Ulver Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Everton and Sunderland won by employing a very similar game plan to what we did Absolute horse shit. Neither of those went out onto the pitch with no intention of trying to win I watched both games and I wont accept that view Whereas we did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I think McLeish got half the job right yesterday, it was just a shame that he didn't get the whole thing right. Let's be fair, all you people who are saying that you wouldn't mind losing if we at least had a go, if he had sent the team out to attack City and lost 4 or 5 you would still be screaming blue murder at him. Everton and Sunderland won by employing a very similar game plan to what we did, the only difference was that they concentrated in defence for 90+ minutes, and that they committed a few more bodies to their counter attacks. That was all that disappointed me, I don't mind playing counter attacking football against superior teams if we're going to commit bodies to our counters. We just didn't do that yesterday. Everton and Sunderland commited bodies on the counter attack, we didnt. Mcleish did not want anybody to commit forward, in his own words "we would have been ripped apart" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In effect, we played an 8-2 formation yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villianusa Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Yeah they scored and our heads dropped and we gave up Straight out of the McLeish book of football. If that's the case why have we won so many points from losing positions. Seems just another chance to have a dig of the manager. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't have been in those 'Losing' positions to start with. Oh and I don't need to be given the chance to 'have another dig of the manager' as you put it as there are numerous reasons for this already and they are supplied direct from him. Thanks for pointing out the typo. But you never answered the fact that from results your statement was partially incorrect. If our heads went down so much we certainly have come back so many times. I totally agree we shouldn't be going behind as often as we do and he sets us up in a negative fashion but I wasn't commenting on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefa3011 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Everton and Sunderland won by employing a very similar game plan to what we did Absolute horse shit. Neither of those went out onto the pitch with no intention of trying to win I watched both games and I wont accept that view Whereas we did They tried to win the game the best way you can against City. Soak up pressure and hit them on the break. That's what I said in my post, McLeish got the bit about not committing bodies forward wrong. On another day City could well have won both of those games too, as both teams rode their luck imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefa3011 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I think McLeish got half the job right yesterday, it was just a shame that he didn't get the whole thing right. Let's be fair, all you people who are saying that you wouldn't mind losing if we at least had a go, if he had sent the team out to attack City and lost 4 or 5 you would still be screaming blue murder at him. Everton and Sunderland won by employing a very similar game plan to what we did, the only difference was that they concentrated in defence for 90+ minutes, and that they committed a few more bodies to their counter attacks. That was all that disappointed me, I don't mind playing counter attacking football against superior teams if we're going to commit bodies to our counters. We just didn't do that yesterday. Everton and Sunderland commited bodies on the counter attack, we didnt. Mcleish did not want anybody to commit forward, in his own words "we would have been ripped apart" Cheers for clarifying almost exactly what I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancharlie Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 is just really frustrating being a villa fan at the mo. for past employer reasons no one has really given the manager any time or encouragement and a lot of the players have if they are being honest not performed for him regardless of whether it is him or them. they should take some of the blame and this leaves mccleish not knowing his best team but worst of all how to gel players together. I mean the Man Utd model is enviable and built up over many many years but fergie can basiclaly play anyone anyone at all and becuase the system is so automatic they all know where they are playing and what their jobs are. vill are clueleess in that dept at mo and have been since MON left. It is the youth system that needs to be mapped on to the first team as that system is working. Mccleish also needs to be brave and take a risk in games. we'd ratehr lose 4-3 and die trying than lose 1-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-67 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Amazes me that some people on here seem pleased that we only lost 1-0. We lost, therefore the tactics are WRONG. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Amazes me that some people on here seem pleased that we only lost 1-0. We lost, therefore the tactics are WRONG. Simples. Never thought I would see us have the mindset of Small Heath fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Yeah they scored and our heads dropped and we gave up Straight out of the McLeish book of football. If that's the case why have we won so many points from losing positions. Seems just another chance to have a dig of the manager. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't have been in those 'Losing' positions to start with. Oh and I don't need to be given the chance to 'have another dig of the manager' as you put it as there are numerous reasons for this already and they are supplied direct from him. Thanks for pointing out the typo. But you never answered the fact that from results your statement was partially incorrect. If our heads went down so much we certainly have come back so many times. I totally agree we shouldn't be going behind as often as we do and he sets us up in a negative fashion but I wasn't commenting on that. I dunno, is it because once we go behind he makes substitutions or changes his game plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 funny how we finished 9th and now look like we could be in relegation trouble and previously AM took a team finishing 9th down. Think his glass ceiling is 9th! