Dean Smith

[ejs1111]

15 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Also let’s not forget there was a study that confirmed that 89.7% of football fans are idiots.  

I'd say its more 50/50. 

I'll get my coat.

[TRO]

47 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

I remember many years back when I first got season tickets for my four young sons. We were two seats away from a fifty something fan who apparently came to the Villa for two things .... a pre match booze up, continued at halftime (he would leave his seat ten minutes before half time, to be at the front of the bar queue, and return ten minutes after the second half had started) and to shout continued abuse at Alan Wright. He would repeatedly shout "Wrighty, Wrighty, you'll never be a footballer as long as I've got a hole in my arse"! He even shouted it one time as Wright hit a cracking cross from thirty yards out on the left touchline which was headed in for a goal in front of the North Stand.

The point I'm making is he was still a fan who paid for his season ticket and was entitled to his opinion, even if it did get annoying. That's how I see points of view on VT that I don't necessarily agree with. We're all Villa fans even when we're poles apart in how we see things. "Vive la difference" as the French say, because without differing opinions there would be no reason to come on here and debate.

Bravo...That's what I call a balanced view....Even if I would feel aggrieved sitting next to such a unenviable character as him.

[Xela]

5 hours ago, Woody1000 said:

The problem I have is not just in the manager thread, but other threads in general when it comes to negativity about our players.

Maybe it’s because I’m 40 now and I’ve become a father in the last couple of years, but I see so much negativity everywhere. I love Aston Villa and I find that they bring me a lot of joy, even more since I decided to just get behind the team. I used to spend the whole time watching them cussing every missed pass, every missed tackle, but I try to just enjoy it all now. It’s not that there is anything wrong with constructive criticism, or pointing out that a player had a poor game or made a mistake, but it’s the OTT, vitriolic stuff which just blows my mind. I read a lads Twitter feed the other day and counted 94 consecutive tweets about Villa, all negative, another guy had over 60 consecutively negative tweets about us, It’s a similar story on here with certain really negative posters.

Im starting to think that maybe this forum isn’t for me anymore, maybe I am a happy clapper but I would just rather be positive about the club. In the last 5 years we’ve had championship football, and almost no football! I’m just trying to enjoy the ride now, wherever it goes.

 

I think once you accept that some people will never be happy, you can let it wash over your head. They're just the new breed of 'online fan'.

Have a read of this article and you'll be nodding your head at it! Every club has fans like that

 

[TRO]

40 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Also let’s not forget there was a study that confirmed that 89.7% of football fans are idiots.  

so how would the 10.3% be described.....Villa Fans?

[nick76]

45 minutes ago, TRO said:

so how would the 10.3% be described.....Villa Fans?

Tammy Abraham fans

[Tomaszk]

2 hours ago, villabromsgrove said:

I remember many years back when I first got season tickets for my four young sons. We were two seats away from a fifty something fan who apparently came to the Villa for two things .... a pre match booze up, continued at halftime (he would leave his seat ten minutes before half time, to be at the front of the bar queue, and return ten minutes after the second half had started) and to shout continued abuse at Alan Wright. He would repeatedly shout "Wrighty, Wrighty, you'll never be a footballer as long as I've got a hole in my arse"! He even shouted it one time as Wright hit a cracking cross from thirty yards out on the left touchline which was headed in for a goal in front of the North Stand.

The point I'm making is he was still a fan who paid for his season ticket and was entitled to his opinion, even if it did get annoying. That's how I see points of view on VT that I don't necessarily agree with. We're all Villa fans even when we're poles apart in how we see things. "Vive la difference" as the French say, because without differing opinions there would be no reason to come on here and debate.

Enjoyed that, thanks. Alan Wright Wright Wright showed him.

He doesn't sound like much of a fan to me though.

Abusing players every week? If he was to come on here and say that's a good thing, everyone should do it I wouldn't be too interested in debating it with him. I would laugh at what a silly opinion he had though.

[nick76]

8 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Alan Wright Wright Wright showed him.

