Jump to content

Dean Smith


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Sam Allardyce quoted, that of all the Championship managers, he thought Dean Smith would be the one to make the step up to the Premier. Hope you're right Sam.

Allardyce also said the other day that Eric Dier was as good as Sergio Busquets so he might have been on the pints of wine a bit recently ;) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS said:

I think he's got the self belief to stick to his way of playing, as well as the backing/patience of the club and fans to make it happen.

I don't think Lambert had either of those.

Lambert also had a club owner whose heart was no longer in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't really know how to address this. I don't think you're disagreeing with anything I've said, you've just cherrypicked a month and pointed out Bruce spent some money.
Yeah, he did. Smith probably will too in January. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Then I will try again.

The original post was comparing the starting situations that Bruce and Smith had. The original poster then went on to say that they hoped Smith would be allowed to splash the cash during the January transfer window as Bruce was allowed to do.

You then waded in saying that Bruce had a net negative spend in his time here (in terms of transfer fees). I was pointing out that your statement (whilst correct in its own context) was irrelevant to the point that was being made. If anything, it is you cherrypicking a timescale, but I think it was more simply misunderstanding the point being made and wanting to correct an "unreasonable" attack on Bruce (which it wasn't). 

 

Hope that clarifies the situation.

 

UTV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheStagMan said:

Then I will try again.

The original post was comparing the starting situations that Bruce and Smith had. The original poster then went on to say that they hoped Smith would be allowed to splash the cash during the January transfer window as Bruce was allowed to do.

You then waded in saying that Bruce had a net negative spend in his time here (in terms of transfer fees). I was pointing out that your statement (whilst correct in its own context) was irrelevant to the point that was being made. If anything, it is you cherrypicking a timescale, but I think it was more simply misunderstanding the point being made and wanting to correct an "unreasonable" attack on Bruce (which it wasn't). 

 

Hope that clarifies the situation.

 

UTV

The original post just said Smith should be expected to do better than 13th, which is what bruce did in his first season. I don't think it talked about spending in January at all.
I wasn't trying to correct an attack on Bruce at all. I didn't see it as an attack on anyone. I couldn't care less about Bruce anymore.

I was just comparing the situations when they came into the club and that it's far more favourable for Smith. This is a good thing.

Net spend, I honestly can't remember who we bought in January and who we offloaded. But overall his net was negative which means he had to recoup the money regardless of when he spent it. I can't remember if the net spend was positive in January, I'll take your word for it. But that's not really how it works. If he had to recoup it the following summer then he still didn't get a load of cash to spend.

If Smith gets £50m in January but is then told he needs to make it all back in the Summer then it's the same thing.

 

But it was kind of a minor point to the overall post. Smith has a much better starting point than Bruce did and that's good for everyone involved. We'll be rightly disappointed if he ends up where Bruce ended up in his first season which is the point made in the OP.

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The original post just said Smith should be expected to do better than 13th, which is what bruce did in his first season. I don't think it talked about spending in January at all.
I wasn't trying to correct an attack on Bruce at all. I didn't see it as an attack on anyone. I couldn't care less about Bruce anymore.

I was just comparing the situations when they came into the club and that it's far more favourable for Smith. This is a good thing.

Net spend, I honestly can't remember who we bought in January and who we offloaded. But overall his net was negative which means he had to recoup the money regardless of when he spent it. I can't remember if the net spend was positive in January, I'll take your word for it. But that's not really how it works. If he had to recoup it the following summer then he still didn't get a load of cash to spend.

If Smith gets £50m in January but is then told he needs to make it all back in the Summer then it's the same thing.

 

But it was kind of a minor point to the overall post. Smith has a much better starting point than Bruce did and that's good for everyone involved. We'll be rightly disappointed if he ends up where Bruce ended up in his first season which is the point made in the OP.

