Dean Smith

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

5 minutes ago, Talldarkandransome said:

Sorry bud, it's not nonsense. Yes Grealish made Villa better bit he didn't define Deanos tenure.

It really is.

 

Some stats for you;

Grealish played 19 of Smith's 34 games that season (56%), we picked up 82% of our wins (14/17) and 74% of our points (45/61) during those games. With Grealish we were 14/3/2, without him we were 3/7/5, with 71% of our losses coming when he didn't play.

First season back he missed just two games, we lost both.

Second season he played 26 games (68%), we got 81% of our wins with him (13/16) and 78% of our points (43/55). With Grealish, 13/4/9, without 3/3/6.

After Grealish left, from 11 games we went 3/1/7.

With Grealish, Smith's Win% was 44%, without 23%.

 

He made a massive difference, and he very much did define Smith's tenure, hence why he ended up getting sacked after Grealish left as he proved he couldn't perform for us without Grealish.

 

[Talldarkandransome]

1 minute ago, VillaChris said:

He is.

However I do get the feeling post Gerrard a few on here will be calling for us to bring DS back which won't progress us much e.g. DS is better than Gerrard but someone like Rodgers in right conditions is comfortably better than both if you get my reasoning so that's how we get moving back up premier league table again after rocky last 12 months.

Hopefully he continues winning at Norwich although part of me would find it incredibly tedious coming back up just to go down with 25 points again. At least likes of Forest are genuinely having a go and interesting to watch as are Fulham.

I dont want Deano back. I just think he's better than Gerrard

[Talldarkandransome]

2 minutes ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

It really is.

 

Some stats for you;

Grealish played 19 of Smith's 34 games that season (56%), we picked up 82% of our wins (14/17) and 74% of our points (45/61) during those games. With Grealish we were 14/3/2, without him we were 3/7/5, with 71% of our losses coming when he didn't play.

First season back he missed just two games, we lost both.

Second season he played 26 games (68%), we got 81% of our wins with him (13/16) and 78% of our points (43/55). With Grealish, 13/4/9, without 3/3/6.

After Grealish left, from 11 games we went 3/1/7.

With Grealish, Smith's Win% was 44%, without 23%.

 

He made a massive difference, and he very much did define Smith's tenure, hence why he ended up getting sacked after Grealish left as he proved he couldn't perform for us without Grealish.

 

There's  a lot of stats there. You nust have worked really hard to get them.

Whilst I don't completely disagree with you I can't give Grealish that must attention

[Keyblade]

1 hour ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

Nonsense. We went on a 10 game winning run when Grealish returned from injury and had gotten just 2 wins from the previous 13 without him. Not to mention our run of good form before his injury coincided with him getting 2 goals and 3 assists from 6 games.

Smith deserves a lot of credit for getting Grealish to realise his potential, but it's completely revisionist to suggest Grealish didn't make much difference that season.

I think more crucially than Grealish missing (which was huge of course, he was our best player), Tuanzebe, our only fit recognized CB at the time also got injured. Our defence was a shambles. We had to recall Tommy Elphick and then quickly bring in Mings and Hause to fix it. If we didn't do that, Grealish or no Grealish we wouldn't have even finished in the top half.

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

He is.

However I do get the feeling post Gerrard a few on here will be calling for us to bring DS back which won't progress us much e.g. DS is better than Gerrard but someone like Rodgers in right conditions is comfortably better than both if you get my reasoning so that's how we get moving back up premier league table again after rocky last 12 months.

Hopefully he continues winning at Norwich although part of me would find it incredibly tedious coming back up just to go down with 25 points again. At least likes of Forest are genuinely having a go and interesting to watch as are Fulham.

I honestly don’t think anyone will call for him back. Always need to look to the future. It’s just a little sweet after eating the shit we’ve been served by Gerrard to point out what we’d said all along, that Smith was far better than some give him credit for and deserves a lot more respect. Was the right time to move on from him if the right man was available. The right man was not, ir at least we didn’t pursue him.

