Team shape, tactics and personnel

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[Steero113]

59 minutes ago, Brumstopdogs said:

 

What's staggering about this record is that it was actually 10 times. 

[TRO]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

It's not really a 4 4 2 when we think of the classic 4 4 2 though. That's because attacking and defensive shapes are totally different now where in past they used to be very close. 

We see top coaches in Arteta, Guardiola and Xavi all adding in the midfield box shape during the course of this season that was what Emery used from the start at Villa. 

Emery has had a left back who is a wide forward in our attacking shape and a back 3 then in build up. So 3 2 2 3 or 3 Box 3.

We've adapted to have Buendia drop off Watkins into the box and Bailey move from RM to be right of front three. Moreno on left. We've also has McGinn and JJ move from LM and RM to form the box.

There's adaptations in there which seem tailored to opposition and also enforced by having injuries. It'll be fascinating how we adapt next season. I wonder if a RB who is more a midfielder will be added as we see with players like Zinchenko, Trent and different players in Guardiola's teams. 

I think Right Back is probably the most interesting position next season. 

I have never thought formations are static during a game anyway.....they are dynamic.

The morph with the ebb and flow of the game.

[TRO]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

The key is the pressure on the ball. If we don't have pressure on the ball the high line gets cut to pieces as players have the time in the ball to pick the pass. 

We see us play it a lot because we feel our midfield are better than the majority of the teams in the league. 

We see us play different against top opposition. It'll be a very interesting how we set up against Liverpool. 

Quite right.

McGinn and Luiz's performances, was central to the system working well yesterday.The guile of Luiz and the aggresive, physicality of McGinn, was a potent combination.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, Brumstopdogs said:

 

should have been 10, with their penalty.

[Don_Simon]

Having been at the game, and watching highlights a couple of times since, I can see why Carlos wasn't brought in to the team yesterday. 

The level communication, trust and positional sense required by the back four to play that high line is extraordinary. Bringing someone into disrupt that, when not particularly necessary, is an unnecessary risk. They remind me of the old Arsenal back four's of old. 

And they won a fair few trophies.

[DJBOB]

I forget who said it but there was no way Unai was getting outcoached by Ryan Mason. 
 
The problem and why I dislike the majority of teams that play with 3 at the back is that it requires specific profiles (elite wingbacks and super athletic center mids). With Spurs missing both, they were easy to squeeze into their own half for the majority of the first half. 
 
The wingbacks were not high enough for Spurs to provide width outlets and their midfielders did not have the time or quality to delivery quality through balls. Anytime Skipp or Hojberg received the ball, they were swarmed by Villa players. Conversely, Young and Moreno had not much to do until Spurs got on top and finally started going down the flanks. The recipe was there against Villa. Brentford, United, and Wolves all did it to great effect. Get the ball early and out wide over the top of our fullbacks and run at them before we can get set in our block. 
 
Instead Spurs played centrally with Richardson, Son, and Kane all too close to each other. When they did try to play centrally on the floor, it was easy for Villa to recover the ball which was what lead to the first goal and most of our first half chances. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by DJBOB

[TomC]

On 14/05/2023 at 10:00, DJBOB said:

I forget who said it but there was no way Unai was getting outcoached by Ryan Mason. 
 
The problem and why I dislike the majority of teams that play with 3 at the back is that it requires specific profiles (elite wingbacks and super athletic center mids). With Spurs missing both, they were easy to squeeze into their own half for the majority of the first half. 
 
The wingbacks were not high enough for Spurs to provide width outlets and their midfielders did not have the time or quality to delivery quality through balls. Anytime Skipp or Hojberg received the ball, they were swarmed by Villa players. Conversely, Young and Moreno had not much to do until Spurs got on top and finally started going down the flanks. The recipe was there against Villa. Brentford, United, and Wolves all did it to great effect. Get the ball early and out wide over the top of our fullbacks and run at them before we can get set in our block. 
 
Instead Spurs played centrally with Richardson, Son, and Kane all too close to each other. When they did try to play centrally on the floor, it was easy for Villa to recover the ball which was what lead to the first goal and most of our first half chances. 

Except that Spurs couldn't have exploited any width in the first half because we were essentially playing a 5-3-2 with Bailey frequently withdrawing into the back line and acting more like a wing back.

