Quote from: Steve Rose on September 29, 2013, 06:59:32 PM...Man City is probably one of he worst teams to play three at the back against. They have good players on the flanks that will pin back your wing backs and just Dzeko through the middle occupying three centre backs. We effectively played a lot of the game with 10 men.If we wanted to be hard to beat we could have played 4-4-2, the old two solid banks of 4, or stuck with our usual 4-3-3.Negredo was playing up front as well.
...Man City is probably one of he worst teams to play three at the back against. They have good players on the flanks that will pin back your wing backs and just Dzeko through the middle occupying three centre backs. We effectively played a lot of the game with 10 men.If we wanted to be hard to beat we could have played 4-4-2, the old two solid banks of 4, or stuck with our usual 4-3-3.
Quote from: dave.woodhall on September 29, 2013, 07:44:29 PMQuote from: Steve Rose on September 29, 2013, 06:59:32 PM...Man City is probably one of he worst teams to play three at the back against. They have good players on the flanks that will pin back your wing backs and just Dzeko through the middle occupying three centre backs. We effectively played a lot of the game with 10 men.If we wanted to be hard to beat we could have played 4-4-2, the old two solid banks of 4, or stuck with our usual 4-3-3.We were hard to beat playing 3-5-2.As it turned out we were, yes. I wouldn't fancy us repeating the trick though. Maybe like at Anfield last year it was the surprise that worked to our advantage. Whatever City were setting themselves up for during the week, it probably wasn't us playing three at the back.
Quote from: Steve Rose on September 29, 2013, 06:59:32 PM...Man City is probably one of he worst teams to play three at the back against. They have good players on the flanks that will pin back your wing backs and just Dzeko through the middle occupying three centre backs. We effectively played a lot of the game with 10 men.If we wanted to be hard to beat we could have played 4-4-2, the old two solid banks of 4, or stuck with our usual 4-3-3.We were hard to beat playing 3-5-2.
Quote from: Steve Rose on September 30, 2013, 06:47:39 AMQuote from: dave.woodhall on September 29, 2013, 07:44:29 PMQuote from: Steve Rose on September 29, 2013, 06:59:32 PM...Man City is probably one of he worst teams to play three at the back against. They have good players on the flanks that will pin back your wing backs and just Dzeko through the middle occupying three centre backs. We effectively played a lot of the game with 10 men.If we wanted to be hard to beat we could have played 4-4-2, the old two solid banks of 4, or stuck with our usual 4-3-3.We were hard to beat playing 3-5-2.As it turned out we were, yes. I wouldn't fancy us repeating the trick though. Maybe like at Anfield last year it was the surprise that worked to our advantage. Whatever City were setting themselves up for during the week, it probably wasn't us playing three at the back.We looked pretty solid in the the first half at home to Spurs last season with the 3 at the back, then Baker got injured. The big difference to Sat is that we have 3 genuine defenders fit to play there, at times we had Lowton and Herd in that back 3 with Clark, which is not ideal at all. I still like the formation for certain games, Martinez has proved it can work in some games. It certainly helps the midfield and the back 4, and Luna/ Bacuna are ideal for the wing back roles.
Three at the back is a big part of how Napoli have built one of the best counter-attacking sides in the world. Granted, it ended up a total disaster for us last season, but if we use it sparingly and correctly it still has some merit as a system in some games. The big difference here as opposed to last season was the genuine midfield three, as opposed to Bannan and Westwood looking lost.
I don't think John Motson was at Villa Park today. They obviously do a "dub-on" commentary after results are known.
Quote from: Montbert on September 30, 2013, 09:24:35 AMThree at the back is a big part of how Napoli have built one of the best counter-attacking sides in the world. Granted, it ended up a total disaster for us last season, but if we use it sparingly and correctly it still has some merit as a system in some games. The big difference here as opposed to last season was the genuine midfield three, as opposed to Bannan and Westwood looking lost.You're obviously correct about the midfield, Sylla in particular being a big presence in there, but I'd also argue Bacuna and Luna are upgrades at wing back over Bennett and Luna, and Vlaar is certainly a better centre half than Herd.
Impossible game to analyse. The reactionary one game at a time extremism from some has annoyed me, so nice to shut some of those up with a win yesterday.Did anyone else notice that in the build up to the award of the free kick for our second equaliser Albrighton was stripped and ready to come on?I imagine that was going to lead to a change of formation with one of the centre backs coming off. As soon as Leo scored, he was told to sit back down and we kept the same shape.Amazing how certain little moments change an entire outcome. Brilliant day
Shortly after we got first equaliser did anyone notice a man city hand ball in the box from a deep cross? I recall two city defenders and one villa player challenged for the cross and it seemed to hit a raised arm.
I'm still smiling after Saturday, not sure how we did it either but 3 good points and here is to another 3 at Hull.Saturday was celebrated with a birthday dinner for my wife and yes I did get out the champers....not sure she was entirely happy us toasting her birthday and then me saying the toast Up the Villa....lolUTVThe Doc
Also no yellow card for Delph!
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Aston Villa v Manchester City Post-Match Thread (Read 104704 times)
