Dean Smith

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Just for balance Smithrecord at Villa is P.23 W.7 D.9 L.7

Bruce first 23 games was P. 23 W. 8 D. 4 L.11

I thought we weren't comparing the two?!

Make your mind up.

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, sne said:

And at the same time the people who were making them for Bruce are accepting none of it now for Smith.

Maybe some. 

Certainly not me.

I think the excuses are valid for Smith, just as I thought they were for Bruce. I wasn't one of the people demanding bruce get promotion in his first season despite inheriting a not dissimilar situation as Smith has inherited this time around.

Smith needs time, a transfer window or two and a pre season before he can be properly judged.
I think Bruce needed the same. But there were plenty of people mocking the posters who were saying that Bruce needed that time

[Dave-R]

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

Every single club in the entire world has a bunch of players that will not be there the following season.

This is an absolutely shite excuse for failure

Next season Adomah, thor, chester, Davis, elmohamady, Hepburn-murphy, hourihane, kodjia, green & a whole bunch more are all due to leave.

If he can't get anyone to give a shit this year what makes you think he will be able to next year?

He is as big a charlatan as Sherwood.

How do you make a player/players care for something when they are possibly not going to be around next season, you can't. You can't blame Smith for the way players are feeling or behaving. Smith can only encourage his squad to go out and put in there very best, the fact some people think he can change players minds is absoloutly absurd. Its not an excuse either for failure, Smith is being faced with all sorts which would be out of any managers control.

We can see from games which players are giving it there all. Those players that are not putting in top performances have shown in the past they are more than capable of it. The only way to sort this out would be just to give them all new contracts soit settles them. They can stay longer yet why bother doing that for those that can't give there all, especially when it's not guarenteed that they would come alive again if contracts were to be given. We are better replacing them as soon as possible anyway, the owners made it clear they wanted the age rating down. It's also known that those players that are no doubt leaving end of the season will free up a crazy amount of wages. We can surely bring in many players who'd be happy to play there hearts out for our club and there wont be none of this nonsense.

I said it's clear there is a division where alot do give a crap to those who dont. It's obvious we want to keep those players around, they have been more than noticeable anyway.

Some people are expecting Smith to be a miracle worker, some people are trying to make Smith a scapegoat instead of seeing things for what they truly are. We all shouldn't need to keep repeating ourselves but this thread has gone round and around enough, it's not getting no where.

Summer and beyond and how it all unfolds will be able to tell if were on the right track. We will soon see if the Smith out people were right to start there chants early or if we backing Smith were right in defending him. One thing that can be said is there is absoloute no harm in giving Smith the summer to work a rebuild out. If we don't give Smith time then what have we learned, absoloute nothing.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Dave-R

[Designer1]

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

He is as big a charlatan as Sherwood.

Yeah you're absolutely bang on there, the similarities are astonishing...

[hippo]

51 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

How do you make a player/players care for something when they are possibly not going to be around next season, you can't. You can't blame Smith for the way players are feeling or behaving. Smith can only encourage his squad to go out and put in there very best, the fact some people think he can change players minds is absoloutly absurd. Its not an excuse either for failure, Smith is being faced with all sorts which would be out of any managers control.

We can see from games which players are giving it there all. Those players that are not putting in top performances have shown in the past they are more than capable of it. The only way to sort this out would be just to give them all new contracts soit settles them. They can stay longer yet why bother doing that for those that can't give there all, especially when it's not guarenteed that they would come alive again if contracts were to be given. We are better replacing them as soon as possible anyway, the owners made it clear they wanted the age rating down. It's also known that those players that are no doubt leaving end of the season will free up a crazy amount of wages. We can surely bring in many players who'd be happy to play there hearts out for our club and there wont be none of this nonsense.

I said it's clear there is a division where alot do give a crap to those who dont. It's obvious we want to keep those players around, they have been more than noticeable anyway.

Some people are expecting Smith to be a miracle worker, some people are trying to make Smith a scapegoat instead of seeing things for what they truly are. We all shouldn't need to keep repeating ourselves but this thread has gone round and around enough, it's not getting no where.

Summer and beyond and how it all unfolds will be able to tell if were on the right track. We will soon see if the Smith out people were right to start there chants early or if we backing Smith were right in defending him. One thing that can be said is there is absoloute no harm in giving Smith the summer to work a rebuild out. If we don't give Smith time then what have we learned, absoloute nothing.

Thing if smith only wins 1 game between now and the end of the season. Then we come out and only 1 or two of the opening 10 next season......thats 2019/20 written off.........when perhaps the writting was on the wall in April/May.... 

[LakotaDakota]

55 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

How do you make a player/players care for something when they are possibly not going to be around next season, you can't. You can't blame Smith for the way players are feeling or behaving. Smith can only encourage his squad to go out and put in there very best, the fact some people think he can change players minds is absoloutly absurd. Its not an excuse either for failure, Smith is being faced with all sorts which would be out of any managers control.

