Arsenal vs Aston Villa Match Ratings

[asajoseph]

Re: Arsenal vs Aston Villa Match Ratings ^^ (Y)

To be fair, asa, you were worried that our midfield was going to be outperformed and outpassed by Villa as I recall it. That didn't really happen. We dominated them and kept the pressure up throughout the game. I didn't even notice that Milner and Petrov were on the field after a while because they never touched the ball. We had tons of corners, freekicks and opportunities to score but we lacked the cutting edge. That's what Cesc provided when he came on, not chances. We had those already.

I think we did a better job than I expected of shutting them down (though I thought Milner did ok, actually, and was instrumental in starting off the few attacks that Villa actually did create, especially the 10 minutes or so in the 2nd half where they put us under a lot of pressure and we barely got out of our half), and Diaby certainly performed a heck of a lot better than I thought he would (two good games in a row - who knew!). I do think our overall performance was, as I think someone else has said, something more than the sum of it's parts.

That said, it doesn't change the fact that without Cesc, as you say, the cutting edge just wasn't there, and whilst we had the luxury of bringing him off the bench today, we might not have that luxury all season. For me, Cesc, and to a lesser extent Theo, really changed the game today, and gave us a totally new dynamic that we had been otherwise missing. Without those changes, the game could have still gone either way.

 

[asajoseph]

Re: Arsenal vs Aston Villa Match Ratings ^^ (Y)

Apart from that being an absolute load of rubbish, we dominated the second half before and after Cesc went off the pitch. It was you who was saying our midfield would get trounced by their 'Ohh so superior' midfield pre-game though (did their midfield even string two passes together all game?) nice prediction mystic Meg .

~What on earth are you on about?

We barely created anything at all after the first 5 minutes, and it was hard to see where the goal was coming from. That's precisely why Cesc came on in the first place - we were the better team, but didn't look able to break down the Villa defence, which was precisely the problem that I was worried about.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out Arsenal with Cesc is better than Arsenal without Cesc. Making out that we are dogshit in midfield without him in the team is not on though and that’s what you are implying. We always looked better and created far more then Villa, we dominated Villa in every way a team can be dominated, even their long hoof balls that they had to resort to were easily dealt with by the defence, the only team who had nothing happening for them today was the away side.

We created more than Villa?

We had one good chance in the first minute, and apart from that it was half-chances at best until we made the changes in the 2nd half. We were more dominant in posession, and shut them down well, but they looked just as likely as we did to score (and that wasn't particularly likely).

 

[asajoseph]

Re: Arsenal vs Aston Villa Match Ratings ^^ (Y)

The script was actually quite predictable - bringing the injured Cesc on because nothing else was really happening. That was precisely the scenario our starting XI should have been working to avoid, and they failed to do that.

We were already pressuring them in the second half, Cesc was just the extra gear, we would have scored without him too IMO. Oh and btw what exactly does he have to do to get a 10 in your book, because I don't see what he could have done better today?

Overall your ratings are a bunch of tosh IMO, it was a 3-0 win against one of the best opponents we've met this season, yet judging by those you'd think we've lost at home to Wolves.

How about playing a full 90 minutes?

It's up to you if you want to pretend that everyone was originally brilliant, but there were a lot of weak performers out there yesterday. The ratings reflect what I saw on the on the day - a good defensive performance that shut Villa down pretty well, but a very predictable attack that couldn't do much until Cesc came on.

 

[asajoseph]

Re: Arsenal vs Aston Villa Match Ratings ^^ (Y)

It doesn’t take a genius to work out Arsenal with Cesc is better than Arsenal without Cesc. Making out that we are dogshit in midfield without him in the team is not on though and that’s what you are implying. We always looked better and created far more then Villa, we dominated Villa in every way a team can be dominated, even their long hoof balls that they had to resort to were easily dealt with by the defence, the only team who had nothing happening for them today was the away side.

And what if Fabregas couldn't come on? If we had drawn 0-0, I guarantee you wouldn't be so happy about 'dominating' the game. The DDS midfield is solid, but it really didn't look like doing a whole lot until Cesc opened the game up.

Exactly.

 

[MAK 14]

Re: Arsenal vs Aston Villa Match Ratings ^^ (Y)

As someone else said - there is no shame in needing Cesc to unlock their defence though. They have the best defence in the league. I understand that we shouldn't be dependant on one person to be able to win us games but i'm honestly not fussed that we needed Fabregas to win us the game.

 

[Timleaf]

Until Cesc came on we'd created 2 very good chances-Eduardo's in the first minute and Gallas' from a corner early in the second half-in addition to a couple of oher half chances, and restricted Villa to a couple of long rangers under pressure. We'd also dominated possesion and territory.

Notwithstanding the fact that we were playing a good side in very good form that are ideally equiped to perform away from home, we often win games late-ish on after grinding teams down with tonnes of ball retention throughout the game.