Not really, I don’t agree with what that fan did but I wasn’t a massive Alan Wright fan either.  Past history now though…back to Dean.

Edited September 21, 2021 by nick76

[dont_do_it_doug.]

9 hours ago, DCJonah said:

I don't feel any need to be balanced on this subject. As I said, it's not needed.

An extreme example but it would be the same if we were talking about anti vax protests, I would feel no need to present a balanced argument on the subject. 

Dean Smith has been fantastic for us. Has moved this club forward and what ever happens will leave a legacy for us to build on. 

There's nothing that needs to be added to balance out that so those that have always moaned can still have one. 

See this is where I disagree with the general premise of the way we discuss and debate things societally.

Take your anti-vax argument. I think there is value in talking about the potential negatives of a vaccine that was undeniably, and with good reason, rushed to market. There is empirical evidence that it causes adverse side effects in some people. Today, we have enough data to say that in most age groups, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the potential short term side effects. Can we say with absolutely certainty that they do not cause as yet unforeseen long term side effects? We cannot. Can we say with absolute certainty that they are fit for mass distribution amongst younger children, or that the negatives both short and long term outweigh the positives for those age groups? No, we cannot. On the balance of probability, in my opinion, we should get the vaccine into as many arms as possible within any given timeframe, but anyone who tells you they are 100% safe, or that Dean Smith is 100% the right man to take us forward, is a liar, and in pretending this is not a debate worthy of discussion only serves to widen the gap between the two chosen camps on any given subject. 

I would always, at least these days, err on the side of staying out of any 'camp' and try to remain open to all ideas, particularly those that challenge me. That doesn't stop me disagreeing vehemently with some of the bullshit spouted, whether that be on vaccines or Dean Smith. But I do agree we should always try to make sure it is based in evidence rather than vibes. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

3 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

See this is where I disagree with the general premise of the way we discuss and debate things societally.

Take your anti-vax argument. I think there is value in talking about the potential negatives of a vaccine that was undeniably, and with good reason, rushed to market. There is empirical evidence that it causes adverse side effects in some people. Today, we have enough data to say that in most age groups, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the potential short term side effects. Can we say with absolutely certainty that they do not cause as yet unforeseen long term side effects? We cannot. Can we say with absolute certainty that they are fit for mass distribution amongst younger children, or that the negatives both short and long term outweigh the positives for those age groups? No, we cannot. On the balance of probability, in my opinion, we should get the vaccine into as many arms as possible within any given timeframe, but anyone who tells you they are 100% safe, or that Dean Smith is 100% the right man to take us forward, is a liar, and in pretending this is not a debate worthy of discussion only serves to widen the gap between the two chosen camps on any given subject. 

I would always, at least these days, err on the side of staying out of any 'camp' and try to remain open to all ideas, particularly those that challenge me. That doesn't stop me disagreeing vehemently with some of the bullshit spouted, whether that be on vaccines or Dean Smith. But I do agree we should always try to make sure it is based in evidence rather than vibes. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

For the record I am pro vaccine and pro Dean Smith. Inject them both straight up me. 

[DCJonah]

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

See this is where I disagree with the general premise of the way we discuss and debate things societally.

Take your anti-vax argument. I think there is value in talking about the potential negatives of a vaccine that was undeniably, and with good reason, rushed to market. There is empirical evidence that it causes adverse side effects in some people. Today, we have enough data to say that in most age groups, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the potential short term side effects. Can we say with absolutely certainty that they do not cause as yet unforeseen long term side effects? We cannot. Can we say with absolute certainty that they are fit for mass distribution amongst younger children, or that the negatives both short and long term outweigh the positives for those age groups? No, we cannot. On the balance of probability, in my opinion, we should get the vaccine into as many arms as possible within any given timeframe, but anyone who tells you they are 100% safe, or that Dean Smith is 100% the right man to take us forward, is a liar, and in pretending this is not a debate worthy of discussion only serves to widen the gap between the two chosen camps on any given subject. 

