Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: SoccerHQ on January 01, 2020, 06:13:44 PM
-
Thought it was a big success today.
As we saw at VP Burnley are a very dangerous team when you stand off them and give them chance to swing in crosses. We certainly need that extra head at the back and limited Burnley to hardly anything for first 80 minutes.
Also meant we looked dangerous on the counter attack and could get overloads in the final third as we saw for the second.
I'd be sticking with this for a few weeks. I think it will make us harder to beat v likes of Leicester and Man. City and they'll find it harder to play through us. I think we're more likely to start getting some points off the top teams later on in the season than just going back to 4-3-3.
Think there's the potential for the squad to grow into this sort of formation that didn't happen when Lambert started playing it. Hopefully Dean has learnt that you don't just have to blindly stick to one sort of system now but only time will tell on that.
-
Wasn’t it more 3-4-3 if anything with Jack and Trez playing narrow? Whatever it was we looked a lot better.
-
It was more 343, with Trezuguet and Jack narrow, but it did allow us to flood support into arears of the final 3rd and getting much closer to Wesley.
I'd tweak it at home to play a 2nd striker, with Jack in a free central position. Obviously that's limited by only having Kodjia fit now.
The system worked very well. We were compact off the ball, Nkamba and Luiz didn't leave room in behind and neither did the wing backs.
I think over time and maybe at home, we will see the wing backs take up better advanced positions.
I liked the system and the flexibility and solidity it gave us.
-
I've always liked it, and it's always served us well.
-
I have thought for a while we certainly have the squad to play 3 5 2 or 3 4 3
We looked a lot more fluid today (although We need someone better than Trez who I thought again was poor) but with Mings supported each side by the impressive Konza and Hause we looked pretty solid against a very 1 dimensional opposition.
Thought Jack terrified them and Wes was all over their big defenders. If we could have Targett equally bombing forward on the left flank then it could be pretty attack minded.
What a difference a win makes
-
I think the key point was that it was hopefully adapting the system to suit the opposition. Assuming that’s what it was that’s very encouraging.
-
It's definitely earned another go against Leicester and Man City I'd say. We were way too open the last time we played Leicester so limiting space in behind should be the way to go. I'm not getting over excited about it though, Burnley created some good chances 2nd half and we let in a few too many crosses down our right I thought.
-
It's adaptable I think, depending on the opposition. I think the main thing is, with our personnel is to make good use of that 3rd CH. 2 CH's with the way Smith wanted our fullbacks to play, wasn't working. I think you have the option in the 2 up top to have either Trez or AEG as a second striker to work the channels. If you go up, it obviously suits them, but in that case I'd be inclined to play Taylor over Targett as an example, just so we're not too exposed on that flank. Guilbert is very attack minded as a FB/WB, so we can only play both in the right circumstances (with the 3 midfield or dependent on opposition).
-
You can Elmo into that mix if you want a more defensive version too.
-
It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system. Dean should have open to a number of systems and tactical approaches throughout the season. So let's hope this gives him the confidence and belief to try different things vs other opponents as needed.
-
Always liked 3-5-2, or variant of it.
Was saying we should use it when we had Lowton and Bennet as our two full backs. Not great defensively, but, two of the best crossers of the ball.
This season I’ve been surprised that we haven’t used it because we seem to have the players to for it. Targett in particular, I feel, would benefit
-
It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system. Dean should have open to a number of systems and tactical approaches throughout the season. So let's hope this gives him the confidence and belief to try different things vs other opponents as needed.
Give it a rest. I appreciate that you've nailed your colours to the mast but sometimes it's better to keep your counsel.
-
He’s right though.
-
I've not been calling for it, but I did think that when someone mentioned it during the summer as a possibility, despite Smith having no record of employing it in the past, they weren't talking out of their arse.
I've always believed he wants us narrower, and if this achieves it, let's do it. How we play is more important than the formation that gets us there.
-
He’s right though.
Possibly, but it doesn't show anybody in their best light to be snarking on what's been an unexpectedly positive day.
-
It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system.
