Dean Smith

[VillaCas]

2 hours ago, villabromsgrove said:

As Stevo says, it's currently no more than "confirmation bias" at the moment.  I'm happy to accept that for now, but I can't wait to welcome you all to sit in the shade of a palm tree with an iced drink when the Villa oasis is finally a fully formed fact. 

I don’t think it is confirmation bias. I was neither pro nor anti Smiths appointment and have no axe to grind and no bias to ‘confirm’ - it’s clear a day to anyone who that we are playing differently than under Bruce

Those who are not seeing an improvement, Stevo and TRO for example,  were very big Bruce fans so maybe they have a little bias themselves

[sharkyvilla]

5 minutes ago, NSmith22 said:

I don’t want to pile on Hutton because I think he’s done a serviceable job for us under Bruce, but we have to get some outside backs. Taylor and Hutton provide zero support for the midfielders and forwards and we have to have ball playing fullbacks in this system. 

I'd have thought Elmo would be perfect for a Smith team at right back.  Hopefully there is a quick fix when Bolasie (or El Ghazi) is fit enough to start, with Elmo at right back and Hutton left back until we can sign someone in January.  Smith has been a bit unlucky that we've had three games in six days, with two of them away.  I'm hoping for a strong performance next week with a few players like Jack gaining a bit more confidence to help make the system fulfil its promise.

[TRO]

13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

 That'd be me. 

Because, I think that teams that play good football to a structured, practised method designed to control games and open up defences will win more in the long term, and because I think improvement makes winning more likely - even if it doesn't mean always winning.

We've a long way to go to make that improvement meaningful, but I think the intent is visible and that there's a pattern beginning to emerge. I appreciate the small improvements we're making in our play, I'll also appreciate further small improvements in our play, even if they come in defeats, because in the end common sense says that if you keep improving, eventually you win more games.

 

I don't deny your claim, but we didn't open up defences last night....If we did, I too would be pleased....I also agree good football is more likely to win matches, but that too is subjective, its in the eye of the beholder of what good is....but the proof of the pudding is in the eating....I accept that its too early to be expecting results to change, but that does not stop us being ****** off that we lost.

I am making no apology for being a poor loser....I don't like losing.

I too agree we have a long way to go to make that improvement meaningful and that again was exactly my point without being critical of the new manager.

FWIW I think he will have difficulty in implementing his philosophies, until the defence is fixed, its dragging all the good work down.

[Indigo]

How anyone can claim to not notice the quite demonstrably different manner of playing Smith is trying to implement is beyond me. That's not to say it's being done well or successfully, but it's inarguable that there's more of an emphasis on passing it out from the back and pressing higher/more aggressively.

For what it's worth I don't think we're too far off, but the players that hold us back really hold us back, and I don't think you can get away with trying to play like this when only maybe half the team are capable of it. Hutton is dreadful, Elmo is a solid player but not dynamic enough as a winger, Taylor is mediocre etc, these players are meant to be outlets/dynamic/capable of carrying the ball but it's too static and if anything hinders the likes of Jack.

I think we'll get there eventually, and even with the players we have now we'll still push on once Smith has more time to work with them, but it'll be very difficult be muster a meaningful promotion push if we can't swap some players out for more capable replacements.

[Pimlico_Villa]

4 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Last night, each of our back 4 attempted 60 + passes each. When I have more time i will compare to previous games, but i'll be amazed if we have done that once this season. 

But how many of those were pointless, ineffective 5 yard passes to Whelan, after which they got the ball straight back? 

[screwdriver]

who on earth wants to go to a football match and watch centre halves play tikka takka?

[TRO]

1 hour ago, VillaCas said:

1) Smith has asked them to play a different style than Bruce - ball retention, higher pressing, quicker movement. It’s already clear that this is happening and it’s a much more attractive style of play and hopefully will be more successful.  Are you really unable to see that we are playing differently already?

