Bruce's Away Side

Before the season even began Bruce was going on about the injuries to Kodjia, Jedinak and Grealish.
This was not even a one off, he constantly went on about it until every man and his dog was quoting it and putting it up as an excuse. Now that set me thinking and I firmly believe that Bruce had a plan for this season which was totally blown out the window with the long term injury to Grealish. Bruce was going to play Grealish as the number 10 in a 3-5-1-1 formation especially away from home with Jedinak and Whelan playing as two defensive midfield players. That is one of the reasons he signed Elmo as he thought that he was a better wingback than Adomah especially as Elmo had played that position at Hull. So this is the side that Bruce was hoping to ultimately play, perhaps not at home but definitely away from home:

........................Johnstone..............................
...........Chester.......Samba......Terry..............
Elmo...Jedinak...Lansbury...Whelan... Taylor
...........................Grealish...............................
...........................Kodjia..................................

Now what transpired was that Grealish got injured, so Bruce switched back to a 4-4-2 especially at home and tried Lansbury in the number 10 which was a failure so luckily he managed to get Onomah on loan so Onomah played that role quite well in fact. Hourihane has been a problem as I think Bruce saw him as a backup from the bench but he has upset the applecart by scoring four goals and playing really well. Therefore Lansbury has dropped down the pecking order but now Bruce has signed Snodgrass on loan so that creates another problem. So this is the team I expect him to play in the next away game if all players are fit:

........................Johnstone..............................
...........Chester.......Samba......Terry..............
Elmo...Jedinak...Hourihane...Whelan... Taylor
...........................Snodgrass...............................
........................Davies/Hogan............................

The problem with that side as I see it is that Elmo can’t defend and Taylor can’t attack (although I suppose Bjarnason could play this role) and also Onomah is nowhere to be seen. In fact where does Onomah fit into this as currently he is one of our better players but he can’t play wide so he loses out but I don’t think that will go down well with Spurs who I expect had visions of him playing most games!  So on that basis I have come up with another scenario of the team for the away game:

........................Johnstone................................
...........Chester.......Terry......Jedinak................
Elmo...Onomah...Hourihane...Whelan... Taylor
...........................Snodgrass...............................
........................Davies/Hogan............................

That way Onomah is accommodated as well as Jedinak and looks much better to me.

I don’t think that Bruce wanted Baker to go but Baker wanted first team football, Villa got a realistic offer for him and Bruce was under orders to shift players because of the FFP ruling, so hence Baker went but he did offer Villa balance in the back line. Sometimes the players you want rid off you don’t get offers for, which is unfortunate but that is life!

Yes that last team looks better to me - the first two - especially the first one, screams "They shall not pass (probably in both senses of the word!), rather than, "We're Aston Villa and we always go for the win".

Interesting idea. I'm pretty sure Jack was destined to be the number 10 behind Kodjia but playing three at the back just to accommodate an extra defensive midfielder, while weakening our defence and attack down the wings by playing players not suited to the job was never going to work? Surely we'd have been better off keeping Amavi had that been the case?

I suppose we'll find out. I already don't think we need just one of Whelan and Jedinak on the pitch, two is just bonkers, we'd essentially be playing with six defensive players, with a gaping hole down our right side where Elmo isn't getting back to defend, and four attacking players with the ball being hoofed up the pitch for the isolated striker to chase.

Do you know what, the more I think about this the more I think you're right, achilles. I still don't understand why we sold Amavi (unless it was FFP) but wasn't Thor already played as left wingback when we played three at the back? I can't remember where it was. With Whelan and Jedi providing the defence and Elmo not necessarily having to come back into the defensive half with Jedi covering, we'd be in a sort of 3-2-3-1-1, with Jedi and Whelan playing wider and a great big hole down the middle for Hourihane and Samba to cover. Does that work? I'm still trying to work this one out. And I still don't like it. As we showed at Reading, the players aren't being coached to close opposition players down and fight for every ball, either their fitness isn't up to scratch or they've been told not to, or they simply aren't interested in playing for Bruce. I just look at this formation and think there's a better way (in essence, not employing Bruce).

This just fits into Bruce's mentality, as why buy Whelan when you already have Jedinak unless at some point you plan to play them both? He knows our away form desperately needs addressing, so the first stage is stop conceding and try and nick the result, hence the basic negative setup but with attacking options; it might work?

achilles wrote:This just fits into Bruce's mentality, as why buy Whelan when you already have Jedinak unless at some point you plan to play them both? He knows our away form desperately needs addressing, so the first stage is stop conceding and try and nick the result, hence the basic negative setup but with attacking options; it might work?

