Dean Smith

[Villarocker]

We scored 3 against Derby, 4 against Small Heath and, 5 against Forest. I expect 6 tomorrow Deano - no pressure!

[Thug]

Surprisingly.. ONLY Leeds have fewer shots per game against them.

Really did not expect this.

But this includes all shots, a more accurate reflection would be shots on target I suppose, but I dare not work that out in case Nyland reads these forums and loses even more confidence.

[Thug]

Team	Games	Goals For	Gls/gm	Shots/gm	(on target)	Possession	Shots A/gm	Gls against	GA/pg	Rating
Norwich	19	32	1.68	14	4.9	53.9	11.6	21	1.11	6.81
Leeds	19	32	1.68	15.4	4.6	59.2	9.7	17	0.89	6.87
Boro	19	22	1.16	13.6	3.6	46.4	12.4	10	0.53	6.86
WBA	19	41	2.16	14	4.5	52.2	14.7	27	1.42	6.84
Sheff Utd	19	32	1.68	12.9	4.2	52.3	12	23	1.21	6.79
Forest	19	30	1.58	11.5	3.9	51.4	12.6	21	1.11	6.84
Smith	7	16	2.29	16.1	5.1	59.6	11.4	10	1.43	6.99
(-forest)	6	11	1.83	14.5	4	59.1	12	5	0.83	7.01

[Thug]

5 hours ago, TRO said:

Prior to that game Forest had 3 clean sheets, I Believe.....Aitor was fuming…...and rightly so.

I am not talking about Deans early games ...I am talking about the last 2......we conceded 7 at Home.

I am not even having a go at Dean Smith, Brucie shipped 4 at Sheffield....just saying in my humble opinion having watched the WAY we defended in both games, we could have an issue.

on an additional note ….Pulis will not allow us to go free scoring like we have been, so defensively we need to be on our best behaviour, because I don't think we can rely on a recent bail out from the forwards

The reason why I have not been over ecstatic with the last few games, despite the spectacle being top draw offensively.....goals wise it is 9-7

That is 2 goals difference in 2 matches ….AT HOME

call me old fashioned, but I'll bet if you took Deano to one side and whispered in his ear, would you have taken a 1-0 win in both games and collected 6 points towards the cause, he would say yes, I would.

 

I'm not too worried about Boro.

One thing they like to do is let teams attack them.  

That's the one thing we're good at.

 

[sheepyvillian]

It's almost like some on here are willing the manager to fail. He hasn't come here to bore the pants off supporters, with dull, cautious, football. And, regardless of the presumption of some, I really don't see him having any doubts about the way he wants us to play. It's an absolute joy to see us playing with such bravado, and long may it continue. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

8 hours ago, Thug said:

Team	Games	Goals For	Gls/gm	Shots/gm	(on target)	Possession	Shots A/gm	Gls against	GA/pg	Rating
Norwich	19	32	1.68	14	4.9	53.9	11.6	21	1.11	6.81
Leeds	19	32	1.68	15.4	4.6	59.2	9.7	17	0.89	6.87
Boro	19	22	1.16	13.6	3.6	46.4	12.4	10	0.53	6.86
WBA	19	41	2.16	14	4.5	52.2	14.7	27	1.42	6.84
Sheff Utd	19	32	1.68	12.9	4.2	52.3	12	23	1.21	6.79
Forest	19	30	1.58	11.5	3.9	51.4	12.6	21	1.11	6.84
Smith	7	16	2.29	16.1	5.1	59.6	11.4	10	1.43	6.99

Thanks mate.  Appreciate that. 

I hope that puts the end to anybody thinking our defensive stats since Smith took over compare with our rivals. (Albion aside).

Our attacking stars are fantastic though and a breath of a fresh air. We’re definitely heading in the right direction. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Vive_La_Villa

[Vive_La_Villa]

7 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

It's almost like some on here are willing the manager to fail. He hasn't come here to bore the pants off supporters, with dull, cautious, football. And, regardless of the presumption of some, I really don't see him having any doubts about the way he wants us to play. It's an absolute joy to see us playing with such bravado, and long may it continue. 

I’ve read pretty much every post on here since Wednesday and can say there is literally nobody that has given that impression. 

Everybody is loving Smith. 

[Junxs]

On 30/11/2018 at 07:39, av1 said:

I'd be tempted to give JDH a shot myself. 

I think we lack a bit of energy in that position. McGinn obviously has that in abundance but is playing much further up the pitch under Smith so I think it's asking a lot of McGinn to provide legs in both defence and attack. I must admit that I've not seen an awful lot of JDH but one would assume that his youthful exuberance alone would inject a lot of energy into the side?

