Ratings & Reactions: Villa v QPR

[FrenchVillaLova]

My MotM goes to Baker, he clearly is a top class center-half.

Westwood is turning out to be a fine little player too.

This league is all about picking up points. I'll take any that come our way. Now lets beat Stoke to make this point count.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Lichaj did some decent things but also some awful things, weird performance. It didn't help that he had feck all in front of him most of the time.

[Delphinho123]

Impressed with Westwood again. Such Calmness and elegance on the ball at times. He wasn't at his best today but you can see he is a very tidy footballer.

Would loved to have seen Ireland today as I thought the game was crying out for him to link up with Westwood just behind Benteke.

But, In Lambert we trust.

A good point, and we go again against Stoke.

[PompeyVillan]

I'm failing to understand the negativity. Everyone was tipping the Redknapp effect to roll us over, easily. We were not effective going forward, but an inexperienced defence managed to get a point, which I thought we were worthy of.

It's difficult to go away and play effective football, it's even more difficult when a team are playing their first home game under a legendary manager.

I'm pleased with a point, even if we didn't create much going forward. I thought Lambert was tactically cautious but had every right to be, we never looked like winning that game.

[GeordieVillan]

Suprised my alot of the criticism of Lambert, well actually, I'm not suprised at all.

I watched the game and thought -

1) We decent first half, reasonably positive, and were better than QPR, which I didn't expect as I thought they would come at us hard in Red-Nose-clearing in the woods's first game.

2) I thought the subs were fine - yes not very positive, but if he'd thrown on attacking players or change formation, and we had lost, people would be saying that we should have kept it tight. As far as I saw, first 20 minutes of the second half our midfield looked tired and were getting overrun badly, so we need fresh legs, so it made sense to brign on like for like - if we didn't make those subs I think we would have lost as Delph KEA gave us a bit of energy again. I also noticed we were starting to rack up yellow cards as the players were tired and diving in to tackles, so three separate subs just helped to break up the game and QPR's rhythm. I als think it sensible to pick a solid midfield (including Herd) to protect our inexperienced back 4 (Clark and Baker were both brilliant by the way - the future is bright if we can keep those 2 and they keep developing).

3) No way would I have brought on Bent or Ireland in the second half when we needed players who were going to battle and scrap for point, I don't think they have it in them. But I, like everyone else, do not understand why Bent is being excluded, there are times when we need him. I don't think Ireland is being excluded at all, he is playing games and being rotated like everyone else.

4) On current form, Bannan should be our first choice play in midfield, followed by Westwood. The other places are all up for grabs.

5) We showed a capacity to retain the ball in the second half and pass it around under pressure for 20-30 passes, which I havn't seen in a while from a Villa team, so this is obviously something that is being worked on in training. Saying that though, we didn't really get anywhere with the passing, it was all in midfield. We were not as direct (i.e. Playing long balls up to Benteke) as we have been previously - but maybe thats why he was less effective in the second half.

6) I think Gabby needs to be dropped. We would be better off with Weimann (if not Bent) at the minute, as Gabby seems to be playing every game but not really contributing much. He seems to have lost that directness to run at people and get into his stride, he's definitely still for the legs for it, as when he does start running dow the line, you can see he is still quick, he's just not positive enough now, he's always looking for a sideways pass.

On the whole though, a good point, and the kind of battling performance that I think we'll need against Stoke, who we normally get bullied by.

[PompeyVillan]

Playing Bent today would be one of those occasions where we play with 10 men. Benteke struggled to get involved, Bent would have disappeared. Unless we try Bent on the wing, which I think would be pointless given his mediocre ability and physicality.

Not his fault, but just the kind of player he is.

[The_Steve]

Suprised my alot of the criticism of Lambert, well actually, I'm not suprised at all.

I watched the game and thought -

1) We decent first half, reasonably positive, and were better than QPR, which I didn't expect as I thought they would come at us hard in Red-Nose-clearing in the woods's first game.

2) I thought the subs were fine - yes not very positive, but if he'd thrown on attacking players or change formation, and we had lost, people would be saying that we should have kept it tight. As far as I saw, first 20 minutes of the second half our midfield looked tired and were getting overrun badly, so we need fresh legs, so it made sense to brign on like for like - if we didn't make those subs I think we would have lost as Delph KEA gave us a bit of energy again. I also noticed we were starting to rack up yellow cards as the players were tired and diving in to tackles, so three separate subs just helped to break up the game and QPR's rhythm. I als think it sensible to pick a solid midfield (including Herd) to protect our inexperienced back 4 (Clark and Baker were both brilliant by the way - the future is bright if we can keep those 2 and they keep developing).

3) No way would I have brought on Bent or Ireland in the second half when we needed players who were going to battle and scrap for point, I don't think they have it in them. But I, like everyone else, do not understand why Bent is being excluded, there are times when we need him. I don't think Ireland is being excluded at all, he is playing games and being rotated like everyone else.

4) On current form, Bannan should be our first choice play in midfield, followed by Westwood. The other places are all up for grabs.

5) We showed a capacity to retain the ball in the second half and pass it around under pressure for 20-30 passes, which I havn't seen in a while from a Villa team, so this is obviously something that is being worked on in training. Saying that though, we didn't really get anywhere with the passing, it was all in midfield. We were not as direct (i.e. Playing long balls up to Benteke) as we have been previously - but maybe thats why he was less effective in the second half.

