Dean Smith

[Pimlico_Villa]

11 hours ago, S-Platt said:

Also he is trying to get meat and 2 veg players brought by the previous manager to play the beautiful game.  Give him the chance to sign footballers and things will improve.  

In general, I actually think the players we have aren’t that basic, at least for this League.

Hourihane aside, they are more than competent, perhaps even good and likely quite coachable. I don’t think we have a single player that could not be coached to play Smith’s style. 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

12 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

Thanks.

Although, the frustration I have vented here is not simply down to results; what I find so antagonising is how Smith can evidently identify the problems but then not actually address them! 

Respectively, investigating the process that led to these results - which you advise me to do - likely warrants an entirely different post and would be pure speculation. The point being made is purposely more of a simplistic observation: he can see what is causing us not to win games and he should address it. And it is that which I find antagonising. 

Please enlighten me as to how those "defensive problems" could be addressed with the limited defensive personell we have had to contend with?

Should he have mended Jack, Tuanzebe, Taylor, signed a couple CBs and Midfield enforcers illegaly?

Could he have stopped the poor individual errors by limited players we are actively trying to replace?

You are acting as if this is an OGS replacing Mourinho situation.

99 percent of us are frustrated but have kept our grasp on reality ffs.

[TRO]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I know it’s only the 3rd of January and I might be going early here, but I’d say this is a contender for the wtf 2019 award.

I mean seriously, Bruce showed about as much ability to identify what went wrong in matches in his interviews that he made Chris Kamara seem insightful.

Not once did I hear him offer any kind of inclining that he had the first clue about what he could have done different tactically, after all this is a guy who is quoted as saying he doesn’t do tactics.

All he ever said was a range of stock phrases from the SB BS tombola about working hard, attitude, players taking their chance when picked or rolling we sleaves up. Bruce isn’t even on nodding terms with tactics, in fact rumour has it he thinks they are mints!

Don’t even get me started on the absolute absence of anything even remotely close to evidence of coaching in two years.

Seriously to draw parallels between Smith’s and Bruce’s post match interviews and ability to impact change is utterly ridiculous.

I will let you in to a little secret Trent.

I saw tonight in the Liverpool game , Klopp in a tele clip.....emulate that comical arm waving gesticulation of Sherwood at Leicester, that some post on here.

It must be some high level football version of the da vinci code.

[A'Villan]

21 minutes ago, TRO said:

I will let you in to a little secret Trent.

I saw tonight in the Liverpool game , Klopp in a tele clip.....emulate that comical arm waving gesticulation of Sherwood at Leicester, that some post on here.

It must be some high level football version of the da vinci code.

I saw what you are talking about. But Guardiola was doing it too. It was an intense match.

The gestures of Klopp and Guardiola today were far more intent and purposeful than Sherwood's.

The quote that 93% of communication is non-verbal and only 7% verbal is misused and misconstrued, while remaining true to what the research found.

And that is exactly why Sherwood's flailing arms were so comical and hilarious in comparison.

You can see how deliberate and confident Klopp and Guardiola were in their delivery. As you so rightly put it, Sherwood knew what he was on about but no one else did, and he knew it too.

That remains one of the funniest things I've seen in football.

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by A'Villan

[A'Villan]

5 hours ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

Thanks.

Although, the frustration I have vented here is not simply down to results; what I find so antagonising is how Smith can evidently identify the problems but then not actually address them! 

Respectively, investigating the process that led to these results - which you advise me to do - likely warrants an entirely different post and would be pure speculation. The point being made is purposely more of a simplistic observation: he can see what is causing us not to win games and he should address it. And it is that which I find antagonising. 

A lot to like about this post. Offers perspective concisely and with intellect.

Not much I can add to our discussion from here.

I will say that it's my belief that Smith's ability to identify the problems is the reason, or an indication at very least, that he is going to be able to address them.

Critical thinking and problem solving start with identifying what it is that needs changing. He's ticked that box.

With a combination of rationale, evidence and math you can go some way to identifying what happened in a game, how each team went about it, and why the result ended the way it did.

As far as I can see, it is more speculative to suggest that Smith is not addressing the issues in some way, shape or form.

To me, it shows that you are frustrated and growing a bit impatient and that's a bit premature for me.

 

[Villarocker]

Smith must see what we see - the first thing he did when put in charge was to play a back four in their natural positions and it worked for the most part. Were now struggling because we lost this season's most impressive defender, our creative threat and, he was left to play a goalkeeper that was a bag of nerves. He's addressed the keeper, is trying to sort out the centre backs and surely work must be going on to address the full back situation and defensive midfield area. 

Smith will get it right eventually when he can bring in players that he needs. I'm confident of that. 

[omariqy]

12 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I know it’s only the 3rd of January and I might be going early here, but I’d say this is a contender for the wtf 2019 award.

I mean seriously, Bruce showed about as much ability to identify what went wrong in matches in his interviews that he made Chris Kamara seem insightful.

Not once did I hear him offer any kind of inclining that he had the first clue about what he could have done different tactically, after all this is a guy who is quoted as saying he doesn’t do tactics.

All he ever said was a range of stock phrases from the SB BS tombola about working hard, attitude, players taking their chance when picked or rolling we sleaves up. Bruce isn’t even on nodding terms with tactics, in fact rumour has it he thinks they are mints!

Don’t even get me started on the absolute absence of anything even remotely close to evidence of coaching in two years.

Seriously to draw parallels between Smith’s and Bruce’s post match interviews and ability to impact change is utterly ridiculous.

Smith has 23 points from 14 games. A ratio that would put us in the playoffs come end of the season. It's not his fault we had such a bad start. Further, in the 14 games we have played under him only 2 of them were against a team in the bottom half of the league. 

[TRO]

7 hours ago, A'Villan said:

I saw what you are talking about. But Guardiola was doing it too. It was an intense match.

The gestures of Klopp and Guardiola today were far more intent and purposeful than Sherwood's.

The quote that 93% of communication is non-verbal and only 7% verbal is misused and misconstrued, while remaining true to what the research found.

And that is exactly why Sherwood's flailing arms were so comical and hilarious in comparison.

You can see how deliberate and confident Klopp and Guardiola were in their delivery. As you so rightly put it, Sherwood knew what he was on about but no one else did, and he knew it too.

That remains one of the funniest things I've seen in football.

 

I think its down to how anyone wants to read it......the easy default is to say what you have said....personally, i didn't see much difference.

on a slightly different topic.......I was so impressed with the physical intensity of both teams absolutely incredible....thats what i call workrate.

If Dean can get our midfield / defence working that hard alone, we'll be ok.

Edited January 4, 2019 by TRO

[Stevo985]

14 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

I mean seriously, Bruce showed about as much ability to identify what went wrong in matches in his interviews that he made Chris Kamara seem insightful.

Not once did I hear him offer any kind of inclining that he had the first clue about what he could have done different tactically, after all this is a guy who is quoted as saying he doesn’t do tactics.

Before my post let me say I don't agree with the OP. 

But there were certainly plenty of times when Bruce was accused (on here) of being honest in interviews about what we'd done wrong in games and then failing to do anything about them in the next game. So the OP has a point in that regard. i do think that's what bruce was like.

However, again, I disagree that Smith is like this. I think he's much more astute.

[TrentVilla]

46 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Before my post let me say I don't agree with the OP. 

But there were certainly plenty of times when Bruce was accused (on here) of being honest in interviews about what we'd done wrong in games and then failing to do anything about them in the next game. So the OP has a point in that regard. i do think that's what bruce was like.

However, again, I disagree that Smith is like this. I think he's much more astute.

That is fair comment in regards what Bruce said and then failed to do. But it was, at least as far as I can remember, only ever in reference to team selection and rotation, never ever about tactics and that’s what I saw the OP as being in reference too.

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I think its down to how anyone wants to read it......the easy default is to say what you have said....personally, i didn't see much difference.

on a slightly different topic.......I was so impressed with the physical intensity of both teams absolutely incredible....thats what i call workrate.

If Dean can get our midfield / defence working that hard alone, we'll be ok.

Possibly. I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by the easy default is to say what I did. But then the ignorant wouldn't be so if they were aware. And I'm afraid I'm not aware in this instance. Perhaps not only in regard to your view but my own regarding the differences. I am certain that both Guardiola and Klopp were more serious and animated in their delivery. But it's not really an important discussion in the Dean Smith thread.

There was so much quality in the game between City and Liverpool. It all kicked off when Liverpool first hit the crossbar, I forget who was involved as I've just got back from a 5 hour training session without a break and am a bit tired, but the incisiveness and precision of pass was just sublime. Cut straight through City. Better than the move that led to Sane's goal without doubt.

I thought Liverpool probably deserved a draw. 

But yes, if we match the work rate of two of the worlds best teams then we will go on to be more than okay. Finesse and technical ability come from a certain type of fitness too.

[weedman]

14 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

For starters.

One was here for 2 years, one has been here for 15 games.

I really don't see how much needs to be explained.

I'm sure someone else will go into all the other obvious details such as style of play, signs, tactical nous etc.

OK but no one was saying Bruce needs a pre season after 2 years were they? They were saying he needed a pre season before he'd had a pre season, in the same way that people are saying Smith needs one now. And again, I agree that Smith needs time to implement his style and bring in players, but the same was also true of Bruce.

Its not a big deal, it just bugs me that in season 1 of Bruce, people said "he needs a pre season and to bring in some of his players" and they were roundly ridiculed for this point of view, and now in season 1 of Smith, people are saying "he needs time to bring in his players and implement his style" and it's completely accepted by all

With your last paragraph I don't really see how it's relevant, but I'm not in any way arguing Smith is worse, I'm not in any way arguing that we should have kept Bruce and I'm not in any way arguing that we don't need new signings before we can pass judgement. My point is simply, both managers have totally different styles to the men they replaced (RDM-Bruce was attacking to defensive, Bruce-Smith is defensive to attacking) and both styles require different players, it's absolutely right that Smith be given the time to bring those players in, but why were some people ridiculed for suggesting the previous manager get the same treatment? 

Again, it's not really a big deal it just bugs me, not worth derailing the thread over so I'll call it a day there

[TRO]

1 hour ago, weedman said:

OK but no one was saying Bruce needs a pre season after 2 years were they? They were saying he needed a pre season before he'd had a pre season, in the same way that people are saying Smith needs one now. And again, I agree that Smith needs time to implement his style and bring in players, but the same was also true of Bruce.

Its not a big deal, it just bugs me that in season 1 of Bruce, people said "he needs a pre season and to bring in some of his players" and they were roundly ridiculed for this point of view, and now in season 1 of Smith, people are saying "he needs time to bring in his players and implement his style" and it's completely accepted by all

With your last paragraph I don't really see how it's relevant, but I'm not in any way arguing Smith is worse, I'm not in any way arguing that we should have kept Bruce and I'm not in any way arguing that we don't need new signings before we can pass judgement. My point is simply, both managers have totally different styles to the men they replaced (RDM-Bruce was attacking to defensive, Bruce-Smith is defensive to attacking) and both styles require different players, it's absolutely right that Smith be given the time to bring those players in, but why were some people ridiculed for suggesting the previous manager get the same treatment? 

Again, it's not really a big deal it just bugs me, not worth derailing the thread over so I'll call it a day there

I think some won't get what you are trying to say....double Standards is my understanding of what you are trying to avoid....and I agree

But when someone has a "bee in that proverbial bonnet" its hard to shift.

We all have one.....me with my small Centre Backs's.

I was trying to explain how Pepe and Klipperty were waving their arms all over the place like a drunken buffoon,last night, but because they are world class, its accepted.....when Tim Sherwood does it, he's a numpty and doesn't know what he's doing....He may well not know what he's doing, but the arm waving was not the example to prove it.

Dean don't use the " Ground Marshall " control method, so I suppose he gets a free pass.

Edited January 4, 2019 by TRO

[TRO]

3 hours ago, A'Villan said:

Possibly. I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by the easy default is to say what I did. But then the ignorant wouldn't be so if they were aware. And I'm afraid I'm not aware in this instance. Perhaps not only in regard to your view but my own regarding the differences. I am certain that both Guardiola and Klopp were more serious and animated in their delivery. But it's not really an important discussion in the Dean Smith thread.

There was so much quality in the game between City and Liverpool. It all kicked off when Liverpool first hit the crossbar, I forget who was involved as I've just got back from a 5 hour training session without a break and am a bit tired, but the incisiveness and precision of pass was just sublime. Cut straight through City. Better than the move that led to Sane's goal without doubt.

I thought Liverpool probably deserved a draw. 

But yes, if we match the work rate of two of the worlds best teams then we will go on to be more than okay. Finesse and technical ability come from a certain type of fitness too.

My point was....folk were trying to use the arm gesticulation of Sherwood to epitomise his low level of management, when 2 of the worlds best managers do the same and its accepted as they knew what they meant.

My point is...Tim Sherwood is what he is....but the arm waving was in the figment of someones imagination to ridicule him for it....perhaps a better example may have been apt, in the light of last night.

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

My point was....folk were trying to use the arm gesticulation of Sherwood to epitomise his low level of management, when 2 of the worlds best managers do the same and its accepted as they knew what they meant.

