Zatman Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Sako hit that at about 60mph, how he's supposed to hold onto that. It went over the bar anyway unless you're on about another shot which I can't remember. It was when Bacuna tugged him back and he took a weak enough shot from an angle straight at Guzan and he fumbled it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Common sense and good game management begs the question why Guzan would pass the ball to his full back with three minutes left of an away fixture? Bonkers! I didn't see first half, but second half had me worried based on how poorly we responded to Palaces width and pace. Why was Bacuna left on? Sakho tour him a new one, especially when Traore came on! Weather it was Guzan or Amavi's fault, I agree one thing, Guzan should not be throwing the ball short with minutes to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I just don't see rolling the ball to your fullback when he has enough time to take a touch AND wanted the ball in the first place as a risk. This whole 'Amavi wanted it' bit is also irrelevant to the question of whether it was the right or wrong option. Not it isn't. At all. Yes it is. Do you pass the ball to just anyone, in any position, just because they shout, or do you look to see if there are say, opposition players nearby? Here's the moment Amavi received the ball. This is on his right foot, had he waited until it was on his left, Dann would have been half a yard closer. I was wrong on the previous page. At this exact moment, he has four options as I see it. There are passes into danger available to Clark, who has a man near him, and (poss Westwood?) who also has a man near him but could receive the ball on his blind side. There's knocking it out of play for a throw in. There's turning around and passing it back to Guzan. Or there's trying to beat his man. None of these are great options. The way I see it, Dann reacted quickly, but there's a reason he's running towards our defender, totally out of his own position, at the same time his whole team is jogging back to their half, and that is that he sensed danger. Guzan's distribution here gave Amavi a poor range of options, of which he took the wrong one. The goal is primarily Amavi's fault, for sure. But if Guzan could be trusted to distribute the ball well upfield, he wouldn't be rolling the ball out to a fullback who has no good options on the edge of his own penalty area. No it's not. You are posting a bad angled photo that shows less room than there really is. It also fails to show how wide open the 3 Villa players are in the middle. Here is an actual photo of when Amavi received the ball. Notice the 3 wide open players to his right that he could have easily passed to, but decided to dribble. How in the world this is Guzan's fault with evidence like this is beyond me. Well, yours is a fraction of a second before mine as well - he hasn't shaped onto his right foot yet, but whatever - but I don't need to quibble about camera angles. What happened is what happened, and we know the end result. Guzan rolled the ball out, Amavi made a poor touch and a bad decision, and the player who was bearing down on him robbed the ball off him. I've already said it's Amavi's fault that he chose to dribble, and that he made the wrong choice - I said so in the passage you've quoted above. Nothing's going to alter the fact that Dann was bearing down on him quickly and that, in this case, rolling the ball out was the wrong thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 I just don't see rolling the ball to your fullback when he has enough time to take a touch AND wanted the ball in the first place as a risk. This whole 'Amavi wanted it' bit is also irrelevant to the question of whether it was the right or wrong option. Not it isn't. At all. Yes it is. Do you pass the ball to just anyone, in any position, just because they shout, or do you look to see if there are say, opposition players nearby? You would be more inclined to pass it to a player who wanted the ball as opposed to a player who didn't. So yes it's completely relevant. If Amavi had his back to the ball then it would be a totally different matter. Amavi was in a perfectly adequate amount of space when guzan gave him the ball. He had time to take a touch and plenty of options. He **** up. Common sense and good game management begs the question why Guzan would pass the ball to his full back with three minutes left of an away fixture? Bonkers! Genuine question. Why is that bonkers? Common sense and good game management begs the question why Guzan would pass the ball to his full back with three minutes left of an away fixture? Bonkers! I didn't see first half, but second half had me worried based on how poorly we responded to Palaces width and pace. Why was Bacuna left on? Sakho tour him a new one, especially when Traore came on! Weather it was Guzan or Amavi's fault, I agree one thing, Guzan should not be throwing the ball short with minutes to go. