Forest v Villa post-match

[PeterWithe]

Yup, same here, maybe him shanking that late one into the stand makes people view his overall contribution negatively. I thought he was possibly our best player.

[Neil Hawkes]

Emi Martinez being beaten by 2 long range shots - is not a sentence I thought I'd ever have to type.

That, combined with the lukewarm performance by the rest of the team made for a disappointing afternoon.

As a one off, then fair enough, it happens occasionally; and I can't say I'm worried it will become a trademark performance.

[Brend'Watkins]

Two other things I will take from the game, whoever scored for their first will never score a goal like that again in his life.  It was a really well hit shot mind.  The other is that Martinez will not make such an error again as he did for the 2nd.

[ROBBO]

We struggle against muscle and deep defensive sides, there was little invention just passing to each other.

[Risso]

Emi Martinez being beaten by 2 long range shots - is not a sentence I thought I'd ever have to type.

That, combined with the lukewarm performance by the rest of the team made for a disappointing afternoon.

As a one off, then fair enough, it happens occasionally; and I can't say I'm worried it will become a trademark performance.

In terms of away games, it wasn't really a one off though. The standard of the opposition was weaker perhaps, but we've mostly played quite badly away. Certainly nowhere near the heights at home. Yesterday, Liverpool and Newcastle were poor performances and results. Wolves was a mediocre performance and result. Chelsea was a mediocre performance helped by a sending off with a good result. At home, the only less than stellar game was Palace, and yet we still won 3-1. Everything else at Villa Park we've been sensational.

It would help if Emery didn't keep buggering about with the formation and/or lineup away from home, it's just not working.

[Monty]

Emi Martinez being beaten by 2 long range shots - is not a sentence I thought I'd ever have to type.

That, combined with the lukewarm performance by the rest of the team made for a disappointing afternoon.

As a one off, then fair enough, it happens occasionally; and I can't say I'm worried it will become a trademark performance.

In terms of away games, it wasn't really a one off though. The standard of the opposition was weaker perhaps, but we've mostly played quite badly away. Certainly nowhere near the heights at home. Yesterday, Liverpool and Newcastle were poor performances and results. Wolves was a mediocre performance and result. Chelsea was a mediocre performance helped by a sending off with a good result. At home, the only less than stellar game was Palace, and yet we still won 3-1. Everything else at Villa Park we've been sensational.

It would help if Emery didn't keep buggering about with the formation and/or lineup away from home, it's just not working.

Completely unchanged team and formation?

[simon ward 50]

Spoilt my Sunday! But hey-ho we move on.

[Mister E]

.. It would help if Emery didn't keep buggering about with the formation and/or lineup away from home, it's just not working.

The problem yesterday was that we were weak in the middle of the park. Playing a back 3 is fine except that when we're light in the middle we will get exploited. Forest's plan to put the ball over the top would have been stymied if we'd been stronger in the middle. If Emery wants a back 3 when in possession, he should start with Tielemans rather than Z.
Furthermore, we conceded two piss-poor goals: Martinez gifted the 2nd goal from a speculative shot. The first was down to Z not tracking back and Martinez not seeing it early enough.

[Neil Hawkes]

Emi Martinez being beaten by 2 long range shots - is not a sentence I thought I'd ever have to type.

That, combined with the lukewarm performance by the rest of the team made for a disappointing afternoon.

As a one off, then fair enough, it happens occasionally; and I can't say I'm worried it will become a trademark performance.

In terms of away games, it wasn't really a one off though. The standard of the opposition was weaker perhaps, but we've mostly played quite badly away. Certainly nowhere near the heights at home. Yesterday, Liverpool and Newcastle were poor performances and results. Wolves was a mediocre performance and result. Chelsea was a mediocre performance helped by a sending off with a good result. At home, the only less than stellar game was Palace, and yet we still won 3-1. Everything else at Villa Park we've been sensational.

It would help if Emery didn't keep buggering about with the formation and/or lineup away from home, it's just not working.

Fair enough, yet we didn't score which is our trademark performance, irrespective of the result; Liverpool aside, there have been very few games where we have not scored and that is why I'm not worried about a poor away day ending in Villa-0

[Risso]

There was just no need for three at the back. It made our usually world-class pairing of Luiz and Kamara look like Laurel and Hardy in comparison to their usual composed selves. Cash was stuck out on the wing doing not very much, and doing it very badly, plus Watkins and Diaby were crowded out the entire game because we were just so slow in getting the ball forward. And to counter what, the fearsome Nottingham Forest forward line?

It was clear it wasn't working pretty much from the word go. It's just really, really annoying, especially given the results for teams around us. I can handle losing if we've given it a good go, but that formation knackered us completely and we were a shambles.

[Monty]

But...we always have a central midfielder pushing back when we have the ball. Always.

[Risso]

We don't have one playing in defence, not at home we don't. You know, where we win all our games. Luiz and Kamara usually work in perfect harmony, yesterday Luiz was having to do a lot more of the donkey work, and mostly didn't seem to know where he was supposed to be, eg for their goal.

[Monty]

Maybe I was watching a different game, but I didn't see a lot of change from the normal tactics until the second half. Indeed, looking at the average positions, Kamara was as so often deeper than Luiz but hardly to a degree out of the ordinary:

[Footy-Vill]

Your blurb

No point recreating all your text.
I disagree on your assessment of 3 players:
1. Digne - did fine, in the main. His freedom on the left was not supported by good movement from the front three.
2. Konsa - did nothing wrong and became more creative through the 2nd half.
3. Kamara - it was clearly the plan for him to play as part of a back 3; nothing wrong with that.

Above.
That fails to consider the context of what I've observed. You're only offering opinions.
So let's see how far you disagree after discussing.

So to remind you then you're actually disagreeing that upon observations yesterday
Digne He is wasteful with crosses, doesn't make the most of his chances with the ball, and lacked imagination and ability.
So you're saying his 11 crosses were not wasteful and he made the most of the space afforded to him. Forgive me but he did not make any goal contributions or effectively threaten with his attacking play when he kept kicking the ball into the box?

Only in team due to Moreno injury and his days were numbered previously. To be fair he has embraced opportunity but this was a reminder how he doesn't suit Emerys football
You're arguing the case that Digne is first choice? If both are fit.

Konsa and Kamara:
They were the players who Forest allowed the ball. You don't think Konsa was the main fault for not moving the ball quickly enough at the back?  The less creative centre back that is my observation . I don't see you're argument against it. Entitle to disagree but in debating or discussing the statement I made.

And you disagree Kamara He's the least creative midfielder. ?
And if you disagree on all I wrote in assessment it's impossible to say that because Kamara got booked you can't disagree that's a fact.

Fine if you're not of the same opinion as I that Forest identify Kamara and Konsa as lesser ball players and creative players than Douglas Luiz and Pau Torres?
So you're arguing a case that they are. And disagree with them being least creative.

Therefore, I don't think you believe how I assessed anything inaccurately and did not make it obvious what you disagree with in discussion. Instead what , I think you just expressed your assessment on these 3 players and  how you observed the players, while ignoring the context of my analysis or debating what I said.

[Bad English]

I need a lie-down.