Hob-nobbing
Monday, January 14, 2008
Quick note on the manyoo cup loss. Absorbing game and the defence were v.good – until the goal and then all 4 were culpable to some extent. Davies for a poor pass. Mellberg for not dealing with it. Laursen (maybe) for not anticipating the low ball across the box and Bouma for losing Ronaldo. Carew clearly wasn’t fit (otherwise that ‘tight’ plan might have worked) and the difference in the end was them bring on Rooney and us having Luke Moore come on. Not the first time a manyoo sub has turned a cup tie at VP.
The Reading game was a lot easier. Looks like all their 6ft+ centre-halves were either injured or off to the African Nations cup. And with our effectiveness at set-pieces it was a pretty inevitable outcome. Rennie (ref) did his best to spoil it with his attention-seeking antics, but, as usual, we didn’t come out of it, too badly. First goal was perhaps offside and the second came from a corner which was clearly a goal-kick – balanced by a missed pen, missed red card for their keeper and a wrongly disallowed ‘offside’ goal. And the worst interpretation of the advantage rules I’ve ever seen.
Carson: Made a few decent saves. A couple of nervy juggles, too. I still can’t see a £10M goalie.
Gardner: They didn’t play an out-and-out left winger, which quite suited him. Did well at the back.
Bouma: Looked fairly solid, but the least effective of the back 4.
Davies: Very good. Hardly noticed him – which is exactly whay tou want from your mopping up player. Couple of crunching interventions when required
Laursen: Clearly enjoying his ‘attack every ball’ role.
Reo-Coker: Effective at beaking up play (his main job), less effective in possession (his 2nd job)
Barry: Not his absolute best game, but good enough.
Petrov: OK, the rest of the team are adapting to the ‘narrow right’ formation, but it’s a bit limiting
Young: A few over-elaborate ‘beat the same player 3 times’ efforts, but great tracking back and excellent set-pieces
Agbonlahor: Dealt pretty well with man-marking (UDLC), but looks a bit jaded. Unslefish pullback for goal #3 and the ‘offside’ predecessor
Carew: The manyoo game was too soon after his injury. Too powerful for Reading’s midget centrebacks
For Reading - Doyle didn’t impress, but Hunt looked lively. They were very ordinary, and made a big mistake in trying to defend (with no big defenders) rather than use their attacking strengths.
Discuss
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Good win against Spurs. The previous exertions against Chelsea (10 men for 45 mins) and Wigan (weather and pitch) seemed to tell in the second half, but we should have had it wrapped up before halftime. Though the ref (Tanner) was good – actually tried to play advantage in the correct way (inc calling it back when no advantage happened).
Spurs were poor. Always dangerous with the quality of their strikers, but their midfield was aimless and their defence porous. Huddlestone made a massive difference for them when he came on, but what have they done to promising young players like Lennon (anonymous – didn’t even try to run at Bouma) and Dawson (more interested in wrestling than marking)? I thought we handed them a tactical advantage in the Moore>Gardner switch after Kaboul had gone off. Harewood would have been a better call – why not exploit their defensive weakness rather than try to nullify their attacking strength?
Carson: Couple of decent saves. No chance with the goal
Mellberg: Set piece goal and OK defending. Some poor ‘attacking’ in the first half
Bouma: Completely contained Lennon
Laursen: Berbatov gave up against him – and he grabbed the winner, too. Missed a good chance in the first half, and about time he scored with a header!
Davies: Looked assured. His reading of the game is several notches up on Knight’s.
Reo-Coker: Does the basics (something most Spurs players don’t) very well
Barry: Better second half (As usual). 1 sublime diagonal 50 yard pass to Young and an assist for the winner.
Petrov: OK on the ball, but looked slow and drifts inside too much, unbalancing the whole side
Young: Couple of bright runs early on but not much end product. Good free kick for the first goal
Moore: Worked very hard. Unlucky with an early chance but should have buried the second half one from 6 yards
Agnonlahor: Not his best game, but always a threat. Unwell? If he played that well despite being ill, it was very impressive
Gardner: Should have been Petrov he replaced. Did OK.
Maloney: Ran the clock down well in a cameo role
Worth checking out the Spurs comment here…
http://harryhotspur.blogspot.com/2008/01/villa-away-player-ratings.html
Monday, December 10, 2007
The flukey first goal was important and a combination of bad luck and poor reffing (poor for both sides, but a deserved earlier booking for Mendes would have made a big difference – and how did Diop stay on after the post-penalty scuffle?) meant we ended up with quite a heavy defeat.
Carson: Poor kicking for the 3rd goal. Doesn’t look worth £10M. I’m unconvinced.
Mellberg: Not great – if anything he got too far forward – but then looked lost! We have a real problem down the right.
Bouma: Miscue for the opener, not bad. If he was playing with flu then he did well
Laursen: Poor. Didn’t close the second goal, missed 2 good chances and was lightweight in a few challenges.
Knight: Could have cut out the third (at the expense of a booking). Not good enough to take us beyond mid-table.