 

[TRO]

Brian Clough On Football Tactics

•        “Players lose you games, not tactics....There is so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win a game of Dominoes”

Tactics have become more central to winning games, they have become more sophisticated as time has evolved, which is inevitable as teams try to steal an edge on one an other.

but as Cloughie alluded to there is more to it, than just tactics.........Sir Alf Ramsey employed pioneering tactics in the 1966 World cup and Rinus Michels was also a trend setter, with his thinking all them years ago.

Tactics are sometimes made out to be something new, they are not.....they just evolve......and while they are made out to be the difference in winning a games, thats true, but its just one element of many things to get right.

I am certainly not, dismissing them as irrelevant, but I do think they are over played at times, as the ONLY difference....and that is simply not true.

I accept that our current manger, is a tactical master, and his knowledge has been a major difference in changing our fortunes, but at the same time, he has transformed the belief and application in the players.

In short, Unai is transforming the club and not just the team......His affect on us, is more than just tactics.

finally, Bill Shankly.........

•        A football team is like a piano...You need 8 men to carry it and 3 who can play the damn thing.

Edited May 17, 2023 by TRO

[lexicon]

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

Brian Clough On Football Tactics

•        “Players lose you games, not tactics....There is so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win a game of Dominoes”

Tactics have become more central to winning games, they have become more sophisticated as time has evolved, which is inevitable as teams try to steal an edge on one an other.

but as Cloughie alluded to there is more to it, than just tactics.........Sir Alf Ramsey employed pioneering tactics in the 1966 World cup and Rinus Michels was also a trend setter, with his thinking all them years ago.

Tactics are sometimes made out to be something new, they are not.....they just evolve......and while they are made out to be the difference in winning a games, thats true, but its just one element of many things to get right.

I am certainly not, dismissing them as irrelevant, but I do think they are over played at times, as the ONLY difference....and that is simply not true.

I accept that our current manger, is a tactical master, and his knowledge has been a major difference in changing our fortunes, but at the same time, he has transformed the belief and application in the players.

In short, Unai is transforming the club and not just the team......His affect on us, is more than just tactics.

 

 

Brian Clough was also relegated in his last season as a manager because the game evolved, passed him by and he was too proud/arrogant/unwilling to adapt. 

'Tactics', which is a very broad term as it is, are ridiculously important and if the difference between Gerrard and Emery doesn't highlight that importance of them then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course, they aren't the ONLY factor at play but to downplay them in any way, when they are an absolutely vital component of successful modern managing, is mental. 

[MaVilla]

37 minutes ago, TRO said:

Brian Clough On Football Tactics

•        “Players lose you games, not tactics....There is so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win a game of Dominoes”

Tactics have become more central to winning games, they have become more sophisticated as time has evolved, which is inevitable as teams try to steal an edge on one an other.

but as Cloughie alluded to there is more to it, than just tactics.........Sir Alf Ramsey employed pioneering tactics in the 1966 World cup and Rinus Michels was also a trend setter, with his thinking all them years ago.

Tactics are sometimes made out to be something new, they are not.....they just evolve......and while they are made out to be the difference in winning a games, thats true, but its just one element of many things to get right.

I am certainly not, dismissing them as irrelevant, but I do think they are over played at times, as the ONLY difference....and that is simply not true.

I accept that our current manger, is a tactical master, and his knowledge has been a major difference in changing our fortunes, but at the same time, he has transformed the belief and application in the players.

In short, Unai is transforming the club and not just the team......His affect on us, is more than just tactics.

finally, Bill Shankly.........

•        A football team is like a piano...You need 8 men to carry it and 3 who can play the damn thing.

With regard to Emery, i was thinking about his "tactics".

Emery clearly is a bit of a tactical savant in terms of detail, as per the interview i saw with Danjuma, he said something like "Emery has a plan for everything, if you apply the tactics and follow his instructions, you know you have a chance".

Now, i wonder if that is why Emery does better at the underdog clubs, or clubs where the team isnt filled with prima-donna's.

For example, if you have players in your team who are 7/10s, but they arent elitist/i do my own thing type players, who want to develop and learn, they are more willing to work, apply and follow Emery's instructions, which elevates the team overall and we get what we see now, as lets be honest, Emery is over-performing massively with this group of players.

So, on the flip side, if he is managing a group who think rather highly of themselves, say a PSG, or elite players with a bit of an attitude, if a number of them refuse to, or choose not to apply Emery's instructions/tactics, then the team becomes more unbalanced and less effective, so Emery's strengths dont translate as well to the first team on match day.

