Villa's style of play

[Dan England]

I have to say that much of the Premier League is about possession and tippy tappy football in areas that pose no threat ie around the half way line. Watching Match of the Day DVDs of the 70s and 80s reminds old codgers like me of how quick teams were to get forward using players who could run and go past players and on getting the ball in and around the opponents penalty area.

 This attrition by passing does not get me on my feet, and I yearn for quick and decisive passing, wing play, overlapping full backs, speed of thought throw ins and corners, players unafraid to dribble and take a risk, one twos, goalkeepers who throw the ball out to a midfielder rather than a centre half, mobile and risk taking players who understand that play without the ball is as important as when in possession, movement and taking defenders out of position, midfielders who don't get a nose bleed when they find themselves in the penalty area. If  a long ball to a forward is appropriate then use it, it's about decision making and adapting style to get the result.

Enough, rant over, apologies.

Absolutely bang on. The day two midfielders make it into the box from open play may be the day football at Villa Park gets entertaining again.

[Billy Walker]

I've noticed we've been more direct this season than the tail end of last. Would be interesting to know if this is due to a loss I momentum or if Lambert's directed the team to go long.

I reckon it might be due to the standard of opposition we have been facing.  We've had a high concentration of "top" sides which has possibly had an impact on our tactics (and the stats Nursey cites) so far.

[tepavilla]

I've noticed we've been more direct this season than the tail end of last. Would be interesting to know if this is due to a loss I momentum or if Lambert's directed the team to go long.

I reckon it might be due to the standard of opposition we have been facing.  We've had a high concentration of "top" sides which has possibly had an impact on our tactics (and the stats Nursey cites) so far.

Which I think is worrying, and wrong. Is this the way we want to approach the game: to continue to accustom our play according to who the opponent is or rather approach the game like Swansea, that is, trust to your style no matter who the opponent. Even if this 'style based on opponent' mentality might be a better short term approach points-wise, I'm sure it has opposite effect long-term.

[Axl Rose]

So far, Newcastle aside, I've been encouraged by some of our play-we need to get a hold of the ball more in midfield, quicker passing  to feet, and look comfortable doing so.

[eastie]

I've noticed we've been more direct this season than the tail end of last. Would be interesting to know if this is due to a loss I momentum or if Lambert's directed the team to go long.

I reckon it might be due to the standard of opposition we have been facing.  We've had a high concentration of "top" sides which has possibly had an impact on our tactics (and the stats Nursey cites) so far.

Which I think is worrying, and wrong. Is this the way we want to approach the game: to continue to accustom our play according to who the opponent is or rather approach the game like Swansea, that is, trust to your style no matter who the opponent. Even if this 'style based on opponent' mentality might be a better short term approach points-wise, I'm sure it has opposite effect long-term.

I must admit i find swansea a joy to watch with their fluent style of play and passing movements - the football we play particularly at home in the main leaves me far from entertained.

[ozzjim]

Swansea are great to watch, but it has stemmed from about 10 years of continuous evolution of a model of play.

We are a month into year 2 under Lambert. To not give him at least 3 or 4 as long as we are not relegated is futile. As long as we stay up, we are not going to challenge the other end in that time so why not give the bloke a few years to try and bring continuity and build on what he has started?

Or should we just react and sack every couple of years? What is sustainable about that?

[eastie]

I don't think anyone is calling for his head yet but just the dismal home displays have somewhat burst the optimism bubble of a month ago.

[Mister E]

What I really don't get with this sneering article is:

The 'long ball' debate is also very ironic given ex-Birmingham boss Alex McLeish was hounded out of Villa Park by fans who constantly moaned at his tactics

Linking TSM to the current debate is just irrelevant and inflammatory. TSM's football was not necessarily 'long ball': it was just bereft of tactic and somewhat negative.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with 'long ball' football: people used to positively purr when Hoddle, Cowans and others stroked a 40-50 yard pass. The holy grail for some managers is to have a ball-passer who can hit 1 yard or 50 yard passes with total reliability.
The issue is simple: when teams 'lump it' - as Baker sometimes does - there is a pointlessness to football. Why give the ball to those least skilled in passing - often the CB? This is where I get pissed off with Villa's attempt at the passing game.  Giving it back to the CB for no obvious reason other than that it's the direction the passer is facing seems pointless.
But, long passing: not bad per se.