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I just don't see rolling the ball to your fullback when he has enough time to take a touch AND wanted the ball in the first place as a risk. This whole 'Amavi wanted it' bit is also irrelevant to the question of whether it was the right or wrong option. Not it isn't. At all. Yes it is. Do you pass the ball to just anyone, in any position, just because they shout, or do you look to see if there are say, opposition players nearby? You would be more inclined to pass it to a player who wanted the ball as opposed to a player who didn't. So yes it's completely relevant. If Amavi had his back to the ball then it would be a totally different matter. Amavi was in a perfectly adequate amount of space when guzan gave him the ball. He had time to take a touch and plenty of options. He **** up. Common sense and good game management begs the question why Guzan would pass the ball to his full back with three minutes left of an away fixture? Bonkers! Genuine question. Why is that bonkers? Common sense and good game management begs the question why Guzan would pass the ball to his full back with three minutes left of an away fixture? Bonkers! I didn't see first half, but second half had me worried based on how poorly we responded to Palaces width and pace. Why was Bacuna left on? Sakho tour him a new one, especially when Traore came on! Weather it was Guzan or Amavi's fault, I agree one thing, Guzan should not be throwing the ball short with minutes to go. Why? To much of a risk. Get it up the pitch, long ball, keep it away from our half as much as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) That's very old fashioned thinking. It's much less risk to keep possession than it is to just punt it back to the opposition. Next time you watch Chelsea or Man City holding onto a result, I bet you their keeper or defenders won't be punting it upfield. They'll be keeping the ball. Edited August 23, 2015 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_eristic Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I just don't see rolling the ball to your fullback when he has enough time to take a touch AND wanted the ball in the first place as a risk. This whole 'Amavi wanted it' bit is also irrelevant to the question of whether it was the right or wrong option. Not it isn't. At all. Yes it is. Do you pass the ball to just anyone, in any position, just because they shout, or do you look to see if there are say, opposition players nearby? Here's the moment Amavi received the ball. This is on his right foot, had he waited until it was on his left, Dann would have been half a yard closer. I was wrong on the previous page. At this exact moment, he has four options as I see it. There are passes into danger available to Clark, who has a man near him, and (poss Westwood?) who also has a man near him but could receive the ball on his blind side. There's knocking it out of play for a throw in. There's turning around and passing it back to Guzan. Or there's trying to beat his man. None of these are great options. The way I see it, Dann reacted quickly, but there's a reason he's running towards our defender, totally out of his own position, at the same time his whole team is jogging back to their half, and that is that he sensed danger. Guzan's distribution here gave Amavi a poor range of options, of which he took the wrong one. The goal is primarily Amavi's fault, for sure. But if Guzan could be trusted to distribute the ball well upfield, he wouldn't be rolling the ball out to a fullback who has no good options on the edge of his own penalty area. No it's not. You are posting a bad angled photo that shows less room than there really is. It also fails to show how wide open the 3 Villa players are in the middle. Here is an actual photo of when Amavi received the ball. Notice the 3 wide open players to his right that he could have easily passed to, but decided to dribble. How in the world this is Guzan's fault with evidence like this is beyond me. Well, yours is a fraction of a second before mine as well - he hasn't shaped onto his right foot yet, but whatever - but I don't need to quibble about camera angles. What happened is what happened, and we know the end result. Guzan rolled the ball out, Amavi made a poor touch and a bad decision, and the player who was bearing down on him robbed the ball off him. I've already said it's Amavi's fault that he chose to dribble, and that he made the wrong choice - I said so in the passage you've quoted above. Nothing's going to alter the fact that Dann was bearing down on him quickly and that, in this case, rolling the ball out was the wrong thing to do. I believe the facts clearly indicate the presence of a second shooter on the grassy knoll. