see it, when I speak to mates who have watched the games they all say we should have made subsitution. Okay we might not have held on or even changed the course of the game but it's better to try and change it rather than seeing out the inevitable (Like he did against Blues and Wolves!! made subsitutions that won/nearly won us the game)

[snowychap]

Ah, so posting for effect then...

Thanks for the cross:

Gooooaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllll.

[Big_John_10]

but I can't help but feel had we kept the same team away from home as we started the season we might be in a better position this season and that's what fustrates me

And how do we know changing formations every home and away game wouldn't have had a negative effect on our home performances? Surely for formations to work well players need to be used to playing in that system, i don't see how swapping every week would help that.

I can see it, my Dad can see it, when I speak to mates who have watched the games they all say we should have made subsitution.

And i bet there are a section of fans who aren't screaming for a sub and if he made a sub and we let a goal in would be unhappy that he changed things when we were winning. He will never please everyone.

[avfc89]

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

Hogwash, Laursen would have got us more wins in the slump period when we played 4-4-2, and you know that. I made a little mistake saying "Only worked" ofcourse that's impossible. I think my Everton comparison is valid, people like to draw comparisons to SAF's early Manchester United team when we're struggling, only fair if I can too. My point is Everton kept the system consistent, and in the end they qualified for the Champions League. And they had to deal with problems also, but they got the job done.

how can FACT be hogwash, go do the analysis, Laursen's last ten games and the first ten after he was injured, I've already done it, I know I'm right. Losing Laursen did nothing in terms of results, we were perfectly able to cope without him. Guess what though, ten games later the slump started, which iirc coincides with Curtis Davies first occurence of his shoulder injury and then we were down to the bare bones, we were playing a man at 75% and we suffered for it thereafter. Davies shoulder wasnt the only factor but it was certainly a major one but in reality it has little to do with formation and was more to do with the fact we had so few capable players left in the squad

Laursen was a quality player, we struggled without him during the slump period.

[alienvillan]

Petrov can play in a 4-4-2. Xavi and Iniesta cannot.