Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine

Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Tuscans on October 20, 2012, 07:54:28 PM

Title: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Tuscans on October 20, 2012, 07:54:28 PM
There was a stat I think Gary Neville brought up earlier on this season about how the lack of crosses/ goals scored from crosses has plummeted over the last few seasons. Now, I understand the continental way has slowly driven out the classic winger in change of a series of two or three No. 10's playing in the same team for the full back to act more like a wing back...but...seeing we don't have anything like those No.10's in our team let alone the full backs with ability to bomb up and down providing dangerous crosses for the forwards, why has Lambert adopted this strategy?

I believe Bent, Gabby and especially Benteke are crying out for a wing man to stick balls in the 6 yard box. Bent loved having Young and Downing supplying him from out wide, and low and behold he scored 1 in every 2 for us. Instead our narrow diamond midfield keep going side to side, back, and back again desperately seeking a release out wide that just never comes, neither does decent supply to any of our frontmen.

Now my point is Lambert used out and out wingers at Norwich which supplied Grant Holt with chances for him to score 15 goals last season...he buys in Benteke who is a giant of a man and surely his strength is his aerial prowess...so why don't we ever start with Albrighton or N'Zogbia, goals are scored from crosses still...aren't they?

Discuss!
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: rutski on October 20, 2012, 07:57:56 PM
ha, ha, you are the first, you do get a prize! whhooo whhhoo
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air on October 20, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51t%2BSGlp%2BvL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: eastie on October 20, 2012, 08:10:06 PM
Bent is a finisher and nothing more, he needs wingers to create chances for him- our midfield seems to go backwards and sideways too often and bent is isolated - we need width without doubt but it seems lambert is not keen on wingers.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on October 20, 2012, 08:12:48 PM
Bent is a finisher and nothing more, he needs wingers to create chances for him- our midfield seems to go backwards and sideways too often and bent is isolated - we need width without doubt but it seems lambert is not keen on wingers.

I'd say it's Benteke that needs the crosses more. Bent can thrive on the intelligent through balls and goal mouth scrambles. Sadly we only seem to have Ireland who can play that kind of through ball.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: curiousorange on October 20, 2012, 08:13:10 PM
For weeks the commentators on the radio have been banging on how the narrow midfield don't protect Lowton or Bennett. This means they can't get forward because they're always conscious of having to get back. I wouldn't say no to a back 5 when Dunne's fit, just so we can get some bloody width somewhere!
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: PaulWinch again on October 20, 2012, 08:46:15 PM
I said on the match thread, in the system we play the fullbacks have to offer a lot of attacking threat which they aren't at the moment.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: onje_villa on October 20, 2012, 08:48:39 PM
Completely agree and I think some of us have been making this point for a while.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: ktvillan on October 20, 2012, 10:47:22 PM
Plenty of people in the post match thread have picked up on the lack of width as a major problem.  Bent in particular is suffering from it as he thrives on crosses.  As I understand it, in Lambert's approach the FBs are supposed to supply the width. It's just not happening.  Whether the Full backs simply aren't up to it, or there is a lack of cover from midfield for them to get forward, I don't know, but he needs to sort it out or try something different.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Tuscans on October 21, 2012, 01:18:00 AM
I think its obvious to everyone that all our forwards need good supply as none of them are players who come deep, play off the striker or are in the mould of a DiCanio, Zola, Le Tiss etc. So they rely on accurate slide rule passes and crosses basically, neither of which they receive.

He's played N'Zogbia, he's played Albrighton...their games are based on hugging the touch line and getting balls into the box...Ireland and Holman like to stay inside and rarely put a cross of telling nature in. Lowton with all credit has at times got forward enough but his crossing is hit and hope IMO.

Maybe the game on Tuesday is a chance to mix it up and try playing with two widemen.

My team and formation would be....



                                                          Given

              Lowton               Vlaar                           Baker            Bennett

   
     
                                                       Westwood

              Albrighton                                                                   N'Zogbia

                                                         Ireland

                               
                                     Bent                                  Benteke



Subs. Guzan
          Lichaj
          Clarke
          Holman
          Bannan
          Agbonlahor
          Weimann

See how it goes and make a decision for the Norwich game.

Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: PeterWithe on October 21, 2012, 08:17:01 AM
Bannan crossed for four goalscoring chances against Swansea.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: saunders_heroes on October 21, 2012, 08:22:18 AM
We sold all our decent wingers. Now we're reaping the "benefits". That Lerner's a genius.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air on October 21, 2012, 08:25:44 AM
We sold all our decent wingers. Now we're reaping the "benefits". That Lerner's a genius.

