Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: dave.woodhall on March 12, 2012, 10:48:04 AM
-
www.thebirminghampress.com/2012/03/12/the-sun-shines-on-b6/
-
(http://www.parrottrainingreview.com/images/approved.jpg)
-
it is great reading this when you have won on a saturday.
I really do hope he looks at all the kids now , what have we got to lose
-
The booing of the substitution of N'Zogbia was unfair. He'd looked bright earlier on, but by the time of the substitution he wasn't contributing anything. Gabby needed support and it made sense to bring on another striker. Unfortunately, it seems that any substitution AM makes is going to get booed.
-
Don't agree with booing only for the reason it won't help. I did/do question N'Zogbia decision when Albrighton wasn't really doing anything of any use. At least N'Zogbia looked like he was capable of doing something.
As for the comment on Fulhams tactics, I agree with the article. If that's how they set themselves out every week, then we can't complain about negative, defensive football here. They played for the 0-0 and hardly bothered themselves about winning the game.
-
I guess the booing was a little unfair, because at the moment any little stick is being used to beat Mcleish with. However, having had a couple of days thinking time, I honestly believed we won, in spite of his substitutions and not because of them.
Similarly to Blackburn last week, Herd and especially Petrov were fading after 60 mins. I would have had Gardner on at 65 mins at the latest for Petrov to get some more energy and drive into the midfield. Petrov and Herd were excellent by the way, but there is nothing wrong in using the bench. Christ, we have 7 subs, we can afford to be a little adventureous at times and make a change early?.
Weimann coming on was exactly the right move, but again I would have had him on at 60 mins for Albrighton. It's subjective though and if he thought Albrighton staying on was a better bet, then fair play. And if I am honest, I thought he did improve in the last 20 mins.
I guess what I am trying to say is perhaps if he had changed it a little earlier, then maybe we would have won it a little earlier and more comfortably?. As others have said, lets see the likes of Gardner, Weimann, Johnson et al, get some more playing time this season. Gardner is not going to learn much by 90 secs at the end of a game, even if he does assist with the winner.
-
The official attendance was 32,372, which meant in reality around 29,000 at the ground.
Are the figures announced at Villa Park "Tickets Sold" (ie including no-shows) or "Turnstile" ?
-
That's a pretty accurate assessment.
Part of the problem with the indiscriminate criticism of McLeish is that it drowns out the less angry but more accurate stuff. He's able to dismiss the whole lot as 'hate' and just ignore it.
Now we appear to be safe from everything but the wilder improbabilities, we might get a glimpse of his vision for the future. I hope he has one because we can't keep lurching from Saturday to Saturday and from transfer window to transfer window, just hoping things get better.
-
Ireland didn't look very happy at all when he was told to play wide left
-
I had no problem with making the substitution but I just wondered if Albrighton or indeed gabby shoul have gone off!
-
I had no problem with making the substitution but I just wondered if Albrighton or indeed gabby shoul have gone off!
I expected it to be Albrighton, but, in his defence, in addition to his many overhit crosses he was still making one or two very good ones
-
I had no problem with making the substitution but I just wondered if Albrighton or indeed gabby shoul have gone off!
I think Weimann for Gabby wouldn't have changed the shape much, but an extra striker does, so it needed to be one of the wide players, IMO.
I would have taken Marc off, who at that time was fading.
-
The booing of the substitution of N'Zogbia was unfair. He'd looked bright earlier on, but by the time of the substitution he wasn't contributing anything. Gabby needed support and it made sense to bring on another striker. Unfortunately, it seems that any substitution AM makes is going to get booed.
Absolutely agree. It was a fair decision, although Albrighton probably deserved the hook more than Charlie.
-
Ireland didn't look very happy at all when he was told to play wide left
I saw that as well, I think I saw an interchange between McL and Ireland after that, McL was giving Ireland the thumbs up, i think to check he was ok with being moved to the wing.
Maybe thats fall out from whatever issues have gone on between players and manager
-
Good article whoever wrote it! Obviously Mr Woodhall being a celeb has the services of a proper journalist at hand....
-
If we'd drawn or lost I could understand all this "I'd have had him off" or "I'd have done it sooner"
But we won, so, surely there can't be any arguement with it.
From my view point, In the first half 4 or 5 times we attacked on the wings but there was no one in or around the six yard box, so that was 4 or 5 opportunities wasted. I felt in the 2nd half, in particular, we seemed to be lop sided on the left. It seems logical to take one of those off. I, like many others, felt CN'Z was begining to fade out of the game. CN'Z coming off kept balance to the team, it was the right move.
I don't think we'd have won if, say, Gabby or Albrighton had come off.
-
If we'd drawn or lost I could understand all this "I'd have had him off" or "I'd have done it sooner"
But we won, so, surely there can't be any arguement with it.
I've stated a few times I would have made the switch with Albrighton coming off. However, that's just me being honest rather than a criticism of the manager. Afterall, and as you say, we won the game and his subs contributed largely to that, so well done, Alex.
-
Good article again Dave bang on the nail as usual.
-
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.
The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?
AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.
-
Thought there might be a reference to Mr Deacy. Ireland and Herd got stuck in with some challenges that he surely would have been impressed with.
-
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.
The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?
AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.
Has anyone considered the crosses were not overhit, just that there should have been somebody on the opposite wing?
It is the same with corners. Everybody piles into the middle and a ball to the far post is considered 'overhit'. Fulham's central defenders are giants (so are most clubs' actually) so there is little point putting a ball into the goalmouth, why not keep somebody wide. Marc Albrighton is a great crosser of the ball, why not make full use of him?
-
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.
The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?
AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.
Has anyone considered the crosses were not overhit, just that there should have been somebody on the opposite wing?