Whilst it’s true Bruce had to recoup a lot of money spent I don’t think it’s true he inherited a complete mess of a squad. A lot of money had already been spent and although it was very unbalanced there was still a lot of quality. Let’s not forget a few of the players sold were good enough but wanted a move and we got good money or a new player for them.  e.g. Ayew, Veroutout, Baker, Amavi, Gestede (maybe Westwood).

Smith may well get to spend in January but he would struggle to recoup the same amount of money Bruce did because the players we would be able to move on just aren’t worth that much. 

Basically I think Smiths job is just as hard as Bruce’s was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

Have Davis a shot, gave green a shot, gave O’Hare a shot.

There seems to be some fantasy that we produce amazing young players, we don’t, how many can you name in the last 30 years? Yorke came to us as a kid so I guess he counts, erm Lee Hendrie? Cahill, Grealish, nope that’s all I can think of off the top of my head, I’m sure there must be more I’ve forgotten? Sturridge, does he count? 

  • Clark
  • Baker
  • Barry
  • Hogg
  • Bannan
  • Steven Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TRO said:
  • Clark
  • Baker
  • Barry
  • Hogg
  • Bannan
  • Steven Davis

Whittingham, Robinson, Gardner, Gardner, Albrighton, Ridgewell, Cahill, Gabby, Green..........

Id say we produce more than our fair share of decent ( ie, Championship or above level) players.

Barring a regular goalscorere there’s a free team in there !

Edited by terrytini
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Allardyce also said the other day that Eric Dier was as good as Sergio Busquets so he might have been on the pints of wine a bit recently ;) 

He was on The Debate earlier this week, and said he was just trying to stick up for Dier because he was getting stick from people and doesnt actually think he's as good but does a similar unappreciated job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zatman said:

I think its fair to say both sets of fans are  not unhappy with this move. Frank will not rip the club to shreds and knows the system plus we are happy with Smith

Complete opposite of Norwich fans on here when Lambert joined us

?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I doubt we wanted to sell either to be honest. Clark wanted to leave and Baker had to be sold due to FFP. 

I'd say it was more to fund the Terry wages than due to FFP, it was more short-termism by Bruce. Baker would have been good for many years and should never have been sold.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't really know how to address this. I don't think you're disagreeing with anything I've said, you've just cherrypicked a month and pointed out Bruce spent some money.
Yeah, he did. Smith probably will too in January. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I don't agree about the midfield. We have a much better midfield now. It's probably our strongest area. Agree on the rest of your post though.

It was probably more balanced, but it was inferior in overall quality to today's squad.

He did, but as above we have a higher quality squad now than when Bruce took over, imo.

I think up till the 10th game this season 7 of 11 most used players were signed before Bruce arrived

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Whittingham, Robinson, Gardner, Gardner, Albrighton, Ridgewell, Cahill, Gabby, Green..........

Id say we produce more than our fair share of decent ( ie, Championship or above level) players.

Barring a regular goalscorere there’s a free team in there !

Last 30 years? Mark Walters! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope we all have patience with the style  as I’m sure there will be plenty of mistakes for a while as the team get used to playing exciting 1 touch football as there will be misplaced passes because we have become so used to playing it slow and sensible (or aimless booting) for a long time now.

Would probably be worth having Jedinak playing in front of the defence as we transition to mop up any mistakes and be the one person with the instruction to play it safe (and win all the headers).  Once we have adapted to the style of play and our defence form an understanding I could see McGinn taking over that role.

Don't want it to go the way of Lambert as he seemed to try and play football at first but when it wasn’t working he ended up getting more defensive and then lost any sort of style at all In the end.

If we are patient and he sticks with his philosophy I believe we are really going places this time.

UTV

Edited by stegzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommo_b said:

But it’s only really Barry that’s actually been of a high calibre. 

We're a Championship club. They are all of a high calibre relative to our position, which is the entire point. Maybe Doyle-Hayes, Mitch Clark and O'Hare aren't 'top level' players, but there's little evidence they can't be at least good enough, or better than, our current position. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â