Dean Smith

[DCJonah]

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

I can only respond to what you actually post and not what you claim at a later stage is what you posted. The entire comment I replied to is...

Surprising how the odd few managers with the best squads, can afford to rotate players more. 

How often does it happen with every other club?

That is about rotation and that is what I replied to

I know, hence why I said the discussion is changing. My point in rotation was to the idea that Dean plays his favourites being a unique negative. 

[Peter Griffin]

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I know, hence why I said the discussion is changing. My point in rotation was to the idea that Dean plays his favourites being a unique negative. 

That's not what the post suggests. It is saying it is surprising that the best squads are the ones that can afford to rotate. This means it is only the top teams can afford to rotate and suggests that Villa cannot afford to rotate. As you are now saying, Dean elects to rotate. When you say it is unique, is that to other teams in the PL or is it unique in that it is a unique that Dean has a fault?

[GrassyNoel]

21 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I find myself really in a odd predicament with Smith and our current position, it isn't something I'm used to as I'm normally very finite in my thinking. I'm not calling for him to go but I no longer have confidence in his ability to continue taking us forward,  yes I know that makes me sound like Gary Neville but bare with me and I'll explain.

With Bruce I was vociferous and pretty unrelenting in my opposition and condemnation of his managerial approach, even when the results were relatively position. I knew where I stood on Bruce, that he wasn't a good manager and that he ultimately wasn't good for the club even when we were winning games. I knew it would end badly and he was damaging rather than building the club. I've been similarly steadfast on all our other managers post O'Neill, none of whom I've rated or wanted in the job including Houllier because they've all been bad appointments, Smith is the first good one since O'Neill which is a shocking indictment of those who have run our club.

Thinking about this and O'Neill made me start to draw comparison's between their spells in charge at B6, between what they inherited, their strengths and ultimately their shortcomings and the topic of glass ceilings imagined or otherwise.

Smith and O'Neill aren't similar, in fact they are polar opposites in almost every way. One had a stellar playing career, the other didn't. One was brash, abrasive, combative and argumentative the other is polite, considered, congenial and frankly quite clearly a lovely guy when the other frankly just clearly isn't. Both men, with the benefit of significant financial backing that surpassed those who had gone before them transformed the club, dragging it out of its slumber and significantly improving our performance and standing. 

With O'Neill, for me doubts about his ability to take us further started during his 3rd season, I felt he couldn't take us further. It was an hugely unpopular opinion and one I wasn't very forthcoming with but I wasn't alone, that summer he was given a lot of money to try and take us to the next level. We again finished 6th and the following summer it all fell apart, the impact of which none of us could have imagined and which took us 10 years to recover from. I often wonder how different things could have been had Lerner had a more aware man at the helm than Faulkner, how different things could have been if they had replaced O'Neill after his 3rd season and we not pissed a fortune up a wall the summer before his final season. It is the story of Villa, we are the what might have been club.

Some 10 years or so years later I find myself wondering are we in a similar position with Smith? We all know what he has achieved, none of us need to recap that but neither should that be dismissed or downplayed in any way.

The question is can he continue the progress or has he, as I'd argue O'Neill had done 12 months before his departure hit the proverbial glass ceiling?

Many of those dismayed with criticism of Smith in recent days, on here and elsewhere, have reacted as if the criticism is the result of the last 2 or 3 games or the 9 games of this season. I can't speak for others but for me, the seeds of doubt go back much further.

An element of doubt has always been there such as been the dependence upon Grealish throughout his tenure, the disparity in results and performances with and without our former talisman have always made assessing Smith difficult. That isn't to detract from his tangible impact on the club but it does make it hard, for me at least, to know how much is due to who.

We started last season on fire then post Christmas and in the absence of Jack it went very wrong. That was when doubts grew for me, our inability to find a way to play in his prolonged absence was hugely alarming and I wondered then if as a club we may need to face difficult decisions in order to progress futher. While last season was an improvement on the one that went before, given our start I think we under achieved. 

This summer came and went, as did Grealish and so did £95m to try and replace him and the undoubted void he left behind. Now I'm not going to dwell on our summer recruitment, it doesn't need a recap and I've expressed my views on it several times already and I'm sure nobody needs hear them again so excuse me skipping to the here and now.