I just cant quite work out what some of you were expecting. It was a good quality team performance. Even in the first half we were in full control, decent and solid.

 

[Swish]

We were in complete control of Chelsea, we were in complete control of Sunderland, we were in complete control of Burnley.

Sorry Timeleaf, but being in complete control means **** all, this season has proved it more so than ever. Scoring goals puts you in control and with Villa, whilst looking like we had full control, we had no evidence of getting a goal.

More than likely, if Fabregas didn't come on, we would have drawn. We may have fluked a goal from somewhere or has been the case this season, press forward and get done with one chance on the opposition by a counter attack (and Villa do that better than most) and go 1-0 down then huff and puff the rest of the game.

Fabregas won us that game yesterday. There was no evidence to suggest we would have gotten the 3 points without him.

 

[est]

We were in complete control of Chelsea

We weren't, really.

 

[Swish]

We were in complete control of Chelsea

We weren't, really.

We were, up until the moment they scored. As has been the case several times this season.

 

[Kain]

Sorry Timeleaf, but being in complete control means f**k all, this season has proved it more so than ever. Scoring goals puts you in control and with Villa, whilst looking like we had full control, we had no evidence of getting a goal.

More than likely, if Fabregas didn't come on, we would have drawn. We may have fluked a goal from somewhere or has been the case this season, press forward and get done with one chance on the opposition by a counter attack (and Villa do that better than most) and go 1-0 down then huff and puff the rest of the game.

Fabregas won us that game yesterday. There was no evidence to suggest we would have gotten the 3 points without him.

Why is it so unlikely that we'd score a goal, we've scored more goals at home than anyone, only once this season have we failed to score not only a single goal but two goals in any home fixture, We've also scored more goals at home than any other team in the league to boot, or is that just to suit your argument when you feel like it?

The Villa counter attacks worked wonders yesterday, Agbonlahor didn't climb out of Vermaelen’s pocket once & our third choice Left-back pissed on their giant forward from an almighty height, where is this evidence that they would of hurt us other than fear of the worst?

Let me guess Diabys goal doesn't count either because it didn't happen first, the one where he waltzed through their entire backline and thumped it home?

Please tell me you don't intend to watch us play Pompey, Bolton & Everton with your **** in your hands hoping we pip a 0-0 because we don't have one player?

 

[Klaus Daimler]

We would have scored eventually against Villa anyway. It's hard to disregard the influence Cesc had of course but we just needed an edge. Another striker would have provided that too. Villa had nothing over us and we kept pressuring them all the way.

Look - all Christmas I've had to listen to tiresome pessimists (who obviously haven't watched Villa during the last few weeks) saying how well our style suits them, how predictable we are and how easy the likes of Petrov would bully us around, but as sure as tuesday comes after monday none of that happened and we won the game fair and square by playing better football, both in the defensive and in the attacking end of the field. And yet here we are arguing over whether a 3-0 victory was deserved or not? **** all that ****. Seriously.

At the end of the day it was Villa who were predictable and limited in range - not Arsenal. Which would have been painstakingly obvious to anyone who have spent more time analysing our strengths as a team this season than bemoaning our weaknesses. We were never going to lose this game, neither with nor without van Persie, Clichy and Fabregas.

Villa have a good team in many ways, and I fancy them to beat Liverpool to 4th place this season, but if any team in Premier League is truly predictable it's them. They simply don't have the quality in midfield to measure up to a passing, moving team like ours. We could have fielded Ramsey, Merida and Coquelin for all I care and we'd still have won this game.

 

[Swish]

Sorry Timeleaf, but being in complete control means f**k all, this season has proved it more so than ever. Scoring goals puts you in control and with Villa, whilst looking like we had full control, we had no evidence of getting a goal.

More than likely, if Fabregas didn't come on, we would have drawn. We may have fluked a goal from somewhere or has been the case this season, press forward and get done with one chance on the opposition by a counter attack (and Villa do that better than most) and go 1-0 down then huff and puff the rest of the game.

Fabregas won us that game yesterday. There was no evidence to suggest we would have gotten the 3 points without him.

Why is it so unlikely that we'd score a goal, we've scored more goals at home than anyone, only once this season have we failed to score not only a single goal but two goals in any home fixture, We've also scored more goals at home than any other team in the league to boot, or is that just to suit your argument when you feel like it?

The Villa counter attacks worked wonders yesterday, Agbonlahor didn't climb out of Vermaelen’s pocket once & our third choice Left-back pissed on their giant forward from an almighty height, where is this evidence that they would of hurt us other than fear of the worst?

Let me guess Diabys goal doesn't count either because it didn't happen first, the one where he waltzed through their entire backline and thumped it home?

Please tell me you don't intend to watch us play Pompey, Bolton & Everton with your **** in your hands hoping we pip a 0-0 because we don't have one player?