We can see from games which players are giving it there all. Those players that are not putting in top performances have shown in the past they are more than capable of it. The only way to sort this out would be just to give them all new contracts soit settles them. They can stay longer yet why bother doing that for those that can't give there all, especially when it's not guarenteed that they would come alive again if contracts were to be given. We are better replacing them as soon as possible anyway, the owners made it clear they wanted the age rating down. It's also known that those players that are no doubt leaving end of the season will free up a crazy amount of wages. We can surely bring in many players who'd be happy to play there hearts out for our club and there wont be none of this nonsense.

I said it's clear there is a division where alot do give a crap to those who dont. It's obvious we want to keep those players around, they have been more than noticeable anyway.

Some people are expecting Smith to be a miracle worker, some people are trying to make Smith a scapegoat instead of seeing things for what they truly are. We all shouldn't need to keep repeating ourselves but this thread has gone round and around enough, it's not getting no where.

Summer and beyond and how it all unfolds will be able to tell if were on the right track. We will soon see if the Smith out people were right to start there chants early or if we backing Smith were right in defending him. One thing that can be said is there is absoloute no harm in giving Smith the summer to work a rebuild out. If we don't give Smith time then what have we learned, absoloute nothing.

It is his job to manage/motivate the players and get the best out of them. We had players with contracts expiring last year too, and the year before etc etc, As i said, what is he going to do with the pile of players out of contract next year? The majority of which make up a good chunk of our first team.

[Merson08]

The players out of contract next season is such a poor excuse. Players don't need to play cause they won't be here next season, right? This is the premise that is being put forward.

How about the players out of contract, should want to play for the shirt even more than those here for a few extra seasons. Cause you know there's the chance of winning a new contract, lets call it Alan Hutton Syndrome, he keeps getting new contracts for playing his way into it. Also its a big shop window and no one else will take a punt on a poor team player either. 

 

[praisedmambo]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Wasn't Smith given a window to address that though with the midfield? All he managed was a injured average cm from Swansea who were thrilled we took him off them. Obviously Smith didn't feel it was that big a issue as he never addressed it

We're all old enough to know the january window is full of limited opportunities. You think he wouldn't have had a complete overhaul if it was possible? Nobody achieves that in January.

[Delphinho123]

I think he's doing a great job.

Let him get on with it and he'll prove to be a good manager for us. 

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

I think he's doing a great job.

Let him get on with it and he'll prove to be a good manager for us. 

I agree with your second sentence.

I don't agree with your first. At this current time he's not doing a good job, let alone a great one.
But I'm confident... or hopeful... that given time he can build something.

[jim]

1 hour ago, Delphinho123 said:

I think he's doing a great job.

[DCJonah]

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

It is slightly amusing that a lot of the same people who slaughtered anyone making "excuses" for Bruce in his first season seem to be using the same "excuses" for Smith this time around.

I've thought about that, and probably could be classed as hypocritical in some ways. I guess for me the difference is the job they've been hired to do. Bruce was hired with the aim of going up that year and he was seriously backed in january. 

Smith has come in with the idea of lowering the age of the squad and building something long term. 

For me, and some may think i'm a hypocrite, that is the difference in my view. 

[briny_ear]

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

I've thought about that, and probably could be classed as hypocritical in some ways. I guess for me the difference is the job they've been hired to do. Bruce was hired with the aim of going up that year and he was seriously backed in january. 

Smith has come in with the idea of lowering the age of the squad and building something long term. 

For me, and some may think i'm a hypocrite, that is the difference in my view. 

I’m not sure what evidence there is for these different objectives. I wonder if they are useful because they fit the narrative rather than being based on any actual statements  that can be validated. 

When Bruce came in we were sliding towards relegation so I guess his first task was to halt that. I don’t recall anyone saying publicly and clearly he had been brought in to get us promoted that season, although there was of course a lot of bluster from the fantasist who owned the club at the time. I would have thought realistically by the time Bruce came in promotion was pretty much a lost cause.

Even more questionable is that claim that Smith has been brought in with a publicly stated objective to lower the age of the squad (although that is obviously what he will do almost inevitably because of the summer departure list and because I think he is probably more comfortable with younger players). You may be right and I’ve just missed it but who said that, when, and in which context? 

Edited February 25, 2019 by briny_ear

[PompeyVillan]

I think he's doing okay, this season isn't a free hit but I don't think Bruce or anyone else would have got much more from the current squad, especially given the injuries to key players. 

For me, the style of play he is able to implement is a lot more likely to get us promoted than either of the previous two managers, who both failed. 

I'm looking at this from the boards perspective, I don't think they employed him to get us promoted this season at all costs and I think they have a summer overhaul in mind and Smith to help with changing our style of play. 

 

 

[jim]

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

 

Smith has come in with the idea of lowering the age of the squad and building something long term. 

For me, and some may think i'm a hypocrite, that is the difference in my view. 

I haven’t heard anyone from the club come out and say any of this. 