I know people will point at injuries, at summer disruptions and they are valid points. However we've seemingly gone from being almost entirely dependant upon Grealish to being almost entirely dependant upon Bailey coming in and making everything make sense. That to me is hugely alarming and I'm afraid leaves me questioning Smith.

The departure of Grealish was always going to be damaging to us but we had the later half of last season to try and find a way to play without him, we had the summer and we've had a quarter of a season and we still seem no closure to finding a solution.

Sure some are being reactionary to the Wolves and Arsenal games, no doubt, there are though very legitimate concerns that underpin others comments and they are predicated on far more than 2/3 or 9 games. 

I'm not personally calling for Smith to go, I want stability at the club, I want longevity of managers, ultimately I want more than anything Smith to work out. For this to be a blimp and for one of our own to continue to lead the club forward.

Chopping and changing managers is no guarantee of anything unless you are Chelsea and I think we can all agree there aren't exactly an array of options out there that are attractive. With Bruce for me there was no gamble, he had to go and should have gone sooner, we are not in that position with Smith. I am though left with a nagging doubt, a feeling I had with O'Neill in that 3rd season and it just won't go away.

We could win the next 2 or 3 games and it would still be there I think, it didn't come over night and neither will it go over night although if we beat West Ham I'm sure many will proclaim those who raised doubts were wrong.

Smith needs results and fast but more than that he needs to show he is capable of leading a winning team in the absence of you know who, over to you Dean.

I'm off back to lurk in shadows again.
 

 

Magnificent post. It’s where I am too, especially the point about moving from relying on Joe to relying on Bailey (or danger of).

[foreveryoung]

11 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I know, hence why I said the discussion is changing. My point in rotation was to the idea that Dean plays his favourites being a unique negative. 

Apparently we can't compare our team against another's, with reference to how well we are doing, but we can compare our manager to other managers to try and keep proving your narrative, an to disregard other posters opinions

Being simplistic, if Smith want's to be a top manager, he needs to start acting like one.

[DCJonah]

10 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

That's not what the post suggests. It is saying it is surprising that the best squads are the ones that can afford to rotate. This means it is only the top teams can afford to rotate and suggests that Villa cannot afford to rotate. As you are now saying, Dean elects to rotate. When you say it is unique, is that to other teams in the PL or is it unique in that it is a unique that Dean has a fault?

It's not unique that a manager sticks with his favourite, trusted players. 

Pointing out Man City or Chelsea to try and prove otherwise is irrelevant.

[VillanousOne]

48 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I find myself really in a odd predicament with Smith and our current position, it isn't something I'm used to as I'm normally very finite in my thinking. I'm not calling for him to go but I no longer have confidence in his ability to continue taking us forward,  yes I know that makes me sound like Gary Neville but bare with me and I'll explain.

With Bruce I was vociferous and pretty unrelenting in my opposition and condemnation of his managerial approach, even when the results were relatively position. I knew where I stood on Bruce, that he wasn't a good manager and that he ultimately wasn't good for the club even when we were winning games. I knew it would end badly and he was damaging rather than building the club. I've been similarly steadfast on all our other managers post O'Neill, none of whom I've rated or wanted in the job including Houllier because they've all been bad appointments, Smith is the first good one since O'Neill which is a shocking indictment of those who have run our club.

Thinking about this and O'Neill made me start to draw comparison's between their spells in charge at B6, between what they inherited, their strengths and ultimately their shortcomings and the topic of glass ceilings imagined or otherwise.

Smith and O'Neill aren't similar, in fact they are polar opposites in almost every way. One had a stellar playing career, the other didn't. One was brash, abrasive, combative and argumentative the other is polite, considered, congenial and frankly quite clearly a lovely guy when the other frankly just clearly isn't. Both men, with the benefit of significant financial backing that surpassed those who had gone before them transformed the club, dragging it out of its slumber and significantly improving our performance and standing. 

