Everton v Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[PaulWinch again]

I think hartman is partly right.With a better Gabby instead of Holt, and a better midfielder than Westwood, then we would'nt have lost today.

 Bacuna and Bertrand were very good, and the back 3 restricted them to almost nothing until they scored.The lack of quality on the ball was our undoing.

It's partially that, but it's tactical as well. Why start 3 centre halves against a team with no strikers? it immediately says you don't want possession. Lambert has lost any sort of attacking thoughts he ever had, and we are an embarrassing team. As paulie says we're the sort of team that I would want to see relegated if I wasn't a fan.

No it doesn't. Martinez plays three at the back all the time and his sides always look to retain possession. It says you want them going outside you and not playing through you. Baines is a winger but he underlaps rather than overlaps and we forced him outside today.

I'd suggest our performances and the way our centre halves kick the ball away show we don't want possession.

[mattjpa]

Mind you for all the stick we give PL, me included, the players need to stand up and take some flack.

The sheer inability to hold onto the ball, pass simply to each other is appalling. What do they do in training?

A couple of times in the second half Weimann and Delph had the chance to make a simple oass forward to start an attack and made a hash of it.

There seems to be no attempt to slow the game down with good ball retention when we are under pressure. We give the ball away and the pressure starts all over again.

The team defended well for the first 65 mins but you just knew Everton would get through eventually and that we couldn't then respond, because we don't have the ability to do so.

But this isn't an anomaly. This is how they are trained to play and set up to play.

[Toronto Villa]

What's disappointing is that today could have been so different and had control over that. We took the lead and had a chance to really put some pressure on Everton or at the very least make them work really hard for a win. It's so poor that we essentially allowed them to engage in a pass and shooting drill.

[Rudy65]

If we are to play five at the back you cant play Holt up front. He is shockingly immobile and can only really play as the sole centre forward with two quick players running off him. Not him and Benteke together.

This I agree with. However, I don't know who else I would have played. To me Albrighton is too naive and Tonev isn't ready. Gabby really is massive for us.

KEA for Holt. Push Weimann forward. Weimann does nothing unless you push him forward. He is a goalscorer, and nothing else, but he needs to play off a big man, not wide or behnd a front two

Agree Gabby is a big big miss

[hartman_1982]

I think hartman is partly right.With a better Gabby instead of Holt, and a better midfielder than Westwood, then we would'nt have lost today.

 Bacuna and Bertrand were very good, and the back 3 restricted them to almost nothing until they scored.The lack of quality on the ball was our undoing.

It's partially that, but it's tactical as well. Why start 3 centre halves against a team with no strikers? it immediately says you don't want possession. Lambert has lost any sort of attacking thoughts he ever had, and we are an embarrassing team. As paulie says we're the sort of team that I would want to see relegated if I wasn't a fan.

No it doesn't. Martinez plays three at the back all the time and his sides always look to retain possession. It says you want them going outside you and not playing through you. Baines is a winger but he underlaps rather than overlaps and we forced him outside today.

I'd suggest our performances and the way our centre halves kick the ball away show we don't want possession.

I'd argue it's because they don't have any movement in front of them. Lambert's already identified that as a problem, once he has done that and offered his targets it's not his fault if they don't arrive.

[Rudy65]

Mind you for all the stick we give PL, me included, the players need to stand up and take some flack.

The sheer inability to hold onto the ball, pass simply to each other is appalling. What do they do in training?

A couple of times in the second half Weimann and Delph had the chance to make a simple oass forward to start an attack and made a hash of it.

There seems to be no attempt to slow the game down with good ball retention when we are under pressure. We give the ball away and the pressure starts all over again.

The team defended well for the first 65 mins but you just knew Everton would get through eventually and that we couldn't then respond, because we don't have the ability to do so.

But this isn't an anomaly. This is how they are trained to play and set up to play.

Set up to play, yes.

To retain the all so poorly, no

[curiousorange]

I do agree with Rudy to a certain extent. Some of the retention and distribution from a number of our side, who are employed as professional footballers, is fucking abysmal. If economics is such an issue at Aston Villa, we may as well start signing semi-pros, because I don't see how they can do much worse.

[hartman_1982]

If we are to play five at the back you cant play Holt up front. He is shockingly immobile and can only really play as the sole centre forward with two quick players running off him. Not him and Benteke together.

This I agree with. However, I don't know who else I would have played. To me Albrighton is too naive and Tonev isn't ready. Gabby really is massive for us.

KEA for Holt. Push Weimann forward. Weimann does nothing unless you push him forward. He is a goalscorer, and nothing else, but he needs to play off a big man, not wide or behnd a front two

Agree Gabby is a big big miss

I see your point but I think he wanted Weimann to do a job on Barry the same way he did on Gerrard at Anfield. I would have been more inclined to your suggestion though.

[The Man With A Stick]

No Match of the Day tonight for me then.

I'll watch it, just to see the geordies having an absolute paddy as that's always entertaining.

[mattjpa]

People taking issue with him changing a winning side, it isn't the 80's. Also, was that not exactly what MON got slagged for? He picked a formation to stifle the opposition and for 65 minutes he got it spot on. We used the ball poorly but to me we looked shattered, maybe Wednesday night took it out of us?

I think that's the issue, he picked a formation to stifle their side, rather than to actually play football ourselves. I must admit for a while i thought it might just work, but with no real out ball and absolutely no midfield presence it became obvious the pressure and their massive possession were almost certainly going to pay off for them eventually.

Is that not his job? If he'd played 4 at the back and Lowton at right back, the midfield runners would have had a field day and Baines would have tore Lowts a new one. People saying they had no striker on the pitch but we had three CB's clearly have no perspective of how the modern game is played. How many times have Barca or Spain played without a striker?

Well i would say the remit of his job is a little larger than 'pick a side to stiffle the opposition', for instance i seem to remember the club and Lambert saying at the beginning of his tenure something about 'playing football' the right way.

I agree that we had to be wary of Everton's goal scoring threat, with 34 of their 43 goals this season not coming from their main striker, and said as much in the prematch thread and the start of the match thread. We weren't however playing Bareclona and have played better football against better teams then them this season so i don't agree there was a need for such completely negative tactics. The way we were set up we had no midfield or attacking threat whatsoever and without a massive slice of luck such as we had at Southampton, Everton we're always going to get the result.

I would rather lose playing football and having a go, than playing this negative ****

Why is it that all of our good results are lucky and all of the bad ones are down to Lambert? The bottom line is we are the tenth best team in this league and let's not forget that we have already played Liverpool and Arsenal twice. For a club slashing their wage bill, the manager can't be doing that badly.

Ok so a couple of hyperthetical  questions; Lerner sells up and we are bought by the Bahrain royal family/oil Barron sheik who provide us with a 300m war chest. Do you think Lambert could have us winning the league within 2-3years? Then secondly, the same scenario with Everton-do you think Martinez could do it with them?

I know my answers

[Rudy65]

An embarrassment of the highest order.

That is anti football

Get that f in scottish tw@t out of my club

Were you saying that on Wednesday evening?

Exactly, some overreactions in here. Lambert is doing fine with what he has. We are 10th, we aren't going down. This summer is important though.

You are a half full man then

Look at the table. We are 5 points off the bottom three and have West Ham up next.

I wouldnt trust PL to spend any money

Its the manner of the performance and tactics that is so appalling

[ktvillan]

I'm listening to Lambert now on WM and he is saying we did not deserve to lose as Guzan had nothing to do for 70 mins! I'm stunned

He didn't

Unfortunately the matches tend to last at least 90 minutes, highlighting something of a flaw in Lambert's master plan and logic.

[Dribbler]

People taking issue with him changing a winning side, it isn't the 80's. Also, was that not exactly what MON got slagged for? He picked a formation to stifle the opposition and for 65 minutes he got it spot on. We used the ball poorly but to me we looked shattered, maybe Wednesday night took it out of us?

I think that's the issue, he picked a formation to stifle their side, rather than to actually play football ourselves. I must admit for a while i thought it might just work, but with no real out ball and absolutely no midfield presence it became obvious the pressure and their massive possession were almost certainly going to pay off for them eventually.

Is that not his job? If he'd played 4 at the back and Lowton at right back, the midfield runners would have had a field day and Baines would have tore Lowts a new one. People saying they had no striker on the pitch but we had three CB's clearly have no perspective of how the modern game is played. How many times have Barca or Spain played without a striker?

Well i would say the remit of his job is a little larger than 'pick a side to stiffle the opposition', for instance i seem to remember the club and Lambert saying at the beginning of his tenure something about 'playing football' the right way.

I agree that we had to be wary of Everton's goal scoring threat, with 34 of their 43 goals this season not coming from their main striker, and said as much in the prematch thread and the start of the match thread. We weren't however playing Bareclona and have played better football against better teams then them this season so i don't agree there was a need for such completely negative tactics. The way we were set up we had no midfield or attacking threat whatsoever and without a massive slice of luck such as we had at Southampton, Everton we're always going to get the result.

I would rather lose playing football and having a go, than playing this negative ****

Why is it that all of our good results are lucky and all of the bad ones are down to Lambert? The bottom line is we are the tenth best team in this league and let's not forget that we have already played Liverpool and Arsenal twice. For a club slashing their wage bill, the manager can't be doing that badly.

Please point out where i said that? I think you'll find i haven't and even indicated that we'd gained results through playing good football. The Arsenal and Liverpool games you mention being a prime example.

You like using this 'the bottom line is...' sentence don't you, which isn't really the bottom line at all unless it's related to actual physical bottoms and their functions. Being 10th doesn't make us the 10th best team in the league, it just means we have more points than 10 teams below us. At the moment the gap between us and 18th is 5 points, and the way things are those teams below us could easily make that up in the next few games.

[Toronto Villa]

I'm listening to Lambert now on WM and he is saying we did not deserve to lose as Guzan had nothing to do for 70 mins! I'm stunned

He didn't

Unfortunately the matches tend to last at least 90 minutes, highlighting something of a flaw in Lambert's master plan and logic.

Statistically Guzan had little to do for 70 minutes. But playing the tempting fate game isn't usually going to end well.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

From the off it was clear our rumoured back 3 was in fact 5 with OUR 2 midfielders being outnumbered by their counterparts meaning we just couldn't get the ball.

We did exactly the same at West Ham and like Everton today, they didn't have a recognised striker on the pitch.

I didn't want Holt, i'll gladly admit that before asking what was his purpose today?. He did absolutely nothing to my eyes, and i do mean NOTHING. He's just a big lump that does very little to warrant a start. I have an awful feeling we're going to see loads of him as we did Heskey under O'Neill. Not because they offer anything but because of stupid stubbornness from the blokes that brought them.

Going to Everton on the back of two decent results with a game plan of seemingly being to hang on for a dour point at best was truly depressing. They had some BIG players missing and with a bit more positivity could've been there for the taking.

As it was, it was just dreadful negative crap.

Good comparison with Heskey. I thought the Holt deal was to replace Kozak and desperate cover should we lose Benteke to injury. How wrong I was.