Aston Villa Central

I’ve read a lot of criticism of Martin O’Neill’s technical nous, or lack thereof according to some. A lot of it has to do with formation, people want to see something new and sexy. They want to keep up with what the Man Utd’s and Chelsea’s are doing. It’s no secret that I’m a fan of 4-2-3-1, but you’ve got to have the personnel and all systems will ultimately boil down to the personnel employed. Square pegs, round holes and all that.

I saw some analysis last year that “proved” that 4-5-1 was the way to go for Villa because the win percentage using that system was better than the win percentage using 4-4-2 during 2008/09.

QED.

Well, not so fast. We’ve mostly used 4-4-2 this season and we’ve only ever seen one better performance in a Premiership season from Aston Villa, which we should all know by now was 1992/93.

There goes that hypothesis then.

Then again… we started 2 games this season with 4-5-1 and we won them both. That’s a 100% win rate, so on the basis of that sample we’ll win every game if we just play 4-5-1 for crying out loud!

Now I’m confused. Perhaps it’s more complicated than that.

I have the last nine seasons worth of starting formations, that’s 342 games, so you know I pulled the numbers around in a spread sheet, right?

4-4-2

Have you ever read a complaint that MON is stuck in the past? Ever heard it said that he sticks with 4-4-2 too much? I have.

However, my data says that MON has set his team up with a 4-4-2 at the start of the game 72% of the time in the league. Perhaps that still too much for your liking, but hardly “stuck in the past” when you consider that we were treated to 4-4-2 88% of the time during the 5 seasons that preceded MON’s arrival.

Stuck in the past or just a lot of short memories?

MON’s win/loss/draw percentage using 4-4-2 is 37% / 32% / 31% during those 110 games. During the 5 seasons that preceded MON Villa had a 33% / 32% / 35% success rate with the 4-4-2. That was 168 games by the way.

4-3-3 and 4-5-1

People seem to forget that Villa played 4-3-3 a fair amount during MON’s first season: 14 games actually and we only lost twice too; both 1-0 losses at home – Bolton and Arsenal if you’re interested.

We employed 4-3-3 four times in 2007/08 for a total of 18 games. We’ve also started 18 games in a recognised 4-5-1 during the last four seasons – 3 x 2006/07, 13 x 2008/09 & 2 x 2009/10.

The success rate using these two formations is admittedly high – 53% / 39% / 8% – and the sample size of 36 games, while still inconclusively small, is significant enough to suggest that they deserve to be employed more frequently.

4-2-3-1

Which brings us to my favoured 4-3-2-1. For me, this is where the line blurs between a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1 and in a sense it might be splitting hairs to differentiate. The crucial difference comes down to the personnel employed and the roles they are given.

For me, although MON has employed 4-4-2 less than was the case with previous managers, I really think he’s allowed himself to be forced into using it since he brought Emile Heskey to Villa Park. How else do you use Heskey if not in a 4-4-2? That’s something I hope he recognises and is not only willing to accept it, but also realise that to fix it he needs to ship Heskey on.

We can still use Carew in a single striker system by shifting Gabby out to the right wing if we’re not resting him, giving either Ash or Downing some time off. Heskey just can’t do the solo striker I’m afraid, it’s not in his DNA, and he’s not all that useful out wide either.

And Back To 4-4-2

So, am I not contradicting myself by showing that our success rate is indeed much higher while employing a formation other than 4-4-2?

Yes and no.

The problem I have is that MON has used 4-4-2 72% of the time, which means he has used something else 28% of the time. Over a quarter of the time then; not insignificant, but not completely conclusive either. However, the success rate during those 28% of games using something else demands further investigation: 48% / 43% / 10%. If that were the W/D/L % at the end of a season it would represent around 70 points, which is what Tottenham finished with to secure 4th place this past season.

There will be plenty of times were a two striker system is the way to go and unless you want to take a real trip down memory lane with the 3-5-2, you’re going to have to sacrifice a midfielder and settle for the good old 4-4-2.

We also have to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Just because we won more games playing 4-5-1, or some variation, does not mean we won because we played 4-5-1.

For the purposes of squad rotation and tactical variety I’d definitely like to see us playing a little less 4-4-2, perhaps just over half the time, 50% to 60% maybe. I’m not naive enough to believe that will be enough to turn losses into draws and draws into wins, but I don’t think it would hurt.

Ultimately, we’ve seen a lot more tactical variety from Aston Villa in the last 4 seasons than in the past, so the trend is heading in the right direction, we just need that to continue and it’s also just one more reason why we’re going to have to move Heskey on since he shackles us to a 4-4-2.

Flawed Analysis

The final thing to consider is that I’ve only analysed the data I have, which is based on starting formations. Anecdotally, I could point out that we started in a definite 4-2-3-1 at St Andrews last season, but it wasn’t until Carew came on for NRC to switch it to a 4-4-2 that we found the only goal of the match. That game will be counted among the data here as a win for 4-2-3-1, but would it be more accurate to describe it as a win for 4-4-2 even though we only played that system for the final 20 minutes?

This hints at a problem that these statistics are likely to mask. If you start in a 4-4-2 and you’re struggling to find a breakthrough it’s somewhat counter intuitive to take a striker off even if the extra man in midfield is exactly what you need to find a goal. Last night, Fabio Capello solved this problem by shifting Rooney to the left and bringing Gerrard into the middle for a spell. It seemed to work.

However, if you start with a 4-5-1, but after 70 minutes or so you’re still deadlocked, bringing a fresh pair of legs on up front might be just the difference you’re looking for. If a win is found under these circumstances, as was the case against Birmingham, then it will be recorded as a win for the starting formation which only serves to distort the truth.

That truth is that as much as I love statistics and wish there were even more in football, the game somehow defies being defined by numbers and the harder you try, the more it resists. Anyone who will try to tell you that it’s as simple as playing 4-5-1 or 4-1-2-1-2 or whatever and you’ll win games is only revealing their ignorance.

It’s about sending 11 men out to beat 11 men and the formation and tactics you employ is about what will suit your 11 players the most and give them the best chance to overcome the 11 men on the other side, not what anyone else plays or what works on FIFA 10.

You might also like...