Im not saying emery cant manage elite players (with attitudes), but i do think the whole 11 needs to buy in to Emery's style for it to work effectively, hence his amazing success at the "nearly clubs" with players who want to work hard, learn and follows Emery's lead, i guess now he has hold of most of the reigns at Villa, he will try to bring in quality players with both ability AND the correct temperament, fingers crossed for a good summer.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by MaVilla

[TRO]

45 minutes ago, lexicon said:

 

Brian Clough was also relegated in his last season as a manager because the game evolved, passed him by and he was too proud/arrogant/unwilling to adapt. 

'Tactics', which is a very broad term as it is, are ridiculously important and if the difference between Gerrard and Emery doesn't highlight that importance of them then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course, they aren't the ONLY factor at play but to downplay them in any way, when they are an absolutely vital component of successful modern managing, is mental. 

That is simply NOT what I am saying...you then go on to endorse what I am saying, and seem to be deducing, that I am down playing tactics, by you assumption.....I am simply defending other elements as relevant to winning.

you see, that's where you are misconstruing my point.....I was merely defending other aspects of winning, that was NOT my intention to dismiss tactics......The game passed Alf Ramsey by too, and Bill Shankly..... to diverse,slightly,  The game is slowly passing Ronnie O'Sullivan by too.....thats what happens when you get older, and have done it all.

The game is always evolving, always has, so its a moot point.

just being devils advocate....what was your take on our tactics, when the lost to Man U and Wolves?....did they not work that day?....because Unai said "we didn't meet the demands of the game required" now if you are wrapping that up with tactics, then I get it...but I am not including that in"Tactics"

On Cloughy, Brian Clough was sadly, and Alcoholic and it caught up with him, as it does.....That's what happened to him.....its also worth remembering all the best managers have the best players.....Brian was having difficulty with that, as they was getting older too and he wasn't able to replace them.

Gerrard and Unai are different animals,  in many ways, sure tactically unai is far superior.......but he is more experienced too.....SG is an apprentice in comparison.

Finally, I am not low balling tactics, far from it.....I am just pointing out other factors are important to get right too.....and in the main Unai is doing that too.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by TRO

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

With regard to Emery, i was thinking about his "tactics".

Emery clearly is a bit of a tactical savant in terms of detail, as per the interview i saw with Danjuma, he said something like "Emery has a plan for everything, if you apply the tactics and follow his instructions, you know you have a chance".

Now, i wonder if that is why Emery does better at the underdog clubs, or clubs where the team isnt filled with prima-donna's.

For example, if you have players in your team who are 7/10s, but they arent elitist/i do my own thing type players, who want to develop and learn, they are more willing to work, apply and follow Emery's instructions, which elevates the team overall and we get what we see now, as lets be honest, Emery is over-performing massively with this group of players.

So, on the flip side, if he is managing a group who think rather highly of themselves, say a PSG, or elite players with a bit of an attitude, if a number of them refuse to, or choose not to apply Emery's instructions/tactics, then the team becomes more unbalanced and less effective, so Emery's strengths dont translate as well to the first team on match day.

Im not saying emery cant manage elite players (with attitudes), but i do think the whole 11 needs to buy in to Emery's style for it to work effectively, hence his amazing success at the "nearly clubs" with players who want to work hard, learn and follows Emery's lead, i guess now he has hold of most of the reigns at Villa, he will try to bring in quality players with both ability AND the correct temperament, fingers crossed for a good summer.

 

I think, your thinking is right.....I can endorse that fwiw.

I see a lot of Ron Saunders in him.......but a modern version, with a more tactical mind.

While much is talked about with Unai's tactics, he is demanding of his players too.....application is high on his list of priorities....as and example, John mcGinns performances against Newcastle and Spurs, was like a man posessed....That is Unai's influence and demand.

[OutByEaster?]

I don't think it's so much that tactical advantage has changed in games, it's more that the things that Cloughie was espousing have become a given.

Players now are so much more athletic, so much more monitored, that the running, the fitness, the application of desire into legs is at a massively higher level than it once was - todays teams would physically run rings around teams from the 80's, probably the 90's too, they'd overwhelm them - they're just much, much more athletic - of course, given the same opportunities to train in the way modern players do, players from those days with a modern mindset and the right genetics would have developed in a similar way - but the end result of all that is that it's now very difficult to gain any kind of advantage by being fitter than the opposition - everyone is so fit, so strong and so athletic that the differences are marginal.

With the difference in athletic ability almost a moot point, the focus obviously turns to the things that separate decent modern players from very good ones - decision making, positional nous, technique, the ability to read games, and of course - tactical awareness.

