• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tim Sherwood Testimonial OMT Spurs v Aston Villa 11th April

metalgear said:
TOTASTImage3Resized.jpg


this pic shows that with the ball towards fazio, benteke is able to attack from behind him.
if fazio went for it and missed there was another villa player behind him.

this is how to beat poch's defence set up - early cross to two attackers on far post CB
Click to expand...

Fazio wasn't marking two attackers. Chiriches is behind the other Villa player (Abonglahor?). You can see him in the side-on view attached.
IMO Benteke was Fazio's responsibility, but it was a good cross and good movement by Benteke.

Spurs_Villa.JPG
 
yes, excellent cross from Bacuna (who says crosses are useless in football) and very good movement and a super header from Benteke
 
braineclipse said:
Is it the right choice for a centre back to be marking a zone with no opponents in his own box when that leaves the other centre back dealing with two players? When there's a crossing opportunity on and cover for the player pressuring the player on the ball.

I don't have a yes/not answer to that, but it seems very strange to me that ti would be the right choice.

Any time our defending depends on one of our centre backs having to win a header against Benteke when he's actually up against two opponents when the cross comes in we're not in a good spot and blaming Fazio seems strange to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, Dier was ball watching and had no idea what was happening behind him. He is a promising player but has a lot to learn.
 
I thought the goal was caused by one of our players (I think Chiriches but I could be wrong?) needlessly giving it away and leaving us exposed as our defenders were still quite deep and therefore allowing Villa to get an early ball into our box that is always going to be difficult to defend with a centre forward as good as Benteke?
 
parklane1 said:
I agree, Dier was ball watching and had no idea what was happening behind him. He is a promising player but has a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

Based on the knowledge that there were actually two players behind him (Chiriches is can't be seen from the original angle but is behind the other Villa player), so Fazio wasn't marking 2 men, I actually think he was in a decent enough position. Maybe could have been a little deeper, and a little more central, but I wouldn't have any major complaints. He's in a decent enough position to cut out the cross, its just that the cross was a very good one.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
Based on the knowledge that there were actually two players behind him (Chiriches is can't be seen from the original angle but is behind the other Villa player), so Fazio wasn't marking 2 men, I actually think he was in a decent enough position. Maybe could have been a little deeper, and a little more central, but I wouldn't have any major complaints. He's in a decent enough position to cut out the cross, its just that the cross was a very good one.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Dier's position is fine. I think the other player in the box is Agbonglahor who is Chiriches' player anyway. Dier's position is the right one to counter a cross toward the near post for Benteke to run onto. The reality is that it was a very good ball in and Fazio got caught on his heels a bit as Benteke attacked the ball. I still maintain however that the goal was 90% down to us needlessly conceding possession so deep in our own half due to a terrible pass from (I think?) the absolutely hopeless Chiriches.
 
I've defended Fazio many times when he was laid into by the usual suspects but this time, it's his fault. Yes Chiriches gave away the ball (again!), yes, Dier was ball watching. But would you imagine Terry conceding a goal like that in the same circumstances?

Fazio was late in recognising the danger and slow in moving towards his man resulting in an absolutely poor half hearred challenge.

Having said that, Benteke found the only spot where Vorm could not reach - not bad for a lump and an oaf??!!
 
Finney Is Back said:
Agreed. Dier's position is fine. I think the other player in the box is Agbonglahor who is Chiriches' player anyway. Dier's position is the right one to counter a cross toward the near post for Benteke to run onto. The reality is that it was a very good ball in and Fazio got caught on his heels a bit as Benteke attacked the ball. I still maintain however that the goal was 90% down to us needlessly conceding possession so deep in our own half due to a terrible pass from (I think?) the absolutely hopeless Chiriches.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is he had his back to Benteke and would not have seen the run until Benteke was passed him. He was caught square and ball watching.
 
parklane1 said:
The problem with that is he had his back to Benteke and would not have seen the run until Benteke was passed him. He was caught square and ball watching.
Click to expand...

He probably could have opened his body a little more so that he could keep an eye on both. But even if he had, at no point does Benteke actually run across him. In fact, he moves very little and definitely not enough to expect Fazio to pass him on to Dier. The cross was pin-point.

