Why are the Media so Anti-Villa?

[midnite]

The media do seem anti villa. In that before the England game. The Sunday supplement (I keep wanting to not watch it buts it's like good old rubber necking when you just can't help it).

The main presenter guy was highlighting what was coming up after the break and Darren bent's inclusion in the England squad and scoffed saying is it justified?
After the break they debated it saying he's too selfish etc. They now have a dislike for a player because he now plays for us. Would they be slagging him off as much if he still played for spurs or Sunderland?
They apparently know better than our England manager because even he came out and said bent has changed his game style, doing more for the team. It's shows journalists see what they want to see and report what ever they want to report.

I'm so chuffed he gave two fingers up to those dick heads by scoring last night. and I hope him and ash continue it on Saturday!

Also, did anyone see the SSN segment on the best player of the year yesterday? Nasri and bale were touted then Ian rush came on at the end and mentioned Andy Carroll. WTF?
Just because he's liverpool's £35 million signing he's now become the best player this year on top of the fact that he could be out for the rest of the season... TWAT!

[Meanwood Villa]

Wilshere is massively over-rated.

Based on what? Forget the journos, you're saying you know better than Capello, Wenger, SGT, Ferguson, Lippi, Smith, Guardiola and everyone? Those are just the people I remember offering effusive praise for Wilshere, I'm sure there's more.

John, you acknowledge that Capello picks our players and then explain your point based on what Steve McClaren did. If club matters so much, why were Young and Downing preferred to Johnson and Lennon? They play for the clubs you'd expect to be favoured.

Based on the fact that they rate him highly and I don't. I'm not saying I know better than those people you mentioned, just that I don't necessarily agree with them. It all seems very Emperor's New Clothes about him. Not his fault and I'd be very pleased with him if he were a Villa player. I just couldn't believe the rave reviews for him for one half of football in which he didn't do a lot.
That Eriksen for them, now he looked quality.

[Monty]

If you don't play a designated holder, then you need to play 3 bona fide midfielders, no specialists either going forward, like Ash, or defensively, like Makelele.

See? You've been sucked in to the propaganda, Monty. It's me and Gary Neville against the world.

Seriously, Ashley Young's role is different in that he's not playing as a central midfielder, he's a second striker.

You get two disciplined, talented, physically fit central midfielders comfortable in possession and they don't need to operate as a strict holder/sitter and a free attacking role. Keane/Scholes... Vieira/Petit... they had understandings of what to do. Be interesting to see how Bradley and Makoun operate for us.

Best example I can think of of that was Keane and Ince for Man Utd - they took turns in getting forward and the one left sitting was able to defend effectively.

Could you give me an example from the last five or so years at the highest level? That's to say, since around when 4-2-3-1 became the norm.

So, Meanwood, you're essentially saying you haven't seen him play much at all and, when you did, he wasn't brilliant. Maybe you could reserve judgement until you had a fairer amount of games to judge him on? Not meaning to have a go, it just gets me when people have a view based on very little evidence.

[hartman_1982]

The reason that Wilshire is getting talked up by the media is because he is a bloody footballing genius. He is the first English footballer of the "new generation" in my opinion. He is exactly the sort of player England have lacked and if we produce more players with the technical ability of him, we will do far better at major tournaments. He is Xavi like in his style of play, not the finished article yet, but extremely promising at 19 years of age. He has a cultured maturity to his game and it is very rare that you will see him give the ball away. It took Iniesta until the age of 23/24 to break into the Barca team. I am afraid people who rate Albrighton along side him at the moment are claret and blue tinted. He has had a very promising start to his career, but he makes silly mistakes that cost us points. He is not ready for the big stage just yet. Wilshire on the other hand is demonstrating he has the ability to be future of English football.

[KevinGage]

Ash looked lively when he came on yesterday but his final ball was still a bit pants. I'm not sure he has the nous to play there in a crucial international, or for one of the CL sides.

Wasn't sold on Adam, but after the Fulham game on Sat you could see why GH wanted him. Makoun/ Petrov providing the platform and Adam (or similar) being given the freedom to pick a pass could well be the way to go for us.  Bradley could well replace Stan, which would give our midfield more legs. 

[Concrete John]

If you don't play a designated holder, then you need to play 3 bona fide midfielders, no specialists either going forward, like Ash, or defensively, like Makelele.

See? You've been sucked in to the propaganda, Monty. It's me and Gary Neville against the world.

Seriously, Ashley Young's role is different in that he's not playing as a central midfielder, he's a second striker.

You get two disciplined, talented, physically fit central midfielders comfortable in possession and they don't need to operate as a strict holder/sitter and a free attacking role. Keane/Scholes... Vieira/Petit... they had understandings of what to do. Be interesting to see how Bradley and Makoun operate for us.

Best example I can think of of that was Keane and Ince for Man Utd - they took turns in getting forward and the one left sitting was able to defend effectively.

Could you give me an example from the last five or so years at the highest level? That's to say, since around when 4-2-3-1 became the norm.

I think when you play a 4-2-3-1 it's less about them having an all round game as they're both primarily defensive in nature.  Were it Keane and Ince in that formation they'd both be 'holding' players to allow the 3 attackers and striker to get on with it.

[Concrete John]

I am afraid people who rate Albrighton along side him at the moment are claret and blue tinted.