With O'Neill, for me doubts about him during his 3rd season, I felt he couldn't take us further. It was an hugely unpopular opinion and one I wasn't very forthcoming with but I wasn't alone, that summer he was given a lot of money to try and take us to the next level. We again finished 6th and the following summer it all fell apart, the impact of which none of us could have imagined and which took us 10 years to recover from. I often wonder how different things could have been had Lerner had a more aware man at the helm than Faulkner, how different things could have been if they had replaced O'Neill after his 3rd season and we not pissed a fortune up a wall the summer before his final season. It is the story of Villa, we are the what might have been club.

Some 10 years or so years later I find myself wondering are we in a similar position with Smith? We all know what he has achieved, none of us need to recap that but neither should that be dismissed or downplayed in any way.

The question is can he continue the progress or has he, as I'd argue O'Neill had done 12 months before his departure hit the proverbial glass ceiling?

Many of those dismayed with criticism of Smith in recent days, on here and elsewhere, have reacted as if the criticism is the result of the last 2 or 3 games or the 9 games of this season. I can't speak for others but for me, the seeds of doubt go back much further.

An element of doubt has always been there such as been the dependence upon Grealish throughout his tenure, the disparity in results and performances with and without our former talisman have always made assessing Smith difficult. That isn't to detract from his tangible impact on the club but it does make it hard, for me at least, to know how much is due to who.

We started last season on fire then post Christmas and in the absence of Jack it went very wrong. That was when doubts grew for me, our inability to find a way to play in his prolonged absence was hugely alarming and I wondered then if as a club we may need to face difficult decisions in order to progress futher. While last season was an improvement on the one that went before, given our start I think we under achieved. 

This summer came and went, as did Grealish and so did £95m to try and replace him and the undoubted void he left behind. Now I'm not going to dwell on our summer recruitment, it doesn't need a recap and I've expressed my views on it several times already and I'm sure nobody needs hear them again so excuse me skipping to the here and now.

I know people will point at injuries, at summer disruptions and they are valid points. However we've seemingly gone from being almost entirely dependant upon Grealish to being almost entirely dependant upon Bailey coming in and making everything make sense. That to me is hugely alarming and I'm afraid leaves me questioning Smith.

The departure of Grealish was always going to be damaging to us but we had the later half of last season to try and find a way to play without him, we had the summer and we've had a quarter of a season and we still seem no closure to finding a solution.

Sure some are being reactionary to the Wolves and Arsenal games, no doubt, there are though very legitimate concerns that underpin others comments and they are predicated on far more than 2/3 or 9 games. 

I'm not personally calling for Smith to go, I want stability at the club, I want longevity of managers, ultimately I want more than anything Smith to work out. For this to be a blimp and for one of our own to continue to lead the club forward.

Chopping and changing managers is no guarantee of anything unless you are Chelsea and I think we can all agree there aren't exactly an array of options out there that are attractive. With Bruce for me there was no gamble, he had to go and should have gone sooner, we are not in that position with Smith. I am though left with a nagging doubt, a feeling I had with O'Neill in that 3rd season and it just won't go away.

We could win the next 2 or 3 games and it would still be there I think, it didn't come over night and neither will it go over night although if we beat West Ham I'm sure many will proclaim those who raised doubts were wrong.

Smith needs results and fast but more than that he needs to show he is capable of leading a winning team in the absence of you know who, over to you Dean. Personally I have quite significant doubts.

I'm off back to lurk in shadows again.
 

 

I think my issue is I never really feel that Dean has the tactical nouns or game management that other managers have, most of the time we have a plan A and if that doesn’t work we lose. Granted that Plan A can be good, but I never feel that Dean looks at his opposition and works out how to nullify them or handle their players (often anyway). Look at wee John McGinn marking a huge player like Partey vs Arsenal at set pieces, how many times have we seen that type of thing. I just don’t feel we ever control matches, his half time talks and substitutions are rarely bold, interesting or impactful. 

We went all in on Gresford and even made him Captain to placate his ego when we all knew it should have been Mings and for his entire tenure we have never had a particularly balanced or effective midfield, just occasional cameos.

I think he can man manage well and sometimes a solid plan A gets you results, but again it is rare for him to come up with tactics and a starting eleven that isn’t entirely predictable. Even with Gresford I lost track of how many times the opposition just stuck three players on him and that was enough to shut down any threat we would have.