Milner and Young both wanted to go. 
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: saunders_heroes on October 21, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
We sold all our decent wingers. Now we're reaping the "benefits". That Lerner's a genius.

Milner and Young both wanted to go. 

Then we should have reinvested the cash and replaced them. A bit like what Tottenham do when they sell their star players. Lerner's new policy is to pack out the team with lower league crap on low wages.
You get what you pay for in life.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: supertom on October 21, 2012, 09:45:42 AM
We sold all our decent wingers. Now we're reaping the "benefits". That Lerner's a genius.

Milner and Young both wanted to go. 

Then we should have reinvested the cash and replaced them. A bit like what Tottenham do when they sell their star players. Lerner's new policy is to pack out the team with lower league crap on low wages.
You get what you pay for in life.
It's actually Lambert's policy to look to lower leagues. Lerner doesn't choose the players we sign. Granted I don't agree with how's he's dolled out his money since joining, with such naive recklessness to O Neill's wims and now not investing nearly enough on an ever dwindling level of quality in our squad. But I don't blame him for the individuals we've signed. The managers pick them.

We could have signed any number of experienced premier league players for how much we paid for Benteke for example.

We never seem to get the balance right it seems. O Neill spent way too much on established players on big wages and in many case barely played them. They were all well known for whatever strengths and indeed weaknesses they had.
Now it would seem Lambert is going totally the opposite direction and going for young upcoming talent from lower leagues and untried foreign signings who may or may not adapt.
We need a happy medium of the current transfer policy, and O Neills knowing what you're getting policy (though playing said players would be more beneficial).
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: paulcomben on October 21, 2012, 09:58:06 AM
Good subject. We must use the wings. Lambo prefers the diamond - making 2 passes in a crowded midfield then losing the ball.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: tolstoy08 on October 22, 2012, 12:15:57 PM
I said on the match thread, in the system we play the fullbacks have to offer a lot of attacking threat which they aren't at the moment.

I agree. Although defensively we seemed to deal with it pretty well, I thought it was noticeable how far up the pitch Riise was for most of the game on Saturday. He seemed to have instructions to pressure Lowton and stretch the game where possible. I can't think of many occasions where that was true of our full-backs, which was a real pity.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Mister E on October 22, 2012, 12:22:25 PM
For pressing fullbacks to work well as occasional wingers, the central midfielders need to be mobile, quick and dominant.

I'm in favour of atacking fullbacks but I think we need to have three strong CMF in the side  - KEA, Delph and Herd - and then 2 + 1 ahead of them (Weimann, Holman would be my supporting 2; take your pick from Bent, Benteke and Gabby as the man up top).

I'd also have Albie and Carruthers on the bench to add the width if we need to change to approach.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Monty on October 22, 2012, 12:23:18 PM
Just posted this in entirely the wrong thread:

I think it's time to admit something of a temporary defeat in his insisting on playing two strikers. It's bold, it's adventurous, and he's attempting it in a way which isn't boofy. The problem is it's an incredibly difficult system to pull off: the narrow four in midfield is designed to counter two- and three-man midfields and keep possession, but without natural width the full backs are asked to do a hell of a lot against at least two opponents on each flank. If the fullbacks can't help you out then, your play will become squeezed and narrow, and defending is all about trying to keep the opposition narrow. Another solution is to try and have the forwards move intelligently and alternately into wide areas, but seeing as we don't have Barrios and Lewandowski that solution is somewhat unrealistic.

The way to go now is clearly a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 approach, and I think Benteke has to be that lone striker. Gabby could be an option for a wide forward spot (he's always better when facing goal and running in on the diagonal), and Bent as super-sub, but we need everyone to contribute and we need a balance of numbers in midfield and wider options  to stretch the play a bit. I'm not necessarily talking about out-and-out wingers a la MON-ball, but just someone to give us a few more options to stretch the play a bit.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Tuscans on October 23, 2012, 08:36:02 PM
Man.Utd now playing the same formation with diamond midfield and as much as their full backs get forward its not working. Even the commentators have said how narrow they look and not sure the front men can receive all the options of support playing that way
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: tomd2103 on October 24, 2012, 11:45:20 AM
I think its obvious to everyone that all our forwards need good supply as none of them are players who come deep, play off the striker or are in the mould of a DiCanio, Zola, Le Tiss etc. So they rely on accurate slide rule passes and crosses basically, neither of which they receive.

He's played N'Zogbia, he's played Albrighton...their games are based on hugging the touch line and getting balls into the box...Ireland and Holman like to stay inside and rarely put a cross of telling nature in. Lowton with all credit has at times got forward enough but his crossing is hit and hope IMO.

