In football, there are no guarantees. No guaranteed wins, no guaranteed tactics and no guaranteed team selections.

However, if we look at general probabilities, there are some correlations.

For example, a team with a low possession score is not certain to win or lose, but that statistic can give some insight to how the game is trying to be played.

Probably the best example of low possession football that wins is often attached to teams who have had lucky breaks, such as those committing giant killings in a cup game. In those instances, resolve and good fortune can reward a minnow, but not with any degree of certainty. Given that Aston Villa are spending cheaply, are they anything more than financial minnows?

There are other examples of low possession football though. Primarily, they are based around either counter attacking sides, or those that favour longer balls.

This season, Paul Lambert has fielded questions around the use of route one tactics, with the pass from Brad Guzan to Christian Benteke one of the most frequently played, yet also one of the least successfully completed moves.

In a review of the season’s passing to date, passes from Guzan to Benteke ranked in the mid-20s in terms of completion rate. So, with such a horrendously low success rate, why are Villa still making this play? After all, its usage has becomes a repeating factor in Villa’s games.

The key reasoning for pumping a ball long is to get the ball as far away from your goal as possible. Now, you’ll pardon me for the obviousness of such a statement, but given the option, a team who is fearful on the ball – due to a combination of lack of experience and pressing by the opposition mainly – will want to get the ball away quickly.

In some senses, such a plan is actually quite sensible. After all, if one loses possession 70 yards up the pitch as the ball rebounds off Benteke, that’s 70 yards that it has to come back.

If Villa play it out from the back, and their first or second pass goes astray, the opposition have far less distance to cover to get into a scoring position. In short, Villa’s punts up field are focused on trying to reduce pressure, even though this often doesn’t work.

So, again, why do such a thing? Why are Villa persisting with a sub-30% completion rate pass tactic? Isn’t that nothing less than idiotic.

As ever, context is important to any decision that is made. If we are to compare Villa’s current squad to a past team that was competing effectively, there is one significant difference – expenditure.

Under Martin O’Neill, Villa were not known for high possession football either but, as we all know, the team were competing for sixth place, not sixteenth as we have been in more recent years.

However, O’Neill was far better funded – in wage and transfer fee terms – and, if we are being candid, the differences are fairly evident.

To be fair to Lambert, his ability to find, and work with, cheap talent is something of significant importance to the club’s current status. When we look at how he has been funded, and supported, by Randy Lerner, he is outperforming expectations but, and this is the key question, are such performances good enough in entertainment terms?

If I am honest, and I do my best to be, the style of football is less than favourable. However, I have said many times before that style is the icing on a cake, results are what counts – give me functional and effective first, the rest can come later.

In defence of the manager, can one expect much more from the type of players who have been recruited? As an old saying goes, can you make a silk purse of a sow’s ear.

Under O’Neill, Villa were afforded the luxury of spending money across the pitch, for sustained periods. Look at the transfer fees and you will see £12m for James Milner, the same for Stewart Downing, £9.5m for Ashley Young, £8.5m for Nigel Reo-Coker, and £10m for Curtis Davies.

That list doesn’t even include the likes of Steve Sidwell, a player who, at £5m, would be seen as a comparatively expensive acquisition had Lambert spent so much. Instead, Villa’s current manager has only purchased two players above such a cost – Benteke and Libor Kozák.

So the question begs – how do Villa progress? An honest assessment would state that the current squad will not, in realistic terms, break much higher than 10th.

This isn’t to say they can’t achieve a higher league ranking, but rather that any such progression beyond such a position would be grounded firmly in good fortune, something O’Neill seemed to have in spades.

I said at the start of the season that 12th was my target and I will stick with it. Get 12th or better, and the season overall will be one of progress, even if the match-to-match observations may undulate like a rollercoaster.

As stated earlier, Villa are in danger of hitting a glass ceiling again. In the club’s favour, there should be more financial flex to be able to spend in a sustainable manner, something that wasn’t possible when the club were chasing the top four from sixth.

What is key to the sanity of Villa fans far and wide is the money being provided by Lerner. We’ve seen understandable limitations on spending, and a need to get the club from being in the red to being back in the black.

However, much will be revealed over the next 18-30 months. Is Lerner going to continue to play it safe, only spending small amounts on cheap players, effectively limiting what any manager can do – Lambert or not – on sch a budget?

If he is, the team will struggle to progress. In such circumstances, it becomes challenging for any manager, regardless of their ability, to operate at Premier League level, as even the best in the world can only pull so many rabbits out of their hat. The clearest evidence of (comparative) increased financial firepower is on display at Goodison Park as Roberto Martinez seems to be making use of funds to sign the likes of Romelu Lukaku and Gareth Barry, rather than many of his bargain basement gambles at Wigan Athletic.

Getting back to Villa, what ends up mattering at the point where current outlay can only but a certain standard of player, is the club’s ability to be able to fund the augmentation of the squad with a better standard of incoming transfer. I’m not asking for £20m on a single player – Villa couldn’t attract a non-mercenary for that kind of money anyway – but Lerner must provide enough money to be spending an average of £5-7m on individuals, not restricting such spending to the most expensive acquisitions. Villa can not, and should not, expect to be able to pay very little unless they have no ambition under Lerner beyond mid-table mediocrity.

If Villa don’t spend more in the near future, they will struggle, not so much with relegation as drab mediocrity, an issue illustrated by the effect a few simple injuries can have on a cheaply assembled team, held together with gaffer tape – in short, the club will end up losing fans due to a perceived reticence on spending. Can the chairman expect us to pay up every season if he intends to invest very little new money?

Should that be the case, Villa’s owner should stay true to his word and look at how he might be able to turn the club over to a person more willing to spend more to achieve progress.

At the moment, Villa are paying the price for prior lax control of spending, and the only entity suffering is the team. Whatever happens, sale or not, Lerner will get his money back – he won’t sell for a loss. The fans like me and you? Our money isn’t coming back – we are throwing our money at the club through hope, faith or desperation, a move sadly not reflected at present by the actions of the chairman.

So, as Villa reflect on a less than exciting loss in London, a crossroad approaches. Which way will the club turn? Time will tell but Lerner risks losing more fans to apathy and frustration if he can’t support the manager beyond his current levels of expenditure as Villa struggle to develop beyond mid-table.

Leave a Reply