2) Smith had inherited a squad built by Bruce for one style of play and will need to replace a number better suited to his style. Yes the ‘flank work’ is woeful - Kodija is no wideman but has been shoehorned in to do a job, Elmo can’t beat a man (ever) and Taylor is hopeless (I suspect Smith has seen enough of Taylor and will change things next time). Hutton is trying but doesn’t have the legs.

IMO before we sign GK or CB we need to sign a couple of wide players/wing back. Young, energetic and quick to better suit the required style

El Ghazi and Bolasie to me look unfit and look like they will never work back - they are available on loan for a reason

As predicted, Bruce built a wildly unbalanced squad full of players who are nearly over, or over the hill Whelan, Jedinak, Hutton, Elmo and relied on loanees at the expense of bringing through youth. 

I’m not yet a Smith fan, but I can appreciate already what he is trying to do and understand the terribly difficult task he has inherited 

I agree with all That VC.

I think your rendition of player assessment is pretty much mine and on that basis maybe is the reason why I am having difficulty in seeing what many on here are seeing at present....maybe I will catch up.

unlike you being neutral.....I have faith that Dean Smith will improve us in time, but I think it will be limited, until he can get in his own players, particularly defenders.

Edited October 27, 2018 by TRO

[sne]

The gulf between Tiki-Taka and center halves booting it as far as they can a'la James Collins is monumental.

What we will be trying to do is build from the back with CB's trying to find a CM dropping back to collect the ball (this will not work with Whelan doing it) and this will require good movement and players making runs in areas their teammates are expecting. 

we are not there yet and it will take time. And when it isn't working it will result in the back 4 just passing it among themselves, or to the dropping CM and then back.

That is why possession in isolation is a limited stat. 

It's a work in progress.

[TRO]

4 hours ago, Mantis said:

Who said winning doesn't matter?

This isn't about style over results, it's about implementing a system that not only makes us better to watch but more importantly, gets better results. That takes time.

Its all that matters in the end.....but we would all prefer to do it in style

My debate on here has been centred around The improvement so far, not whats intended or likely to come.......so I'm not as savvy as some of you football experts, so I just rely the basics of play and looking for victories.

George Friend of Middlesbrough said today after their game with Derby, "we got one back to scramble a point, didn't matter how we got it".....it was a a very direct header and an own goal.....now I am not saying I would prefer to watch Pulis football....but what I am saying is that this game is about opinions, nothing is set in tablets of stone.....that was his view.

 

[DCJonah]

21 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

But how many of those were pointless, ineffective 5 yard passes to Whelan, after which they got the ball straight back? 

Not sure. What's your point? 

[DCJonah]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

Its all that matters in the end.....but we would all prefer to do it in style

My debate on here has been centred around The improvement so far, not whats intended or likely to come.......so I'm not as savvy as some of you football experts, so I just rely the basics of play and looking for victories.

George Friend of Middlesbrough said today after their game with Derby, "we got one back to scramble a point, didn't matter how we got it".....it was a a very direct header and an own goal.....now I am not saying I would prefer to watch Pulis football....but what I am saying is that this game is about opinions, nothing is set in tablets of stone.....that was his view.

 

That was his view for this one game. I wonder if he thinks scrambling to get a draw with no concern how they got it, would be the best way to get promoted over 40+ games. 

[Mantis]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

Its all that matters in the end.....but we would all prefer to do it in style

My debate on here has been centred around The improvement so far, not whats intended or likely to come.......so I'm not as savvy as some of you football experts, so I just rely the basics of play and looking for victories.

George Friend of Middlesbrough said today after their game with Derby, "we got one back to scramble a point, didn't matter how we got it".....it was a a very direct header and an own goal.....now I am not saying I would prefer to watch Pulis football....but what I am saying is that this game is about opinions, nothing is set in tablets of stone.....that was his view.

 

And almost everyone is in agreement that despite losing against Norwich and QPR, there were improvements in our performances. It's about eventually getting us to a place where we can dominate teams on a regular basis, which is something we never did under Bruce and ultimately why we never seriously looked like going up automatically last season despite the squad we had.