[nick harper]

It was clear in the game on Tuesday that Spurs had more technically gifted players than us. The moved the ball very well, sometimes in areas where it didn't hurt, but they moved us about the pitch all half looking for openings. More and more sides are trying to play that way - as the half went on they created more opportunities. It was only a matter of time before they took one. We helped them by not closing them down well enough. It was interesting to see Spurs close down in twos and threes when we had the ball and the number of times we gave the ball away as a result - partly because we do not have the same level of technical ability but also because the player on the ball had no options.

Playing without the ball is much harder than with and as we nearly always have the ball less, have to up our game physically. We need to step up and pressurise the ball more to knock teams off their stride. It's all too easy at Villa Park in particular.

Having said all that, playing the ball forward quicker is not an unsophisitcated way to play but it does make it harder to retain the ball if it's not done well. Away from home it can work well and I think teams genuinely fear us, but at home as we are often behind, those tactics become more desperate and more 'hit and hope' as the game goes on.

I don' t think our home form will improve until Lambert seriously addresses this. Nine defeats in 13 home league games is embarassing.

[paul_e]

The biggest issue I have with this article is that he has at no point attempted to find a reason for it.  I'd suggest having played Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham who are all expected to be top 6 our number of long balls will be higher than normal because we've had to defend a lot.  Add in that we had a bad day against Newcastle and ended up pumping log balls looking for an equaliser and the picture looks fairly obvious.  I'd be interested in seeing the stats for Norwich though.

Aside from that I find the use of 'long-ball' as if it's an insult a bit pathetic mainly because it's not used consistently, for example, I personally think Man Utd played a lot of long ball football under Fergie (the offside RVP goal against us was a long punt behind our defence for example), but you never see them criticised for it, when they do it they're being 'direct', as far as the media are concerned 'smaller' clubs aren't allowed to do that it seems.   I just find it hypocrtical that a media that lauded Steven Gerrard (who hits as many long balls into the channels as anyone) as one of the best players in the world also slags teams off for playing long balls.

[eastie]

It was clear in the game on Tuesday that Spurs had more technically gifted players than us. The moved the ball very well, sometimes in areas where it didn't hurt, but they moved us about the pitch all half looking for openings. More and more sides are trying to play that way - as the half went on they created more opportunities. It was only a matter of time before they took one. We helped them by not closing them down well enough. It was interesting to see Spurs close down in twos and threes when we had the ball and the number of times we gave the ball away as a result - partly because we do not have the same level of technical ability but also because the player on the ball had no options.

Playing without the ball is much harder than with and as we nearly always have the ball less, have to up our game physically. We need to step up and pressurise the ball more to knock teams off their stride. It's all too easy at Villa Park in particular.

Having said all that, playing the ball forward quicker is not an unsophisitcated way to play but it does make it harder to retain the ball if it's not done well. Away from home it can work well and I think teams genuinely fear us, but at home as we are often behind, those tactics become more desperate and more 'hit and hope' as the game goes on.

I don' t think our home form will improve until Lambert seriously addresses this. Nine defeats in 13 home league games is embarassing.

Pretty much perfect summing up of the situation.

[Mister E]

It was clear in the game on Tuesday that Spurs had more technically gifted players than us. The moved the ball very well, sometimes in areas where it didn't hurt, but they moved us about the pitch all half looking for openings. More and more sides are trying to play that way - as the half went on they created more opportunities. It was only a matter of time before they took one. We helped them by not closing them down well enough. It was interesting to see Spurs close down in twos and threes when we had the ball and the number of times we gave the ball away as a result - partly because we do not have the same level of technical ability but also because the player on the ball had no options.

Playing without the ball is much harder than with and as we nearly always have the ball less, have to up our game physically. We need to step up and pressurise the ball more to knock teams off their stride. It's all too easy at Villa Park in particular.

Having said all that, playing the ball forward quicker is not an unsophisitcated way to play but it does make it harder to retain the ball if it's not done well. Away from home it can work well and I think teams genuinely fear us, but at home as we are often behind, those tactics become more desperate and more 'hit and hope' as the game goes on.

I don' t think our home form will improve until Lambert seriously addresses this. Nine defeats in 13 home league games is embarassing.

And the point has been made ad nauseam that Barcelona's 'blue riband' style of play relied as much on their pressing game when out of possession as their pass-and-move with it.
Many teams are trying it; Spurs may be further along that journey. We are trying the passing bit but are not really deliverng on the pressing game well enough yet.

