Dean Smith

[KHV]

28 minutes ago, hippo said:

That might be a problem though - the better players won't want to stay - smiths problem will be hanging on to our better players - bombing them out the door achieves very little. 

They probably will because no other club is stupid enough to pay anything near what we are paying them

[Vive_La_Villa]

19 minutes ago, hippo said:

Maybe I misunderstood - I thought you were proposing laying it on the line 

"several players really need to up their game if they want to stay at the club" 

Wots to stop Grealish and the better players asking there agents to find them a new club. Grealish was tearing up this division last season so the the talent is there. 

 

Nothing to stop them but that’s the case with any club isn’t it? It’s up to Smith to convince the better players we are moving in the right direction.  

When I mention several players I don’t think for a second Grealish is one of them. He is arguably our best player.

I’m thinking El Ghazi, Hogan, Kodija, Nyland to name a few. I think they could end up with a new club next year: 

[Nigel]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Hogan is a focal point?

He can't touch or keep the ball

He is still where you need him to be, that's the point I was trying to make.

Keeping the ball will never really be his game though;  His role will be more to add a finishing touch to a move, much like their striker did last night (3 touches 2 goals).

Last night's failure was as much to do with our teams inability to fashion any chances as it was Hogans fault.

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Nigel said:

 

Keeping the ball will never really be his game though;  

Touching the ball would be a start for Hogan.

[hippo]

41 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Nothing to stop them but that’s the case with any club isn’t it? It’s up to Smith to convince the better players we are moving in the right direction.  

When I mention several players I don’t think for a second Grealish is one of them. He is arguably our best player.

I’m thinking El Ghazi, Hogan, Kodija, Nyland to name a few. I think they could end up with a new club next year: 

Apart from Kjodia I wouldn't see there being many takers for those. El Ghazi  is only on loan anyway.

The Goalkeeper is a massive problem for Smith - that aside he has a squad that is more than good enough for a play off spot - the trick is pulling it all together. Many of the teams above us haven't got a pot to piss in 

[villan-scott]

I am all for giving Hogan another chance for us, but last night I feel Smith got it wrong bringing on Hogan instead of Kodjia. 

The football and style is already better than what Bruce served up, and you can see they’ve been instructed to play out from the back - with the keeper releasing the ball much quicker rather than launch it up the field. 

We will get there, but it’s been tough having hardly any sessions with the squad with the succession of games and the international break before that. 

Overall I thought last night was ok, and on another night we get a point at least. He will make changes for Friday and I can see us sneaking a win against QPR

[Indigo]

Bringing Hogan on seemed weird under the circumstances alright, even discounting the fact he was shocking anyway.

Not the most discouraging loss we've had all the same, not that that says much. You can see what Smith is trying to implement but he's barely a week into the job and had to prepare for two games, one of which last night away from home to a team further along than we are in a similar type of style.

I think we'll get better as the games go by but it's clear that some of our players just aren't suited to the game he wants to play, on the ball at least. For a team that wants to play a quick, short passing style we have too many players that aren't dynamic or capable of taking the ball on the move. I think Taylor has played well defensively but on the ball he's too static and slows everything down, and the less said about Hutton the better...he's the one that needs dropping more than anyone. Elmo is a perfectly good full back in this system but again he's a bit limited as a winger when we're attacking.

We'll get there eventually but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being a case of just taking stock until January, if it's possible for Smith to do some dealings. I really don't think we're far off personnel-wise it's just that some of the players that don't fit really do hinder us, we just haven't had enough effective outlets when we're attacking so are struggling to kill games off.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Indigo

[bannedfromHandV]

We didn't do much wrong last night, with better options in defence it would have been a victory. 

 

[A'Villan]

11 hours ago, terrytini said:

This is what I’m referring to when I mention having a Plan B.

As Manager he cant just say “this is how we play” regardless of whether the players can do it for 90 minutes. ( I’m not saying he IS saying that btw). He needs a plan for when we run out of steam, or when the opposition counters our approach.

Of course one of the key ways is to be more savvy at when, and how, to press, which will come with time. But until then we might just have to hope we go 2 up quickly in a fair few games !

What Smith says is one thing and is potentially misinterpreted for something it's not, how he manages the team is another and will show his intent. Even in the event his plans don't come off the way he had hoped, there will be telltale signs of what was attempted. In multiple interviews Smith has articulated that you need to have a skill-set to play appropriate to the various situations that come along. This philosophy is for the tactics a coach employs as well as expecting the players he trains to develop ability and decision making skills.