I would always, at least these days, err on the side of staying out of any 'camp' and try to remain open to all ideas, particularly those that challenge me. That doesn't stop me disagreeing vehemently with some of the bullshit spouted, whether that be on vaccines or Dean Smith. But I do agree we should always try to make sure it is based in evidence rather than vibes. 

I agree with this for many things. I'm certainly not 100% one way in all subjects or areas I discuss. I just don't agree that all subjects require a balanced view. There's lot of topics, that in my opinion, are clear one way or the other. 

It doesn't mean I'm not open to differing opinions. I've never claimed Smith is perfect or has never made an error. But from what we've experienced since he joined us I don't see any need to balance out the overwhelming positive views I have towards him. 

[sne]

8 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

For the record I am pro vaccine and pro Dean Smith. Inject them both straight up me. 

[ozvillafan]

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

See this is where I disagree with the general premise of the way we discuss and debate things societally.

Take your anti-vax argument. I think there is value in talking about the potential negatives of a vaccine that was undeniably, and with good reason, rushed to market. There is empirical evidence that it causes adverse side effects in some people. Today, we have enough data to say that in most age groups, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the potential short term side effects. Can we say with absolutely certainty that they do not cause as yet unforeseen long term side effects? We cannot. Can we say with absolute certainty that they are fit for mass distribution amongst younger children, or that the negatives both short and long term outweigh the positives for those age groups? No, we cannot. On the balance of probability, in my opinion, we should get the vaccine into as many arms as possible within any given timeframe, but anyone who tells you they are 100% safe, or that Dean Smith is 100% the right man to take us forward, is a liar, and in pretending this is not a debate worthy of discussion only serves to widen the gap between the two chosen camps on any given subject. 

I would always, at least these days, err on the side of staying out of any 'camp' and try to remain open to all ideas, particularly those that challenge me. That doesn't stop me disagreeing vehemently with some of the bullshit spouted, whether that be on vaccines or Dean Smith. But I do agree we should always try to make sure it is based in evidence rather than vibes. 

The word to sum all this up is "considerate".

In the context of other people with differing views, it's been best described to me like this: "Being considerate is the difference between knowing your mind and having your mind made up".

If you come with the latter attitude, the end result is an argument. With the former, you listen with respect but agree to disagree.

[KentVillan]

As a big fan of Smith, I see two weaknesses that bother me a bit.

One is I think he struggles a bit with overseas signings. He has talked previously about bringing in a European coach, and I wonder if that’s an admission of sorts that he’s struggled to build the same rapport with players like Guilbert, Wesley, Luiz, Sanson, etc. His track record with homegrown players is much stronger.

The other is I’m not sure he comes up with specific plans to target opposition weaknesses or cancel out their strengths. Not seen us go after a dodgy fullback or create a mismatch with a clever substitution. He doesn’t seem to think about the game like that - it’s tends to be about repeating the same patterns of play from game to game. At the very highest level, I think you need to be able to do that in the big season-defining games.

But he’s a manager who seems very reflective and self-aware, so as others have said, these might not be weaknesses forever.

He’s still a relatively young manager, learning his trade. For where we are and the progress we’ve made, I just don’t get most of the negativity around him. He’s achieved what we’ve wanted so far, and done it in a classy way, creating a good culture around the club.

The so-called “Smith In” crowd is just people who want him to get a fair crack at showing what he can do here. Every season there’s another manager somewhere who is supposedly much better than Smith… I’ve seen names like Allardyce, Bielsa, Wilder, Ancelotti in the past.

So this year it’ll be Moyes, Potter, Frank. Let’s see how things pan out. Smith has a habit of progressing past all these supposedly superior managers. Maybe he’s alright at this?

One of the really sad things is he was the first coach to really get a consistent tune out of Jack Grealish, and he gets almost no credit for that. It’s just completely glossed over. Jack didn’t join City because Smith is a shit coach, he joined them because you have to play for a Sky 6 club to get the stardom and guaranteed England place that he craves. I’d be amazed if Pep actually significantly improves him at this stage in his career. He talked a good game re playing him as an 8 but has quickly realised that Smith was right.