Unless he's buying cover. Again, why buy Hourihane and Lansbury unless one's cover for the other, assuming Whelan is cover for Jedi and we're only playing two in the middle. Well, unless we're playing four in the middle but that doesn't really make sense. So, maybe...

It's a crazy idea this but I think we have as good a defence in this league as virtually everyone else, and we can afford to concentrate on attacking other teams. I wonder if Bruce knows how to do this though? I genuinely don't think he does.

I disagree tbh. We had Elmo. Whelan, Grealish, Terry, Chester, Samba etc during most of pre-season and not once did he play three at the back. I actually believe his real intentions were to play 4411 with Jack behind Kodjia and Green/Elmo on the wings.

We played the system away at Bristol and we all saw what happened. We simply do not have central defenders, or a left wing-back, who are comfortable with playing three at the back IMO. And the stats back that up. These are the results from last season and this season when we played three at the back.

Newcastle at home= 1-1 draw (started with three at the back and had to change it at half-time)

Ipswich away= 0-0 draw (Created nothing and was lucky to get a draw)

Forest away= 2-1 loss (Poor stuff and didn't help when Jack got sent off)

Ipswich at home= 1-0 loss (created very little and got caught with a sucker punch)

Fulham away= 3-1 loss (Kodjia may have been sent off but we were getting run ragged even before that)

Bristol City away= 1-1 draw (started brightly but then they were all over us for twenty minutes and Bruce was forced to change it midway through the first half)

So over the last fifteen months or so this is our record when attempting to play 352

Played= 6
Won= 0
Lost= 3
Drew= 3
Scored= 4
Conceded= 8

So we've let in more than a goal a game, scored less than a goal a game and haven't won a single one. Bruce would be playing with serious fire if he attempts to play this system again this season whether home or away. The simple fact is we don't have the players or the manager to get this system working effectively. Steve will play it safe and stick with 4231 I think.

achilles wrote:This just fits into Bruce's mentality, as why buy Whelan when you already have Jedinak unless at some point you plan to play them both? He knows our away form desperately needs addressing, so the first stage is stop conceding and try and nick the result, hence the basic negative setup but with attacking options; it might work?

We signed Whelan because when Jedinak was missing last season it affected the team badly. With Whelan there it provides cover for the defensive midfielder role. I'd be surprised if we see both of them start regularly tbh as Onomah and Hourihane have been impressive thus far. I mean imo Onomah's directness and quick feet in the middle of the park is gonna be a revelation for us this season so dropping him in favour of those two would be crazy to me.

AstonThriller wrote:

achilles wrote:This just fits into Bruce's mentality, as why buy Whelan when you already have Jedinak unless at some point you plan to play them both? He knows our away form desperately needs addressing, so the first stage is stop conceding and try and nick the result, hence the basic negative setup but with attacking options; it might work?

We signed Whelan because when Jedinak was missing last season it affected the team badly. With Whelan there it provides cover for the defensive midfielder role. I'd be surprised if we see both of them start regularly tbh as Onomah and Hourihane have been impressive thus far. I mean imo Onomah's directness and quick feet in the middle of the park is gonna be a revelation for us this season so dropping him in favour of those two would be crazy to me.

I'd rather see Hourihane and Lansbury in the middle, with Green and Snodgrass on the wings, Onomah holding Jack's position and Davis/Hogan up front. I don't really see what Whelan does that Lansbury or Hourihane couldn't, just with less energy and no attacking threat.

See I don't go for this buying 'like for like' cover for players, perhaps it is just me but I expect players to offer something different if they vie for the same position (i.e. Taylor and Amavi, one defensive and one more attacking).
Therefore I really don't see the point of Whelan unless you are going to play him with Jedinak, as it is just a total waste of money having someone there 'just in case' and to be honest it hasn't done us much good so far.
I can understand getting cover in for a long term injury (i.e. Snodgrass for Grealish) but other than that I think it is rather pointless, I would rather try one of the reserves, you just never know what gems you might unearth!

On top of all that we are talking about Bruce here, who isn't exactly known for his flowing football!

@AstonThriller, I take on board the awful results but I am convinced Bruce sees this as the way forward away from home but we shall see... watch this space!

If it's to be 3 at the back then I'd sooner go;

..................................Johnstone.............................
..............Elphick..........Terry...............Chester...........
...............................Jedinak...................................
Elmohamady..........Onomah........Hourihane.........Green
.................................Snodgrass.............................
...............................Hogan....................................