I'm not sure. Brand new group of players, basically not played together before - giving people very defined roles makes sense. Maybe it's only recently that we've started to use different formations on the training ground, and you can imagine you'd need to have at least trained in a formation before using it as the first team.
Not saying that's what's happened, it most likely isn't, but the point is there might be a rational reason for having only tried a new formation out today. Keep saying this, bit the scale of the rebuilding in the summer means that some things are hard to judge.
-
It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system. Dean should have open to a number of systems and tactical approaches throughout the season. So let's hope this gives him the confidence and belief to try different things vs other opponents as needed.
Give it a rest. I appreciate that you've nailed your colours to the mast but sometimes it's better to keep your counsel.
No I won’t. I said what I said respectfully. Just because we won a game doesn’t make everything perfect again. It’s exactly the trap we all fell into after Newcastle. This is a really hard league. He has to continue to learn and adapt. The second half was proof there’s a long way to go because Burnley pressed us back for most of it. So I’m not suddenly going to sing from true rooftops after a win; a good win but on the back of a number of truly hideous recent displays.
-
I think the most important the formation did today was helped out the group of players that were struggling. It helped close the gaps that had been there behind Luiz/Nakamba and the full backs and got players closer to Wesley. Obviously helped having Mings back and that Jack is just getting better and better, but the formation definitely made a difference today.
Think the second half showed there is still some work to do with it, but can also be put down to the fact we were 2-0 up and the teams confidence hasn’t been high lately, so perhaps understandable that we dropped a bit too deep. Obviously didn’t help that we were hampered slightly with two enforced changes.
Still imagine Dean see 4-3-3 as the way to go long term, and I would probably agree with that, but currently with the players not quite being good enough for it and confidence clearly low lately, something like the 3-4-3 today clearly helps the team much more.
-
I don't think it was down to the formation today, think it was more a case of the players working harder than Saturday. That and Mings coming back and Jack being unplayable.
-
We need Mings to play the system, he’s an organiser and leader which none of the others appear ready to do.
-
3-5-2 for me as it's much more compact defensively. If we were in the top six, I'd go with 3-4-3. I'd like us to stick with it for a while and bring players in who can play that system.
-
We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.
remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?
Oh dear!!!
-
We have enough decent CB's to play 3 of them at once , Konsa for example is decent enough coming forward with the ball where as with the players we have we can't get a balanced 3 to play as a mf and control games.
Bluntly if its a choice of a back 3 or playing Lansbury as a mf 3 its 3 cb's every time.
-
We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.
remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?
Oh dear!!!
Christ it's easy to forget fringe players once they move on. How are they doing?
-
We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.
remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?
Oh dear!!!
At Brentford wasn't it? Certainly on one occasion there anyway, got our arses handed to us that night....
-
Shat it down with rain all night and they gubbed us 3-0. I miss Bruce, the cauliflower-faced eejit.
-
Was that 5 at the back? Looked it up as i'd blanked it from my mind and it was Hutton, Baker, Chester, Amavi which suggests a back 4.
-
Was that 5 at the back? Looked it up as i'd blanked it from my mind and it was Hutton, Baker, Chester, Amavi which suggests a back 4.
Perhaps not then. Brentford is a trigger word for me. Some dreadful performances there.
-
Whilst yesterday was a success it might not be good news for smith in the long term.
As I understood it the club wanted a defined philosophy so they could tailor coaching and recruitment. Switching from a back 4 to a back 3 is a pretty big change if all scouting/planning has been undertaken based on variations of 4231 and 433.
Whilst pragmatism was needed I do not think Smith is the ideal man for chopping and changing tactics as he’s a purist who has faith in a particular, his, system.
-
You can have principles without needing to dogmatically stick to a certain formation. I don't see how it massively affects our transfer strategy beyond potentially needing an extra centre half.
-
We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.
remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?
Oh dear!!!
Christ it's easy to forget fringe players once they move on. How are they doing?
Baker is a squad player. Elphick was regular but made a few errors leading to goals (nothing new there) and he got a bad injury a few weeks ago.
-
Whilst yesterday was a success it might not be good news for smith in the long term.
