Jump to content

Dean Smith


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

Taylor hasn't been the problem, he's looked solid so far, and I've been pleasantly surprised, because I often thought he wasn't good enough for the Championship last season. Having said that, If Targett isn't going to be our first choice, what on earth are we doing spending that much on a backup leftback? 

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

what on earth are we doing spending that much on a backup leftback? 

It's just how the marked is these days.

He was bought as competition for Taylor.

Edited by villalad21
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

You're basing that on what? Pre Season?

I thought Targett looked poor in pre season and Elmo has been one of our best players for the past 4 months.

Targett from what I've seen of him for Fulham and Southampton. Guilbert I was able to watch a handful of times last season after learning of us signing him and then a pretty impressive in pre-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The only reason Taylor and Elmo are starting IMO is down to their experience at this level and perhaps Smith not wanting to bed too many in straight away.

Exactly this, imo

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The only reason Taylor and Elmo are starting IMO is down to their experience at this level and perhaps Smith not wanting to bed too many in straight away.

 

Just now, Stevo985 said:

Exactly this, imo

 

i dunno, it might make sense if that "experience" was getting us points/wins, but it isnt. (currently)

If the "experience" means we are losing games and not winning, we may as well just get the "best" team out there and give them time to gel?

I will just try to assume there is a good reason for it (and currently "experience" isnt really a valid one, as it isnt getting us any points)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

 

 

i dunno, it might make sense if that "experience" was getting us points/wins, but it isnt. (currently)

If the "experience" means we are losing games and not winning, we may as well just get the "best" team out there and give them time to gel?

I will just try to assume there is a good reason for it (and currently "experience" isnt really a valid one, as it isnt getting us any points)

But we haven't lost twice because of Taylor and Elmo—we've lost because of mistakes from other players. If those mistakes hadn't happened they might well have, in their roles, helped us get points. It's not their fault in defence that we have to outscore the opposition at the moment. It's been Luiz x2, Jack x1, Heaton x1—I can't remember the other goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The losses had nothing to do with the fullbacks... How many times do I need to address this?

We lost to spurs because jack fooled around in our own half. We lost against Bournemouth because Heaton and Luiz messed up.

Edited by villalad21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

The losses had nothing to do with the fullbacks... How many times do I need to address this?

We lost to spurs because jack fooled around in our own half. We lost against Bournemouth because Heaton and Luiz messed up.

I don’t think anyone is blaming them for the defeats, more that we would be effective going forward with them changed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, praisedmambo said:

But we haven't lost twice because of Taylor and Elmo—we've lost because of mistakes from other players. If those mistakes hadn't happened they might well have, in their roles, helped us get points. It's not their fault in defence that we have to outscore the opposition at the moment. It's been Luiz x2, Jack x1, Heaton x1—I can't remember the other goal.

yeah you are technically correct.

But just because Taylor has a "good game" as a purely defensive full back, that doesnt mean that he is assisting in forward play, he doesnt, and he's terrible at it.

We need to look at the bigger picture, and no matter how "ok" Taylor does at LB in a purely defensive scenario, that doesnt detract from the fact that in the modern game full backs are a critical part of breaking teams down, and if one of your full backs isnt reasonable at getting up and down the line, its a major limiting factor in your ability to overload and overlap on the wings.

when taylor passes the half way line he's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and sometimes he literally hinders our forward play.

saying Taylor should keep his place because he was "decent" defensively in the last two games is very one dimensional thinking imo, and doesnt take in to account the wider impact on the game and our play, of our full backs not being capable of assisting forward play, or for example packing the middle and wide areas to allow you to keep/retain the ball.

thats why i say that although i think Guilbert should replace Elmo, at least Elmo is ok going forward so i can partially accept there may be a reasonable argument for it.

Where as with Taylor i see literally no reasonable reason for Targett not to start ahead of him, imo Taylor was at best a bang average championship LB, and purely in a defensive sense, i literally cannot think of a good reason why Targett isnt in the team, unless we spent 14m on a bag of cr*p, which i dont see as likely.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

Taylor and Guilbert had nothing to do with the goals or the defeat.

Sad how people keep bringing them up. We already have our scapegoats.

I thought them both especially Elmo had a good game.

It's nothing to do with them not playing well, I just think the whole team would be more balanced and get more out of our front three with more attacking full backs, especially at home against sides we need to beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a game in which 2 mistakes cost us, there is no way Smith will be replacing 50% of the back 4 to risk new mistakes. 

I think until we pick up some points or things start to go terrible, guilbert and targett will be waiting. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

After a game in which 2 mistakes cost us, there is no way Smith will be replacing 50% of the back 4 to risk new mistakes. 

I think until we pick up some points or things start to go terrible, guilbert and targett will be waiting. 

I think you're right. But I really think we'd benefit from having a full back on the left who can get to the byline and put a half decent cross in. Taylor hasn't put a foot wrong, but... his limitations are obvious and it hinders us imo.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep saying it but I'm sure the lack of the new fullbacks is just because of bedding in so many players.

Think about it, if we'd put the new fullbacks in straight away, plus Luiz, we'd be playing with a brand new GK, LB, CB, RB and DM. Even the one member of the defence who isn't "new" would be Tyrone Mings who is still a new permanent signing and has only been here since January.

I'd put good money on our back four being Targett, Mings, Engels and (probably) Guilbert in a few weeks. Smith is just putting the new players in gradually to ease the upheaval of having so many new players.

Guilbert is the one question mark as I haven't really seen him play so not sure of his quality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we lost to BM, I do think it also could result a positive what happened. We went down by two goals, and if one thing our newly formed side need to learn it's how to come out fighting and try bring the game back from a loss. Now in my eyes, the lads very nearly succeeded in turning a loss around, imagine if that kind of thing happened later on in the season because we were coming up with draws and had some win and a game like this was crucial to us winning, our lads might of had the fight took out of them. Now if this kind of thing happens, hopefully we can turn the heat up even more next time, not that I want it to happen but if by any chance it does they are prepared more because this all happened so early to us.

What I'm trying to say is that let the bad happen early on, in every kind of way it can happen on the pitch. If our bunch are learners, which they are, they can sort all the bad out, we shouldn't be seeing it later on in the season where it could be lethal to our season.

 

Edited by Dave-R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, villalad21 said:

The losses had nothing to do with the fullbacks... How many times do I need to address this?

We lost to spurs because jack fooled around in our own half. We lost against Bournemouth because Heaton and Luiz messed up.

I'd argue that whilst the FBs were not at fault for the goals conceded, if we'd have more offensively progressive FBs - which Targett and Guilbert undoubtedly are - then we might have scored more goals and beaten Bournemouth. 

If you play like we do, with one striker and a narrow outside right and left (El Ghazi and Trez), it is critical that FBs get forward. 

So, I actually think we would have stood a better chance of winning if we'd have played more attack-minded FBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

I'd argue that whilst the FBs were not at fault for the goals conceded, if we'd have more offensively progressive FBs - which Targett and Guilbert undoubtedly are - then we might have scored more goals and beaten Bournemouth. 

If you play like we do, with one striker and a narrow outside right and left (El Ghazi and Trez), it is critical that FBs get forward. 

So, I actually think we would have stood a better chance of winning if we'd have played more attack-minded FBs. 

I think el ghazi and wesley would both benefit from over lapping full backs. 

@Stevo985 makes the good point in that these new players will be introduced in stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â