[romavillan]

25 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

But how many of those were pointless, ineffective 5 yard passes to Whelan, after which they got the ball straight back? 

Keeping the ball is not pointless.

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, romavillan said:

Keeping the ball is not pointless.

Its a good point in regards to this discussion. However Paul Lambert proved that keeping the ball could be very pointless. Literally. 

[romavillan]

1 minute ago, Mantis said:

And almost everyone is in agreement that despite losing against Norwich and QPR, there were improvements in our performances. It's about eventually getting us to a place where we can dominate teams on a regular basis, which is something we never did under Bruce and ultimately why we never seriously looked like going up automatically last season despite the squad we had.

Can't add any more reactions today so I've quoted you. The point about never dominating a game under Bruce is a good one, in two years we did it on a handful of occasions (minimum 46 games a season). We just weren't set up to do it, we looked like the away side at home, we invited sides on and hoped for a counter and when a good footballing side played us we didn't see the ball for minutes at a time defending the 18 yard box. We were away to one of the better teams int eh division in a great patch of form and we looked like the home isde yesterday, that's a massive change right there.

[TRO]

2 hours ago, VillaCas said:

I don’t think it is confirmation bias. I was neither pro nor anti Smiths appointment and have no axe to grind and no bias to ‘confirm’ - it’s clear a day to anyone who that we are playing differently than under Bruce

Those who are not seeing an improvement, Stevo and TRO for example,  were very big Bruce fans so maybe they have a little bias themselves

I don't think that is accurate....I can't speak for Stevo, but IMO like  me he merely defended him against what we saw as unfair criticism, some criticism was fair and in the end I wanted him to go and I think Stevo did too.

Steve Bruce has gone, but Equally many fans wanted Dean Smith and it could equally be levelled that some fans have vested interest in seeing things that they just want to see.

Its ridiculous to think every fan has the same interpretation of a game....I don't see some of the things some do, but I will remain respectful to their view.

I will admit that I hate losing and it could follow, that it could cloud my judgement at times.....but It is what I is.

Edited October 27, 2018 by TRO

[romavillan]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

Its a good point in regards to this discussion. However Paul Lambert proved that keeping the ball could be very pointless. Literally. 

ha, i get where you are coming from but if you have the ball, they can't score. 

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, Mantis said:

And almost everyone is in agreement that despite losing against Norwich and QPR, there were improvements in our performances. It's about eventually getting us to a place where we can dominate teams on a regular basis, which is something we never did under Bruce and ultimately why we never seriously looked like going up automatically last season despite the squad we had.

and I sincerely hope you are right, that it is the slow progress to the holy grail and at present, I am struggling to see those slow wheels of the locomotive, gradually moving in to a full head of steam of which we all crave.

Notwithstanding, I still believe the improvement we debate , will come....you and many others are just a bit ahead of me, noticing it....the penny will drop I am sure.

come the revolution and we are flying....I will remember this .....and dully apologise for my oblivion.

However, just to add a bit of balance and not beat myself up too much after 2 away defeats......18 posters commented in the match thread that they felt those same defeats were unconvincing, so lets grab a little bit of perspective, hey.

[LakotaDakota]

13 minutes ago, romavillan said:

ha, i get where you are coming from but if you have the ball, they can't score. 

We had the ball for 68% of the game last night. We scored 0 - They scored 1.

Possession is pointless if you don't do anything with it.

We moved the ball around much quicker which is good but there wasn't much of a cutting edge and not sure we ever really looked like scoring.

We also gave the ball away an awful lot as a result of trying to play out from the back/move the ball quickly which should hopefully lessen as the players adapt and get used to they system and where they are supposed to be at all times.

The downside i guess is that we have gone from averaging 1.67 goals per game playing "defensive Bruceball" to averaging 0.67 goals per game playing more attacking possession based football..

[Pimlico_Villa]

32 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Keeping the ball is not pointless.

It is when upgrade 1 nil down.