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Yeah they scored and our heads dropped and we gave up Straight out of the McLeish book of football. If that's the case why have we won so many points from losing positions. Seems just another chance to have a dig of the manager. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't have been in those 'Losing' positions to start with. Oh and I don't need to be given the chance to 'have another dig of the manager' as you put it as there are numerous reasons for this already and they are supplied direct from him. Thanks for pointing out the typo. But you never answered the fact that from results your statement was partially incorrect. If our heads went down so much we certainly have come back so many times. I totally agree we shouldn't be going behind as often as we do and he sets us up in a negative fashion but I wasn't commenting on that. I dunno, is it because once we go behind he makes substitutions or changes his game plan? Because a draw is a win to him, we go behind so we chase the draw, we sometimes get lucky and get the win from it too, because his tactics are forced to be changed to something attacking. 0-0 Vrs QPR, we go 1-0 up, he panics and realises we came for a draw, so we sit back, they get a player sent off, we still sit back, they score = 1-1 and for him still a good result. NO bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 funny how we finished 9th and now look like we could be in relegation trouble and previously AM took a team finishing 9th down. Think his glass ceiling is 9th! Oh if only he could reach a ceiling. He is still stuck on the floor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchard Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 funny how we finished 9th and now look like we could be in relegation trouble and previously AM took a team finishing 9th down. Think his glass ceiling is 9th! I remember upon his appointment being shot down for suggesting to get an acceptable finish for AVFC he'd have to have his best ever Premiership finish. Looks like he's going to be equalling his season fro last year again, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
switters Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I think McLeish got half the job right yesterday, it was just a shame that he didn't get the whole thing right. Let's be fair, all you people who are saying that you wouldn't mind losing if we at least had a go, if he had sent the team out to attack City and lost 4 or 5 you would still be screaming blue murder at him. Everton and Sunderland won by employing a very similar game plan to what we did, the only difference was that they concentrated in defence for 90+ minutes, and that they committed a few more bodies to their counter attacks. That was all that disappointed me, I don't mind playing counter attacking football against superior teams if we're going to commit bodies to our counters. We just didn't do that yesterday. He didn't get half the job right. If the plan was to win 1-0 like Everton and Sunderland, half the job is to keep a clean sheet, the other half is to score on the break. We did neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If we had tried to go toe to toe on footballing grounds yesterday our goal difference would have been about 5 down on what it is today. For that ONE game I believe he got his tactics spot on. IF Cuekllar had put the one away he should have and IF Hart hadn't made a worldy save we would have had 3 points. I am not a fan of his but credit for once when I think it is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I think McLeish got half the job right yesterday, it was just a shame that he didn't get the whole thing right. Let's be fair, all you people who are saying that you wouldn't mind losing if we at least had a go, if he had sent the team out to attack City and lost 4 or 5 you would still be screaming blue murder at him. Everton and Sunderland won by employing a very similar game plan to what we did, the only difference was that they concentrated in defence for 90+ minutes, and that they committed a few more bodies to their counter attacks. That was all that disappointed me, I don't mind playing counter attacking football against superior teams if we're going to commit bodies to our counters. We just didn't do that yesterday. He didn't get half the job right. If the plan was to win 1-0 like Everton and Sunderland, half the job is to keep a clean sheet, the other half is to score on the break. We did neither. Well said. You cant be half right. You are either right or wrong, there is nothing in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If we had tried to go toe to toe on footballing grounds yesterday our goal difference would have been about 5 down on what it is today. For that ONE game I believe he got his tactics spot on. IF Cuekllar had put the one away he should have and IF Hart hadn't made a worldy save we would have had 3 points. I am not a fan of his but credit for once when I think it is due.This is getting ridiculous. Nobody is suggesting we should have attacked the entire game. What people are suggesting however is that we should have at least tried to hit them on the break. That we did not do. We played for the draw. McLeish did not get his tactics spot on because we LOST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If we had tried to go toe to toe on footballing grounds yesterday our goal difference would have been about 5 down on what it is today. For that ONE game I believe he got his tactics spot on. IF Cuekllar had put the one away he should have and IF Hart hadn't made a worldy save we would have had 3 points. I am not a fan of his but credit for once when I think it is due. IF my Aunt had a cock she would be my Uncle. You can't base a reasonable argument on 'IF's. He got it wrong again. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If we had tried to go toe to toe on footballing grounds yesterday our goal difference would have been about 5 down on what it is today. For that ONE game I believe he got his tactics spot on. IF Cuekllar had put the one away he should have and IF Hart hadn't made a worldy save we would have had 3 points. I am not a fan of his but credit for once when I think it is due. Although I see where your coming from I disagree. Nobody expected us to go gung ho at City but even after 10 minutes it was clear they weren't on their game. We sat so deep and invited that much pressure it was a matter of time before they scored. Yes we had chances after this point but that is because the team decided to have a go and City struggled under pressure. Maybe if we played that way from the start we still would have lost and by more goals but at least we would have made them work for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts