Aston Villa 3-0 Everton post match thread

[ChicagoLion]

There was a lot of talk on the match thread that he moved to a back four after Bailey came on, and that's why we scored, etc, etc. In Smith's words however it was a straight swap with Targett and they didn't change the formation.

That's what I thought. Watched MOTD again and couldn't see a change in formation after Bailey came on

Bailey was on the half way line when Ings played him in, I do not believe Tarrget would have been in that position.
So I do think the formation was changed.

[Monty]

There was a lot of talk on the match thread that he moved to a back four after Bailey came on, and that's why we scored, etc, etc. In Smith's words however it was a straight swap with Targett and they didn't change the formation.

That's what I thought. Watched MOTD again and couldn't see a change in formation after Bailey came on

That's not what I saw, Bailey was way high up the pitch and Mings was even overlapping and taking throw ins. Plus later he clearly went back to CB pushing Konsa to right back. Am I mad?? Are my eyes working??

[Chris Smith]

Where was Sanson yesterday? Still injured? He wasnt on the bench

i don’t see how he gets in the team.

Ther will inevitably be injuries and suspensions as well as players needing a break from time to time. I don’t think Smith will take the MON approach of having a squad but not using it.

[Goldenballs]

Yeah Smith said Targett was playing so far forward as a wing back so a straight swap for Bailey made sense.

[Clampy]

I don't think the formation changed either because at the time, I couldn't see who went to left back if that was the case.

[Nii Lamptey]

Marv was my MOTM - Took the midfield by the scruff of the neck when he came on, with some great interceptions, and surprisingly assured passing.

IMO, that formation doesn't make the best of our squad. Targett and Cash as our main supply lines is not the answer when you have two England strikers up front - Their crossing was abysmal yesterday! Can't question it too much as we beat a team that we're attempting to leapfrog 3-0, but it's hugely exciting that we now have a strength in depth to change systems and keep opponents guessing for the rest of the season.

Really pleased for Dean too - Managerial nous shown yesterday which has arguably been missing for most of his reign....finally unveiled the fabled Plan B!

Can't believe people are slating Ings yesterday. All I saw was his great link-up play with Targett and the midfield, and lots of tracking back and tackling. Surprised by his pace too tbh. His and Ollie's goals will come.  UTV!

[sickbeggar]

There was a lot of talk on the match thread that he moved to a back four after Bailey came on, and that's why we scored, etc, etc. In Smith's words however it was a straight swap with Targett and they didn't change the formation.

That's what I thought. Watched MOTD again and couldn't see a change in formation after Bailey came on

That's not what I saw, Bailey was way high up the pitch and Mings was even overlapping and taking throw ins. Plus later he clearly went back to CB pushing Konsa to right back. Am I mad?? Are my eyes working??

To be fair its hard to say from the 30 seconds on MOTD after Bailey came on. I'd say Bailey was obviously going to attack further up the field because that's his natural game and Smith seems to think we were still playing it. Also the Cash goal was pretty 5-3-2 ish imo

[exigo]

Two of the three goals lifted the Holte End net up out of the ground. The next best sight after one bouncing down off the bar and up into the roof of the net. Aesthetically pleasing, as well as just bloody brilliant to watch.

[colin69]

Whatever the formation was (and it looked 3-5-2 to me), it certainly seemed to benefit Cash.

[Ads]

We didn't change formation. Mings wasn't at left back, but the wing backs pushed on a lot higher second half.

My initial thought was Bailey would go to make a ye olde 442, but we didn't. Not that we did much defending after he came on, but there was a brief occasion where he tracked into cover and proceeded ro beat his man too.

[Monty]

Interesting. Maybe we were just pushing them back so much at that point that Mings, in his wide CB position, was almost playing as a kind of left-mid. One way or another we were basically living in their half by that stage.

[Pete3206]

From my Witton Lane view, The Holte End looked amazing when the third goal went in. It was almost 'Old Holte' limbs everywhere. Fantastic.

[Villan82]

I don't envy the man who has to pick the team, we have options everywhere.

[brontebilly]

I thought Nakamba did a more than decent job after he came on.

Nakamba was excellent today. Ramsey’s progression is clear - he’s looking better on and off the ball.

Ramsey is clearly a good athlete and turns with the ball very well but I didn't think he was great yesterday. Took the wrong option with the ball a lot including that great chance when 2 up. Thought Luiz misplaced a lot of passes too, despite one that mattered for the first goal. I'm not a Nakamba fan but he did well, no doubt about it. I like having a midfield three though, good balance to it.

Deano made an interesting comment post game in that he didn't switch to a back 4 when Bailey came up, just that they noticed Targett was playing very high up the pitch and thought it would be better to get a more natural wide option on there. Surprised Benitez didn't spot that and move Gray over there as I don't think running back to his own goal will be Baileys forte.

I've been an advocate of trying 352 on occasion but I don't think we looked suited to it yesterday. I thought Gray (who was excellent) and Rondon (in the first half) caused our back 3 a lot more problems than they should have. Tuanzebe was like an unnecessary spare man for most of the game. Targett was lost at LWB and the front two played as individuals, poorly in Watkins case. With four decent wide options on the bench it makes no sense to play wing backs for home games. 

[simboy]

There was a lot of talk on the match thread that he moved to a back four after Bailey came on, and that's why we scored, etc, etc. In Smith's words however it was a straight swap with Targett and they didn't change the formation.

That's what I thought. Watched MOTD again and couldn't see a change in formation after Bailey came on

That's not what I saw, Bailey was way high up the pitch and Mings was even overlapping and taking throw ins. Plus later he clearly went back to CB pushing Konsa to right back. Am I mad?? Are my eyes working??

To be fair its hard to say from the 30 seconds on MOTD after Bailey came on. I'd say Bailey was obviously going to attack further up the field because that's his natural game and Smith seems to think we were still playing it. Also the Cash goal was pretty 5-3-2 ish imo

From where I was Targett was playing further forward than a “five”, more wide midfield than full back “ bombing on”.  He did drop back occasionally. When Bailey came on Mings covered the left. Dont think he dropped in defensively much.

Cash more defensive overall but did get in the gaps created by Ing and Watkins dragging their defenders out of position. That increased as the game went on.

After Cash was subbed we went to a back four, Konsa at right back, Young on the left.

Interesting to watch Smith change formations during the game.  More to play with off the bench allows this … and arguably not playing continually to one player for our attacking ideas