It’s little things like this where some of our fans seem to just swallow the FIFA / Sky / TalkSport / Big 6 narrative and bash Smith because he isn’t a star coach wanked over on YouTube by Tifo and the like.

Anyway, rant over. Not sure where I’m going with this Feel free to criticise Smith, but surely we’re free to bite back if we like him? Nobody’s been silenced.

[WallisFrizz]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

The other is I’m not sure he comes up with specific plans to target opposition weaknesses or cancel out their strengths. Not seen us go after a dodgy fullback or create a mismatch with a clever substitution. He doesn’t seem to think about the game like that - it’s tends to be about repeating the same patterns of play from game to game. At the very highest level, I think you need to be able to do that in the big season-defining games.

He did this on Saturday by replacing Targett with Bailey and explained that he wanted to better exploit the space that Targett had been getting down the left.

Also, didn’t we destroy Liverpool 7-2 with a very specific game plan?

Those are two examples off the top of my head, I’m sure there would be more.

 

[Dave-R]

14 hours ago, ejs1111 said:

Given all the conflicting opinions about DS as a manager.  Maybe we should lock the thread and make two NEW threads:

Dean Smith IN

Dean Smith OUT

Then ppl can go to their respective threads and vent accordingly.  Thread with the most pages at the end of the season wins! 

Smith in and out page competition, see which gather most pages by end of the season,is a good idea ejs I see what your trying to do.

[peterw]

On 20/09/2021 at 13:54, Peter Griffin said:

We lost 3-0, yes we were great in the 1st half but TT changed tactics in the 2nd half and won the game. 

Doesn't mean one coach didn't out-think the other. We were on top at the start of the second half also until the error, at which point Chelsea could just manage the game without having to attack. Chelsea didn't change tactics but personnel.

[TRO]

11 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

See this is where I disagree with the general premise of the way we discuss and debate things societally.

Take your anti-vax argument. I think there is value in talking about the potential negatives of a vaccine that was undeniably, and with good reason, rushed to market. There is empirical evidence that it causes adverse side effects in some people. Today, we have enough data to say that in most age groups, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the potential short term side effects. Can we say with absolutely certainty that they do not cause as yet unforeseen long term side effects? We cannot. Can we say with absolute certainty that they are fit for mass distribution amongst younger children, or that the negatives both short and long term outweigh the positives for those age groups? No, we cannot. On the balance of probability, in my opinion, we should get the vaccine into as many arms as possible within any given timeframe, but anyone who tells you they are 100% safe, or that Dean Smith is 100% the right man to take us forward, is a liar, and in pretending this is not a debate worthy of discussion only serves to widen the gap between the two chosen camps on any given subject. 

I would always, at least these days, err on the side of staying out of any 'camp' and try to remain open to all ideas, particularly those that challenge me. That doesn't stop me disagreeing vehemently with some of the bullshit spouted, whether that be on vaccines or Dean Smith. But I do agree we should always try to make sure it is based in evidence rather than vibes. 

well said ,Dave.

[TRO]

9 hours ago, ozvillafan said:

The word to sum all this up is "considerate".

In the context of other people with differing views, it's been best described to me like this: "Being considerate is the difference between knowing your mind and having your mind made up".

If you come with the latter attitude, the end result is an argument. With the former, you listen with respect but agree to disagree.

I always believe, instead of fighting an opposite opinion to yours, which folk are entitled to.....present your point stronger, in the hope its accepted....if not as you say agree to disagree.

[Kiwivillan]

11 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I think there is value in talking about the potential negatives of a vaccine that was undeniably, and with good reason, rushed to market.

There is empirical evidence that it causes adverse side effects in some people

So miniscule it's like judging Smith on 1 minute of his entire Villa managerial career. (I threw that out there. Probably statistically closer to a second or less)

For fear of going off topic though as per the correlation I think a lot of the negative Smith comments or questioning are needless nit-picking

Edited September 22, 2021 by Kiwivillan