As I understood it the club wanted a defined philosophy so they could tailor coaching and recruitment. Switching from a back 4 to a back 3 is a pretty big change if all scouting/planning has been undertaken based on variations of 4231 and 433.
Whilst pragmatism was needed I do not think Smith is the ideal man for chopping and changing tactics as he’s a purist who has faith in a particular, his, system.
There's no reason why we can't go back to the preferred formation when we have the personnel to play it effectively.
-
It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system. Dean should have open to a number of systems and tactical approaches throughout the season. So let's hope this gives him the confidence and belief to try different things vs other opponents as needed.
We have not had the opportunity to play three at the back with Mings being out since the Leicester match. Prior to that match, things were not going to bad for a promoted side. Having said that, both Engels and Hause have been out injured at one time or another which has limited the opportunity to test this, even in training.
When things started to go wrong, we were also being hit by injuries, making it difficult to change things. I think the manager has been trying different things but this has centred on midfield and the wide players. There is no doubt that not bringing in an extra forward in the summer has rely caught us out.
-
You can have principles without needing to dogmatically stick to a certain formation. I don't see how it massively affects our transfer strategy beyond potentially needing an extra centre half.
I think it is a bit more subtle that that. A CB in a back three needs to be a better passer and comfortable filling in as full back so ideally pacy. Similarly do you scout wingers, inside forwards or wing backs as these are different roles which could be redundant if we switch between systems too often.
-
You can have principles without needing to dogmatically stick to a certain formation. I don't see how it massively affects our transfer strategy beyond potentially needing an extra centre half.
I think it is a bit more subtle that that. A CB in a back three needs to be a better passer and comfortable filling in as full back so ideally pacy. Similarly do you scout wingers, inside forwards or wing backs as these are different roles which could be redundant if we switch between systems too often.
Regardless of the formation, having centre backs who are quick and can pass is clearly the preference. And we've been signing versatile full backs and wingers for years already.
-
Maybe time to get this 3 at the back in formation again
Goal Keeper
Konsa Hause Mings
Elmo and Targett wing backs
McGinn Luiz Grealish
Davis and Samatta
-
Switching back to a back 4 hasn't improved us much defensively.
I think we have to look at the other end now.
4-3-1-2.
Two full backs who can get forward and get crosses in so in comes AEM. Front two of Samatta and Davis, Jack in a free role and three workers behind him, Marvelous, Luiz and McGinn.
Better teams will probably pick that off and give us a hammering but surely we're more likely at least to beat someone like Palace or Newcastle playing that formation than the default one we'll probably play.
That's the final gamble for me anyway to get us on the front foot much more.
-
Switching back to a back 4 hasn't improved us much defensively.
I think we have to look at the other end now.
4-3-1-2.
Two full backs who can get forward and get crosses in so in comes AEM. Front two of Samatta and Davis, Jack in a free role and three workers behind him, Marvelous, Luiz and McGinn.
Better teams will probably pick that off and give us a hammering but surely we're more likely at least to beat someone like Palace or Newcastle playing that formation than the default one we'll probably play.
That's the final gamble for me anyway to get us on the front foot much more.
My feeling is if you are going to play a CB at RB compromising any attack on that flank you might as well go 3 at the back and use wing backs for the width.
2 strikers also has to be worth a go, especially if we are just going to hammer balls up the field aimlessly.Stick 2 up there to run after the ball
-
Switching back to a back 4 hasn't improved us much defensively.
I think we have to look at the other end now.
4-3-1-2.
Two full backs who can get forward and get crosses in so in comes AEM. Front two of Samatta and Davis, Jack in a free role and three workers behind him, Marvelous, Luiz and McGinn.
Better teams will probably pick that off and give us a hammering but surely we're more likely at least to beat someone like Palace or Newcastle playing that formation than the default one we'll probably play.
That's the final gamble for me anyway to get us on the front foot much more.
My feeling is if you are going to play a CB at RB compromising any attack on that flank you might as well go 3 at the back and use wing backs for the width.
