Dean Smith

[bannedfromHandV]

You can’t argue the result, stats don’t lie and they had us under pressure for most of the game - without carving us open regularly though, save for one or two moments.

First half we looked really dangerous on the break, I was surprised by the team selection too but seeing Elmo and Trezeguet linking up in that first half went some way to justifying it.

Second half yes they improved but I think we tired rapidly from 65 minutes on, my only slight criticism of Smith on the day is that I think we should have brought on fresh legs in the middle sooner, I’d have taken Hourihane and Grealish off (easy with hindsight). This was typified in seeing Jack losing the ball in dangerous positions, something you don’t usually see.

Defence looked good though, Engels, Mings and Heaton looked superb in particular. Big wake up call and introduction to the PL for Wesley and El Ghazi - they need to toughen up and sharpen up quickly to adapt.

[villalad21]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

You can’t argue the result, stats don’t lie and they had us under pressure for most of the game - without carving us open regularly though, save for one or two moments.

First half we looked really dangerous on the break, I was surprised by the team selection too but seeing Elmo and Trezeguet linking up in that first half went some way to justifying it.

Second half yes they improved but I think we tired rapidly from 65 minutes on, my only slight criticism of Smith on the day is that I think we should have brought on fresh legs in the middle sooner, I’d have taken Hourihane and Grealish off (easy with hindsight). This was typified in seeing Jack losing the ball in dangerous positions, something you don’t usually see.

Defence looked good though, Engels, Mings and Heaton looked superb in particular. Big wake up call and introduction to the PL for Wesley and El Ghazi - they need to toughen up and sharpen up quickly to adapt.

They didn't really cut us open too much though.

They had alot of shots outside the box, but not too many clear cut chances. Grealish mistake costed us the game.

[hippo]

2 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Bournemouth is an established Premier League side.

I certainly don't expect a win against them. We need to have a bit of realism 

Yes it certainly won't be easy. Although one of the lesser sides they are battled hardened experienced PL team. We will have to be at our very best.

(They must have great CBs if Ming's couldn't get in the team)

[DaveAV1]

8 or 10 years ago, early Lerner period we were about level, perhaps slightly above Spurs and Everton. Since then Everton have pretty much stood still, run in a competent manner but not really made any progress. Spurs have been run extremely well and have moved on very well and are now becoming an established Champions League club. We have lurched from crisis to crisis in exactly the opposite direction as Spurs.

Now I don’t necessarily believe that it will take 10 years to get back where we were in relation to them, but it will take time and patience. We have the right owners who have put in place a structure and philosophy that with the right people should, and already has, take us forward relatively quickly. Spurs have a we’ll establish squad with an excellent manager that has been in place for a few years and this is all under the overall control of Daniel Levy, who is nobody’s fool. The similarities are already there as far as set up is concerned but we will need time to start seeing the fruits of our labour. We should be excited by the future but realistic as to a time scale. We will progress and there won’t be any lack of ambition from the top but nothing is guaranteed. Man City for all their ambition and cash over quite a long time period now have still been European Champions once less than us. 

Dean Smith, the coaching staff, players, Christian Purslow, NSWE, in fact everyone at the club will learn and improve. We have the right people but you can’t buy time. 

[briny_ear]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

Part of the problem here is expectations.

From Poll.

Managers Performance - Poor = 10 Votes...for getting within 10 minutes or so of beating CL finalists. (Smith).

Managers Performance - Poor = 5 Votes...for getting beaten 4-1 Away at Sheffield United last season in one of the most embarrassing and insipid showings I’ve seen from us. ( Bruce).

That, to me, says some people’s expectations have sky rocketed.

Unless anyone actually thinks the two performances were similar ?

I wonder if a problem with this post is in fact context?

When you look at those two votes, the results for Smith v Spurs (so far) are:

Very Good - 3 (1.18%)

Good - 131 (51.57%)

Average - 110 (43.31%)

Poor - 10 (3.94%)

Very Poor - 0 (0%)

By contrast, Bruce’s ratings for Sheff U away were:

Very Good - 0 (0%)

Good - 0 (0%)

Average - 2 (2.02%)

Poor - 5 (5.05%)

Very Poor - 92 (92.93%)

So, no, I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that people were rating Dean Smith’s performance yesterday as worse than Bruce’s against Sheff U. The vote was a massive thumbs up for Smith compared with a massive  thumbs down for Bruce!

Even if for some bizarre reason you just chose to compare only the number of votes for “Poor”, Bruce got a higher percentage than Smith in that category.

Expectations are of course higher, and rightly so. We are in a higher league and have just spent well over £100m on new squad players. I suspect most people agree with Smith's own assessment, that we started well but fell away disappointingly in the second half, and that needs to be worked on.

 

[momo]

Well, Dean Smith's second half tactics weren't good enough. You can say he lacks PL experience. It's a bit about the substitutions, the formation and the bench. The midfield was overrun, all of the second half. Maybe Villa should have played more narrow. Maybe the bench should consist of more versatile players, maybe both Luiz and Lansbury should have come on earlier to help out and play Grealish further up. I don't know, but Smith should try to make use of a variation of formations and game plans as the game progress.

 

[Sulberto21]

I think the second half needed fresher legs sooner. But too many of the players got tired. The one alarming thing for me was the difference in physical strength. They bullied us physically at times.

The coaches need to get this addressed asap. Maybe get a few rugby strength and conditioning coaches. If not then some of those strongmen can toughen our boys up.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, terrytini said:

Part of the problem here is expectations.

From Poll.

Managers Performance - Poor = 10 Votes...for getting within 10 minutes or so of beating CL finalists. (Smith).