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm tapping out of the conversation at this point. Everyone is embedded in their opinions (including me). I would love to be proven wrong, and I really hope we can look back at the end of the year and say how well Guzan reversed his apparent decline, and so on, but I just don't think I'll need to write that post. In the meantime, I hope we sign another keeper, though I know we won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 That's very old fashioned thinking. It's much less risk to keep possession than it is to just punt it back to the opposition. Next time you watch Chelsea or Man City holding onto a result, I bet you their keeper or defenders won't be punting it upfield. They'll be keeping the ball. I agree keeping the ball is a sensible decision. Guzan could have held off, allowing pressure to back off before keeping the ball by rolling it out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Unfortunately, the time for bringing in another keeper appears to have passed. We have to hope that Guzan can up his game, because if not, I think he will cost us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Common sense and good game management begs the question why Guzan would pass the ball to his full back with three minutes left of an away fixture? Bonkers! I didn't see first half, but second half had me worried based on how poorly we responded to Palaces width and pace. Why was Bacuna left on? Sakho tour him a new one, especially when Traore came on! Weather it was Guzan or Amavi's fault, I agree one thing, Guzan should not be throwing the ball short with minutes to go. Was doing exactly the same in the Man U game, just inviting pressure. Key difference was he was doing it for most of the game. Naive or wot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 If he's doing it for the whole game then it's probably an instruction from above and it's ridiculous to blame him right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 wonder if Victor Valdes facies playing some football this year? Villa based rehab ala van der Sar at Fulham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 That's very old fashioned thinking. It's much less risk to keep possession than it is to just punt it back to the opposition. Next time you watch Chelsea or Man City holding onto a result, I bet you their keeper or defenders won't be punting it upfield. They'll be keeping the ball. I agree keeping the ball is a sensible decision. Guzan could have held off, allowing pressure to back off before keeping the ball by rolling it out. He did. He caught the ball, thought about the long option, and eventually rolled it short to Amavi. Guzan had the ball in his hands for 8 seconds from catching it to passing it. He made the right choice. He just got unlucky that the guy he rolled it to **** up despite having several options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who could be out there for us to get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Cheeky loan bid for David De Gea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Not the biggest Guzan fan myself, however, this really is a witch hunt. For those saying he should have punted it upfield, do you even realize Gestede was deep in our half at the time and the only players we had in their half were Gabby and Traore, who were hardly going to win a header. What happens then? Losing the ball straight away or giving it to our star left back with 15 yards of space? Ridiculous to blame Guzan. He should have done better with Sako's shot, but just watch Clark's movement once Palace stole the ball from Amavi. Inadequate to say the least. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 That's very old fashioned thinking. It's much less risk to keep possession than it is to just punt it back to the opposition. Next time you watch Chelsea or Man City holding onto a result, I bet you their keeper or defenders won't be punting it upfield. They'll be keeping the ball. Yes but their keeper will actually wait until half of their players have actually got into their positions before throwing it out. It was stupid from Guzan and then stupid from Amavi. A keeper has the whole picture of the pitch and what the situation is, that's why they keep hold of it longer to calm it down, considering Palace had been on the attack.I don't think Guzan should be blamed for punting it, but you see better keepers, hold onto the ball longer to calm the whole game down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 What worries me is that we have Sherwood's 2nd choice keeper from last season as our 1st choice for this season. It is a weak area and may take some of the heat off of the CB's if he were replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 That's very old fashioned thinking. It's much less risk to keep possession than it is to just punt it back to the opposition. Next time you watch Chelsea or Man City holding onto a result, I bet you their keeper or defenders won't be punting it upfield. They'll be keeping the ball. Yes but their keeper will actually wait until half of their players have actually got into their positions before throwing it out. It was stupid from Guzan and then stupid from Amavi. A keeper has the whole picture of the pitch and what the situation is, that's why they keep hold of it longer to calm it down, considering Palace had been on the attack. I don't think Guzan should be blamed for punting it, but you see better keepers, hold onto the ball longer to calm the whole game down. This. It wasn't as if it was Sako who tackled Amavi. It was Scott Dann, their CB who hadn't even made it to the half way line before Guzan hastily distributed it to Amavi, who was also foolish to do what he did. It's a bit of a shambles when you concede from your own counter attack within 10 seconds of your keeper distributing the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts