Dean Smith

[DCJonah]

4 minutes ago, Indigo said:

To be honest I think if he takes off Barkley and Traore to bring on Nakamba and Trezeguet, two players with significantly less technical ability, we concede possession with greater frequency and only serve to invite even more pressure on. Swings and roundabouts really.

There were several times in the second half where the ball came to Barkley and he was able to either carry the ball up the pitch himself to relieve the pressure or link with Jack who is obviously the best in the league at doing just that. It's just as important a part of game management as having as many defensively-minded players on the pitch as possible and our lack of players with such quality is probably part of the reason Sanson came in, who when more up to speed will also be why we could see some more rotation that some clearly crave.

Yep. Exactly my thoughts during the game. 

[ozvillafan]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

You said its a point he needs to improve on? 

Well if you're only interested in the last game, his decisions won us the game. So yes, you are inventing situations to claim he needs to improve

Its mind blowing stuff  

It's really not that mind blowing: Yes - he needs to improve, as everyone does. Nobody is perfect - I didn't invent that situation!

Again - don't mistake criticism for ungratefulness. Smith is doing a bang on job - but there is room for improvement and I think criticism is warranted in this case.

I'd just be going in circles stating the benefits again, because you seem to ignore them. And Smith did too. He managed to get a result which I - and some people in your position - believe was lucky.

I just happen to believe we wouldn't have needed as much luck if substitutions were made - probably the simplest and most important thing a manager can do during a game to influence the outcome. But it seems to be a point you are unwilling to concede - and I'm not entirely sure why.

 

[Mazrim]

1 minute ago, zab6359 said:

Not IMO no it's not, we don't have enough strength in depth yet.

I agree, we still lack some depth. It would be an amazing effort and I'm not really expecting it. But its definitely possible as things stand. Even top 4 is possible.

[DCJonah]

5 minutes ago, ozvillafan said:

It's really not that mind blowing: Yes - he needs to improve, as everyone does. Nobody is perfect - I didn't invent that situation!

Again - don't mistake criticism for ungratefulness. Smith is doing a bang on job - but there is room for improvement and I think criticism is warranted in this case.

I'd just be going in circles stating the benefits again, because you seem to ignore them. And Smith did too. He managed to get a result which I - and some people in your position - believe was lucky.

I just happen to believe we wouldn't have needed as much luck if substitutions were made - probably the simplest and most important thing a manager can do during a game to influence the outcome. But it seems to be a point you are unwilling to concede - and I'm not entirely sure why.

 

There are plenty of posters who have said they would have liked a sub last night, and I've felt no need to respond because its a fair opinion to hold. 

The issue is when people start claiming its a flaw, or that its an area he needs to improve, or in this case, we got lucky because we didn't make a sub. Quite frankly that's based on nothing. Its utter horseshit. Its this desperation to have a moan masquerading as constructive criticism. 

You have your reasons why you thought a sub was needed. As @Indigoput on the previous page, and as Dean himself said, there are other reasons why they weren't.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by DCJonah

[ozvillafan]

6 minutes ago, Indigo said:

To be honest I think if he takes off Barkley and Traore to bring on Nakamba and Trezeguet, two players with significantly less technical ability, we concede possession with greater frequency and only serve to invite even more pressure on. Swings and roundabouts really.

There were several times in the second half where the ball came to Barkley and he was able to either carry the ball up the pitch himself to relieve the pressure or link with Jack who is obviously the best in the league at doing just that. It's just as important a part of game management as having as many defensively-minded players on the pitch as possible and our lack of players with such quality is probably part of the reason Sanson came in, who when more up to speed will also be why we could see some more rotation that some clearly crave.

Interesting.

I'd not bring Nakamba on for either Traore or Barkley. But for an ineffective McGinn? In a heartbeat.

Traore barely touched the ball in the last 20 minutes - 1 of which was another sliced clearance that landed in our box. Trez would bring energy and a headache for Bertrand.