Maybe the game on Tuesday is a chance to mix it up and try playing with two widemen.

My team and formation would be....



                                                          Given

              Lowton               Vlaar                           Baker            Bennett

   
     
                                                       Westwood

              Albrighton                                                                   N'Zogbia

                                                         Ireland

                               
                                     Bent                                  Benteke



Subs. Guzan
          Lichaj
          Clarke
          Holman
          Bannan
          Agbonlahor
          Weimann

See how it goes and make a decision for the Norwich game.


We would get absolutely destroyed in central midfield playing that formation and with that personnel.  The problem playing a traditional 4-4-2 is that it will often leave you outnumbered in central midfield as most teams now play with three in there.  I still think that 3-5-2 might suit us, but also agree with Monty's earlier comments about a 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 with Benteke as the lone striker.   
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: tolstoy08 on October 24, 2012, 01:01:45 PM
Man.Utd now playing the same formation with diamond midfield and as much as their full backs get forward its not working. Even the commentators have said how narrow they look and not sure the front men can receive all the options of support playing that way

There was an article about this in the Graun earlier this week, where Ferguson was talking about having to choose between playing with wingers and the diamond shape: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/22/manchester-united-alex-ferguson-diamond-formation

With wide players as fast and as good as they have, I'm not sure why you would choose to play with such a narrow formation. It seems a much easier system to defend against as much of the play is 'in front of you' and in a restricted area. It strikes me that teams who make this formation work are those that have really exceptional players in the centre of midfield, an area which seems to be a major weakness for us at the moment. Mind you, I suppose without Downing & Young, we're not exactly strong on the wings either, so maybe Lambert feels this shape is the least worst option.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Monty on October 24, 2012, 01:13:29 PM
My view is that, to play the diamond, you need two David Villa types up front: strikers whose off-the-ball work is best when drifting into wide areas. You need that ability to stretch opposition defences so that you can create spaces in the centre, even if you're not doing much crossing, and both forwards need to be able to do it so as to keep the options as fluid and dynamic as possible.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on October 24, 2012, 01:56:11 PM

I believe Bent, Gabby and especially Benteke are crying out for a wing man to stick balls in the 6 yard box. Bent loved having Young and Downing supplying him from out wide, and low and behold he scored 1 in every 2 for us. Instead our narrow diamond midfield keep going side to side, back, and back again desperately seeking a release out wide that just never comes, neither does decent supply to any of our frontmen.

Young and Downing only supplied Bent with 5 goals that season so I don't really think it's the benchmark we should use to measure. I agree about the lack of decent supply to any of our frontmen. Gabby seems to be the only player that can deliver that service from the wing (or any where else for that matter).

The big issue for me at the moment is that whilst I think possession wise we've improved, there still lacks a purpose to our build up. One thing about Houlier, he knew exactly what type of ball Bent liked and thrived on.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: badluckeric(gates) on October 24, 2012, 02:45:31 PM
Lambert said at a press conference early on when asked about this that it was old fashioned to play with width and all the best teams are now playing it down the middle.
So whether we agree or not it seems like thats the way its going to be.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Brend'Watkins on October 24, 2012, 02:56:26 PM
Lambert said at a press conference early on when asked about this that it was old fashioned to play with width and all the best teams are now playing it down the middle.
So whether we agree or not it seems like thats the way its going to be.

Which is fine if you succeed in playing it effectively through the middle.  Taking Saturday's showing as an example we didn't to any great effect.  We also seemed to be caught out a fair bit defensively due to lack of it too.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: supertom on October 24, 2012, 02:57:41 PM
I hope someone lets PL know that we're a long way from being one of the best teams. I think there's promise in Lowton and Bennett but we need top quality (now) fullbacks if he's gonna play this sort of narrow mid. Good in attack, great engines and the ability to cover the back well too. They're not there yet, certainly not consistently.

The problem too is, if we wanted to play with a bit more width, we don't really have the players for that either. Albrighton is championship level. N'Zogbia has never been the sort of winger to take it down the wing and deliver balls in. He's always been known as a selfish player, head down. He's preference is also to play right side and cut in, so that's not width. That's of course before you take into account how piss poor he's been anyway. Carruthers has something about him but is still an unknown quantity.
Gabby's the only half decent wide man we have. When he's on form hes actually quite effective, but again, his form is so erratic.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: ktvillan on October 24, 2012, 03:02:26 PM
Lambert said at a press conference early on when asked about this that it was old fashioned to play with width and all the best teams are now playing it down the middle.
So whether we agree or not it seems like thats the way its going to be.