Again, I've not seen a lot of the kid so maybe that's nonsense?

Its a shame Jordan Lyden is always injured as I think he's the most suited out of all our youngsters for this position

[TRO]

15 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I see where you are coming from but I do believe if you play well every game the results will eventually come. We played well against QPR and Norwich and lost both games. But then won 3 on the bounce after playing the same way. 

Under Bruce I always felt more often than not we played poorly regardless of the result. I don’t get that feeling anymore.

I do agree

[TRO]

11 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

It's almost like some on here are willing the manager to fail. He hasn't come here to bore the pants off supporters, with dull, cautious, football. And, regardless of the presumption of some, I really don't see him having any doubts about the way he wants us to play. It's an absolute joy to see us playing with such bravado, and long may it continue. 

I don't understand where you get that from....I haven't seen any posts intimating they would like to see Dean Smith fail, i wouldn't imagine any Villa fan would.

just to put things in perspective.....keeping control of the defence does not have to be dull and Boring, its respecting the opposition and nullifying their threats, in order to win a game allied to our attacking threat.....There will be times we have to be patient and cautious, without dumping the current exciting forward play....its called game management.

Dean Smith has brought an attacking style to our club that everyone welcomes and he is still a wet day in to his development with us, what he has achieved so far is remarkable in such a short space of time and with SB's players.....when he gets his own ,I feel it will be even better.

Dean Smith's reputation for attacking play proceeds him, but I do not see him as a one dimensional manager.....He will not be happy in conceding 7 goals in our last 2 home games and I am sure he will be working on eliminating those errors.

That is what's been said on here Sheepy, so pleas accept that everyone wants Dean Smith to prosper and that means Aston Villa will too.

Observations are not always criticisms and despite the fantastic football Dean is dishing up....We as fans should be able to comment on the not so good things without being accused of wishing him to fail.

despite my support of Steve Bruce of which it wained during this season, I am more than pleased with the change, so I will support Dean Smith with the same vigour I afforded Steve Bruce.

UTV

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by TRO

[TRO]

11 hours ago, Thug said:

I'm not too worried about Boro.

One thing they like to do is let teams attack them.  

That's the one thing we're good at.

 

as long as we don't get caught on the break.

[Thug]

3 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Thanks mate.  Appreciate that. 

I hope that puts the end to anybody thinking our defensive stats since Smith took over compare with our rivals. (Albion aside).

Our attacking stars are fantastic though and a breath of a fresh air. We’re definitely heading in the right direction. 

No prob, but I totally disagree with what you think the stats show.

My interpretation is that we are conceding fewer shooting opportunities than all the top six (including boro) except for Leeds.  You could argue that this then proves we are allowing the opposition to progress to much better shooting opportunities to allow for a much higher conversion rate, but in all honesty, the forest game was an exception and not the norm. If you look at the games against QPR and Swansea, where they did manage to muster up quite a few shots on goal, we’ve conceded only once in 180 minutes of those games.  Up until the forest game we were conceding on average 0.83 goals per game, better than ALL the top 6 except boro (but really.. who wants to emulate them?)

i know it’s not right to start picking and choosing which games you include in stats etc, but I’m pretty sure if you asked anyone after the blues game if our defence was any good, they’d have said no - when statistically under smith they had been better than all our rivals (except the bus in front of the goal that is boro)

The defence really hasn’t been half as bad as people are making out (statistically anyway) and I think that will be proven going forwards.  

There’s been a pretty heated debate on here about the defence, but I think it’s almost become like a game of Chinese whispers over the course of a few pages.

The original argument started when one poster pretty much implied that everyone was giving Smith a ‘free pass’ even though the defence was a total horror show.

At this point some posters (myself included) pointed out that ACTUALLY the defence was improved on what Bruce had been in charge of. The statistics proved this.  It has somehow been dragged from that point to others believing that there was a consensus that our defence was completely fine and comparable to the other top 6.

strangely enough, the statistics show that we’re actually not far off.

Statistics aren’t everything, and my eyes tell me something else. And the old saying ‘you’re only as good as your last game’ holds some leverage here.

My current opinion is that our defence is ok. Time will tell how right I am.

 

 

 

 

[Nigel]

8 minutes ago, TRO said:

as long as we don't get caught on the break.

Going to stick my neck out here.....

Edited December 1, 2018 by Nigel

[TRO]

43 minutes ago, Thug said:

No prob, but I totally disagree with what you think the stats show.