I like Dean and want him to succeed and think now he has the players fit, he should get the chance to show us the plan A he has in mind that features the new signings.

if he stubbornly stays with the 352 in the coming matches and loses then questions need to be asked, if he goes 433 and goes for it then at least we can look at positive change.

 

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, VillanousOne said:

I think my issue is I never really feel that Dean has the tactical nouns or game management that other managers have, most of the time we have a plan A and if that doesn’t work we lose. Granted that Plan A can be good, but I never feel that Dean looks at his opposition and works out how to nullify them or handle their players (often anyway). Look at wee John McGinn marking a huge player like Partey vs Arsenal at set pieces, how many times have we seen that type of thing. I just don’t feel we ever control matches, his half time talks and substitutions are rarely bold, interesting or impactful. 

We went all in on Gresford and even made him Captain to placate his ego when we all knew it should have been Mings and for his entire tenure we have never had a particularly balanced or effective midfield, just occasional cameos.

I think he can man manage well and sometimes a solid plan A gets you results, but again it is rare for him to come up with tactics and a starting eleven that isn’t entirely predictable. Even with Gresford I lost track of how many times the opposition just stuck three players on him and that was enough to shut down any threat we would have.

I like Dean and want him to succeed and think now he has the players fit, he should get the chance to show us the plan A he has in mind that features the new signings.

if he stubbornly stays with the 352 in the coming matches and loses then questions need to be asked, if he goes 433 and goes for it then at least we can look at positive change.

 

I agree with almost all of that except I wouldn't have Mings as captain.

I agree with everything else, we win or lose and have throughout his tenure.

[bannedfromHandV]

A post-Grealish hangover was always on the cards, what’s not helped is having had a succession of injuries which led to a formation change which initially worked but seems to have gone off the rails too. 

I’m sure we’ll revert to the usual setup now Bailey is fit and if we can get him, Traore and Sanson fit and firing that will help massively.

Fingers crossed Buendia comes good, if all that happens we’ll pick up again.

[Guest av1]

8 hours ago, PaulC said:

I think theres been a lot of constructive criticism on here myself. I don't think many are anti-smith but its plain to see what is wrong and Smith doesnt put it right then his job has to be in question. 

Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, Smith isn’t perfect, I don’t agree with all of his decisions, but the hyperbole on here after a few loses is madness. 
 

Since Friday we’ve had, Smith has got to go, Lange is a fraud, Purslow can piss off, Mings should be stripped of the captaincy, Tuanzebe must have a clause saying he has to play every game, and Sanson should be sacked because some plum claims he threw a water bottle at the manager. 
 

There maybe problems at the football club, but there are even bigger problems with the fan base. It’s flipping embarrassing at times 

[sheepyvillian]

3 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

From the fans, cause according to some, the owners don't have any.

Exactly the fans and it's a justified expectation. We're a massive club with a great history, but ,I'm still of the belief that we are going in the right direction and a few unsettling moments along the way is not going to alter my view that the man currently at the helm is the man to lead us where we belong.

[sheepyvillian]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

I can safely assure you sheepy 7  wins in the last 20 games, is not high expectation.....that is for the birds.

extrapolated out is 13 wins in a season.

You can switch stats around however you want. The fact is, we have progressed each season the manager has been here, fact. Let's see where we are after Christmas. 

As for expectation, I'm referring to the stature of the name, to which many a manager has been daunted. 

Let's not create mountains out of molehills, once again.

[sheepyvillian]

59 minutes ago, av1 said:

Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, Smith isn’t perfect, I don’t agree with all of his decisions, but the hyperbole on here after a few loses is madness. 
 

Since Friday we’ve had, Smith has got to go, Lange is a fraud, Purslow can piss off, Mings should be stripped of the captaincy, Tuanzebe must have a clause saying he has to play every game, and Sanson should be sacked because some plum claims he threw a water bottle at the manager. 
 

There maybe problems at the football club, but there are even bigger problems with the fan base. It’s flipping embarrassing at times 

Well said, my friend. Same old suspects chomping at the bit. You're right though, it is embarrassing a lot of the stuff that some come out with. Cash hates Mings, Watkins could barely look at Ings when he scored. It's like the mutterings of a sowing circle. 

 

[TRO]

14 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

You can switch stats around however you want. The fact is, we have progressed each season the manager has been here, fact. Let's see where we are after Christmas. 