Managers Performance - Poor = 5 Votes...for getting beaten 4-1 Away at Sheffield United last season in one of the most embarrassing and insipid showings I’ve seen from us. ( Bruce).

That, to me, says some people’s expectations have sky rocketed.

Unless anyone actually thinks the two performances were similar ?

This might be the most selective use of stats I've ever seen  

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, briny_ear said:

I wonder if a problem with this post is in fact context?

When you look at those two votes, the results for Smith v Spurs (so far) are:

Very Good - 3 (1.18%)

Good - 131 (51.57%)

Average - 110 (43.31%)

Poor - 10 (3.94%)

Very Poor - 0 (0%)

By contrast, Bruce’s ratings for Sheff U away were:

Very Good - 0 (0%)

Good - 0 (0%)

Average - 2 (2.02%)

Poor - 5 (5.05%)

Very Poor - 92 (92.93%)

So, no, I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that people were rating Dean Smith’s performance yesterday as worse than Bruce’s against Sheff U. The vote was a massive thumbs up for Smith compared with a massive  thumbs down for Bruce!

Even if for some bizarre reason you just chose to compare only the number of votes for “Poor”, Bruce got a higher percentage than Smith in that category.

Expectations are of course higher, and rightly so. We are in a higher league and have just spent well over £100m on new squad players. I suspect most people agree with Smith's own assessment, that we started well but fell away disappointingly in the second half, and that needs to be worked on.

[KenjiOgiwara]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

You can’t argue the result, stats don’t lie and they had us under pressure for most of the game 

I don't agree with that. They were deserved winners and crushed us second half, but first half was pretty even, and with the risk of being biased I thought we were the better team. 

Edited August 11, 2019 by KenjiOgiwara

[StefanAVFC]

We just need to win 10/38 games this year. Away at Spurs will not define our season. 

[briny_ear]

19 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

We just need to win 10/38 games this year. Away at Spurs will not define our season. 

Um, 10 wins gives us 30 points. Is that enough?

I prefer to look at it in terms of learning to preserve your advantage when you gain it. We were leading against Spurs and looked quite comfortable early on. Even when they equalised it seemed reasonable that we might preserve the point but we wilted a bit badly. Looks like we need to get a bit smarter in this aspect.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, briny_ear said:

Um, 10 wins gives us 30 points. Is that enough?

I prefer to look at it in terms of learning to preserve your advantage when you gain it. We were leading against Spurs and looked quite comfortable early on. Even when they equalised it seemed reasonable that we might preserve the point but we wilted a bit badly. Looks like we need to get a bit smarter in this aspect.

I’m assuming Stefan isn’t saying we’ll lose the other 28. 

10 wins is enough assuming we’ll pick up draws along the way. 

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I’m assuming Stefan isn’t saying we’ll lose the other 28. 

10 wins is enough assuming we’ll pick up draws along the way. 

Exactly. 

[briny_ear]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Exactly. 

Well, not really "exactly".

Assuming the usual benchmark of 40 points to ensure survival, we "just" need to win 10, draw 10 and only lose 18 or some combimation thereof. That doesn't feel so reassuring.

Have I missed something? Is this national "Let's Be Imprecise With Statistics" Day? This thread is certainly doing its bit!

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, momo said:

Well, Dean Smith's second half tactics weren't good enough. You can say he lacks PL experience. It's a bit about the substitutions, the formation and the bench. The midfield was overrun, all of the second half. Maybe Villa should have played more narrow. Maybe the bench should consist of more versatile players, maybe both Luiz and Lansbury should have come on earlier to help out and play Grealish further up. I don't know, but Smith should try to make use of a variation of formations and game plans as the game progress.

 

And we would still have lost most likely.  The only thing I'd have done in hindsight would have Guilbert on the bench to bring on for Trezeguet, rather than Jota.  I thought Dean got the rest just about right, including the choice of full backs which most of us were shitting ourselves over when we saw the teamsheet.

[momo]

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

And we would still have lost most likely.  The only thing I'd have done in hindsight would have Guilbert on the bench to bring on for Trezeguet, rather than Jota.  I thought Dean got the rest just about right, including the choice of full backs which most of us were shitting ourselves over when we saw the teamsheet.

Maybe so...but none of the substitutions worked out. Tottenham changed tactics, while Villa never countered those.

[Stevo985]

21 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

Well, not really "exactly".

Assuming the usual benchmark of 40 points to ensure survival, we "just" need to win 10, draw 10 and only lose 18 or some combimation thereof. That doesn't feel so reassuring.

Have I missed something? Is this national "Let's Be Imprecise With Statistics" Day? This thread is certainly doing its bit!

It's national "use your common sense" day.

He's saying aim to win 10 games and assuming you pick up draws along the way you'll do enough. I'd be very surprised if you can find many, if any, examples of teams that have won 10 games in the premier league and still gone down.

I didn't really think it was that complicated.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Stevo985

[KenjiOgiwara]

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's national "use your common sense" day.

He's saying aim to win 10 games and assuming you pick up draws along the way you'll do enough. I'd be very surprised if you can find many, if any, examples of teams that have won 10 games in the premier league and still gone down.

I didn't really think it was that complicated.

Think you are in for a surprise there. I just went back one season and from what I can see Cardiff had 10 wins. 

[briny_ear]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's national "use your common sense" day.

He's saying aim to win 10 games and assuming you pick up draws along the way you'll do enough. I'd be very surprised if you can find many, if any, examples of teams that have won 10 games in the premier league and still gone down.

I didn't really think it was that complicated.

It wasn’t at all complicated, just inaccurate. 

Also not really worth spending any more time  on.