My interpretation is that we are conceding fewer shooting opportunities than all the top six (including boro) except for Leeds.  You could argue that this then proves we are allowing the opposition to progress to much better shooting opportunities to allow for a much higher conversion rate, but in all honesty, the forest game was an exception and not the norm. If you look at the games against QPR and Swansea, where they did manage to muster up quite a few shots on goal, we’ve conceded only once in 180 minutes of those games.  Up until the forest game we were conceding on average 0.83 goals per game, better than ALL the top 6 except boro (but really.. who wants to emulate them?)

i know it’s not right to start picking and choosing which games you include in stats etc, but I’m pretty sure if you asked anyone after the blues game if our defence was any good, they’d have said no - when statistically under smith they had been better than all our rivals (except the bus in front of the goal that is boro)

The defence really hasn’t been half as bad as people are making out (statistically anyway) and I think that will be proven going forwards.  

There’s been a pretty heated debate on here about the defence, but I think it’s almost become like a game of Chinese whispers over the course of a few pages.

The original argument started when one poster pretty much implied that everyone was giving Smith a ‘free pass’ even though the defence was a total horror show.

At this point some posters (myself included) pointed out that ACTUALLY the defence was improved on what Bruce had been in charge of. The statistics proved this.  It has somehow been dragged from that point to others believing that there was a consensus that our defence was completely fine and comparable to the other top 6.

strangely enough, the statistics show that we’re actually not far off.

Statistics aren’t everything, and my eyes tell me something else. And the old saying ‘you’re only as good as your last game’ holds some leverage here.

My current opinion is that our defence is ok. Time will tell how right I am.

 

 

 

 

Your eyes tell you what you have just seen( and your brain computes it) and more importantly the manner of the conceding....according to the recipients overall views.

Stats have their place...but the key, is in their interpretation.....they only tell you what you want to glean.

What happens in game 1 is a world away from what happens in game 15.....(just as an example, I guess that's why form guides are usually 6-10 games.)...but stats incorporate all the games, unless you just select a certain section of games.

my comments have just been on the last 2 games.....and only because Blues were less clinical than Forest, that game too had some iffy moments, despite the win.

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by TRO

[markavfc40]

17 hours ago, TRO said:

 

I accept the spectacle and all the waxing lyrical to go with it....but its only points that will get us out.

and before I am Misconstrued....no I don't wish Steve Bruce was back.....I am totally behind Dean Smith and his approach, just want us to tighten up without losing our ability to score goals.

 

I don't think we have to tighten up in terms of the way we play as I don't see the reason why we conceded so many against Forest as us being too attacking and not striking the right balance between defence and attack. Their first goal was due to Chester and Whelan going for the same ball and pretty much tackling each other, their third goal stemmed from poor distribution from Chester whilst under no pressure, their 4th goal was from 25 yards out, and their 5th goal when Lolly made the assist we had 8 players between him and the goal so it wasn't a case of us having committed too far forward.

The Forest game was a bit of a freak really. On another day Chester or Whelen win the ball for the first, Chester doesn't give the ball away for the 3rd, Lollys shot from 25 yards flies over/wide or into the arms of Nyland. Aside from their goals they also created next to nothing.

I think overall we have done okay defensively under Smith and have struck a decent balance between defence and attack with the emphasis rightly being on attack given how strong we are personnel wise in attacking areas. It would be a waste of our squad, as it was under Bruce, to ask our wide men and two of our three centre midfield players to be more concerned with defending than attacking. Whilst we have been much more attacking though in the 6 games pre Forest we had conceded just five goals.

I think Smiths philosophy in terms of defence is if you have the ball the opposition can't score, if you are camped in the opposing teams half they can't get anywhere near your goal. We have dominated possession in every game under Smith which contributed massively to why pre Forest we had a good record under him in terms of goals conceded.

Smith shouldn't and won't change his philosophy based on that Forest game just as Karanka won't as it was a freak. Whilst I don't ever expect us to look completely solid at the back under Smith I do think we will always dominate possession and look like scoring more than we concede and therefore more likely to win games which is all you can ask.

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't think we have to tighten up in terms of the way we play as I don't see the reason why we conceded so many against Forest as us being too attacking and not striking the right balance between defence and attack. Their first goal was due to Chester and Whelan going for the same ball and pretty much tackling each other, their third goal stemmed from poor distribution from Chester whilst under no pressure, their 4th goal was from 25 yards out, and their 5th goal when Lolly made the assist we had 8 players between him and the goal so it wasn't a case of us having committed too far forward.

