Villa away match thread

[stringvest]

I only wondered why you thought non-professionals the world over repeat the affirmation "you don't need 'em against most teams" and professionals the world over continue picking them against most teams.

 

I guess it comes down to the quality of the holding player whether you believe that on balance you gain more than you lose by playing him, and of course it would be influenced by your approach to the game. It's a judgement call. It is clear to me though that we did not suffer on Sunday through the lack of a holding midfield player.

[piscinin]

Neither of the above. Which of those two options do you think it was?

 

We played with fluidity, creativity and control. We won. You might come to the conclusion at some point that it's not worth repeatedly punching your own bruise.

 

Don't kid yourself, we've played with fluidity, creativity and control all season. Just with 1 less midfielder and 1 more forward.

[zigackly]

I don't think you can build a great team without some destructive element in your midfield. It might work against some teams, but not against the ones that can really hurt you. However, that destructive element does not all have to be embodied within a single player; you can have two "box to box" players who can attack and defend instead of one defensive midfielder and one attacking midfielder, for instance. Our problem at the moment is how to get through the next few games without any midfield players who are accomplished defensively, but with good organisation and some tweaks it is possible. I can see what both stringvest and piscinin are saying here.

[piscinin]

I guess it comes down to the quality of the holding player whether you believe that on balance you gain more than you lose by playing him, and of course it would be influenced by your approach to the game. It's a judgement call. It is clear to me though that we did not suffer on Sunday through the lack of a holding midfield player.

 

Why would we suffer when we outnumbered them? The question as you say is about balance. It seems a shame to have to use 3 midfielders to get that balance when in the past it required only 2. [-> Lucas = Heavyweight]

 

At the end of the day we don't have 2 decent strikers anyways :P So I'll belt up.

[piscinin]

I don't think you can build a great team without some destructive element in your midfield. It might work against some teams, but not against the ones that can really hurt you. However, that destructive element does not all have to be embodied within a single player; you can have two "box to box" players who can attack and defend instead of one defensive midfielder and one attacking midfielder, for instance. Our problem at the moment is how to get through the next few games without any midfield players who are accomplished defensively, but with good organisation and some tweaks it is possible. I can see what both stringvest and piscinin are saying here.

 

The only problem with that is finding players that can do BOTH well enough. And who can handle the extra complexity in their decision making at EPL speed.

 

It's the fabled Sami Hyypia with pace again.

[silverlining]

I find myself agreeing with stringy's overall sentiments, but also thinking that most top teams have a Hamann/ Makelele/ Vieira/ Whelan type of player in the midfield