[Albion] Deluded Gerrard?

[Stat Brother]

This is nonsense though, isn't it? Between them, Lamptey and march have got behind the full backs six or seven times in the game - more than their opposite numbers. If a manager wants to build up his part by pretending his plans had more effect than they really did, I fully understand that - why you'd seek to back it up, I'm less sure?

March has served up chances for MacAllister and Welbeck, that PL footballers should be putting away 8 times out of 10. Gerrard's 'plan' allowed those to happen. He takes no credit for our appalling finishing.

It is nonsense if you conveniently cut out the over arching point.
He can say what he damn well pleases because his team won.


We had 3 shots on target over the 2 games (of which I sat through 175 minutes).

Sure saying 'limit them to a couple of chances and we've got this' is hardly rocket science or new thinking.
Sadly 'don't worry too much about March', also isn't news, neither is it self-aggrandizing.

So he pumped up himself a bit, maybe that's something he needs to do.
Maybe he took an opportunity to jab at 'media darling' GPott.

It really doesn't matter because the results speak for themselves.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

"My clever game plan worked to perfection" sounds a lot better than "we just waited for Brighton to make mistakes because we knew they'd never score themselves."

Indeed, perhaps he was going out of his way to be kind.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Well regardless of where he has come from, he has taken 6 points off us with an aggregate score of 4-0. Not sure he'll be that bothered if we don't rate his CV.

Gerrard who

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Sadly 'don't worry too much about March', also isn't news.

Well the way the game played out, would have proven anyone stupid enough to say that, to be a bit thick, football-wise.

Once again, MacAllister blazing over from 8 yards, and Wellbeck closing his eyes in front of an open goal, neither discount March's contribution to those chances, nor absolve Villa's defence of coughing them up

(and all ignoring that the lad scored a winner against them just last season).

 

[Bold Seagull]

Reporters are often asked if they were watching the same game as everyone else, but what was Steven Gerrard looking at on Saturday afternoon? "We caught Brighton where we knew we would catch them, which is in the transition down the side of the centre backs."

Leaving aside what that even means, they didn't, did they? Villa's goals where a well-placed shot following a poor clearance badly defended by a wing back, and a defender misjudging the flight of a long hoof. What did I miss?

SG absolutely spot on, but not limited to Gerrard, Dyche saw the weakness the week before. If Gerrard and Villa watched the Burnley game, which I imagine they did, the Burnley goals were almost direct templates of Villa's goals.

Villa's first wasn't just a poor clearance, we'd been sucked under the ball, we weren't playing wing backs, and we had no one closing down outside the box. It was a mess. Cash was exactly where he needed to be and you'd have recognised that space from the week before.

Their second was attempted several times and gave us bother each time. Why do you think Gerrard chose to play Watkins and Ings down the sides and often Courtinho through the middle? - it was a Potter-esque tactic such as when we beat Spurs at home that time... It was exactly because he had a plan to get inbetween either Lamptey - Veltman, or Cucurella - Dunk. Lampety - Veltman looked all at sea against Burnley especially against McNeil who looked threatening all game. That ball by Mings was a basic hit the channel, but it was undoubtedly a weakness for us. Defenders are allowed to miss the flight of a ball, but you usually expect your next defender to have followed the flight and backed his team mate up, not just ball watched.

 

[R. Slicker]

They're Burnley with more expensive players. diving, feigning injury to waste time, trying to influence the referee, It's the Emperor's new clothes IMO.

 

[Stat Brother]

Well the way the game played out, would have proven anyone stupid enough to say that, to be a bit thick, football-wise.

Once again, MacAllister blazing over from 8 yards, and Wellbeck closing his eyes in front of an open goal, neither discount March's contribution to those chances, nor absolve Villa's defence of coughing them up

(and all ignoring that the lad scored a winner against them just last season).

He might already be getting shite for being tactically naive.
As said he might just have to say such things for himself.

I have no idea about his press conferences and were it not for this thread I still wouldn't.

Nobody is going to remember the game.
Remember the Albion misses.
It's unlikely anyone will remember his comments.

But when your team does the double so easily over a team above yours, in your first 15 games in charge, you can say whatever you like - because you've earned it.

 

[Rookie]

Don’t get the press fascination with him (or Lampard). Would hazard a guess that this time next year, having spent a small fortune, they will still be a mid table team and he will be under pressure. A lucky goal, give that chance to Cash another 10 times and doesn’t hit the target, a bad miss from Mac and a Mings hoof doesn’t equal a tactical masterclass.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well the way the game played out, would have proven anyone stupid enough to say that, to be a bit thick, football-wise.

Once again, MacAllister blazing over from 8 yards, and Wellbeck closing his eyes in front of an open goal, neither discount March's contribution to those chances, nor absolve Villa's defence of coughing them up

(and all ignoring that the lad scored a winner against them just last season).

I'm with you HK, wasn't a complete blood bath against Villa, we did have our moments that should have triggered some momentum, however despite not having a raft of chances themselves, and less possession, I was left with the impression that both Burnley and Villa had control of the game. Yes we had presentable chances, but most sides do during a game, it just felt far too comfortable away wins for both of them. If I was Dyche or Gerrard I'd be feeling that it was a job well done that went completely to plan, well in Burnley's case probably a darn sight better than planned.

 

[Guinness Boy]

SG absolutely spot on, but not limited to Gerrard, Dyche saw the weakness the week before. If Gerrard and Villa watched the Burnley game, which I imagine they did, the Burnley goals were almost direct templates of Villa's goals.

Villa's first wasn't just a poor clearance, we'd been sucked under the ball, we weren't playing wing backs, and we had no one closing down outside the box. It was a mess. Cash was exactly where he needed to be and you'd have recognised that space from the week before.

Their second was attempted several times and gave us bother each time. Why do you think Gerrard chose to play Watkins and Ings down the sides and often Courtinho through the middle? - it was a Potter-esque tactic such as when we beat Spurs at home that time... It was exactly because he had a plan to get inbetween either Lamptey - Veltman, or Cucurella - Dunk. Lampety - Veltman looked all at sea against Burnley especially against McNeil who looked threatening all game. That ball by Mings was a basic hit the channel, but it was undoubtedly a weakness for us. Defenders are allowed to miss the flight of a ball, but you usually expect your next defender to have followed the flight and backed his team mate up, not just ball watched.

An awful lot of truth in that.

On the "pi$$ poor home games" thread I posted a number of times with positional diagrams from whoscored.com

We clearly were NOT using wingbacks and the gap between Velman and Dunk was too big, as were the gaps from them to their full backs. Targeting aerial balls at Veltman / Lamptey is a no-brainer, as is siting waiting for second balls when our only real midfielder is Biss.

 

[Bold Seagull]

An awful lot of truth in that.

On the "pi$$ poor home games" thread I posted a number of times with positional diagrams from whoscored.com

We clearly were NOT using wingbacks and the gap between Velman and Dunk was too big, as were the gaps from them to their full backs. Targeting aerial balls at Veltman / Lamptey is a no-brainer, as is siting waiting for second balls when our only real midfielder is Biss.

At first I was at bit perplexed why neither Watkins or Ings were down the middle, they spent most of their time down the sides, Courtinho actually played as a 10. so they effectively had no centre forwards despite 2 actual centre forwards on the field. Dunk and Veltman therefore had no actual focus of attention, Watkins and Ings looked to be inbetween full back and centre back which as you say, pulled both CBs away from each other as they covered the wider threat.

Regardless of whether it was Gerrard or anyone else, he got it spot on because they scored twice. They weren't lucky goals either - you may as well call all goals lucky if that is the case. Goals often come from pressure, mistakes and weaknesses. Can anyone really say over the last 2 games the 5 goals have come against the run of play? I couldn't. And I'm glass half FULL!

 

[Swansman]

IMO Aston Villa won the midfield because of their superior midfield. Douglas Luiz, Jacob Ramsey (who by the way should be in your national team) and John McGinn used their superior physicality and (in the case of Luiz and McGinn) experience to stop Brighton from playing through the midfield and come into dangerous areas centrally. Well done and SG probably has a part in that.

Not sure what "in transition down the side of the centre backs" really mean. Which side? If he means there were spaces behind Lamptey and Cucurella, then he is correct. That is what you give up when you want to play attacking football: there's going to be spaces for the opponents somewhere, and preferably that will be down the wings rather than in the centre. That none of the goals had anything to do with this is a different story...

I think Steven Gerrard took great pleasure (at almost Stat Brother level) in Aston Villa beating Brighton. It seems from the pre-game interviews that GP thought SG was a bit of a **** for breaking the unwritten rule about not talking about you trying to sign the players of your next opponent - similar to how managers dont comment on replacing a colleague in a different club. It lacks class. So SG was quick to point out his tactical master move (which is apparently more important than the work his players carried out on the field).

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

I think he means we are predictable or probably my transference

 

[Weststander]

Sore Albion fans.

Villa had us on toast.

- The average pitch position map (posted by [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION] on another thread) showed a compact Villa defence, protected by McGinn and Ramsey. = sound defence.

- Digne had Lamptey in his pocket by not giving him a yard. He didn't even need doubling up.

- Leaving the rest of the Villa team to send us down the left wing, knowing we're hopeless at goals from crosses. Whilst they carried a threat.

I got out of my seat once in that mini resurgence once Welbeck came on.

A perfectly executed plan. For 75 minutes men against predictable little kids.