Edited August 28, 2022 by a m ole

[Mantis]

16 minutes ago, a m ole said:

I honestly don’t think anyone will call for him back. Always need to look to the future. It’s just a little sweet after eating the shit we’ve been served by Gerrard to point out what we’d said all along, that Smith was far better than some give him credit for and deserves a lot more respect. Was the right time to move on from him if the right man was available. The right man was not, ir at least we didn’t pursue him.

Was the right time to move on regardless. The problem was we very much went for the wrong man.

[ciggiesnbeer]

A better head coach than Gerrard and I still love Deano, but not who we need right now imho. 

But if we called him he would be here Monday morning.

[Genie]

Managers have a shelf life at clubs. Sometimes a few months, sometimes years.

Smith’s time was up, thanks for the memories but it was time for a change.

 

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

Managers have a shelf life at clubs. Sometimes a few months, sometimes years.

Smith’s time was up, thanks for the memories but it was time for a change.

Players had given up, was frustrating and disappointing as ****, not sure if it was grealish being sold or them not buying in to what deano was selling but our drop off under him was shit

But its undeniable that we dropped off 

[Adam2003]

3 hours ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

It really is.

 

Some stats for you;

Grealish played 19 of Smith's 34 games that season (56%), we picked up 82% of our wins (14/17) and 74% of our points (45/61) during those games. With Grealish we were 14/3/2, without him we were 3/7/5, with 71% of our losses coming when he didn't play.

First season back he missed just two games, we lost both.

Second season he played 26 games (68%), we got 81% of our wins with him (13/16) and 78% of our points (43/55). With Grealish, 13/4/9, without 3/3/6.

After Grealish left, from 11 games we went 3/1/7.

With Grealish, Smith's Win% was 44%, without 23%.

 

He made a massive difference, and he very much did define Smith's tenure, hence why he ended up getting sacked after Grealish left as he proved he couldn't perform for us without Grealish.

 

And equally, Grealish has never produced his top form consistently for any other manager in his entire career. So credit to Smith for getting that output from him.

My take is Smith is miles ahead of Gerrard but won’t be coming back here - you never go back, and the point of getting rid of him was the owners didn’t think his ceiling was high enough for their ambitions - that won’t have changed even though they got the Gerrard appointment wrong. 

[gwi1890]

3 hours ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

It really is.

 

Some stats for you;

Grealish played 19 of Smith's 34 games that season (56%), we picked up 82% of our wins (14/17) and 74% of our points (45/61) during those games. With Grealish we were 14/3/2, without him we were 3/7/5, with 71% of our losses coming when he didn't play.

First season back he missed just two games, we lost both.

Second season he played 26 games (68%), we got 81% of our wins with him (13/16) and 78% of our points (43/55). With Grealish, 13/4/9, without 3/3/6.

After Grealish left, from 11 games we went 3/1/7.

With Grealish, Smith's Win% was 44%, without 23%.

 

He made a massive difference, and he very much did define Smith's tenure, hence why he ended up getting sacked after Grealish left as he proved he couldn't perform for us without Grealish.

 

But Smith arguably is the manager who’s got the most out of Grealish. Any other manager in world football would have built the squad we had around Jack. He deserves massive credit for getting the best out of him he actually coached him and got more out of him than any other manager Jacks had.

[VillaJ100]

55 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Players had given up, was frustrating and disappointing as ****, not sure if it was grealish being sold or them not buying in to what deano was selling but our drop off under him was shit

But its undeniable that we dropped off 

I think he told them at half time v soton that if they lost he was gone and they did seem to at least try after that. Wasn't enough though

[Zatman]

6 hours ago, VillaChris said:

They're similar in lack of plan B and in game changes. DS really struggled aswell working out how to get Ings and Watkins playing as combination giving the 3-5-2 didn't work out in the end (Forest and Spurs are both playing that formation currently and done well last six months playing it).