I would have swapped Anwar for Barkely, and then swapped him with Grealish.

That's 2 underpar players leaving the pitch for fresh legs in the same role, and our best outlet in a better position to receive the outball.

Still.... it's all about opinions, eh?

[MotoMkali]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

What a strange response using the 5 sub rule discussion to validate your point.  Using a tangent topic to validate a point seems to be that you are running out of arguments to prove your point.

I wasn't talking about 5 subs rule. 

Every other manager regularly uses subs. 

[DCJonah]

2 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

I wasn't talking about 5 subs rule. 

Every other manager regularly uses subs. 

How many games this season have we not used subs?

[Indigo]

5 minutes ago, ozvillafan said:

Interesting.

I'd not bring Nakamba on for either Traore or Barkley. But for an ineffective McGinn? In a heartbeat.

Traore barely touched the ball in the last 20 minutes - 1 of which was another sliced clearance that landed in our box. Trez would bring energy and a headache for Bertrand.

I would have swapped Anwar for Barkely, and then swapped him with Grealish.

That's 2 underpar players leaving the pitch for fresh legs in the same role, and our best outlet in a better position to receive the outball.

Still.... it's all about opinions, eh?

Don't disagree with you, and I mean we are ultimately just speculating what hypothetically could have worked, was just specifically talking about that would-be change as I've seen it mentioned a couple of times across last night/today.

I just think there's logic in Smith having not made any changes as well as suggesting that maybe certain combinations of substitutions would have been useful. Some of the shouts over the past day or so that are suggesting that Smith has been negligent in some way are off the mark and not giving him enough credit, credit he's more than earned by this stage. That's my only strong opinion on it really.

[ozvillafan]

10 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

There are plenty of posters who have said they would have liked a sub last night, and I've felt no need to respond because its a fair opinion to hold. 

The issue is when people start claiming its a flaw, or that its an area he needs to improve, or in this case, we got lucky because we didn't make a sub. Quite frankly that's based on nothing. Its utter horseshit. Its this desperation to have a moan masquerading as constructive criticism. 

You have your reasons why you thought a sub was needed. As @Indigoput on the previous page, and as Dean himself said, there are other reasons why they weren't.

 

 

sigh

Ok -  I bow out at this point. Not once can I get across to you the benefits of subs and how they would have helped. At the very base level, it wastes time. That reduces the opportunities Southampton would have - thereby reducing any "luck" Southampton would have had.

However, you simply dismiss that legitimate use of substitutes as "utter horseshit" if we'd been shrewd in their use. And then claim I'm having a moan, rather than being constructive.

Well played. Good night.

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, ozvillafan said:

sigh

Ok -  I bow out at this point. Not once can I get across to you the benefits of subs and how they would have helped. At the very base level, it wastes time. That reduces the opportunities Southampton would have - thereby reducing any "luck" Southampton would have had.

However, you simply dismiss that legitimate use of substitutes as "utter horseshit" if we'd been shrewd in their use. And then claim I'm having a moan, rather than being constructive.

Well played. Good night.

Of course there are benefits. Like I've just said, I've got no issues with people who would have liked a sub last night. However there are also risks, I could say the same to you in terms of dismissing them. 

The issue is when people like yourself act as though your idea of making a sub would clearly impact the game in a positive way. And then use that nonsense to talk about how Dean Smith is flawed or needs to improve. 

Of course its a moan. His in game management have us where we are. The need to criticise that after a win has nothing constructive about it. 

[Five Ken McNaughts]

1 hour ago, ozvillafan said:

I'd not bring Nakamba on for either Traore or Barkley. But for an ineffective McGinn? In a heartbeat.

Traore barely touched the ball in the last 20 minutes - 1 of which was another sliced clearance that landed in our box. Trez would bring energy and a headache for Bertrand.

I would have swapped Anwar for Barkely, and then swapped him with Grealish.