 

[Guinness Boy]

At first I was at bit perplexed why neither Watkins or Ings were down the middle, they spent most of their time down the sides, Courtinho actually played as a 10. so they effectively had no centre forwards despite 2 actual centre forwards on the field. Dunk and Veltman therefore had no actual focus of attention, Watkins and Ings looked to be inbetween full back and centre back which as you say, pulled both CBs away from each other as they covered the wider threat.

Regardless of whether it was Gerrard or anyone else, he got it spot on because they scored twice. They weren't lucky goals either - you may as well call all goals lucky if that is the case. Goals often come from pressure, mistakes and weaknesses. Can anyone really say over the last 2 games the 5 goals have come against the run of play? I couldn't. And I'm glass half FULL!

We only made one change and yet had Duffy and Offiah on the bench. We could have nullified it by going to a 3CB / 2WB scenario but we didn't react to it. What Gerrard also doesn't mention is that he had an extra 30 mins to construct his cunning plan due to the coach delay. We had already named the team and warmed up.

As for the bold bit, Bold, I have mostly been more positive this season (I hope) but am certainly not as glass half full as you. I agree totally that both Burnley and Villa deserved to win and, as I said last week, the weird thing is that it annoys me less than when we play well and draw (i.e. Leeds). I'm USED to us being shit. I'm still not used to us being by far the better team yet profligate (though HKFC is also correct that both Ally Mac and Welbz should have scored).

 

[Swansman]

They're Burnley with more expensive players. diving, feigning injury to waste time, trying to influence the referee, It's the Emperor's new clothes IMO.

Dont think its the "Emperor's new clothes" and also don't think he is "the Messiah" (other for the small set of masochistic Brighton 'fans' wallowing in any loss). He did a good job over in Scotland and obviously has some ideas how he wants Villa to play. I'm not exactly thrilled by their style of play, but it is efficient.

Obviously some of the entitled Brighton fans want this to be about Gerrard being much better than Potter but at the same time, Villa lost last week to a Watford side that Brighton easily beat just weeks ago. Football is not binary manager armwrestling where "if the team of manager A beats the team of manager B, manager A is clearly superior". Its just not how it works.

The main reason for the result is that Aston Villa is a club with more expensive and - connected to that - better footballers than Brighton. This is also the main reason why Brighton beat Watford. The better footballers you have, the more points you get. Luckily, football is a low-scoring game so there are plenty of upsets... but after 38 games, teams are usually more or less where they "should" be based on the quality of the footballers.

 

[Eric Youngs Contact Lens]

I know I have seen the heat maps GB , but I still can't agree that we didn't set up to begin as a 3 at the back . I can concede that Villa deserved the win, but only on the basis that they scored (quite an important difference of course! ) not because we were un-done tactically by them, or outplayed for large periods - in contrast to Burnley who I thought did outplay us. It felt like a tight game for the vast majority, albeit our threat lessened as the game went on and Villa shut-down. The goals maybe not clearly against the run of play, but its a bit of a stretch to say that goals were coming - they were not as a result of constant pressure, or close shaves. Breaks were a threat but Sanchez didn't really have a save to make apart from the free kick did he?

 

[Stat Brother]

Imagine the state of this thread if Gerrard had just flat out told the truth.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I know I have seen the heat maps GB , but I still can't agree that we didn't set up to begin as a 3 at the back . I can concede that Villa deserved the win, but only on the basis that they scored (quite an important difference of course! ) not because we were un-done tactically by them, or outplayed for large periods - in contrast to Burnley who I thought did outplay us. It felt like a tight game for the vast majority, albeit our threat lessened as the game went on and Villa shut-down. The goals maybe not clearly against the run of play, but its a bit of a stretch to say that goals were coming - they were not as a result of constant pressure, or close shaves. Breaks were a threat but Sanchez didn't really have a save to make apart from the free kick did he?

Interesting, so as you saw it Cucurella was playing as the 3rd CB with Dunk and Veltman, Lamptey and March wingbacks, what was Moder doing then, he played as wide as I've seen him, Trossard more of a no.10. I must confess I saw an outright 4-4-1-1 however I've been wrong before!

 

[Eric Youngs Contact Lens]

Interesting, so as you saw it Cucurella was playing as the 3rd CB with Dunk and Veltman, Lamptey and March wingbacks, what was Moder doing then, he played as wide as I've seen him, Trossard more of a no.10. I must confess I saw an outright 4-4-1-1 however I've been wrong before!

It may of course be a different shape in and out of possession which is making it hard to define it one way or the other, so certainly not saying I was right but it was noticeable enough for me to assume a back 3 as a starting shape . I guess I saw Moder, not dissimilar to previous games looking to exploit the gaps created by a full back being too keen to get out to Lamptey, From my seat in the North Stand, out of possession, it felt as though Cucurella was closer to Dunk and Veltman and Lamptey/March pushed as far high and wide as was possible. Additionally, March's position for 1st goal suggested that he was the full back but Ally Mac had dropped in too leaving the huge space for Cash.