[dekko]

The thing is, at times this (and last) season our pressing game has been very good, particularly the 1-3 at Arsenal.  Its one of the reasons I think KEA keeps getting in the team - he was doing a reasonable job at chasing the ball and harrassing the opposition on tuesday as well, but wasn't getting much help, and he pretty much packed it in once the ref warned him.

Again, its a consistency thing.  They can play, they just need to do it all the time.

[paul_e]

It was clear in the game on Tuesday that Spurs had more technically gifted players than us. The moved the ball very well, sometimes in areas where it didn't hurt, but they moved us about the pitch all half looking for openings. More and more sides are trying to play that way - as the half went on they created more opportunities. It was only a matter of time before they took one. We helped them by not closing them down well enough. It was interesting to see Spurs close down in twos and threes when we had the ball and the number of times we gave the ball away as a result - partly because we do not have the same level of technical ability but also because the player on the ball had no options.

Playing without the ball is much harder than with and as we nearly always have the ball less, have to up our game physically. We need to step up and pressurise the ball more to knock teams off their stride. It's all too easy at Villa Park in particular.

Having said all that, playing the ball forward quicker is not an unsophisitcated way to play but it does make it harder to retain the ball if it's not done well. Away from home it can work well and I think teams genuinely fear us, but at home as we are often behind, those tactics become more desperate and more 'hit and hope' as the game goes on.

I don' t think our home form will improve until Lambert seriously addresses this. Nine defeats in 13 home league games is embarassing.

And the point has been made ad nauseam that Barcelona's 'blue riband' style of play relied as much on their pressing game when out of possession as their pass-and-move with it.
Many teams are trying it; Spurs may be further along that journey. We are trying the passing bit but are not really deliverng on the pressing game well enough yet.

Barcelona without the ball operate like a rugby team (go with it for a second before commenting on the tackling) in that they close the gaps ( Barce generally have a bank of 4 and a bank of 5 with 1 left up front, usually Messi) and hunt in pairs.  Watch what they do when a man goes in to challenge, there is always a 2nd player close by, so if the ball bobbles free they're on hand to collect it and it reduces the options for an 'out ball' for the guy being challenged.  On top of that they wait to spot a weakness, they're not rushing in to challenge everytime, rather they get close enough to be in the eyeline of the player taking the pass, and if his touch is weak they pounce on him whilst his control isn't quite good enough.  All this is basic open field rugby union defence and the concepts translate perfectly.

[Mister E]

It was clear in the game on Tuesday that Spurs had more technically gifted players than us. The moved the ball very well, sometimes in areas where it didn't hurt, but they moved us about the pitch all half looking for openings. More and more sides are trying to play that way - as the half went on they created more opportunities. It was only a matter of time before they took one. We helped them by not closing them down well enough. It was interesting to see Spurs close down in twos and threes when we had the ball and the number of times we gave the ball away as a result - partly because we do not have the same level of technical ability but also because the player on the ball had no options.

Playing without the ball is much harder than with and as we nearly always have the ball less, have to up our game physically. We need to step up and pressurise the ball more to knock teams off their stride. It's all too easy at Villa Park in particular.

Having said all that, playing the ball forward quicker is not an unsophisitcated way to play but it does make it harder to retain the ball if it's not done well. Away from home it can work well and I think teams genuinely fear us, but at home as we are often behind, those tactics become more desperate and more 'hit and hope' as the game goes on.

I don' t think our home form will improve until Lambert seriously addresses this. Nine defeats in 13 home league games is embarassing.

And the point has been made ad nauseam that Barcelona's 'blue riband' style of play relied as much on their pressing game when out of possession as their pass-and-move with it.
Many teams are trying it; Spurs may be further along that journey. We are trying the passing bit but are not really deliverng on the pressing game well enough yet.

Barcelona without the ball operate like a rugby team (go with it for a second before commenting on the tackling) in that they close the gaps ( Barce generally have a bank of 4 and a bank of 5 with 1 left up front, usually Messi) and hunt in pairs.  Watch what they do when a man goes in to challenge, there is always a 2nd player close by, so if the ball bobbles free they're on hand to collect it and it reduces the options for an 'out ball' for the guy being challenged.  On top of that they wait to spot a weakness, they're not rushing in to challenge everytime, rather they get close enough to be in the eyeline of the player taking the pass, and if his touch is weak they pounce on him whilst his control isn't quite good enough.  All this is basic open field rugby union defence and the concepts translate perfectly.

The very point I was making, albeit you expressed more eloquently - and your rugby analogy is a good one.