For what it’s worth, I like the sound of that.

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, Mazrim said:

I agree, we still lack some depth. It would be an amazing effort and I'm not really expecting it. But its definitely possible as things stand. Even top 4 is possible.

Strength in depth doesn’t matter if you don’t make subs

In seriousness, whilst I think it made sense to freshen things up yesterday, playing devil’s advocate here if we’re saying our depth is poor, it kind of makes sense that we’re not reaching into it, no? 
 

Kind of working around the frailty as it were. You could then argue that we’re going to pay for it later with tired legs, but that’s a different argument really, and we are not seeing what is being done on the training ground regarding fitness. In fairness, everyone was saying how Barkley looked a bit unfit after his injury, but how much good will the extra minutes do him? I reckon he’ll have benefitted ultimately.

[nick76]

22 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Strength in depth doesn’t matter if you don’t make subs

In seriousness, whilst I think it made sense to freshen things up yesterday, playing devil’s advocate here if we’re saying our depth is poor, it kind of makes sense that we’re not reaching into it, no? 
 

Kind of working around the frailty as it were. You could then argue that we’re going to pay for it later with tired legs, but that’s a different argument really, and we are not seeing what is being done on the training ground regarding fitness. In fairness, everyone was saying how Barkley looked a bit unfit after his injury, but how much good will the extra minutes do him? I reckon he’ll have benefitted ultimately.

Also we only have the league games, our competitors a mixture of League cup, FA Cup and European games to play.  We will only play, what 42 games in all competitions this season whereas top teams if they advance in domestic and european cup competitions will be playing closer to 60 games and more, so we have natural breaks because we dont do well in the domestic cups and are not in the European games (yet )

[KentVillan]

When we had a deeper squad in the Championship, Smith did make subs, and changed the starting lineup quite often. Here’s how I think he sees it:

1. Don’t change a settled defence that’s been keeping clean sheets. So there’s no room for rotation in the back 5.

2. Our schedule is fairly manageable compared to a lot of our rivals. First team are only really playing PL games, and we’ve only played 19 so far. Nobody should be burning out at this stage (with the caveat that Covid may have hit one or two players hard).

3. There’s no point in subbing off a fit player if the player you’re bringing on makes the team worse, and the game is still in the balance.

4. Reward players for good performances with match time.

5. Players will have enforced breaks anyway through minor injuries and suspensions.

6. All the players are wearing those tracking vests, so the coaches will know better than us who is fatigued. He can’t just be completely missing it. There must be some logic to it, because we know Smith isn’t the type to just ignore things.

So based on that logic, if Sanson is as good as we think he is, then there will start to be a strong argument for using subs earlier in centre mid.

I can also see some arguments for rotating Trez and Traore. But it’s a debatable one isn’t it? Trez isn’t world class and for all his effort, he can be very wasteful in possession. Traore played himself into form and can’t be burnt out after only 15 games. He does things that Trez just isn’t capable of.

Beyond those decisions, you really are talking about bringing on weaker players. Nakamba was decent against Newcastle yes - not exactly the most taxing opponents were they?

So it’s a bit unfair to keep hammering Smith on this point. One more transfer window and it’ll be like the old “Smith can’t coach a defence”... is my guess anyway.

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

3. There’s no point in subbing off a fit player if the player you’re bringing on makes the team worse, and the game is still in the balance.

A very good post. Just on this bit, though. There can be a point in subbing off a fit player...etc. if it's to change tactics - you might be a goal down and need to gamble on an extra forward, even if the sub forward isn't as a good a player as the midfielder he replaces. Or you may wish to show up the midfield and sub off a winger...whatever. The thing here is that Deano is one of those "I'd rather score another, than settle for what we have" managers, which is great. And that's (I think) a reason why he leaves forwards or midfielders on, rather than bringing on the likes of Marvellous or Trez, even though they might be better defensively.