Woah Klaus, I think you forgotten this is me. I don't do **** in hands hoping. I'm just saying that whilst we did okay yesterday, we just didn't look like scoring. Sure, it only takes a second to score and we can't completely rule out such a possibility. I'm just saying that for those 57 minutes, despite dealing with everything that Villa had to throw at us and coping in midfield quite well, you have to say that we looked incredibly flat up front.

Wenger wouldn't have thrown Cesc on in the hope that it could change the game if he thought we were odds on to grab a goal. Even with Cesc on, the rest of our attack still looked flat. It was only Cesc that made all the connections and help make that final push for a goal.

As for the Diaby goal, I think we can realistically assume that had it been 0-0, Villa wouldnt have given him that much room through the middle. The brace from Cesc pretty much put Villa on the backfoot and outdo their gameplan.

Pompey are at the bottom of the table so I don't expect their defence to be as hard to break down as Villa's. Bolton without Allardyce has become a little easier for us to beat and Everton could prove to be the trickier tie of the three. If our strikers play as ineffectively against those teams as they did yesterday, then I can't feel as confident of scoring against them without Cesc than with. But then, Cesc is playing extremely well in his cameo appearances as of late, so no surprises there.

Basically, I just can't see where the goals are going to come from right now. When we had van Persie on form, we could see him as a possibility of grabbing one. Even at the beginning of the season, when our strikers weren't hitting the target, our midfield was scoring. But then, that was a midfield with Cesc.

I'm just not that confident in our three strikers/forwards to always grab the goals needed, that's all. I'd be a lot more confident if Eduardo was playing with confidence or if the largely in form Cesc wasn't missing for these games.

The team stepped up several gears when Cesc came on the pitch yesterday. I just hope to God that the team can carry it on without Cesc.

 

[Swish]

We would have scored eventually against Villa anyway. It's hard to disregard the influence Cesc had of course but we just needed an edge. Another striker would have provided that too. Villa had nothing over us and we kept pressuring them all the way.

Look - all Christmas I've had to listen to tiresome pessimists (who obviously haven't watched Villa during the last few weeks) saying how well our style suits them, how predictable we are and how easy the likes of Petrov would bully us around, but as sure as tuesday comes after monday none of that happened and we won the game fair and square by playing better football, both in the defensive and in the attacking end of the field. And yet here we are arguing over whether a 3-0 victory was deserved or not? f**k all that s**t. Seriously.

At the end of the day it was Villa who were predictable and limited in range - not Arsenal. Which would have been painstakingly obvious to anyone who have spent more time analysing our strengths as a team this season than bemoaning our weaknesses. We were never going to lose this game, neither with nor without van Persie, Clichy and Fabregas.

Villa have a good team in many ways, and I fancy them to beat Liverpool to 4th place this season, but if any team in Premier League is truly predictable it's them. They simply don't have the quality in midfield to measure up to a passing, moving team like ours. We could have fielded Ramsey, Merida and Coquelin for all I care and we'd still have won this game.

If thats a carry on from the post above, then I think you misunderstood me. I agree with this post entirely, we deserved the win. Villa were poor for the 57 minutes before Cesc came on and they were deflated by the time Cesc went off.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

I wasn't referring to any specific post, Swish, but I'll say this: it's an undeniable fact that Cesc makes us a much better team, just as undeniable as his huge impact yesterday, but we would have won the game with the introduction of any kind of edge. We needed the final five percent in the attacking end and anybody could have provided them. I think we would have scored regardless of substitutions if we'd continued to push for it, but of course Fabregas helped. He showed what a fantastic player he is. At the same time the team showed that we're capable of coping without him at times (the commentator said that we had something close to 75% possession at the time he came on. 75 percent! Against one of the best teams in the league, with a midfield consisting of three of the most criticised Arsenal players in recent years!). That wasn't the case at all last season.

 

[Kain]

I'm not busting anyone's balls on the matter but I just don't buy into this whole we are a 1 or 2 man team tirade.

We're at the halfway point in the season dominated our CL group, win our game in hand and we are chomping at Chelsea it's great. Last season our mental lightweights lost to both Hull & Villa at home (almost said Highbury then) at the grove, this time round we took revenge and we destroyed both. Klaus is right in that we won and that’s all that matters.

 

[banduan]

We seem to always have a bad half followed by a good half or vice-versa. Rarely dominate the entire match unless the opponent is dire. The subs seem to affect the game a lot.

Theo changed the game as much as Cesc did, which was good to see. Did you notice how every single goal was a sweet curler? Even Theo's assist seemed to curl perfectly in place.

 

[True Gooner]

We were in complete control of Chelsea, we were in complete control of Sunderland, we were in complete control of Burnley.

We were also in control of a lot of games which we did go on to win. As a general rule, if you're in control of a game you've got a better chance of secure a result.

Also, people calling us a two man team - especially based on yesterday's result - are overreacting.