Barry: Was he playing, first half? Looked static compared to their midfield movement. Needs to start deeper and drive forward rather than stand advanced and the ball not reach him
Reo-Coker: Caught in possession for the 3rd goal, usual harrying and ball-winning, plus some good defending when we went all out late on
Gardner: Unlucky with the OG but too slow against their midfield – esp out wide.
Young: Good set-piece delivery, but repeatedly failed to beat Johnson – should have switched wings earlier.
Carew: Won a few headers and lay-offs first half, but far to slow to get in the box after laying the ball off. Not enough goal threat
Agbonlahor: One of those games when he’d have been better on the right? Always a threat, though. Got stuck between waiting for Carews flicks and hitting the channels which meant we looked static up front.
Berger (sub): Awful. Looked well past it
Harewood (sub): Surprisingly effective running into the channels. Looked up for it
We were due some bad luck (the OG had the same kind of sliced clearance as Mellberg’s goal at Boro), but tactically we need to improve. All our first half chances came from crosses (mainly set pieces) so we should have gone for 2 threatening wide players. Gabby wide with Harewood on would have been my choice – or Maloney – or Barry wide left. Instead we laboured through the middle before launching balls in the general direction of Carew (who again was less effective second half). Gardner and Berger were both lost causes, but perhaps Gardner and NRC could have done ‘something’ in the middle if we’d gone almost 4-2-4. Our primarily defensive fullbacks are good away but less useful at home.
Glen Johnson was good for them. Defended well against Young and got forward - the kind of right back we could do with!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Unusual to pick up so much encouragement from a home defeat, but the 1-2 loss to Arsenal was bearable. We were a bit unlucky not to get a draw after the second half fightback, even if we seemed to be chasing shadows for much of the first half. Carew was immense – shame it took 45 mins for the rest to impose themselves. When you have Arsenal time-wasting and launching clearances into the stands you know you’re doing something right.
Carson: didn’t really have much to do. Usual good distribution.
Mellberg: getting better at rightback, spent most of the second half as an extra midfielder
Bouma: both goals against came from his side, if he’s 99% a defender he needs to defend better
Knight: struggled against their movement, maybe at fault for the second goal, better 2nd half
Laursen: best of the defenders. Again
Barry: Poor first half. Better after the break
Petrov: Looked OK before he was injured
Gardner: Looked lost first half, both wide and central – except for the good finish. Better second half, but looks a back-up at best.
Young: As usual we look good when he does. OK covering back but the left side leaked both goals
Agbonlahor: Didn’t look fully fit. Had their defence scared when he was on the ball. Stiffened things up when wide right
Carew: Immense. Only lost a few headers right at the end. Set up the goal and hit the bar. Top class targetman performance and more.
Maloney (sub): Tricksy but no real threat. Tracked back well at times
Berger (sub): No time
As ever it’s the right hand side that looks ‘light’ going forward. As well as Mellberg has played recently, he’s still better at centrehalf (would probably have cut out that second goal) than rightback. A ‘threat’ rightsided midfielder wouldn’t just allow us to attack down that flank – it would lessen the opposition options of doubling up on Young and stifling our main threat. Maloney looked bright at times but for all the footwork and willingness to go forward there’s rarely any end-product. A rightback and someone like Bentley (Blackburn) – or even Milner (esp if Newcastle have to sell to buy) would push us up another level – and the gap between us and the top teams isn’t that great on this evidence.
Good support right until the end, too.
Monday, November 12, 2007
I only saw the MoTD highlights so can’t really comment on the game, although Petrov seemed to be in the right place more often than not.
Via NewsNow – here are some considered Bluenose verdicts. Interestingly, they don’t go down the Brucey whinge route.
Singing the Blues has this…
Blues lost the first second city derby of the season as a late Gabriel Agbonlahor header won the game for Villa.
The visitors had led through a Liam Ridgewell own goal - always going to happen, wasn't it? - before Mikael Forssell had equalised for a Blues team who were well on top in the second half.
Steve Bruce again resisted the temptation to pick two proper strikers, with the only change from the team that started at Everton being Wilson Palacios returning for the unlucky (again) Seb Larsson.
I'm not going to go into loads of detail, firstly because a lot of what I said last week after the Everton game still applies, and secondly, it's the Villa and it makes me feel sick discussing them. Again though, I can imagine that people will be saying that Blues were unlucky, etc, etc, etc. Maybe they were, but then again, maybe once again they didn't start playing properly until it was too late.
Blues started ok, but in a high tempo, derby day kind of way, without a great deal of quality. They soon let Villa settle, and they scored following a "challenge" by Olivier Kapo that was frankly pathetic. Blues never really got going much again in the rest of the first half, and as seems to be the case every bloody week, it was left to an improved second half display to make something of a game out of it.
To be honest, I'm getting a bit fed up of it. Forget who we were playing and all the rest of it, but playing a containing style of football (not assisted by the formation) for 45 minutes is all well and good if you're good enough to do it. Blues aren't, and so there's always the chance that they'll concede, as they keep doing.