Problem for PL is that the "best" teams have the players to play that system effectively. There is little evidence to suggest that we do, unless he just hasn't found the right combination yet.   Given the lack of time to get things right in this league, it's sometimes better in the short term to adopt a system to suit the players available rather than try to get the players to adapt to a system they aren't familiar with and maybe don't have the skills for. 
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: rutski on October 24, 2012, 04:07:03 PM
I think its obvious to everyone that all our forwards need good supply as none of them are players who come deep, play off the striker or are in the mould of a DiCanio, Zola, Le Tiss etc. So they rely on accurate slide rule passes and crosses basically, neither of which they receive.

He's played N'Zogbia, he's played Albrighton...their games are based on hugging the touch line and getting balls into the box...Ireland and Holman like to stay inside and rarely put a cross of telling nature in. Lowton with all credit has at times got forward enough but his crossing is hit and hope IMO.

Maybe the game on Tuesday is a chance to mix it up and try playing with two widemen.

My team and formation would be....



                                                          Given

              Lowton               Vlaar                           Baker            Bennett

   
     
                                                       Westwood

              Albrighton                                                                   N'Zogbia

                                                         Ireland

                               
                                     Bent                                  Benteke



Subs. Guzan
          Lichaj
          Clarke
          Holman
          Bannan
          Agbonlahor
          Weimann

See how it goes and make a decision for the Norwich game.


We would get absolutely destroyed in central midfield playing that formation and with that personnel.  The problem playing a traditional 4-4-2 is that it will often leave you outnumbered in central midfield as most teams now play with three in there.  I still think that 3-5-2 might suit us, but also agree with Monty's earlier comments about a 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 with Benteke as the lone striker.   
i think tuscans is taking the piss a bit, he can see the naivety and absurdity in his formation there, he is just joking really, he was going to put warnock in there too but he has left. he is just joking, stop taking him seriously you lot!!!
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Tuscans on October 24, 2012, 04:30:50 PM
I think its obvious to everyone that all our forwards need good supply as none of them are players who come deep, play off the striker or are in the mould of a DiCanio, Zola, Le Tiss etc. So they rely on accurate slide rule passes and crosses basically, neither of which they receive.

He's played N'Zogbia, he's played Albrighton...their games are based on hugging the touch line and getting balls into the box...Ireland and Holman like to stay inside and rarely put a cross of telling nature in. Lowton with all credit has at times got forward enough but his crossing is hit and hope IMO.

Maybe the game on Tuesday is a chance to mix it up and try playing with two widemen.

My team and formation would be....



                                                          Given

              Lowton               Vlaar                           Baker            Bennett

   
     
                                                       Westwood

              Albrighton                                                                   N'Zogbia

                                                         Ireland

                               
                                     Bent                                  Benteke



Subs. Guzan
          Lichaj
          Clarke
          Holman
          Bannan
          Agbonlahor
          Weimann

See how it goes and make a decision for the Norwich game.


We would get absolutely destroyed in central midfield playing that formation and with that personnel.  The problem playing a traditional 4-4-2 is that it will often leave you outnumbered in central midfield as most teams now play with three in there.  I still think that 3-5-2 might suit us, but also agree with Monty's earlier comments about a 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 with Benteke as the lone striker.   
i think tuscans is taking the piss a bit, he can see the naivety and absurdity in his formation there, he is just joking really, he was going to put warnock in there too but he has left. he is just joking, stop taking him seriously you lot!!!
Yea that was my "sarcastic side" ...like really, Westwood AND Ireland in midfield....AS IF!!!
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Mister E on October 24, 2012, 05:42:44 PM
My view is that, to play the diamond, you need two David Villa types up front: strikers whose off-the-ball work is best when drifting into wide areas. You need that ability to stretch opposition defences so that you can create spaces in the centre, even if you're not doing much crossing, and both forwards need to be able to do it so as to keep the options as fluid and dynamic as possible.
Hence my view - expressed above - that we should play one up-top striker supported by Holman and Weimann, two players with the energy and off-the-ball nous to get in behind defences.
But it relies on having a robust MF three - hence KEA, Delph and Herd who are all energetic, good at covering and can also support attacks.
Title: Re: Whats happened to the width?
Post by: Salsa Party Animal on October 24, 2012, 07:24:19 PM
I think we need to find a system which allow us play diamond modern football crap and old school wingers for wing play when needed. So we need to find players who can play both midfield/wingers role.

I just want a system with Morley, Mortimer, Cowans and Bremner :)
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal