Dean Smith

[KHV]

2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

You make the omission of JOHN TERRY seem insignificant though.

Johnstone was also part of that defence.

[Rodders]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Elmo, Chester and Hutton were three quarters of one of the best defences in the league last season. 

And they have been rubbish this season, pre and post change of manager, and absent John Terry who clearly made a difference. Chester's legs appear to be failing him, whilst Elmo and Hutton have deterioriated rapidly. I'm not saying Smith has no influence over this, but I do think at minimum we need defenders who are comfortable playing the style the manager wants.

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Rodders said:

And they have been rubbish this season, pre and post change of manager, and absent John Terry who clearly made a difference. Chester's legs appear to be failing him, whilst Elmo and Hutton have deterioriated rapidly. I'm not saying Smith has no influence over this, but I do think at minimum we need defenders who are comfortable playing the style the manager wants.

But they didn't all just suddenly become shit in 3 months. Clearly they've been poorly managed/organised this season, by both managers.

In my opinion, Bruce had lost it by this season. I don't think he wanted the job anymore and I don't think the players were fully playing for him as a result.

 

With Smith, I don't think he puts enough emphasis on defence. That won't go down well in the "ATTACK! FORWARD!!!" world of VT, but I think it's true. I think we have enough in attack even without Grealish to play a dedicated DM which would help to protect the defence. Granted the personnel aren't ideal but I think it's a problem with how Smith sets up the team. His record at Brentford and Walsall would seem to back this up.

[andym]

Interestingly on the 'he can't organise a defence', Brentford let in 14 in 12 games under him this season (not amazing but not horrendous considering that included playing sides with decent forward players in us, Leeds, Derby, Forest and Stoke).

Last season they let in 52, which was 9th best (they finished 9th as well), and the likes of Derby let in 48, Fulham who got promoted 46.

2016/17 they let in 65 which looks bad, but that season has some quite odd goals against stats overall - Reading who finished 3rd let in 64, Huddersfield in 5th and Fulham in 6th 58 and 57 respectively, Norwich who finished 2 places higher than Brentford in 8th let in 69.

He's quite clearly not going to make us top of the defensive stats, but i don't think he's completely clueless, and he's going to have access to better resources here than he did at Brentford, who seemed to sell their good defenders every year.

The bigger concern lately for me has been how disjointed we have looked going forwards, given the standard of players we have at that end of the pitch, and that attacking is Smith's supposed strength.

 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, andym said:

Interestingly on the 'he can't organise a defence', Brentford let in 14 in 12 games under him this season (not amazing but not horrendous considering that included playing sides with decent forward players in us, Leeds, Derby, Forest and Stoke).

Meh, you know nothing, truth is if DS can't get Alan Hutton, a crippled Chester and Neil blinkin Taylor performing as the young athletic world class defenders we know they truly are then he's got to go. End of. Period. Do the math. 

[villaglint]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But they didn't all just suddenly become shit in 3 months. Clearly they've been poorly managed/organised this season, by both managers.

In my opinion, Bruce had lost it by this season. I don't think he wanted the job anymore and I don't think the players were fully playing for him as a result.

 

With Smith, I don't think he puts enough emphasis on defence. That won't go down well in the "ATTACK! FORWARD!!!" world of VT, but I think it's true. I think we have enough in attack even without Grealish to play a dedicated DM which would help to protect the defence. Granted the personnel aren't ideal but I think it's a problem with how Smith sets up the team. His record at Brentford and Walsall would seem to back this up.

I think thats a fair enough view Stevo the only thing I'd add is that Smith is playing the hand he's been dealt. 

He's had to play an injured Chester for the last 5/6 games which has cost us a lot of goals and really stopped the playing out from the back game as he's giving it away so much. You could argue Hause could have played the last two but presumably he's not fit enough to play 90mins otherwise I have no idea why he isnt playing as Chester certainly shouldn't be playing injured in my view. 

On Taylor who has also been at fault for multiple games you could argue he should have played Hutton there but in fairness he tried that and it felt us short at RB. With Hutton/Taylor we are short on both sides. Maybe we should have filled at least the LB slot sooner but no easy in Jan. window. 

With regards to DM unless I'm mistaken he's only fit options have been Whelan, Hourihane and Bjarnasson. He's tried them all at times and they've all been pretty pants. I think his style demands more from a DM and you could say that's a fault of his. However theyve all been shown up as incapable of playing the role in the way we need. 

 

 

[Stevo985]

Just now, Jareth said:

Meh, you know nothing, truth is if DS can't get Alan Hutton, a crippled Chester and Neil blinkin Taylor performing as the young athletic world class defenders we know they truly are then he's got to go. End of. Period. Do the math. 

[villalad21]

Regarding the defense.