As for expectation, I'm referring to the stature of the name, to which many a manager has been daunted. 

Let's not create mountains out of molehills, once again.

precisely...but I was offering you an alternative view to consider.

but my alternative progression stats, differ to yours...so we'll leave it there.

Edited October 26, 2021 by TRO

[TomC]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I find myself really in a odd predicament with Smith and our current position, it isn't something I'm used to as I'm normally very finite in my thinking.

Like others said, this is a good and thought-provoking post, even if I don't agree with 100% of it. I think that a lot of us have mixed thoughts.

Quote

With O'Neill, for me doubts about him during his 3rd season, I felt he couldn't take us further. It was an hugely unpopular opinion and one I wasn't very forthcoming with but I wasn't alone, that summer he was given a lot of money to try and take us to the next level. We again finished 6th and the following summer it all fell apart, the impact of which none of us could have imagined and which took us 10 years to recover from.

It's disturbing to think that a collapse could happen again. I hope that a lot of it was Lerner and won't be repeated with NSWE.

Quote

Many of those dismayed with criticism of Smith in recent days, on here and elsewhere, have reacted as if the criticism is the result of the last 2 or 3 games or the 9 games of this season. I can't speak for others but for me, the seeds of doubt go back much further.

You weren't the only one asking questions last year. I don't question his ability overall, but I do think he is slow to react, whether within a game (substitutions) or over a stretch of games. Patience is a virtue, but sometimes you can have too much of a good thing.

Quote

We started last season on fire then post Christmas and in the absence of Jack it went very wrong. That was when doubts grew for me, our inability to find a way to play in his prolonged absence was hugely alarming and I wondered then if as a club we may need to face difficult decisions in order to progress futher.

Our squad was thin last year and it showed in the second half with injuries and fatigue. I think it's a valid excuse. This year, we have depth. He won't have that excuse anymore. You can argue that we haven't often had our best XI out there, but we've never had a side half full of fringe players, either.

Connecting Deano to the long-term plan, NSWE have not spent petroclub money. They clearly intend to build carefully. That means progressing up the table slowly. I'd be happy if we can get into the top 6 in the next 2-3 years and the CL places in 5.

Unless we end up in a relegation battle (unlikely), which would be a clear sign of moving backwards, I would give him until at least the end of this season, maybe next. Alex Ferguson didn't win a cup until his 4th year and the league until his 7th. I know, it was a different era, and I know, Ferguson was a once-in-a-generation managerial talent, but you have to give someone time to come good. Again, patience is a virtue, but not unlimited patience. If we finish in the 9th-12th range three years in a row, or go backwards, then it's time to say that Deano can't take us any further. I'm not ready to say that yet. If gradual progress is the goal, we've gotten that so far.

The only thing that would make me pull the trigger earlier is if he loses the players. Although we've seen Barkley and now Sanson blow up at him, I've not heard any rumours that he's losing the dressing room as a whole, and I have no reason to doubt his ability to manage personalities.

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by TomC

[sheepyvillian]

5 hours ago, Peter Griffin said:

That's not what the post suggests. It is saying it is surprising that the best squads are the ones that can afford to rotate. This means it is only the top teams can afford to rotate and suggests that Villa cannot afford to rotate. As you are now saying, Dean elects to rotate. When you say it is unique, is that to other teams in the PL or is it unique in that it is a unique that Dean has a fault?

Why am I suddenly feeling dizzy ?

[Woody1000]

9 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Some 10 years or so years later I find myself wondering are we in a similar position with Smith? We all know what he has achieved, none of us need to recap that but neither should that be dismissed or downplayed in any way.

 

It’s actually quite alarming how many similarities there are as far as circumstances from MON’s last season, deflating sale of best player, emergence of new financial superpower in the league, and as you rightly mentioned a small but growing group of the fan base having doubts. I’m not saying things will work out anything like the same as that season, but it does indeed feel a bit like that.

Lets just hope that if things don’t go to plan this year that NSWE don’t lose interest like Lerner did, I know Dean wouldn’t leave us on the eve of a new season as MON did.