My point is...Tim Sherwood is what he is....but the arm waving was in the figment of someones imagination to ridicule him for it....perhaps a better example may have been apt, in the light of last night.

There’s this from one of the best managers in the world.

 

Then there’s this from Tim Sherwood

[Dave J]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

My point was....folk were trying to use the arm gesticulation of Sherwood to epitomise his low level of management, when 2 of the worlds best managers do the same and its accepted as they knew what they meant.

My point is...Tim Sherwood is what he is....but the arm waving was in the figment of someones imagination to ridicule him for it....perhaps a better example may have been apt, in the light of last night.

Agreed

[hippo]

Can someone enlighten me ...is a manager moving his arms a good thing or a bad thing ?

[Pimlico_Villa]

16 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Please enlighten me as to how those "defensive problems" could be addressed with the limited defensive personell we have had to contend with?

Should he have mended Jack, Tuanzebe, Taylor, signed a couple CBs and Midfield enforcers illegaly?

Could he have stopped the poor individual errors by limited players we are actively trying to replace?

You are acting as if this is an OGS replacing Mourinho situation.

99 percent of us are frustrated but have kept our grasp on reality ffs.

Have you not for one moment considered that it might not just be a personnel issue, per se, and that maybe it could just be the obvious downside of a (naively) over-expansive style? I would argue that a back four comprised of Chester and Tuenzebe, albeit with full backs playing out of position, is still competent enough not to concede 5 goals at Home against a team unlikely to be challenging for automatics. Add to that the fact that we have one of the world’s greatest ever defenders with us day to day on the training pitch and that players can, beleive it or not, actually be coached, then we should have conceded less. 

Moreover, even if it was overwhelmingly a personnel issue as you claim, the system could have been tweaked to compensate: for example, playing a flatter, more padded out midfield that makes us tighter and less exposed. The players benaeath the ones you mention are still competent enough to play at this level and not concede so much as they played last season - its the system and tactics that have hurt us. Just ask fans of teams that we’ve played. 

I know certain people on here won’t be able to even contemplate this, but it is there for all to see, objectively, and perfectly manifested in results and our league position. Peoples have their coping mechanisms that blind them, and and the fact that we are all enjoying scoring lots of goals for once, probably blinds people even more. 

That shouldn’t stop people being allowed to question obvious mis-steps, unless the rules have been updated on VT to appease some of the wannabe dictators on here. Fine for people to disagree with me, that’s the whole point of a forum like this, but some of the replies on here have been embarrassing to those that make them - i.e. New Hope

For what its worth, I stil prefer this attacking style to what Bruce served up.  

[hippo]

14 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

Have you not for one moment considered that it might not just be a personnel issue, per se, and that maybe it could just be the obvious downside of a (naively) over-expansive style? I would argue that a back four comprised of Chester and Tuenzebe, albeit with full backs playing out of position, is still competent enough not to concede 5 goals at Home against a team unlikely to be challenging for automatics. Add to that the fact that we have one of the world’s greatest ever defenders with us day to day on the training pitch and that players can, beleive it or not, actually be coached, then we should have conceded less. 

Moreover, even if it was overwhelmingly a personnel issue as you claim, the system could have been tweaked to compensate: for example, playing a flatter, more padded out midfield that makes us tighter and less exposed. The players benaeath the ones you mention are still competent enough to play at this level and not concede so much as they played last season - its the system and tactics that have hurt us. Just ask fans of teams that we’ve played. 

I know certain people on here won’t be able to even contemplate this, but it is there for all to see, objectively, and perfectly manifested in results and our league position. Peoples have their coping mechanisms that blind them, and and the fact that we are all enjoying scoring lots of goals for once, probably blinds people even more. 

That shouldn’t stop people being allowed to question obvious mis-steps, unless the rules have been updated on VT to appease some of the wannabe dictators on here. Fine for people to disagree with me, that’s the whole point of a forum like this, but some of the replies on here have been embarrassing to those that make them - i.e. New Hope

For what its worth, I stil prefer this attacking style to what Bruce served up.  

Brave post.

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

I was trying to explain how Pepe and Klipperty were waving their arms all over the place like a drunken buffoon, last night, but because they are world class, its accepted...when Tim Sherwood does it, he's a numpty and doesn't know what he's doing....He may well not know what he's doing, but the arm waving was not the example to prove it.

When Simon Rattle waves a baton at an orchestra they play beautifully - I doubt they'd do the same for me. I think you underestimate the power of good communication as opposed to just waving your arms because you've seen someone doing it on the telly.