Here's the goal (00:32 onward)


Chiriches lost the ball, but he didn't really lose it in an area where Villa should have been able to hurt us. In fact the ball gets switched to the opposite end of the pitch before the cross comes in. He's not absolutely blamless, but our laxidasical closing down of the man as he takes a touch before the ball goes in is more to blame IMO. That is the key thing. Fazio gets some blame for getting caught on his heels too, but when playing a team with Benteke up front you really should be looking to stop them from getting crosses in the box. We failed to do that.
 
Well summed up Millsy. Losing the ball there is bad, what's worse is that Chiriches gave the ball away needlessly repeatedly in the game so the chances of us getting punished for one was actually quiet high. But other players made similar mistakes.

Losing a header to Benteke in the box is something I struggle to blame someone that harshly for. And unlike Chirches giving the ball away repeatedly this wasn't a repeated issue for Fazio in this game.

The lacklustre pressing though. That's symptomatic for what's been wrong for a couple of weeks at least. No real urgency or aggressiveness, just jogging/walking next to the man and sticking a leg up in the air.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
He probably could have opened his body a little more so that he could keep an eye on both. But even if he had, at no point does Benteke actually run across him. In fact, he moves very little and definitely not enough to expect Fazio to pass him on to Dier. The cross was pin-point.

Here's the goal (00:32 onward)


Chiriches lost the ball, but he didn't really lose it in an area where Villa should have been able to hurt us. In fact the ball gets switched to the opposite end of the pitch before the cross comes in. He's not absolutely blamless, but our laxidasical closing down of the man as he takes a touch before the ball goes in is more to blame IMO. That is the key thing. Fazio gets some blame for getting caught on his heels too, but when playing a team with Benteke up front you really should be looking to stop them from getting crosses in the box. We failed to do that.
Click to expand...


Your right he never did however I did not say that Benteke run across him, I was replying to another post. The fact is he w had no idea what was happening behind him which for a CB is a crime and one of the first things we tell CB's on courses.

I am not trying to blame anyone but some have said Fazio was to blame which he was not. Your right we should stop those type of crosses coming in but in reality they do and its up to our CB's to know what is happening in front and behind them so they can deal with it. As I said in a earlier post Dier shows potential but he is young and he was ball watching.
 
parklane1 said:
Your right he never did however I did not say that Benteke run across him, I was replying to another post. The fact is he w had no idea what was happening behind him which for a CB is a crime and one of the first things we tell CB's on courses.

I am not trying to blame anyone but some have said Fazio was to blame which he was not. Your right we should stop those type of crosses coming in but in reality they do and its up to our CB's to know what is happening in front and behind them so they can deal with it. As I said in a earlier post Dier shows potential but he is young and he was ball watching.
Click to expand...

I thought from the tone of your post that you were suggesting that Dier could have done something about it (i.e prevented the goal) had he been in another position.

Whether he was or was not aware of what's going on behind him (neither of us can actually be sure of that). I don't think he would or could have done anything different to stop the goal.
 
parklane1 said:
I agree, Dier was ball watching and had no idea what was happening behind him. He is a promising player but has a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I stick with my initial view that even two steps to his right and a step deeper does not allow the space for the ball to be considered. Not solely his fault, but the positioning was naive IMO. Agree with your assessment on his potential versus experience.
 
braineclipse said:
A 4-3-2-2 wormation would essentially be a diamond thing? Not sure many teams are succeeding with those over time...

Wouldn't even have to change formations if we buy Benteke or someone like him. Kane has shown himself perfectly capable of playing the number 10 role, and when attacking could get plenty of freedom to push up to support Benteke. Might even interchange a bit. With rotation, injures, EL etc we would have plenty of games to give both players as a striker if that somehow is a problem. Both would be tremendous options off the bench should we leave one of them out and we might not have to work our players into the ground.

Not saying Benteke necessarily (I know he divides opinions), but someone big and strong to replace Adebayor could be a perfect addition to our squad imo.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Personally, I think Benteke is that man, but if there are better options I have yet to see them. Until someone can persuade me there are better options that are both within our price range and would come to us, I would bust a gut to sign Benteke. As you say, he would offer us so much more flexibility and so many more options.

Even if we can't actually play 4322 ;)
 
Jordinho said:
Analysis? Detailed? What MOTD is this? :D
Click to expand...

Rule number one: don't frighten away the nincompoops with anything intelligent-sounding that implies you might have to have a proper grasp of (a) football or (b) your own fuсking language. The answer (here comes the science bit): Mark Lawrenson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back