In fact the only thing I can recall is Smith coming out on several occasions saying promotion was the aim this season. 

[Mark Albrighton]

10 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

I’m not sure what evidence there is for these different objectives. I wonder if they are useful because they fit the narrative rather than being based on any actual statements  that can be validated. 

When Bruce came in we were sliding towards relegation so I guess his first task was to halt that. I don’t recall anyone saying publicly and clearly he had been brought in to get us promoted that season, although there was of course a lot of bluster from the fantasist who owned the club at the time. I would have thought realistically by the time Bruce came in promotion was pretty much a lost cause.

Even more questionable is that claim that Smith has been brought in with a publicly stated objective to lower the age of the squad (although that is obviously what he will do almost inevitably because of the summer departure list and because I think he is probably more comfortable with younger players). You may be right and I’ve just missed it but who said that, when, and in which context? 

Bruce on his appointment certainly suggested a push for play offs was on his agenda -

Quote

Previous boss Roberto di Matteo was scoffed at for saying they could still make the play-offs shortly before his departure but Bruce, with his promotion-winning record, is speaking from experience.

"If I'd don't think I couldn't do it, I wouldn't be here," he added.

"There's no honeymoon period. We've got 35 games to go. That's a lot of time to do something.

"When I came to Birmingham in 2001, we were 15th at Christmas and still got up via the play offs.

BBC link

Now, ok there’s the argument managers have to say this sort of thing, Smith said very similar himself. But if they do make these sorts of statements, they’re going to held accountable. That’s the game they’re in.

As for for the club, rather than Smith, saying promotion isn’t necessary this season and buying younger players, although I haven’t listened to it, from what I can gather from the comments of this AGM with Purslow, it sounds like that indeed is the case. 

VT thread AGM with Christian Purslow

Of course, there’s a difference between not making the play offs and the season completely flatlining, so I don’t think the final 3 months can be too similar to the previous 3 and the board not to at least consider their options.

[DaveAV1]

25 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

I’m not sure what evidence there is for these different objectives. I wonder if they are useful because they fit the narrative rather than being based on any actual statements  that can be validated. 

When Bruce came in we were sliding towards relegation so I guess his first task was to halt that. I don’t recall anyone saying publicly and clearly he had been brought in to get us promoted that season, although there was of course a lot of bluster from the fantasist who owned the club at the time. I would have thought realistically by the time Bruce came in promotion was pretty much a lost cause.

Even more questionable is that claim that Smith has been brought in with a publicly stated objective to lower the age of the squad (although that is obviously what he will do almost inevitably because of the summer departure list and because I think he is probably more comfortable with younger players). You may be right and I’ve just missed it but who said that, when, and in which context? 

I think both Smith and Purslow have said that one of the aims is to lower the average age of the squad. Although to be fair it would be difficult not to. 

[Stuartc445]

On 20/02/2019 at 08:45, Dave-R said:

No way was it the exception or it wouldn't of happened at all in the first place. It's all about have the right individuals in the right positions to carry that off. Whether we've been rocked by injurys, players not up to the task, players to slow, not fit or inaccurate on the pass or just not having decent wingman, so on, seems to me like there's always some reason as to why that style isn't happening right now.

Well if you ignore the results and performances since that short spell then no it wasn't the exception.  But if you come back to the real world then it seems it was the exception and quite frankly if Smith is so rocked by 1 key player getting injured then that isn't a good defence either because through a season you're going to get injuries and if this is how Smith reacts to 1 injury then that is a Huge concern.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

36 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

I'm looking at this from the boards perspective, I don't think they employed him to get us promoted this season at all costs and I think they have a summer overhaul in mind and Smith to help with changing our style of play. 

 

 

Mate you don't have to THINK it, it has come from the horses mouth, Purslow has said as much.

[DCJonah]

50 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

I’m not sure what evidence there is for these different objectives. I wonder if they are useful because they fit the narrative rather than being based on any actual statements  that can be validated. 

When Bruce came in we were sliding towards relegation so I guess his first task was to halt that. I don’t recall anyone saying publicly and clearly he had been brought in to get us promoted that season, although there was of course a lot of bluster from the fantasist who owned the club at the time. I would have thought realistically by the time Bruce came in promotion was pretty much a lost cause.

Even more questionable is that claim that Smith has been brought in with a publicly stated objective to lower the age of the squad (although that is obviously what he will do almost inevitably because of the summer departure list and because I think he is probably more comfortable with younger players). You may be right and I’ve just missed it but who said that, when, and in which context? 

Well the first evidence i would say is the january window. Bruce was able to go out and sign lansbury, hourihane and Hogan, 3 players who were performing well, 2 of them performing as some of the best in the league and spent a fair amount. That to me suggested the club felt it wad very much on the cards. 

Smith has plugged holes in the squad, with some decent players but not in the same way. 

I believe purslow or someone else have said that promotion isn't a necessity this season and mentioned the long term aim of lowering the average age of the squad.