The modern manager doesn't spend their time on fitness - they have a team of fitness coaches, trainers, nutritionists, sports scientists and physios who ensure players are in the peak of fitness - they spend their time instead on the areas they can influence - getting those players into parts of the pitch where they can have the biggest influence on games and doing the things they're strongest at.

It's not like the old days where a slightly podgy but gifted central midfield could pull strings from the centre circle for ninety minutes - he'd be closed out in seconds in the modern game - you can't just be good now, can't just be gifted or talented, it's not enough - you have to be an athlete to get into the game - there are players that played for Cloughie's Forest that were greats of their time but would lack the genetic advantages to be able to withstand the pace of modern football - a John Robertson, as incredibly gifted as he was, might not be able to play at all in a Premier League that's massively faster than the football he played - a league that demands you are first an athlete as a minimum entry requirement.

Of course, desire matters, courage, those things - but 'effort' is monitored - after each game as a modern player someone is analysing your running data, your sprints, your distances, your heart rate, your blood levels, how you performed in individual duels - those that aren't giving their all are quickly identified - and that courage that managers want, is now seen in the bravery to receive the ball in difficult places, in the ability to make good decisions quickly and use your effort to a positive effect.

The work managers do nowadays for players is in the application of technique, positioning and decision making - no one is running up and down hills, it's unnecessary and inefficient. Desire matters, technique too, but physicality is a given and it's tactics and decision making that are the big difference makers at the top level nowadays.

[TRO]

40 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I don't think it's so much that tactical advantage has changed in games, it's more that the things that Cloughie was espousing have become a given.

Players now are so much more athletic, so much more monitored, that the running, the fitness, the application of desire into legs is at a massively higher level than it once was - todays teams would physically run rings around teams from the 80's, probably the 90's too, they'd overwhelm them - they're just much, much more athletic - of course, given the same opportunities to train in the way modern players do, players from those days with a modern mindset and the right genetics would have developed in a similar way - but the end result of all that is that it's now very difficult to gain any kind of advantage by being fitter than the opposition - everyone is so fit, so strong and so athletic that the differences are marginal.

With the difference in athletic ability almost a moot point, the focus obviously turns to the things that separate decent modern players from very good ones - decision making, positional nous, technique, the ability to read games, and of course - tactical awareness.

The modern manager doesn't spend their time on fitness - they have a team of fitness coaches, trainers, nutritionists, sports scientists and physios who ensure players are in the peak of fitness - they spend their time instead on the areas they can influence - getting those players into parts of the pitch where they can have the biggest influence on games and doing the things they're strongest at.

It's not like the old days where a slightly podgy but gifted central midfield could pull strings from the centre circle for ninety minutes - he'd be closed out in seconds in the modern game - you can't just be good now, can't just be gifted or talented, it's not enough - you have to be an athlete to get into the game - there are players that played for Cloughie's Forest that were greats of their time but would lack the genetic advantages to be able to withstand the pace of modern football - a John Robertson, as incredibly gifted as he was, might not be able to play at all in a Premier League that's massively faster than the football he played - a league that demands you are first an athlete as a minimum entry requirement.

Of course, desire matters, courage, those things - but 'effort' is monitored - after each game as a modern player someone is analysing your running data, your sprints, your distances, your heart rate, your blood levels, how you performed in individual duels - those that aren't giving their all are quickly identified - and that courage that managers want, is now seen in the bravery to receive the ball in difficult places, in the ability to make good decisions quickly and use your effort to a positive effect.

The work managers do nowadays for players is in the application of technique, positioning and decision making - no one is running up and down hills, it's unnecessary and inefficient. Desire matters, technique too, but physicality is a given and it's tactics and decision making that are the big difference makers at the top level nowadays.

I accept all of that.....but sadly, I still think Physicality is not the given you seem to think it is.....that was clearly on display in the Brighton v Arsenal game.

I see games where there is a clear disparity in physical application, despite the fitness, of the players......you are right, desire, belief, willingness to fight for the ball, is STILL paramount.....and if it is not applied, teams can use it to over power you.

I do accept that the players are more athletic today.....but you can only fairly compare teams with each other from the same era.

 

[lexicon]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

That is simply NOT what I am saying...you then go on to endorse what I am saying, and seem to be deducing, that I am down playing tactics, by you assumption.....I am simply defending other elements as relevant to winning.

you see, that's where you are misconstruing my point.....I was merely defending other aspects of winning, that was NOT my intention to dismiss tactics......The game passed Alf Ramsey by too, and Bill Shankly..... to diverse,slightly,  The game is slowly passing Ronnie O'Sullivan by too.....thats what happens when you get older, and have done it all.

