Jump to content

Dean Smith


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

Just now, andym said:

Clear evidence of a completely naive team, one that is thankfully much different this season.

Smith appears to be no different this season regarding subs (or lack of)

Yet we've only let in 7 in the last half hour, of which 4 were in the last 15. Only Chelsea and Man City are any better.

Btw, i still agree Smith can be much better at using his bench

 

How many have been in the last 4 games? Oh right 3 of them. We clearly don't have the fitness right now so he needs to make changes earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

People will shout again for subs (boring) but that would have been such the wrong decision. 

We weren't tired. We didn't need fresh legs. Having players like Trez and nakamba on would have made us worse with their limitations. And as much as I want to see sanson, that was not the game to make your prem debut. 

Halfway point and 30 points in the bag. Absolute legend Dean Smith. 

It's an interesting thought.

I can only think Smith agrees with the bold bit; he simply must.

Those players are poor PL players there's no getting away from it. Their touch isn't good, their technique isn't good, they simply not as good as the players on the pitch.

Sanson yes maybe, but he's got no mins and no training under his belt. He probably doesn't even know everyone's name yet.

However we were shocking tonight. Probably our only below par 90 mins this season. I'd have been fuming if we gave it away and we certainly weren't looking solid.

I think a change should have been made. McGinn, Traore, Barkley especially all could have come off at 50 mins. I struggle to see how Nakamba or Sanson could have been worse than that McGinn.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sparrow1988 said:

It wasn't a game for El Ghazi IMO. It wasn't West Brom sitting back and letting us have the ball. It was Southampton and they were all over us like a rash. Granted the last 10 minutes were a bit helter skelter but at that stage I thought leave it and hope for the best.

Fine play trez then, or maybe el ghazi being a threat on the counter forces them to keep another player back and ease pressure. They created 5 goalscoring opportunities in the last half an hour an we were incredibly lucky that martinez is such a good keeper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

Because it is the proven formula for success. Did De Bruyne play the full 90 vs us even when they weren't winning? No he didn't he came of at 0-0 and then they won. 

De Bruyne went off with his hamstring and is now out injured. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Haha who knows? We **** won. 

Hmmm. You can't really use this argument at all. We should not have won, ignoring the handball.

I love Smith and he clearly favours continuity over anything, but he has to trust his squad more. Nakamba or Sanson should have come on after 70 mins. El Ghazi was blistering when he was starting and hasn't been given a sniff.

I imagine Villa is a pretty lonely place if you are on the periphery, especially when there is a pretty obvious case to be made to hold onto the lead and Barkley was again knackered and clearly is inferior defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xela said:

Its not an assumption. It is fact. You make subs you automatically become a better team and instantly see out the game in far more comfort. Don't you know anything?! :D 

This is what it seems like at times. Funny no mention of any subs in games we lose. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering why Smith didnt make any subs sooner than last minutes, we could of done with fresh legs.

Though I do understand if he doesnt trust some of the bench lads as that's the only reason I can come up with as to why Smith didnt bring on subs to see the game out. Let's face it apart from Sanson we dont have anyone or at least I wouldn't bring any of those subs to see that game out, best to just stick with the guys on the pitch.

They did the job needed to be done and that's all that matters, it just so happens that I have to take a trip to hospital now as that game made me have so many heart attacks that I'm not sure I'm even alive anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MotoMkali said:

1-1

Really? I've had a quick look on the internet, and I know its full of untruths and scurrilous rumours, but it says we won 1-0?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tomaszk said:

It's an interesting thought.

I can only think Smith agrees with the bold bit; he simply must.

Those players are poor PL players there's no getting away from it. Their touch isn't good, their technique isn't good, they simply not as good as the players on the pitch.

Sanson yes maybe, but he's got no mins and no training under his belt. He probably doesn't even know everyone's name yet.

However we were shocking tonight. Probably our only below par 90 mins this season. I'd have been fuming if we gave it away and we certainly weren't looking solid.

I think a change should have been made. McGinn, Traore, Barkley especially all could have come off at 50 mins. I struggle to see how Nakamba or Sanson could have been worse than that McGinn.

How tf am I agreeing with you and villalad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gilbertoAVFC said:

Hmmm. You can't really use this argument at all. We should not have won, ignoring the handball.

I love Smith and he clearly favours continuity over anything, but he has to trust his squad more. Nakamba or Sanson should have come on after 70 mins. El Ghazi was blistering when he was starting and hasn't been given a sniff.

I imagine Villa is a pretty lonely place if you are on the periphery, especially when there is a pretty obvious case to be made to hold onto the lead and Barkley was again knackered and clearly is inferior defensively.

I have no idea how anyone can say players should have come on. Again, as though only positive things happen when you make a sub. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lexicon said:

We're 8th in the league and have won more games this season already than we did last season - and you're moaning about subs. It just boggles the mind. 

I see you're only picking my posts to comment on, and ignoring the tens of other outlandish claims about no subs being an issue. It is a concern for many...it may or may not cause us issues in our next game, it may or may not cause fatigue and hurt us towards the end of the season.

I'm only replying to your challenges to my comments.  If you want to talk about our position in the league; I couldn't be happier with where we are. Realiatically, we are way above my pre season expectations. I wouldn't swap Smith for virtually any other manager in the world at the moment. He understands the squad, he's got their backing, we're playing well (apart from today) and have been unlucky for most of our recent defeats. We were lucky to win tonight. Other than  that we've been excellent all season. When the only thing people can debate about a manager is whether or not he should make subs, you know life is good. We disagree on that, but that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

This is what it seems like at times. Funny no mention of any subs in games we lose. 

Because it isn't the fact he made the subs fault we lose then. It is we were slightly worse or wait he waited for us to go down before making the change. Yep that is it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave-R said:

I was wondering why Smith didnt make any subs sooner than last minutes, we could of done with fresh legs.

Though I do understand if he doesnt trust some of the bench lads as that's the only reason I can come up with as to why Smith didnt bring on subs to see the game out. Let's face it apart from Sanson we dont have anyone or at least I wouldn't bring any of those subs to see that game out, best to just stick with the guys on the pitch.

They did the job needed to be done and that's all that matters, it just so happens that I have to take a trip to hospital now as that game made me have so many heart attacks that I'm not sure I'm even alive anymore.

 

I can see the argument at times, even if i do think this subs thing is just becoming a moan for moaning sake. 

But tonight I can completely see why he didn't trust his bench. That game was not for players like nakamba and trez. And it would have been massively unfair to throw sanson into that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you lot assume we want Smith out or unhappy with our play. We are happy with him but this is clearly his biggest flaw and we have been saying this all-season. How many times does Smith wait for us to concede before deigning to make a sub. You know what happened the last time we made a proactive sub? We had a player score 5 in 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MotoMkali said:

Because it isn't the fact he made the subs fault we lose then. It is we were slightly worse or wait he waited for us to go down before making the change. Yep that is it. 

Haha so it always comes back to subs when we win or lose. Brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â