6) I think Gabby needs to be dropped. We would be better off with Weimann (if not Bent) at the minute, as Gabby seems to be playing every game but not really contributing much. He seems to have lost that directness to run at people and get into his stride, he's definitely still for the legs for it, as when he does start running dow the line, you can see he is still quick, he's just not positive enough now, he's always looking for a sideways pass.

On the whole though, a good point, and the kind of battling performance that I think we'll need against Stoke, who we normally get bullied by.

Good post. Agree with a lot of it.

[villa4europe]

did anyone find out who the co commentator was?

shockingly bad, hope we dont get him again

for those that didnt have the pleasure imagine gary neville's whiny manc accent but not actually knowing a thing about football with a bit of bias and alan shearer esque say exactly what you see rubbish thrown in for good measure

[roonst83]

On the way home from the game. Did well enough first half but always felt from the start we needed 2 goals to win this. Didn't turn up atall second half and could barely venture out if our half. They wre there for the taking. Tekkers was sublime first half but due to our negative play in second half was ineffective. Sustained plenty of pressure second half and did well to come through that.

As someone else said for us to not play great in the last two games and get 4 points isn't too bad atall. Don't fancy us against Stoke atall though unfortunately

[roonst83]

did anyone find out who the co commentator was?

shockingly bad, hope we dont get him again

for those that didnt have the pleasure imagine gary neville's whiny manc accent but not actually knowing a thing about football with a bit of bias and alan shearer esque say exactly what you see rubbish thrown in for good measure

Where were you watching it?

[sutherland]

Here we go again...

Back to surrendering football matches again!.. 25mins left, games crying out for a bit of creativity and a goal, make 3 subs and leave ireland and bent on the bench!

You must be realy pleased with yourself labmert, But i guess you think we were excellent again lol.

Another arse licking yes man up lerners arse, I do actually feel sorry for him by not being able to pick the side he wants.

Never mind though randy, You've still got the villas annual sale of the clubs best player in benteke to look forward to next season when a club with ambition comes knocking.

Thats after we sell Bent, ireland and given at the end of this one!

Fcuking Cowards!.. Waste Of Space!..

[Keyblade]

Yeah the co commentator was absolutely terrible and annoying as hell. And I swear he's related to Jamie Mackie.

[Designer1]

Crap display - Good point.

[mjmooney]

On current form, Bannan should be our first choice play in midfield

[AVFCforever1991]

Guzan MoM because he kept us in the game

poor performance. But still a good point

[jonno_2004]

Here we go again...

Back to surrendering football matches again!.. 25mins left, games crying out for a bit of creativity and a goal, make 3 subs and leave ireland and bent on the bench!

You must be realy pleased with yourself labmert, But i guess you think we were excellent again lol.

Another arse licking yes man up lerners arse, I do actually feel sorry for him by not being able to pick the side he wants.

Never mind though randy, You've still got the villas annual sale of the clubs best player in benteke to look forward to next season when a club with ambition comes knocking.

Fcuking Cowards!.. Waste Of Space!..

Bloody hell, I wonder what you'd have posted had we lost..

[R.I.C.O.]

I'd have taken a point before that match due to the Redknobb effect and I'm fairly pleased we managed to do so. Onwards to the next game against Stoke, where we definately cannot play like we have done against the last two teams.

[Ponky]

I agree with those who say we would have lost had Lambert not made those changes. It was a bit reckless I thought going with a 3-5-2, using Herd as a CB having not played for 4 weeks and not really providing any leadership in the middle of the park. The QPR forwards were rampaging for the first 25 minutes of the second half and we were lucky not to concede a couple and lose track of the game. So while yes the substitutions were largely negative they were designed to rectify some pretty massive tactical errors by Lambert and once we reverted to four at the back we started to take control of the game again.

In all, very few players really did themselves any justice. Guzan was superb, Westwood and Baker very solid and Benteke was always a threat but was left isolated way too often. Holman took his goal well but that was just about it for him.

FWIW I thought Derick Williams looks a very tidy player - tall, athletic, pacy and quite composed on the ball. Very unlucky not to have earned a free kick deep in their half too.

In the end, we probably didn't deserve the point but it is a point all the same, keeping us floating above the bottom three.

Lambert needs to stop tinkering with the lineup though and let the lads start forming as a solid unit.

[Jarpie]

Of course it does. We played mostly the same players in those 3 games as well (largely due to injuries). It really shouldn't come us much of a surprise that we were good against Arsenal, poor against Reading and even poorer against QPR.

Honestly, some people here are so hypocritical. They moan when we're playing well but not getting the points but then still moan when we're playing poor but getting the points. I doubt there's anyone here that wouldn't have taken 4 points from two key relegation fixtures so I really can't understand why some are getting so dramatic.

The decision not to put Ireland in starting lineup ahead of Bannan or Herd is even more baffling due playing third game within the week, he haven't started three games in a row and would've had much more fresher legs than Bannan and Herd has just come back from injury so he certainly couldn't been on his best.

We also were so bloody poor before the substitutions, he should've made them 10-15 minutes earlier. I can see logic behind putting Delph and KEA on and Delph played surprisingly well, made some very good tackles and interceptions but bringing Ireland instead of KEA would've given us much more threat on attack than KEA and we could've snatched the win.

[Raymond]

The only thing I can think to why Ireland was left out is Lambert wanted to tinker against a team we should be able to beat.

If that is true, lets hope his tinkering and the two points it lost us does not cost us in the end.