The game is always evolving, always has, so its a moot point.

just being devils advocate....what was your take on our tactics, when the lost to Man U and Wolves?....did they not work that day?....because Unai said "we didn't meet the demands of the game required" now if you are wrapping that up with tactics, then I get it...but I am not including that in"Tactics"

On Cloughy, Brian Clough was sadly, and Alcoholic and it caught up with him, as it does.....That's what happened to him.....its also worth remembering all the best managers have the best players.....Brian was having difficulty with that, as they was getting older too and he wasn't able to replace them.

Gerrard and Unai are different animals,  in many ways, sure tactically unai is far superior.......but he is more experienced too.....SG is an apprentice in comparison.

Finally, I am not low balling tactics, far from it.....I am just pointing out other factors are important to get right too.....and in the main Unai is doing that too.

 

You opened a post with a quote downplaying tactics, then went on a meandering ramble arguing against a point that nobody has made i.e. tactics are everything. Is anyone actually saying that?

I think most people are quite aware that there are different factors the affect the outcome of a football. In fact, I'd say that it's a completely redundant thing to say because it's so glaringly obvious. 

 

 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

I do accept that the players are more athletic today.....but you can only fairly compare teams with each other from the same era

Agreed. But to make a point I also put in another thread, in the 70s and 80s everyone played 4-4-2. The only real tactical battles were fairly minor. Man mark this player, or hit it over the top because their centre backs are slow kind of stuff. The things that made a big difference back then were giving 110%, physicality, desire, stamina, battling on and so on.

Once the 90s came along we started seeing more foreign players and managers, more 3-5-2/ 5-3-2 & 4-3-3 and how different formations meant changing the way a team would set to attack an opponent playing 3 at the back, compared to 4 at the back. And the Arsenal Wenger invented broccoli and not getting lashed all the time and then all the others copied that and all the players were stronger and fitter and faster and the differences between sides (apart from how good their respective players were) changed from “they just wanted it more on the day, Brian” to tactical innovation and the introduction of even more footballing philosophies and approaches from all over the world and also money. Lots of money.

[MarkLillis]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

I see games where there is a clear disparity in physical application, despite the fitness, of the players......you are right, desire, belief, willingness to fight for the ball, is STILL paramount.....and if it is not applied, teams can use it to over power you.

 

 

Clear example in last nights Luton v Sunderland match. Luton simply overpowered Sunderland all over the pitch restricting there most effective players like Diallo and Clarke to just bit parts in the game and they dominated in both penalty boxes.

Cant say that i though the Luton players were particulary talented at all, so that was definitely a case of physical application winning out IMO.

[blandy]

48 minutes ago, MarkLillis said:

Clear example in last nights Luton v Sunderland match. Luton simply overpowered Sunderland all over the pitch restricting there most effective players like Diallo and Clarke to just bit parts in the game and they dominated in both penalty boxes.

Cant say that i though the Luton players were particulary talented at all, so that was definitely a case of physical application winning out IMO.

I watched it. It was a big strong experienced Luton side against a team of what seemed like youths (due to Sunderland’s injury list). The reason Luton won was in essence down to physical size and strength. Both teams put in 100% effort, worked their socks off, chased, tackled, closed down and all that. The standard of play was poor, neither side strung more than a few passes together and both were miles off prem standard. It was a typical lower league game and not really reflective of the league that Villa are in at all. I’m not sure there’s much read across at all to this discussion of our tactics and selections 

[TRO]

4 hours ago, lexicon said:

You opened a post with a quote downplaying tactics, then went on a meandering ramble arguing against a point that nobody has made i.e. tactics are everything. Is anyone actually saying that?

I think most people are quite aware that there are different factors the affect the outcome of a football. In fact, I'd say that it's a completely redundant thing to say because it's so glaringly obvious. 

 

 

somebody did make a point in another thread, implying tactics are The difference and other factors like work rate , intensity, fight, desire, etc, etc was old hat, implying it was yesterday's factor and I disagree.......and I made my point in this thread, so you can keep your disparaging comments, to yourself.

I quoted, prominent managers down playing tactics, so at least get it right.....There is even a comment from Pep, (before you cling to yesteryears managers) saying formations are nothing more than phone numbers, the implication being that his players move from their positions so much their stated formations they start in does not in fact matter....something, I also agree with.