It's my opinion we have the best squad in this league and that a flat back 4 is what we should utilise week in and week out. We have so many options to play around with in midfield now that we should be just changing that around from either a 4 or 5 across the middle and either two up top or 1-1

FoxyAV wrote:

AstonThriller wrote:

achilles wrote:This just fits into Bruce's mentality, as why buy Whelan when you already have Jedinak unless at some point you plan to play them both? He knows our away form desperately needs addressing, so the first stage is stop conceding and try and nick the result, hence the basic negative setup but with attacking options; it might work?

We signed Whelan because when Jedinak was missing last season it affected the team badly. With Whelan there it provides cover for the defensive midfielder role. I'd be surprised if we see both of them start regularly tbh as Onomah and Hourihane have been impressive thus far. I mean imo Onomah's directness and quick feet in the middle of the park is gonna be a revelation for us this season so dropping him in favour of those two would be crazy to me.

I'd rather see Hourihane and Lansbury in the middle, with Green and Snodgrass on the wings, Onomah holding Jack's position and Davis/Hogan up front. I don't really see what Whelan does that Lansbury or Hourihane couldn't, just with less energy and no attacking threat.

I totally agree with Whelan at the moment as he has been pretty poor and offers us nothing at all really but unfortunately he won't get dropped (prove me wrong Bruce)!

Dazzle wrote:If it's to be 3 at the back then I'd sooner go;

..................................Johnstone.............................
..............Elphick..........Terry...............Chester...........
...............................Jedinak...................................
Elmohamady..........Onomah........Hourihane.........Green
.................................Snodgrass.............................
...............................Hogan....................................

Interesting, but that would work for me as well!

Good thread this, I've enjoyed reading all the posts and it seems to have really got people posting their opinions. Of course, despite the common sense and evidence based reasoning on this thread, it won't make any difference cos SB "Doesnt do tactics"

Dazzle wrote:If it's to be 3 at the back then I'd sooner go;

..................................Johnstone.............................
..............Elphick..........Terry...............Chester...........
...............................Jedinak...................................
Elmohamady..........Onomah........Hourihane.........Green
.................................Snodgrass.............................
...............................Hogan....................................

It's my opinion we have the best squad in this league and that a flat back 4 is what we should utilise week in and week out. We have so many options to play around with in midfield now that we should be just changing that around from either a 4 or 5 across the middle and either two up top or 1-1

A few things wrong with this for me:

1. We're currently unable to defend down the wings

2. Our right side is woeful. Elmo can't/won't defend and it would be miraculous if Elphick were suddenly up to speed.

3. Chester plays on the right, not the left.

4. If Jedi is defending on our right it leaves our left wing completely exposed.

achilles wrote:See I don't go for this buying 'like for like' cover for players, perhaps it is just me but I expect players to offer something different if they vie for the same position (i.e. Taylor and Amavi, one defensive and one more attacking).
Therefore I really don't see the point of Whelan unless you are going to play him with Jedinak, as it is just a total waste of money having someone there 'just in case' and to be honest it hasn't done us much good so far.
I can understand getting cover in for a long term injury (i.e. Snodgrass for Grealish) but other than that I think it is rather pointless, I would rather try one of the reserves, you just never know what gems you might unearth!

On top of all that we are talking about Bruce here, who isn't exactly known for his flowing football!

@AstonThriller, I take on board the awful results but I am convinced Bruce sees this as the way forward away from home but we shall see... watch this space!

Again I'd have to disagree. Both Whelan and Jedi are in their early 30s, so they aren't exactly spring chickens who you'd expect to play twice a week, every week. Also, injuries (hopefully not but Jedi has had his fair share) and suspensions can come into play too. Maybe on the odd occasion, away from home, we might see them play together. But I'd be utterly stunned to see them play together on a regular basis. Because the fact is we'd be handicapping ourselves offensively as both don't really contribute in the attacking third at this stage of their careers.

As for your last point. When a manager is forced to change a system after twenty minutes because his team is being overrun, and that very system over the last twelve months has seen us lose fifty-percent of the time, with no wins, He'd be a maniac a to go back to it and I'd bet everything I own that if he does contrive to go back to it it will lead to his demise. It's as simple as that.

De Kuip wrote:Yes that last team looks better to me - the first two - especially the first one, screams "They shall not pass (probably in both senses of the word!), rather than, "We're Aston Villa and we always go for the win".

Personally I think that tactic is all wrong.