It is the same with corners. Everybody piles into the middle and a ball to the far post is considered 'overhit'. Fulham's central defenders are giants (so are most clubs' actually) so there is little point putting a ball into the goalmouth, why not keep somebody wide. Marc Albrighton is a great crosser of the ball, why not make full use of him?
This goes back to something I was saying about the midfield days of MON, when we had Ash and Milner/Downing on the wings it always seemed if it was crossed/over hit it they'd always be there to collect it because there was never anyone in the middle. The plan was Petrov to release it to the wing and one of them to whip in a cross for Carew to head in or Gabby to gain half a yard on and poke it home. We were never dominant just outside the area in the middle, which is why amongst other players Sidwell and NRC always came up looking rubbish. It now seems we're trying to play through the middle a lot more at the expense of the wings.
-
My mates a steward down at the Villa, and on Saturday he was right by the dug out.
He was saying that AMcL kept shouting to players "Keep the ball, if you can't go forward take it back, just keep the ball"
I know we're not Barca, Real M, AC and even Man U and Man C but that's what they do. Pass, Pass and more Pass, Forward, Backwards and Sidewards, just keep the ball.
I thought that side of our game was good. Add a few penetrating passes and we could start to look dangerous again. Fulham are a decent team and if we'd have kept giving the ball away we could have been in trouble.
-
The most interesting fact from the last two games is that Hesk has continued to warm the bench.
D'you think McL has got the hint re the appetite for Our Emile?
-
www.thebirminghampress.com/2012/03/12/the-sun-shines-on-b6/
What can you say, some obvious points and some ill thought out, yes we do play better football without Benty but that's a question of style and how you see the team playing and whats available, nothing to do with Bent's ability, and "the not scoring dilemma"," therein lies the problem", rubbish, and that's easily put right, 1, you stop pissing players about and get them into a mind set of what's expected, and IMO that's precisely how you approach Gabby Agbonlahor, put Gabby up front, drill that roll into him week in and week out and then he will start scoring, he won't get Bents 25 goals in a season,( but then actually Bent won't get 25 or even 20 goals in a season for Villa) but he will get the goals that count and get us the wins that we need and that's been proven, what games has Gabby started up front on his own for us this season and what as been the overall out come of those games......nuff said.
-
Good stuff Dave,
-
We look a better outfit without Bent and with Cuellar.
I jut hope AM recognises this and builds from here. The problem with Bent is that he contributes very little, unless he scores he contributes nothing. The defence is allways going to be up against it if every ball played to Bent goes to the opposition. If you play Bent then you have to gear a game plan around him and have the players that can cope with playing with a passenger.
-
Spot on hawkeye. Trouble is he will play when fit because he cost £20m. Great goalscorer, not right for this team at the moment.
All my nose mates thought I was putting on a brave face when I said the injuries to Dunne and DB would improve us.
-
We look a better outfit without Bent and with Cuellar.
I jut hope AM recognises this and builds from here. The problem with Bent is that he contributes very little, unless he scores he contributes nothing. The defence is allways going to be up against it if every ball played to Bent goes to the opposition. If you play Bent then you have to gear a game plan around him and have the players that can cope with playing with a passenger.
Spot on, mostly, for me Bent represents a style of football that has long gone, fine if your playing for a team like Sunderland, or Sunderland as was, but now most front men need to be able to move at pace, need to be able to work the channels, need to be part of the team as a vital cog, problem for old Benty is if he can't get into the 6yd box and wait for the crosses to fly in at him one after another, forget, he goes missing like he wasn't on the pitch, Villa IMO are just not that type of team.
-
Percy I thought exactly the same, losing both has improved us defensively.
-
And we're back to the question of whether we should have sold him in the transfer window.
-
We look a better outfit without Bent and with Cuellar.
I jut hope AM recognises this and builds from here. The problem with Bent is that he contributes very little, unless he scores he contributes nothing. The defence is allways going to be up against it if every ball played to Bent goes to the opposition. If you play Bent then you have to gear a game plan around him and have the players that can cope with playing with a passenger.
Spot on, mostly, for me Bent represents a style of football that has long gone, fine if your playing for a team like Sunderland, or Sunderland as was, but now most front men need to be able to move at pace, need to be able to work the channels, need to be part of the team as a vital cog, problem for old Benty is if he can't get into the 6yd box and wait for the crosses to fly in at him one after another, forget, he goes missing like he wasn't on the pitch, Villa IMO are just not that type of team.
We agreed on the Bent subject sometime ago Hawkeye. I think we got a bit of a kicking for it too, if I remember.
I feel that once we'd lost Young and Downing Bent was going to struggle. They used to give him 6 or 7 half decent chances a game, he's lucky to get 2 these days.
I don't deny that he's a quality finisher (Arsenal cup game), but, the way we play at the moment he'll always struggle.
I wouldn't be against cashing in on him for the £24m we paid as long as Randy allowed AMcL to use that money for 2 quality signings to go with our Bosmans and lesser outlays.
-
Nigel If MON had signed Bent not Heskey we probably would not be having this debate, that team then could probably have carried Bent and got the best out of him, some of those draws would have been wins and CL football.
It was the same when we signed Cascarino not Lineker and so nothin has reallly changed as far as our ambition.
-
Nigel If MON had signed Bent not Heskey we probably would not be having this debate, that team then could probably have carried Bent and got the best out of him, some of those draws would have been wins and CL football.
It was the same when we signed Cascarino not Lineker and so nothin has reallly changed as far as our ambition.
The sad thing is that I don't think it was a lack of ambition in not signing bent, rather ineptitude in the transfer market. Same as with harewood, the money was there at the time, he just used it awfully on that occasion.