Just to point out I think he'll be a better player than our Marc, but I do think my argument of one being so far ahead of the other right not being based on merit/performance for club is right.

[Monty]

I was thinking more about why 4-2-3-1 has replaced the kind of "one sits, one goes on" 4-4-2. The main reason is that 4-4-2 is terrible for holding onto possession in crowded midfield battles. There just aren't enough options for the player on the ball, it really is that simple. 4-2-3-1 solves that problem by the central player of the three providing a linking role between the deep midfield two, usually consisting of a destroyer and a creator, and the forward play (here formation names can be misleadingly over-specific - the difference between 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-1-1 isn't huge). I still prefer the Barca 4-3-3 because: it's less easy to play against you by blocking the link between the 2 and the 3; all the midfielders are have to do everything so you don't end up relying on individuals having good days or not being marked out of games; and because you always have players on the wings, stretching the pitch.

Anyway, we've gone wildly off topic, other than to say we could invent a new formation that always beats every other one and the media would probably credit it to 'Arry.

[Concrete John]

I think it's a myth that 4-4-2 is too static and lacks passing options, as sometimes we get too drawn into formations and forget it's the players that are important.  4-4-2 if fine if you have a striker that drops deep to link play and fullbacks that like to get forward and are comfortable on the ball.  If you have any variation on the 4-2-3-1 it can still have issues if the players are sticking rigidly to their positions.   

[Monty]

I think it's a myth that 4-4-2 is too static and lacks passing options, as sometimes we get too drawn into formations and forget it's the players that are important.  4-4-2 if fine if you have a striker that drops deep to link play and fullbacks that like to get forward and are comfortable on the ball.  If you have any variation on the 4-2-3-1 it can still have issues if the players are sticking rigidly to their positions.   

If you're 4-4-2 has a striker who drops deep and links with the midfield, what precisely is the difference between that and the 4-2-3-1? Some 4-2-3-1s are more defensive, some more attacking, but what is certain is the death of the old 4-4-2 with two wingers and two out-and-out strikers at the highest level. In that system, it really isn't a myth that you have fewer options on the ball, as the fact that there isn't a single top team or manager in Europe using that system clearly demonstrates.

[Merv]

Could you give me an example from the last five or so years at the highest level? That's to say, since around when 4-2-3-1 became the norm.

Man United winning league and Euro Cup with Scholes and Carrick playing in tandem springs immediately to mind; both players capable of sitting deeper to knock the ball around, win the ball, but also get forward. When you say 4-2-3-1 became the norm... are you referring more to international football?

[Monty]

Could you give me an example from the last five or so years at the highest level? That's to say, since around when 4-2-3-1 became the norm.

Man United winning league and Euro Cup with Scholes and Carrick playing in tandem springs immediately to mind; both players capable of sitting deeper to knock the ball around, win the ball, but also get forward. When you say 4-2-3-1 became the norm... are you referring more to international football?

The point with Man Utd that year was that it was almost 4-6-0. There was no out-and-out striker, let alone two. Three of Rooney, Tevez, Park, Giggs would join Ronaldo and play with complete interchangeability up front. Park and Giggs were particularly useful to United that season because they could fill in defensively if Scholes or Anderson went forward (Carrick practically always held back). 4-2-3-1 is the norm because it's the easiest system to throw together at relatively short notice in an age when almost no club is assured of holding onto their best players for any length of time.

[Concrete John]

I think it's a myth that 4-4-2 is too static and lacks passing options, as sometimes we get too drawn into formations and forget it's the players that are important.  4-4-2 if fine if you have a striker that drops deep to link play and fullbacks that like to get forward and are comfortable on the ball.  If you have any variation on the 4-2-3-1 it can still have issues if the players are sticking rigidly to their positions.   

If you're 4-4-2 has a striker who drops deep and links with the midfield, what precisely is the difference between that and the 4-2-3-1? Some 4-2-3-1s are more defensive, some more attacking, but what is certain is the death of the old 4-4-2 with two wingers and two out-and-out strikers at the highest level. In that system, it really isn't a myth that you have fewer options on the ball, as the fact that there isn't a single top team or manager in Europe using that system clearly demonstrates.

But then is it about starting positions or where they wander to or how Sky stick up their graphic of the team?  Spurs in recent years were playing a 4-4-2, yet when Keane was on the pitch he would invariably be deeper and getting involved.  In the early years Fergie played Cantona and Hughes upfront in a 4-4-2, but I recently (last few years) heard him liken where they ended up more to a 4-2-3-1.  My argument being that I don't care whether we set up as 4-4-2 or not as I thing it's of minor importance compared to the ability and inclination of the players to be fluid within that.  If 4-4-2 is easily snuffed out as you know where everyone is going to be, then does it not follow that 4-2-3-1 could also be just as easily countered if there's no movement within that system.   

[Monty]

I completely agree John, the point is fluidity. Indeed, Ferguson has been quoted as saying that formations only exist when you don't have the ball. However, certain starting formations allow for greater fluidity than others, and for greater variety of gameplan. And besides, I don't really like 4-2-3-1, it's too rigid and too 'specialist', relying on individuals doing their jobs rather than the team working together.

[Concrete John]

However, certain starting formations allow for greater fluidity than others, and for greater variety of gameplan.

I think that's the bit we really disagree on.

For me it's all to do with the players.