Villa's style of play

[paul_e]

Anyone else notice we played more like 4-3-1-2 with Weimann dropping deep almost midfield and tekkers as the big man linking with gabby? Was yet another change for Lambert. It worked well.

I thought it worked poorly. We lost all the width which stretched Liverpool in the first half and bypassed all 4 1/2 midfielders, bunting it long to two Big Men and promptly losing it.

I think you're talking about different things here.  In the first half, when we had the ball Weimann and Gabby were working out wide and swapping sides depending on where their start position was, which worked going forward and gave us the bit of width to drag their players out of the centre.  When we were defending Gabby and Benteke were closing the defenders but Weimann was coming inside and deeper and pretty much man-marking Gerrard, which completely nullified him.  After half time we lost Gabby which broke our width in attack but also they moved Gerrard 20yards up the pitch and had Lucas/Allen sit in front of the defence instead, which allowed Gerrard a lot more time and space to work in.  I think we made the Kea-Sylla switch to counter act that but Sylla didn't get close enough to him at times.

Despite it not working as intended I thought bringing Sylla on was one of the better tactical moves I've seen from Lambert recently as he reacted pretty quickly to a tactical change by them, something he hasn't done very well in the last few months.

[N'ZMAV]

I think we went 4-3-1-2 once Holt came on.
In the first half with Gabby and Weimann moving wide really worked well.
I think Albrighton would have worked better than Holt.
Sylla coming on worked well, but I thought KEA had one of his better games, as he was allowed to break forward from the centre circle.
All-in-all it worked much better and Lambert needs some credit for a strong attacking side. Hope it continues.

[Irish villain]

I love it when we are prepared to press the opposition in that way. For some reason, we have tended to sit back and let other teams have the ball a lot under Paul Lambert. That's fine, we are a good counter-attacking side, but defending is not our strength. When Vlaar was out injured it just looked so stupidto  watch us invite so much pressure on ourselves.

Vlaar has been my player of the season so far. He is so important to us.

[Monty]

Perhaps some won't give him credit but KEA was great in the first half, pressing unceasingly and making some good passes.

Weimann did do well against Gerrard first half but the Holt-for-Gabby sub was a poor move. Not that Holt played badly, far from it, it just narrowed us and cramped us, and made us go long when all our best stuff had come about by passing through the midfield.

[paul_e]

I will give KEA credit, I'm not a fan as I think he goes missing too often, but on Saturday he played in the right areas of the pitch and got involved in play a lot more.  I don't think he's suited to sitting in and trying to be a deep playmaker but that's what he's been doing most of this season, with the better performances being the ones where he's played higher up the pitch.

If he did this in every game I'd be more than happy to keep him around the team.

[supertom]

If there's one thing I think KEA does quite well it's his movement, finding space in the penalty area. He just needs to do it more, and he looks better pressing high up the pitch. It's just a shame he goes missing so often in games, especially at home. For want of a better option, should the Hoolahoop deal fall through and no one else is bought in, it might be worth having KEA playing a Number 10 sort of role. Let him find pockets of space in good areas, make runs into the box beyond the front men.
He certainly needs to stop being seemingly happy to just disappear in games.

[supertom]

Perhaps some won't give him credit but KEA was great in the first half, pressing unceasingly and making some good passes.

Weimann did do well against Gerrard first half but the Holt-for-Gabby sub was a poor move. Not that Holt played badly, far from it, it just narrowed us and cramped us, and made us go long when all our best stuff had come about by passing through the midfield.

True, and as others have said on the transfer thread, a back up for Gabby would be beneficial because we don't have a replacement who can do anything close to what Gabbaldinho can do.
Albrighton certainly should have come on ahead of Holt, just to keep some width in the side.

[glasses]

Perhaps some won't give him credit but KEA was great in the first half, pressing unceasingly and making some good passes.

Weimann did do well against Gerrard first half but the Holt-for-Gabby sub was a poor move. Not that Holt played badly, far from it, it just narrowed us and cramped us, and made us go long when all our best stuff had come about by passing through the midfield.

