November 21, 2017, 12:43:15 PM

Poll

Man of the Match

Joel
1 (1.9%)
Coleman
0 (0%)
Jagielka
0 (0%)
Funes Mori
31 (58.5%)
Oviedo
0 (0%)
McCarthy
0 (0%)
Barry
3 (5.7%)
Lennon
12 (22.6%)
Barkley
0 (0%)
Mirallas
4 (7.5%)
Lukaku
0 (0%)
Stones (Sub)
1 (1.9%)
Baines (Sub)
0 (0%)
Niasse (Sub)
1 (1.9%)

Total Members Voted: 53

Author Topic: Aston Villa v Everton  (Read 29565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

March 02, 2016, 06:50:20 PM
Reply #420
Offline

Ross


I think we are clinical though.

Don't we have the highest chance conversion rate in the league?

I think we create a small number of good chances which our good finishers put away. We have the occasional game like Norwich or Stoke where we miss a few but on the whole I don't think we come away from many games where we've missed bucket loads of chances.

But I don't think that, certainly since the 1st season, that we look regularly convincing against organised sides.

If someone makes it an open game then great - we do look very good.

I'm not sure about the chance conversion ratio but I'm specially focussing on our home form here as I think our away form is more than acceptable, in fact it's obviously very good and I doubt anyone could have a problem with it.

So just focussing on our home record we've been beaten 6 times and drew 4 (I'm sure you know this) and on those occasions you'd expect us to win against the likes of Stoke, West Brom, Palace, Leicester and Swansea after creating more chances and having more shots on target than the opposition. In those 5 games alone we had 100 shots but only scored 7 goals picking up 1 point, even though we had by far the most possession in each game. Those teams combined scored 11 goals with far less shots, I'd say we certainly lack a clinical cutting edge even when we're on top and creating plenty of chances and that's against teams that we all know like to defend first and foremost, teams people are saying we struggle against.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

March 02, 2016, 07:02:35 PM
Reply #421
Offline

Bluedylan


We almost defy logic and analysis at times. I agree with what both GLewis and Ross have said and yet the two general points appear to be in contradiction.

I suppose the 'clinical' thing comes down to the quality of chances we create. Away from home a lot of our goals and chances come on the counter, which we're very good at. The nature of those chances is that you've normally cut through the opposition and have a number of attacking players up against a minimum of defenders, so the chances themselves are very good and that perhaps accounts for the high conversion rate.

Whereas at home, the chances or attempts on goal have often come against 10 men behind the ball, there's lots of bodies around the area, it's more of a quick snapshot and maybe aren't quite as clear cut, which maybe accounts for a lower conversion rate.
Jeff: That's not the way to win.
Kathie: Is there a way to win?
Jeff: There's a way to lose more slowly.

March 02, 2016, 08:27:37 PM
Reply #422
Offline

kramer0


If we as you say "we lack the ability to work it forward into promising positions in the final third" how's  that tally up with the fact we're the second highest goal scores in the league, averaging almost 2 goals a game and the team who realises least of all on dead ball situations to score a goal?

I think it's been discussed thoroughly in here since you brought it up and perhaps I should have been more specific with my point.

I am criticizing attacks that start with center backs. We seem to lack the ideas to play through the first two lines of defense against any reasonably organized, hard-working side. The real issue this creates is that it keeps the ball in our half of the field, where our opponent is more likely to create a decent chance than we are. Not working the ball consistently into the final third is actually more of an issue in terms of controlling territory than overall chance creation for us (which is obviously not how I presented my ideas on the matter, as you noted).

As you said, our attack is doing just fine (although our success in this area is driven partially by high conversion rates, which tend not to be sustainable long-term) and we are excellent when we counter. My concern is that the slow build-ups from the center backs, over time, will lead to more good chances for our opponents than for us -- it didn't hurt us yesterday, but if Villa had a little more guile in attack, we may have seen some of their players taking an extra touch or two to create an angle dangerous pass or space for a better shot. It does hurt us against better teams, which is why our defensive record is so poor.

As has been mentioned, it's not as simple as switching to a pure counter-attacking approach. Frequently, we won't be allowed to sit back and counter, especially at home, so our possession game needs some sort of tweak -- either (1) a change in positioning during build-ups to get our playmakers on the ball in better positions with options ahead of them, or (2) a more aggressive counter-press so that we don't allow our opponents to start anything when they do get the ball from us.

Roberto's approach led to one wildly successful season but has proven maddeningly inconsistent over the past two and, on current evidence, I'm not sure he's going to mold this current group into one that performs every week (or most weeks) the way the best sides do.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 08:28:56 PM by kramer0 »