At times, in the first forty-five minutes, you could have been forgiven for thinking that Villa were the newly promoted side because, frankly, QPR played around us like there were ten cardboard cut-outs from the club shop.
The biggest problem, as it has been too many times so far this year, is that the ball was continually gifted to the opposition cheaply. QPR didn't really have to work that hard in the middle of the park to get the ball, and when they did they used it well.
However, whatever McLeish said to the players at half time must have worked because a different team emerged. Villa looked good on the ball and dangerous going forwards. Particular highlights were Bannan and Delph. Fabian may lack a little premier league finesse, but his commitment is unquestionable. It's just a shame that Bannan now appears to be on Fergie's radar.
Stephen Ireland is also showing signs of promise, getting a few good passes off and showing the passion to get angry with his team mates for giving the ball away. A long way to go though.
It may well have been a tactic to soak up the QPR attack and wear them out in the early stages, but McLeish's interview suggests that it was not the case. He, along with all other Villa fans, was disgusted with the first half performance. It begs the question of how it would have turned out if Villa had showed up for the first half.
So, was the result fair? Probably (based on the whole game).
Was the performance good enough? For only half a match.
Will most Villa fans be happy with the result and to stay unbeaten? Perhaps.
Will all Villa fans be happy? Definitely not.
There are still hints that the defensive style of play is permeating the team, and inviting the pressure in the later stages proved to be a mistake.
If the glass is half empty, it is two points dropped. If the glass is half full, we are still unbeaten. Which way do you see it?
Source: FOOTYMAD