2 strikers also has to be worth a go, especially if we are just going to hammer balls up the field aimlessly.Stick 2 up there to run after the ball
Think it is the formation which best suits the majority of our players and would give the opportunity to get Grealish in a central role behind two strikers.
A back three of Konsa, Mings and Hause does not look too clever though.
-
I'd go back to five at the back. We had some initial success with it. We got through two legs of the cup against Leicester when not many (me included) gave us a chance. Yes, it got found found out but what we are doing now isn't working either.
-
If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?
If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?
-
If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?
If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?
That would be a problem, yes. Good point.
-
If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?
If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?
We are already playing all 3 fit Cbs so tbh I don't think it makes much difference going 3 at back and putting Elmo in the team
-
If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?
If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?
We are already playing all 3 fit Cbs so tbh I don't think it makes much difference going 3 at back and putting Elmo in the team
Well it does because at the moment we have the option of resting a centre back or dealing with an injury. If we go all in for 3 at the back we wont be able to do that so any injury is going to completely derail us.
-
If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?
If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?
Don't think Engels is out for the season so he'll be back on the bench soon. Douglas Luiz could also be emergency option, I'm pretty sure he played in Girona back 3 at times last season and wasn't too bad.
-
Nyland
Konsa. Luiz. Mings
Nakamba
Gilbert. Targett
McGinn. Grealish
Davis. Samatta
-
Nyland
Konsa. Luiz. Mings
Nakamba
Gilbert. Targett
McGinn. Grealish
Davis. Samatta
Does Luiz have any experience in a three man defence?
-
Nyland
Konsa. Luiz. Mings
Nakamba
Gilbert. Targett
McGinn. Grealish
Davis. Samatta
Does Luiz have any experience in a three man defence?
My lad was saying he’d played CB before.
Someone mentioned it earlier on this thread, too.
-
Does Luiz have any experience in a three man defence?
My lad was saying he’d played CB before.
Someone mentioned it earlier on this thread, too.
Fair enough. Ta.
-
How about 4-4-2, or is that a crazy thought?
-
Chucking Luiz in defence would be an act of desperation.
-
If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?
If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?
Try Mungo Bridge as a back-up (he played in the team that won at the Kingpower in the recent friendly).
-
Nyland
Konsa. Luiz. Mings
Nakamba
Gilbert. Targett
McGinn. Grealish
Davis. Samatta
Does Luiz have any experience in a three man defence?
I think he played the odd game there for Girona as they played 3 at the back pretty regularly last season.
-
Chucking Luiz in defence would be an act of desperation.
You're probably right, mate. I was just playing with a formation and thought 'why not?'
Good on the ball, good passer, good in the tackle and looks decent in the air, too.
Probably harsh on Hause, though, as I think he's done pretty well the past two games.
-
How about 4-4-2, or is that a crazy thought?
Shhhhh it will never catch on
-
How about 4-4-2, or is that a crazy thought?
Shhhhh it will never catch on
Not enough traps
-
We should try 3-4-1-2, if we have anything decent to select.
Nyland
Konsa Mings Hause
Guilbert Luiz McGinn Targett
Grealish
Samatta Davis
None of it works as we have no physicality and make too many stupid mistakes. Four or five of that line up needs an upgrade.
-
We should try 3-4-1-2, if we have anything decent to select.
Nyland
Konsa Mings Hause
Guilbert Luiz McGinn Targett
Grealish
Samatta Davis
None of it works as we have no physicality and make too many stupid mistakes. Four or five of that line up needs an upgrade.
it soon becomes 5 2 3 and we get over run in midfield.
-
We should try 3-4-1-2, if we have anything decent to select.
Nyland
Konsa Mings Hause
Guilbert Luiz McGinn Targett
Grealish
Samatta Davis
None of it works as we have no physicality and make too many stupid mistakes. Four or five of that line up needs an upgrade.
it soon becomes 5 2 3 and we get over run in midfield.
This. We've seen it time and time again....
I'd go 442 with the diamond.
Steer
Guilbert Konsa Mings Hause
Nakamba
Luiz McGinn Grealish
Samatta Davies