[peterw]

I don't think there is or will be a reliance on Bailey similar to that of Grealish, more that we have signed some good players and need them on the pitch so they can play together which, given that we're a quarter of the way through the season, we haven't been able to do at any stage of the season. All fully fit and raring to go. It's been bits and pieces and not settled anywhere - which could admittedly cost Smith his job. I'd point to two mistakes tactically (Tottenham away - I said before the game that we'd be out of shape with 3 at the back given that they only play one up top who likes to drop deep, and Arsenal away where changes should have been made after only 20 minutes or so). Anyway, back to the point - we've chopped and changed and still not found a settled group due to injuries. All sides have them, but when you're searching for your identity (or recreating) after such a top player leaves as Grealish is, then that does take time.

Add to all of that that two coaches left pre-season, the manner of Grealish going (and timing), international breaks, covid protocols, the before mentioned injuries, players taking time to settle/get used to each other it's hardly surprising that it's been up and down. However, the highs we have looked very very good, and lows the polar opposite. I'm not sure if getting rid of Smith will help calm things down and help us settle or add to the problems. We seem to have everything right behind the scenes and I doubt the decision to remove SMith would be taken as a knee-jerk to anything such as losing a few games. 

BUT, its a results business and Smith knows that a turnaround is needed and quickly.  A defeat next weekend followed by another the week after and he is on thin ice. The difficulty is that by sticking to 3-5-2 even when we should have changed it (Spurs/Arsenal) means that Smith is has a tricky call to make. He needs to ditch 3-5-2 as it isn't working any more; however, it is likely to be the best option against West Ham who have a strong 2 in the middle (rice/Soucek) and pace out wide. If we do go with 3-5-2 and lose, then Smith is open to accusations that he has no tactical nous and shouldn't be sticking to a losing formula. His detractors will point to him not being able to adapt and will stick to losing formulae come what may in the hope it comes right.

As it is 4-3-3 could work in the West Ham game but would need Bailey to start and a winger (Traore/El Ghazi) on the other side. It would also mean Ings or Watkins dropped. We don't employ the 4-3-3 system like Liverpool so playing Watkins wide wouldn't work as he'd be spending too much time too deep. So it's Watkins or Ings. One could drop behind, but again, that's not the position for Ings (and definitely not Wtakins to take up, and that should be left to Buendia - who still needs to find his feet anyway.

If 3-5-2 is the preferred formation than we need Konsa back in the middle and Tuanzebe wide. I get with Tuanzebe is in the middle as he is better at coming out with the ball, however Kona is the better defender so should be in the middle.

That's a separate issue though. It may be just as simple as Smith's message isn't been heard for the first time. It may be that the paradox of all these changes is that one more is needed to bring a new sense of calm and direction. It may be that Smith will pay for Grealish going and new signings taking their time to settle on top of everything else mentioned above. I think he will pay and be replaced, whether he needs to be is another point entirely.

[peterw]

4 minutes ago, Woody1000 said:

It’s actually quite alarming how many similarities there are as far as circumstances from MON’s last season, deflating sale of best player, emergence of new financial superpower in the league, and as you rightly mentioned a small but growing group of the fan base having doubts. I’m not saying things will work out anything like the same as that season, but it does indeed feel a bit like that.

Lets just hope that if things don’t go to plan this year that NSWE don’t lose interest like Lerner did, I know Dean wouldn’t leave us on the eve of a new season as MON did.

MON is and was an egotistical gobshite who dropped is in the lurch less than a week before the season was due to start. For that (and I wanted him gone at the end of his second season) and that alone he should never be mentioned in the same breath as anyone of high regard in the Villa manager scheme of things. Lerner's crime? Asking him to cut back on his sales and move out those he'd paid top dollar for and wasn't using. MON is in my used to like but is now a total dick - see also; Hodge, S., Barry, G., Yorke, D., Bosnich, M., Platt, D, Southgate, G.,  - oh, there's more...

[villa4europe]

Yeah I'll worry about Smith being like MON when he buys a new RB, makes him one of our best earners and then decides to play Nakamba there every week instead

[Woody1000]

9 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Yeah I'll worry about Smith being like MON when he buys a new RB, makes him one of our best earners and then decides to play Nakamba there every week instead

I didn’t say he was like him, I was talking about the circumstances.