Then they're forced to throw people forward and have a go at the opposition in the second half, and they always look better and so people come away saying, "well, they had a good old go, and they were unlucky". Fair enough, there were a couple of penalty shouts and one cleared off the line, but even so, Blues are continually leaving themselves with a mountain to climb. They always have a go at climbing it, but just fall short, and it's becoming boring now. The gallant loser tag is still a loser tag, like it or not.
Cameron Jerome CANNOT play a lone striker role - it's not the way he plays. He's not good enough to hold the ball up, and he needs a foil alongside him. If 4-5-1/4-4-1-1 was the way to go today, then Garry O'Connor HAD to be the lone striker. Jerome only really came to life when Forssell came on at half-time, because he had someone else alongside him that meant he could get one on one with defenders, rather than always being faced with two of them.
When it comes to defenders, Villa's back four is basically four slow centre halves, so why not give them more to think about? They were rocked when Blues had a go in the second half, and when there were more blue and white shirts to deal with. Anyone with half a brain knew the back four Villa would pick before the game, so surely you'd want Jerome's pace being utilised alongside a bigger, better hold-up forward, with the likes of De Ridder and, dare I say it, Gary McSheffrey attacking Bouma and Mellberg down the flanks. Again, repeating exactly what I said last week, Blues have the personnel for once, but seem loathed to use it.
It's all well and good saying "well, we're playing ok with this system", but we're actually not. We're surrendering the initiative by playing this system, and playing well when we're forced into chasing a game. It's getting boring now, and Blues aren;t good enough to keep handing teams the initiative and chasing games after conceding.
For all the hard luck stories this season, there's the fact that Blues have only won three games. Those games were against arguably the three worst teams in the division in Derby, Wigan and Bolton - though Bolton look to be getting their act together. Unfortunately Blues are going to need more than that this season, but the way that they're approaching games, it's difficult to see where it will come from.
And the Joys and Sorrows weblog has this…
You reap what you sew. Let’s not hide behind refereeing decisions or curse bad luck, Aston Villa over the course of ninety minutes deserved to beat Blues. The reasons for this goes deeper than just the match today.
The match itself showed the potential gulf between the two teams. Compare the reaction of the teams after each conceded. Blues hardly mustered an effort for the rest of the half, Villa stepped up the pace. The debate about Blues first half penalty appeals may rumble on. My opinion was neither were and if either had happened in the Blues penalty area there would have been uproar if a penalty had been awarded. You make your own luck.
The board may have failed to back the manager financially as much as they indicated they would pre-season in comparison with the rest of the Premiership and Steve Bruce may have bought in some good players yet the old habits that cost our Premiership status before are still lingering. The facts are there for all to see - Blues have created the least number of chances in the Premiership this season bar Derby. We currently have an excellent centre half playing at left back and have pinned our hopes on a lone young forward in his first season of top flight football. If, as Steve Bruce claims, a team is only as good as it’s strikers why did we lose three in the summer (Bendtner, Cole and Campbell) and replace them with only one (O’Connor) leaving a quality but injury ridden forward as back up? We have an abundance of midfield players yet are short on strikers and our only defender with pace is on loan from another club. At this highest level pace in a team is vital. Villa, and our next opponents Portsmouth, have that, Blues have Djourou and Jerome.
The match today was lost in the first half. Did Blues have an attempt on target? Too often the intensity of the derby passed De Ridder, Palacios and Kapo by in the opening forty five minutes. The formation did not work. I have previously thought it matters little, it’s what you do with ball and how brave you are to commit players forward. We cannot hide that a record of one win and five losses in the last six matches suggest this style of play may not work over a course of time. A team is limited when it has up to seven players starting who are more defensively minded. I cannot fault the team for their effort, they need to have better attacking options especially now opposition teams have realised pace gives them an advantage in attacking areas. Steve Bruce may know his best players, they do not necessarily make his best team.
Football has an irony all of it’s own. After years of mickey taking of Aston Villa goalkeepers, Liam Ridgewell’s own goal shows what goes around eventually comes around.
Villa off the pitch seem to be looking after their fans better than our current board. The current proposed takeover, whether it happens or not, has nothing to do with the lack of empty seats for our so called biggest game of the season. These games have sold out before when televised live and tickets have been expensive. Many “missing” fans do not fall for the clubs PR any more, the style of football played does not excite enough fans and no matter what certain local radio journalists claim, the majority of fans who sit near me have felt for some time the club is stale on and off the pitch. The loss of heart in the boardroom finds its way around the club eventually. Contrast this to the Aston Villa owner who uses action rather than words. When was the last time Blues used their initiative and were proactive with ticket prices, coach travel, free scarves etc rather than being reactive?
Today on the pitch Blues fell short of their nearest rivals. Off the pitch this has been similar for over twelve months. Over the course of a season the cream usually rises to the top. With Villa already with nearly twice as many points ahead after just a third of the season Blues in all areas of the club need to ensure whoever is in charge of the club in January can regenerate all areas of the club.
Copyright 2008 - Captain Vulture
|