I've said before my favourite tactic is 433, and it's not just because it's potential, but it can easily be reverted to a 451. In fact I'd argue there's no difference between a 433 and 451 with the exception of the players you decide to utilize.
Villa atm. remind me a fair bit about Norway's national side since we went through a generation change. Like we've seen since we hired Houllier, we've lost quality and suddenly moved away from classic pragmatic football. I'm not saying the the football we saw under MON was the equivalent we saw under DOL, JG, Little and Big Ron, but there's always been an element of solid defending and pragmatic tactics with AVFC. We've never been the Arsenal sort of southern European tippy tap club, at least in my life time.
Like I see with Norway, we're trying to square peg round hole players to attempt some pretty bullshit football, when simple tactics tend to work better.

And my point here in regards to that tactic above is for teams that are either 1) shite 2) not gelled yet due to massive influx of new players 3) big fish in small pond - where teams will be in your face for 90 minutes as it's their cup final etc. they all benefit from 433/451 as playing with width on the pitch relieves pressure when they can't get the football working, same goes for having a target man.

And while I digress from my original point, playing with 3 centre backs in the championship is ridiculous.

AstonThriller wrote:

achilles wrote:See I don't go for this buying 'like for like' cover for players, perhaps it is just me but I expect players to offer something different if they vie for the same position (i.e. Taylor and Amavi, one defensive and one more attacking).
Therefore I really don't see the point of Whelan unless you are going to play him with Jedinak, as it is just a total waste of money having someone there 'just in case' and to be honest it hasn't done us much good so far.
I can understand getting cover in for a long term injury (i.e. Snodgrass for Grealish) but other than that I think it is rather pointless, I would rather try one of the reserves, you just never know what gems you might unearth!

On top of all that we are talking about Bruce here, who isn't exactly known for his flowing football!

@AstonThriller, I take on board the awful results but I am convinced Bruce sees this as the way forward away from home but we shall see... watch this space!

Again I'd have to disagree. Both Whelan and Jedi are in their early 30s, so they aren't exactly spring chickens who you'd expect to play twice a week, every week. Also, injuries (hopefully not but Jedi has had his fair share) and suspensions can come into play too. Maybe on the odd occasion, away from home, we might see them play together. But I'd be utterly stunned to see them play together on a regular basis. Because the fact is we'd be handicapping ourselves offensively as both don't really contribute in the attacking third at this stage of their careers.

As for your last point. When a manager is forced to change a system after twenty minutes because his team is being overrun, and that very system over the last twelve months has seen us lose fifty-percent of the time, with no wins, He'd be a maniac a to go back to it and I'd bet everything I own that if he does contrive to go back to it it will lead to his demise. It's as simple as that.

Isn't that my point though and there is no way the two of them can play in a 4-4-2 as we would never get out of our own half and we would just end up hoofing it to the two up front (again)!

achilles wrote:

Isn't that my point though and there is no way the two of them can play in a 4-4-2 as we would never get out of our own half and we would just end up hoofing it to the two up front (again)!

I said they might play on the ODD OCCASION away from home. You seem to be indicating that Bruce plans to play them every week away from home which I simply cannot see happening.

Joppe84 wrote:

De Kuip wrote:Yes that last team looks better to me - the first two - especially the first one, screams "They shall not pass (probably in both senses of the word!), rather than, "We're Aston Villa and we always go for the win".

Personally I think that tactic is all wrong.

I've said before my favourite tactic is 433, and it's not just because it's potential, but it can easily be reverted to a 451. In fact I'd argue there's no difference between a 433 and 451 with the exception of the players you decide to utilize.
Villa atm. remind me a fair bit about Norway's national side since we went through a generation change. Like we've seen since we hired Houllier, we've lost quality and suddenly moved away from classic pragmatic football. I'm not saying the the football we saw under MON was the equivalent we saw under DOL, JG, Little and Big Ron, but there's always been an element of solid defending and pragmatic tactics with AVFC. We've never been the Arsenal sort of southern European tippy tap club, at least in my life time.
Like I see with Norway, we're trying to square peg round hole players to attempt some pretty bullshit football, when simple tactics tend to work better.

And my point here in regards to that tactic above is for teams that are either 1) shite 2) not gelled yet due to massive influx of new players 3) big fish in small pond - where teams will be in your face for 90 minutes as it's their cup final etc. they all benefit from 433/451 as playing with width on the pitch relieves pressure when they can't get the football working, same goes for having a target man.

And while I digress from my original point, playing with 3 centre backs in the championship is ridiculous.