Telling the defenders to pass it in our own half, even when under pressure haven't helped the likes of Elmo. I've seen Elmo play stupid passes in defense which have costed us, last season he would have cleared it out for a throw.

The same can be said about Chester. Chester isn't a ball playing defender, not surprised he isn't playing well under DS. 

I just think alot of our players isn't suited for DS style of play. It's just a misfit. It worked well when Jack and Axel was fit, but without them we fall apart.

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Elmo, Chester and Hutton were three quarters of one of the best defences in the league last season. 

I think that ignores the massive impact having a shit keeper has. Losing johnstone for nyland was an incredible step down in talent. 

 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

I think that ignores the massive impact having a shit keeper has. Losing johnstone for nyland was an incredible step down in talent. 

 

Yep. that's a fair point.

But I think a lot of the issues the defenders have had this season have been outside of a good goalkeeper's control.

But yeah, the goals conceded column will definitely have been affected by the shit keeper we've had. 

[Merson08]

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I think that ignores the massive impact having a shit keeper has. Losing johnstone for nyland was an incredible step down in talent. 

 

The bigger issue was losing Terry. The leader and organiser of the defence. Also the whole team ethos has changed from 11 defenders to attempting attacking football, we may be failing at it, but were attempting it.

The issues is far bigger than a 'shit keeper'

[villalad21]

29 minutes ago, Merson08 said:

The bigger issue was losing Terry. The leader and organiser of the defence.

Meh. I remember when Terry was out injured last season, our defense remained solid at the back during that period.

I'm not saying he weren't a miss but our defense for sure didn't fall apart.

 

[DCJonah]

31 minutes ago, Merson08 said:

The bigger issue was losing Terry. The leader and organiser of the defence. Also the whole team ethos has changed from 11 defenders to attempting attacking football, we may be failing at it, but were attempting it.

The issues is far bigger than a 'shit keeper'

Agreed, wasn't saying it was all down to a keeper. 

[KentVillan]

4 hours ago, hippo said:

What other clubs has this generally been postive for ?

what actually is it we have done that suggests some long term strategy is in place ?

As far as I can see we have sacked bruce and brought in smith...

not that I would know a long term strategy if there was one - nor do I want to criticise the new owners - but how do you know such a plan is in place. ...Stoke have appointed Nathan Jones recently ...is that a long term plan ?

personally I dont think long terms plans exist ...if DS doesnt cut it next season ..hes off...

What other clubs has this generally been positive for? I get the impression from stuff I have seen and heard in the media, and from a little bit of inside knowledge of the football industry, that the following clubs have done this:

• Man City: brought in a whole load of Barcelona backroom staff well before Guardiola arrived, and already had a lot of his training and youth development philosophies in place. Yes they have infinite money for transfers, but there was a clear focus on an intense, possession style from Pellegrini -> Guardiola
• Liverpool: Purslow arrived at Liverpool in 2009, and excluding the disastrous Hodgson experiment, there seems to have been some continuity from Dalglish -> Rodgers -> Klopp, not so much in playing style, but in transfer strategy (looking for underpriced younger players, selling world class talent like Suarez, Coutinho to raise funds, rather than chasing marquee signings)
• Leicester: this one involved a lot of luck, rather than a clear strategy, but clearly the foundations were laid down by Pearson and Ranieri continued the project.
• Southampton: have a read of this on Southampton's sustainable youth development and transfer policy, which has been going for years (Bale, Walcott, ... all the way through to Van Dijk) - https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/analysing-southamptons-successful-transfer-policy 
• Swansea - the current owners have ballsed it up, but from around 2007-16 they were the model of a club with a long-term vision. Martinez -> Rodgers -> Laudrup again brought a consistent playing style, and really until the club plateaued under Laudrup, they were one of the biggest success stories in club football
• Huddersfield - let's see how the new manager does, but they look to be another club overachieving because of sensible leadership
• Brentford - great moneyball approach to transfers and analytics has helped them punch above their weight - but moneyball works best if you know what type of players suit your system... so you need a consistent system

Other clubs have achieved a long-term plan under a single manager - Spurs, Wolves, Bournemouth, Burnley, Brighton - so of course in an ideal world, we could do that too, with Smith seeing it right through to Champions League success.

Of course a long-term plan can mean lots of things. It can be a stupidly ambitious aim to win Champions League in 5 years, or it can be a bunch of specific policies that are executed properly by competent people. A "long-term transfer policy" just means you buy low and sell high, so that in future you can keep reinvesting those profits in better players. That means signing and developing youth, and selling players in their late 20s / early 30s while they still have some transfer value. A "long-term investment strategy" means investing in good training facilities behind the scenes, investing in players' long-term mental and physical health, etc. All the small stuff that you can't see on matchday, but adds up over time to a successful team.

Contrast this with teams like Villa, Man Utd, Newcastle, West Ham. What do you see with all of these teams? Lots of players with attitude problems, underperforming, no consistent style, lots of managerial changes, lots of rumours about problems behind the scenes.

My point is that in a well-run club, the long-term plan and the manager don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand. This is why you quoting statistics about average tenure of managers only proves my point. When you have a good plan for a club, it is set it up so that you can review the manager's job at the end of the season, with minimal disruption to the club - rather than having some huge panic sacking and then bringing in Tony Pulis.

What actually is it that we have done that suggests some long term strategy is in place? Purslow arrival, director of football appointment, bigger focus on youth, clear playing philosophy... all the stuff that Purslow has been saying in interviews about why they brought Smith in, and what is happening behind the scenes at the club, e.g. Purslow at the AGM... this sounds like "long-term strategy" to me:

“It was a huge priority of the new owners to clean up the financial position of the club. The first stage had been to remove the debt from the balance sheet. 

This has been achieved with the significant equity investment by Sawiris and Edens. The second stage is to reduce the operating losses, this was now being addressed with the aim of dramatically reducing the average age and average cost of the playing squad.”

Is that enough evidence? I can keep going, but this is turning into an essay. And as I said, I'm not trying to defend Smith - I just think he deserves time. Sensible time to get rid of him would be summer 2020 if we underperform next season. Then he'll have no excuses.

Edited January 23, 2019 by KentVillan

[hippo]

6 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

What other clubs has this generally been positive for? I get the impression from stuff I have seen and heard in the media, and from a little bit of inside knowledge of the football industry, that the following clubs have done this:

• Man City: brought in a whole load of Barcelona backroom staff well before Guardiola arrived, and already had a lot of his training and youth development philosophies in place. Yes they have infinite money for transfers, but there was a clear focus on an intense, possession style from Pellegrini -> Guardiola
• Liverpool: Purslow arrived at Liverpool in 2009, and excluding the disastrous Hodgson experiment, there seems to have been some continuity from Dalglish -> Rodgers -> Klopp, not so much in playing style, but in transfer strategy (looking for underpriced younger players, selling world class talent like Suarez, Coutinho to raise funds, rather than chasing marquee signings)
• Leicester: this one involved a lot of luck, rather than a clear strategy, but clearly the foundations were laid down by Pearson and Ranieri continued the project.
• Southampton: have a read of this on Southampton's sustainable youth development and transfer policy, which has been going for years (Bale, Walcott, ... all the way through to Van Dijk) - https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/analysing-southamptons-successful-transfer-policy 
• Swansea - the current owners have ballsed it up, but from around 2007-16 they were the model of a club with a long-term vision. Martinez -> Rodgers -> Laudrup again brought a consistent playing style, and really until the club plateaued under Laudrup, they were one of the biggest success stories in club football
• Huddersfield - let's see how the new manager does, but they look to be another club overachieving because of sensible leadership
• Brentford - great moneyball approach to transfers and analytics has helped them punch above their weight - but moneyball works best if you know what type of players suit your system... so you need a consistent system

Other clubs have achieved a long-term plan under a single manager - Spurs, Wolves, Bournemouth, Burnley, Brighton - so of course in an ideal world, we could do that too, with Smith seeing it right through to Champions League success.

Of course a long-term plan can mean lots of things. It can be a stupidly ambitious

Contrast these teams with us, Man Utd, Newcastle, West Ham. What do you see with all of these teams? Lots of players with attitude problems, underperforming, no consistent style, lots of managerial changes.

My point is that in a well-run club, the long-term plan and the manager don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand. This is why you quoting statistics about average tenure of managers only proves my point. When you have a good plan for a club, it is set it up so that you can review the manager's job at the end of the season, with minimal disruption to the club - rather than having some huge panic sacking and then bringing in Tony Pulis.

What actually is it that we have done that suggests some long term strategy is in place? Purslow arrival, director of football appointment, bigger focus on youth, clear playing philosophy... all the stuff that Purslow has been saying in interviews about why they brought Smith in, and what is happening behind the scenes at the club, e.g. Purslow at the AGM... this sounds like "long-term strategy" to me:

“It was a huge priority of the new owners to clean up the financial position of the club. The first stage had been to remove the debt from the balance sheet. 

This has been achieved with the significant equity investment by Sawiris and Edens. The second stage is to reduce the operating losses, this was now being addressed with the aim of dramatically reducing the average age and average cost of the playing squad.”

Is that enough evidence? I can keep going, but this is turning into an essay. And as I said, I'm not trying to defend Smith - I just think he deserves time. Sensible time to get rid of him would be summer 2020 if we underperform next season. Then he'll have no excuses.

The vast majority of those clubs I would say have made good managerial appointments. Were Eddie Howe to jump ship and join us I would feel a lot more optimistic as we would have a decent coach in place.  

 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

12 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

What other clubs has this generally been positive for? I get the impression from stuff I have seen and heard in the media, and from a little bit of inside knowledge of the football industry, that the following clubs have done this:

• Man City: brought in a whole load of Barcelona backroom staff well before Guardiola arrived, and already had a lot of his training and youth development philosophies in place. Yes they have infinite money for transfers, but there was a clear focus on an intense, possession style from Pellegrini -> Guardiola
• Liverpool: Purslow arrived at Liverpool in 2009, and excluding the disastrous Hodgson experiment, there seems to have been some continuity from Dalglish -> Rodgers -> Klopp, not so much in playing style, but in transfer strategy (looking for underpriced younger players, selling world class talent like Suarez, Coutinho to raise funds, rather than chasing marquee signings)
• Leicester: this one involved a lot of luck, rather than a clear strategy, but clearly the foundations were laid down by Pearson and Ranieri continued the project.
• Southampton: have a read of this on Southampton's sustainable youth development and transfer policy, which has been going for years (Bale, Walcott, ... all the way through to Van Dijk) - https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/analysing-southamptons-successful-transfer-policy 
• Swansea - the current owners have ballsed it up, but from around 2007-16 they were the model of a club with a long-term vision. Martinez -> Rodgers -> Laudrup again brought a consistent playing style, and really until the club plateaued under Laudrup, they were one of the biggest success stories in club football
• Huddersfield - let's see how the new manager does, but they look to be another club overachieving because of sensible leadership
• Brentford - great moneyball approach to transfers and analytics has helped them punch above their weight - but moneyball works best if you know what type of players suit your system... so you need a consistent system

Other clubs have achieved a long-term plan under a single manager - Spurs, Wolves, Bournemouth, Burnley, Brighton - so of course in an ideal world, we could do that too, with Smith seeing it right through to Champions League success.

Of course a long-term plan can mean lots of things. It can be a stupidly ambitious aim to win Champions League in 5 years, or it can be a bunch of specific policies that are executed properly by competent people. A "long-term transfer policy" just means you buy low and sell high, so that in future you can keep reinvesting those profits in better players. That means signing and developing youth, and selling players in their late 20s / early 30s while they still have some transfer value. A "long-term investment strategy" means investing in good training facilities behind the scenes, investing in players' long-term mental and physical health, etc. All the small stuff that you can't see on matchday, but adds up over time to a successful team.

Contrast this with teams like Villa, Man Utd, Newcastle, West Ham. What do you see with all of these teams? Lots of players with attitude problems, underperforming, no consistent style, lots of managerial changes, lots of rumours about problems behind the scenes.

My point is that in a well-run club, the long-term plan and the manager don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand. This is why you quoting statistics about average tenure of managers only proves my point. When you have a good plan for a club, it is set it up so that you can review the manager's job at the end of the season, with minimal disruption to the club - rather than having some huge panic sacking and then bringing in Tony Pulis.

What actually is it that we have done that suggests some long term strategy is in place? Purslow arrival, director of football appointment, bigger focus on youth, clear playing philosophy... all the stuff that Purslow has been saying in interviews about why they brought Smith in, and what is happening behind the scenes at the club, e.g. Purslow at the AGM... this sounds like "long-term strategy" to me:

“It was a huge priority of the new owners to clean up the financial position of the club. The first stage had been to remove the debt from the balance sheet. 

This has been achieved with the significant equity investment by Sawiris and Edens. The second stage is to reduce the operating losses, this was now being addressed with the aim of dramatically reducing the average age and average cost of the playing squad.”

Is that enough evidence? I can keep going, but this is turning into an essay. And as I said, I'm not trying to defend Smith - I just think he deserves time. Sensible time to get rid of him would be summer 2020 if we underperform next season. Then he'll have no excuses.

I'll answer this whole post for him:

"But Smith is shit"

EDIT: Beat me to it.

Edited January 23, 2019 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[hippo]

1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

I'll answer this whole post for him.

"But Smith is shit"

Yep - the truth sometimes hurts. 

[Merson08]

15 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Meh. I remember when Terry was out injured last season, our defense remained solid at the back during that period.

I'm not saying he weren't a miss but our defense for sure didn't fall apart.

 

During the period of his injury our record was 4 W - 3 D - 3 L. Back inside the team over the next 12 games was 10 W - 1 D - 1 L. 

A hell of a transformation. 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

28 minutes ago, Merson08 said:

During the period of his injury our record was 4 W - 3 D - 3 L. Back inside the team over the next 12 games was 10 W - 1 D - 1 L. 

A hell of a transformation. 

Actual footage of Hippo - Lad21 looking at how to spin this.

Edited January 23, 2019 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[KMitch]

Why are you guys feeding the troll?  He's avoiding responding to any sensible responses...