[KentVillan]

Agreed @blandyyes it needn’t be a like-for-like swap in terms of attributes etc but it needs to have a point to it beyond just “fresh legs” (unless of course a player really is finished and needs replacing - which we might see more of as the season wears in).

Another point I should have made is the age of the squad. Younger players recover more quickly and can handle this volume of games more easily.

[OLDVILLAIN]

It has been suggested that the reason he did not make any subs late on was because of the way that southampton were set up.

It would have taken any sub a while to get used to the southampton shape which in fairness was very unique.

Im on the bench for this one,we did need fresh legs for sure but we  managed to hold on..i will give dean the benefit of the doubt

[Dave-R]

19 hours ago, tomav84 said:

no, the "but we won" crowd just believe that a sub would have made the 11 on the pitch worse and that a knackered barkley or mcginn are better than a fresh marvelous or trez

It can be the case at times you know..

They were doing what was asked of them those already on the field, sometimes there is a thing called changing things for the worse as much as there is changing for the better.

I think if wed have brought any of these on Subs: Heaton, Taylor, Engels, Elmohamady, Sanson, El Ghazi, Trezeguet, Davis. apart from Heaton and Sanson wed of been in trouble of conceding or worse losing the game. Trezegeut, Ghazi, Taylor, Elmo and Davis would of struggled to make a dent in a brilliant southampton side. Davis certainly wouldn't of scored, Ghazi and Trezegeut would of made the wings weaker, Taylor certainly would of made the LB position weaker and Elmo while he does have good crossing would of made the RB position weaker. I think it's obvious that our bench is weak, I think Smith knows it but hes never going to publicly claim it in the media, you just wouldn't do that to your players. 

Personally I think come Summer that bench apart from Heaton and Sanson will be gone and be refreshed with new exciting talent capable of coming on and affecting games.

Davis we could sort out right now and put Barry on the bench instead, I'd rather see Barry on the bench than Davis.

[Dave-R]

4 hours ago, ozvillafan said:

It's really not that mind blowing: Yes - he needs to improve, as everyone does. Nobody is perfect - I didn't invent that situation!

Again - don't mistake criticism for ungratefulness. Smith is doing a bang on job - but there is room for improvement and I think criticism is warranted in this case.

I'd just be going in circles stating the benefits again, because you seem to ignore them. And Smith did too. He managed to get a result which I - and some people in your position - believe was lucky.

I just happen to believe we wouldn't have needed as much luck if substitutions were made - probably the simplest and most important thing a manager can do during a game to influence the outcome. But it seems to be a point you are unwilling to concede - and I'm not entirely sure why.

 

You make your own luck on the pitch, we wasnt lucky at all in fact that Penalty decision could of fone one way or the other, just so happens in went of Cash's knee onto his arm. As for this so called we were lucky rubbish, just because Southampton had the majority of play doesnt mean they were unlucky. Weve had games where weve had most of the play and shot an awful lot and nothing could be made of anything, that was Southampton last night. Martinez made absolute class saves all while the defence did there job when trouble came on calling. 

As for subs I just do not think any of them for one reason or another could of changed that game for us. Davis isnt going to score, in fact none of those subs would of scored. Sanson as others pointed out it would of been unfair to play him. Ghazi is defensively weak and southampton would of capitalised on him making a mistake no doubt. Trezegeut although hes been injured has been out from football for abit but he too is weak on the right when our team isnt attacking constantly and Taylor, let's not even go there who would of been best staying on field out of him and Target. I just do not see where all this is coming from with people moaning about Smith's decision not to make subs and that he decided to place trust in those eleven on the field. If by any chance he doesnt trust our subs to see a game out then this summer things need changing..

[Keyblade]

Basically people are saying if he made more subs he'd basically be Guardiola.

It's like when opp fans say if Jack didn't spend all his time on the floor he'd be even better. Basically if he stopped diving he'd be Maradona because he's already one of the best ball carriers and chance creators in the world.