Ah, sorry, let me qualify my post - I meant of the 3 teams offered I preferred that one. It wouldn't be the team that I'd actually play, nor the formation, I was just selecting the least worst. I prefer 433 as well and can't stand 3 at the back.

I just don't get this apparent confusion over why we bought Whelan. It couldn't be simpler.

He's rotation cover for Jedinak.

Why?

Because Jedinak was so vital to us last season that we failed to win a single game when he didn't play and couldn't keep clean sheets either. Our dismal run in Jan / Feb coincided with a lengthy injury spell for Jedi.

Bruce has looked at this and decided to get a similar holding midfielder with PL experience so that we aren't so reliant on Jedinak, who is inevitably going to suffer lay-offs through injury.

And as @AstonThriller points out, they're both the wrong side of 30, and can't be expected to play 46 Championship games, plus sustain any kind of cup run, without cover.

It's not genius on Bruce's part but it is plain common sense, and he'd be rightly vilified for not trying to solve such an obvious deficiency from last season.

Calling @Dazzle to the thread starting podium so we won't jinx the undefeated run you are on mate!

De Kuip wrote:

Joppe84 wrote:

De Kuip wrote:Yes that last team looks better to me - the first two - especially the first one, screams "They shall not pass (probably in both senses of the word!), rather than, "We're Aston Villa and we always go for the win".

Personally I think that tactic is all wrong.

I've said before my favourite tactic is 433, and it's not just because it's potential, but it can easily be reverted to a 451. In fact I'd argue there's no difference between a 433 and 451 with the exception of the players you decide to utilize.
Villa atm. remind me a fair bit about Norway's national side since we went through a generation change. Like we've seen since we hired Houllier, we've lost quality and suddenly moved away from classic pragmatic football. I'm not saying the the football we saw under MON was the equivalent we saw under DOL, JG, Little and Big Ron, but there's always been an element of solid defending and pragmatic tactics with AVFC. We've never been the Arsenal sort of southern European tippy tap club, at least in my life time.
Like I see with Norway, we're trying to square peg round hole players to attempt some pretty bullshit football, when simple tactics tend to work better.

And my point here in regards to that tactic above is for teams that are either 1) shite 2) not gelled yet due to massive influx of new players 3) big fish in small pond - where teams will be in your face for 90 minutes as it's their cup final etc. they all benefit from 433/451 as playing with width on the pitch relieves pressure when they can't get the football working, same goes for having a target man.

And while I digress from my original point, playing with 3 centre backs in the championship is ridiculous.

Ah, sorry, let me qualify my post - I meant of the 3 teams offered I preferred that one. It wouldn't be the team that I'd actually play, nor the formation, I was just selecting the least worst. I prefer 433 as well and can't stand 3 at the back.

Good man

So here's a question - one I should probably know the answer to but never mind: In our glory days of the 80s and also big fat Ron's team, did we just play 442 home and away? Did everyone? Did people even talk about or analyse to death numbered formations.
I know it's no comparison at all, but I played a reasonable standard of football and my team (Galmpton Utd in the South Devon Premier) never changed things home and away, everyone played in the same position each week, only really altering due to availability or a better player signing for us. Now i know im comparing local football from the 80s and 90s with professional football of today, which is obviously stupid, but i wondered what happened at professional level back then?
I loved when I played that everyone was pretty much in the same position each match and the understanding we got from that consistency helped massively, from knowing who automatically had your back if you got caught out of position to what kind of runs midfield and attack made, so passing into space almost without needing to look was an option due to shared understanding.
So I was wondering for example if Villa in 81/82 did the same - same team same formation regardless of home or way? Of course, this would have been easier if all other teams always - for example - played 442 home or away.
Just curious really.

@De Kuip I think you have an interesting point although I can't answer your question about the 81/82 side but now with the advent of Sky I think that we do over analyse absolutely everything especially formations.
I too played at a reasonable standard in my younger days and I distinctly remember one season when we finished top and won the cup final, we played the whole season with a squad of 14 players. The only time we tweaked our formation was the cup final when we man marked their two strikers and went one up front. The manager just told us to go out and impose ourselves on the opposition which we did due to knowing the strengths of the players around you and playing to them. But that only comes about by playing together week in, week out and not constantly changing players and systems! Now i know it is easier when you are winning but I do know that when you come out of that tunnel you mustn't have any negative vibes as it will just transpire onto the pitch and your play, to ensure that doesn't happen is up to the manager, as the manager reflects the team!

I do think nowadays that we over complicate the game of football, just pass it to a teammate!