The Forest game was a bit of a freak really. On another day Chester or Whelen win the ball for the first, Chester doesn't give the ball away for the 3rd, Lollys shot from 25 yards flies over/wide or into the arms of Nyland. Aside from their goals they also created next to nothing.

I think overall we have done okay defensively under Smith and have struck a decent balance between defence and attack with the emphasis rightly being on attack given how strong we are personnel wise in attacking areas. It would be a waste of our squad, as it was under Bruce, to ask our wide men and two of our three centre midfield players to be more concerned with defending than attacking. Whilst we have been much more attacking though in the 6 games pre Forest we had conceded just five goals.

I think Smiths philosophy in terms of defence is if you have the ball the opposition can't score, if you are camped in the opposing teams half they can't get anywhere near your goal. We have dominated possession in every game under Smith which contributed massively to why pre Forest we had a good record under him in terms of goals conceded.

Smith shouldn't and won't change his philosophy based on that Forest game just as Karanka won't as it was a freak. Whilst I don't ever expect us to look completely solid at the back under Smith I do think we will always dominate possession and look like scoring more than we concede and therefore more likely to win games which is all you can ask.

Interesting Mark.

Maybe my comments appeared to criticise our style, sorry that wasn't meant to be.....I applaud the new style and don't want him to change.

I accept the individual errors claim, but I still think some better tracking back by certain players would have helped....Not to mention the keeper for the 5th

The result is hard to argue against not being a freak, because it is so rare.....However, There was some similar moments of not picking players up in the blues game that was reminiscent of the Forest Game....Todays game will tell us a bit more ,I guess

I don't think anyone has asked for Smiths philosophy to be questioned, but points are what we want.

Personally, I am not entirely happy with us defensively, despite stat's being produced to nullify that....but that's just my opinion.

If we keep winning and the forwards are able to score more than we concede, I guess my little voice, won't be necessary.

[Guest av1]

I noticed a post from @OutByEaster? in the the match thread that a young defender called Raven has travelled to Boro. With JDH and Callum O'hare ommited from u23 duty this week we could see 3 youth players the squad for a difficult away match at one of the leagues big boys. 

It's great to see. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 hours ago, Thug said:

No prob, but I totally disagree with what you think the stats show.

My interpretation is that we are conceding fewer shooting opportunities than all the top six (including boro) except for Leeds.  You could argue that this then proves we are allowing the opposition to progress to much better shooting opportunities to allow for a much higher conversion rate, but in all honesty, the forest game was an exception and not the norm. If you look at the games against QPR and Swansea, where they did manage to muster up quite a few shots on goal, we’ve conceded only once in 180 minutes of those games.  Up until the forest game we were conceding on average 0.83 goals per game, better than ALL the top 6 except boro (but really.. who wants to emulate them?)

i know it’s not right to start picking and choosing which games you include in stats etc, but I’m pretty sure if you asked anyone after the blues game if our defence was any good, they’d have said no - when statistically under smith they had been better than all our rivals (except the bus in front of the goal that is boro)

The defence really hasn’t been half as bad as people are making out (statistically anyway) and I think that will be proven going forwards.  

There’s been a pretty heated debate on here about the defence, but I think it’s almost become like a game of Chinese whispers over the course of a few pages.

The original argument started when one poster pretty much implied that everyone was giving Smith a ‘free pass’ even though the defence was a total horror show.

At this point some posters (myself included) pointed out that ACTUALLY the defence was improved on what Bruce had been in charge of. The statistics proved this.  It has somehow been dragged from that point to others believing that there was a consensus that our defence was completely fine and comparable to the other top 6.

strangely enough, the statistics show that we’re actually not far off.

Statistics aren’t everything, and my eyes tell me something else. And the old saying ‘you’re only as good as your last game’ holds some leverage here.

My current opinion is that our defence is ok. Time will tell how right I am.

 

 

 

 

Fair points. It’s been a good discussion in the main. Unfortunately one or two have to take it a bit too far. 

[Zatman]

Dean Smith is not a rocket scientist and 1st 20 minutes today you can see improvements clearly. We have footballers which last manager neglected in terms of style

We took the ball from goalkeeper to opposition box on the ground. Its basic but ignored

[Mantis]

6 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Dean Smith is not a rocket scientist and 1st 20 minutes today you can see improvements clearly. We have footballers which last manager neglected in terms of style

We took the ball from goalkeeper to opposition box on the ground. Its basic but ignored

I'm absolutely amazed at how well he's got us playing. Is Smith really good or is Bruce just really poor?