I thought KEA was poor on Saturday night, and said so on the post match thread.

I re-watched the first half on LFC TV yesterday and changed my mind. Thought he did do quite well, as it goes.

I thought the Gabby replacement should have been Albrighton, and keep the shape/counter attack threat.

Agreed, Holt was decent, but was never going to give us that speed on the break we are so good at.

[Dante Lavelli]

I love it when we are prepared to press the opposition in that way. For some reason, we have tended to sit back and let other teams have the ball a lot under Paul Lambert. That's fine, we are a good counter-attacking side, but defending is not our strength. When Vlaar was out injured it just looked so stupidto  watch us invite so much pressure on ourselves.

Vlaar has been my player of the season so far. He is so important to us.

I think it was Guardiola who drummed into Barca that you have about three seconds of chaos when posession is lost to pressure the opposition and attampt to win the ball back.  If you haven't won it in that 3 seconds then as a team you funnel back into your defensive shape with the objective of being hard to break down.

I'm not saying that is the only way of doing it however I certainly think it's something we've done badly in the nov - jan period.  We seem happy to sit back far too quickly.

[OCD]

I agree that Albrighton would have been the better substitution for Gabby but Lambert was probably thinking in terms of getting some experience onto the pitch. It wasn't long after it had gone 2-2 and when it would have been quite feasible for Liverpool to start building the pressure up to get their third, we seemed to have enough experience and composure on the ball to not allow that to happen. Instead we gradually came back into more and more and in truth, we could have still won it from that position if there had been a bit more belief about us.

[Matt Collins]

It was 4312 from the start as shown on motd. Meant our strikers could get one on one with their centre backs, we had numbers in central midfield to outnumber them, and wrimann's bursts through the middle could exploit their lack of a holding midfielder

So he kept the same formation when holt came on. But it obviously meant a different approach and by that stage Liverpool had changed formation so I'd have thought albrighton would have been the Better bet

[ChicagoLion]

as soon as Gabby went off Liverpool were able to push on to us as they knew we had no pace to hurt them, as I said on the post match thread bringing Holt on was a mistake and showed again Lamberts lack of tactical awareness.

[Rudy65]

as soon as Gabby went off Liverpool were able to push on to us as they knew we had no pace to hurt them, as I said on the post match thread bringing Holt on was a mistake and showed again Lamberts lack of tactical awareness.

I was screaming at the Tv saying the same. Should have been Albrighton which would have been virtual like for like with Gabby. It was as if he thought he had to make a point aout playing his old mate Holt and give credence to the signing. 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' were there for the taking and we and we missed out

[Monty]

It was 4312 from the start as shown on motd. Meant our strikers could get one on one with their centre backs, we had numbers in central midfield to outnumber them, and wrimann's bursts through the middle could exploit their lack of a holding midfielder

So he kept the same formation when holt came on. But it obviously meant a different approach and by that stage Liverpool had changed formation so I'd have thought albrighton would have been the Better bet

4-3-1-2 out of possession but, as Fergie would always say, you shouldn't really have a formation in attack, and Gabby and Weimann were always moving into wide positions to support the full-backs and we stretched them. Holt as has been said didn't have the pace to really move wide and drag Liverpool players with him and we ended up stodgy and crowded out.

[Chris Smith]

as soon as Gabby went off Liverpool were able to push on to us as they knew we had no pace to hurt them, as I said on the post match thread bringing Holt on was a mistake and showed again Lamberts lack of tactical awareness.

I was screaming at the Tv saying the same. Should have been Albrighton which would have been virtual like for like with Gabby. It was as if he thought he had to make a point aout playing his old mate Holt and give credence to the signing. 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' were there for the taking and we and we missed out

'Like for like' - you're joking, surely.

Albrighton can do one thing well, cross the ball. Against that he can't hold it up, he doesn't track back well and he can't tackle. He's the sort of player to bring on if you are chasing the game not trying to defend a lead.