However DS ultimately had likes of Trez, Wesley and Davis as attacking subs to change things so nowhere near options Gerrard has of Buendia and Bailey so that must be taken into context.

no manager has a plan B, its a mythical thing made up by angry fans when the team lose. If City are losing in the last minute they throw Stones up front or Liverpool throw Van Dijk

Its not a tactical masterpiece

[Zatman]

As for people saying Smith has been shit without Grealish.......mm how is the other way around

I think Grealish has been shitter without Smith giving him free reign

[KentVillan]

5 hours ago, Mantis said:

Was the right time to move on regardless. The problem was we very much went for the wrong man.

It really wasn’t IMO. Brighton hung on to Hughton in much tougher circumstances and then replaced him at the end of the season with Potter. That approach has worked out very well for them.

Mid season sackings only work if you have a really good replacement lined up - I’m not sure there was one on the market, but Purslow thought Gerrard fit the bill.

Had we taken more time over the sacking, Smith would likely have stabilised things, and a mediocre season could have ended with a more carefully thought through replacement - or maybe he would have surprised people and got VP bouncing again.

The only “right” time to sack a manager is when you have a better one lined up.

[Mantis]

8 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It really wasn’t IMO. Brighton hung on to Hughton in much tougher circumstances and then replaced him at the end of the season with Potter. That approach has worked out very well for them.

Mid season sackings only work if you have a really good replacement lined up - I’m not sure there was one on the market, but Purslow thought Gerrard fit the bill.

Had we taken more time over the sacking, Smith would likely have stabilised things, and a mediocre season could have ended with a more carefully thought through replacement - or maybe he would have surprised people and got VP bouncing again.

The only “right” time to sack a manager is when you have a better one lined up.

None of this really goes against what I was saying; that the issue was getting Gerrard in, not the actual decision to sack Smith. If we had appointed a competent manager it wouldn't be an issue.

[KentVillan]

59 minutes ago, Mantis said:

None of this really goes against what I was saying; that the issue was getting Gerrard in, not the actual decision to sack Smith. If we had appointed a competent manager it wouldn't be an issue.

My point is sacking at the end of the season is usually much wiser - unless the situation is so desperate (bottom of table / lost the dressing room / etc) that you need the manager out urgently, or there is a very good replacement on the market that you want to bring in ASAP.

I don't think the Smith situation was anywhere near as desperate as had been made out, and I don't think there was an obvious replacement waiting to be snapped up. So it was the wrong time to sack Smith.

So I disagree with your original point re it being the right time for Smith to move on. We'd have had a better selection of managers available to us if we hadn't panicked.

Of course Purslow's argument would have been that Gerrard was a highly rated prospect who *was* a significant upgrade on Smith, and needed to be locked down before rivals swooped in on him. That has turned out to be wishful thinking.

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, KentVillan said:

My point is sacking at the end of the season is usually much wiser - unless the situation is so desperate (bottom of table / lost the dressing room / etc) that you need the manager out urgently, or there is a very good replacement on the market that you want to bring in ASAP.

I don't think the Smith situation was anywhere near as desperate as had been made out, and I don't think there was an obvious replacement waiting to be snapped up. So it was the wrong time to sack Smith.

So I disagree with your original point re it being the right time for Smith to move on. We'd have had a better selection of managers available to us if we hadn't panicked.

Of course Purslow's argument would have been that Gerrard was a highly rated prospect who *was* a significant upgrade on Smith, and needed to be locked down before rivals swooped in on him. That has turned out to be wishful thinking.

So you’re saying we should give Gerrard to the end of the season, unless we go bottom?

[It's Your Round]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

So you’re saying we should give Gerrard to the end of the season, unless we go bottom?

The difference now is that there are better options available. 

[JPJCB]

I’ve no doubt smith would be doing better with this squad than gerrard. He has the right mentality for a start