I posted in another thread a brief tactical analysis of Brentford's game against Leeds, which I found to be a good indication of a coach who's methods are not limited in approach and can adapt according to the tendencies of the opposition. Ironically the tactics involved high pressing, which saw Leeds finish with a 70% pass completion rate, and in the end Leeds managed to equalise in the 88th minute, perhaps an indication of Brentford's fatigue.

However there are endless factors that make up the complexities of how a football game is determined and having some consistency in approach can be favourable if it's relative to the challenge. There will be exploitable traits in any and every approach.

The standout note for me in that match was that Brentford had 8 shots, 7 on target at HT, playing on the counter. Because they ended up drawing doesn't necessarily indicate that the tactics weren't good enough to have won it, clearly they had more than enough opportunity to do so, what it indicates to me is that a coach has come up with a plan to optimise his teams chances of coming out on top of the contest.

For Smith to set the goal of the team performing to standards that are above their current ability is what we want, even if they can't sustain those standards for an entire match. Both teams endure the fatigue and physical exertion of competing throughout the game. If a team has to wait 60 odd minutes to have a marginal energy advantage over us we are doing well in my view. Fitness levels are going to be relative to the work players put in as individuals but mostly as a team. If a team can't overcome our strategy for 60 minutes and are dependent on us tiring I would suggest we are the more resilient and conditioned team to compete over the last 30 minutes as well, even if those 30 minutes are where you will find us more vulnerable to lapses of some sort, the onus is still on the opposition to find a way to effectively expose it if and when one arises. There is also the point that 60 of 90 minutes is roughly 66%, a fairly considerable amount greater than half of the game. Odds are in the favour of any team with effective strategy or superiority over that time and I don't agree with the notion that the benefits of an effective pressing game are outweighed by the compromise of fatigue. It's not black and white.

Aside from changing formations and selections from time to time Bruce was so rigid in his philosophy that we were predictable to the opposition, making it easier to plan for and nullify our attempts to control a game. Bruce's undoing was also that any consistency we had under him lacked the appropriate quality required to impose our will and play the game on our terms.  There will be aspects of any coach's approach which become trademark for at least some period of time and therefore potentially predictable, for Smith it may be a high pressing defensive approach in most games. That's not a problem until it becomes evident that it's more of a hindrance than it is an advantage.

Planning for the outcomes desired in each fixture is a demanding task in a highly competitive league. It's early days yet but from the very little in which I've been exposed to Smith, he seems like he has the right attitude and awareness of what's required in order to develop himself and his teams. He seems to have a fundamental understanding of how the game works, not limited by any sort of doctrine or philosophy which would neglect a component of the game.

Yet to be seen if he has it in him to prevail over the challenges he faces as our head coach and whether or not he has it in him to win promotion from this division but I don't think he can be accused of lacking in tactical approach due to the desire for his side to play a pressing game designed to expose but also force errors in our opponents game, which then will lead to opportunity and chances created for us. Not if he is instilling it effectively and the players are producing performances that indicate as much.

The more time he invests developing or solidifying our game the better we will become. Playing in a way which enables the development of and ultimately the realisation of certain performances is necessary and we will inevitably be compromised in some way along that road, what's important is that we identify and understand the approach we want to take and adopt it as long as it serves us to.

[Daweii]

I don't see what Smith could have done last night. He's had three, maybe four training sessions with most of the players on the pitch last night. We're not going to turn into Barcelona after three training sessions, I mean we don't even know if he's started on-the-ball training yet. We are off the pace, we are very sloppy in possession and we are very poor in our distribution, but these lads just over two weeks ago were playing hoofball for a manager that thinks "tactics" are something on the menu at his local chip-shop. This will take time and unfortunately due to the match schedule he doesn't have that time to train the players right now. We have the right guy for the job and I can see that already based on his limited time here, but he definitely needs a lot more time to get this team playing good football. 

[Bazmonkey]

Some good points in the post above.

I think the playing style Smith wants to play is beyond the level of some of the players we have...especially in midfield.

The defence and attack are actually not that bad...the midfield is a concern.

We have midfielders who are to ridgid in their positions...adomah will always sit on the touch line...whealan will always sit in the middle.

Norwich's midfield were more mobile last night...always having two three options 10 or 15 yards away..we for most of the game have one...long or the hoof ball.  This often leads the play down dead ends.

If the fitness is a problem then this will come in time...though..as sky pointed out we have to many seniors..theres only so much you can get out of them regarding how fit they are. .younger more mobile players are needed...this would help the midfield be more mobile and improve our play...i looked at most of the Norwich team last night and it was the little things that made them look good...one touch football...beating a player...playing in triangles...moving with the ball rather than ball just moving.

Only mistake I thought Smith mad was Hogan on instead of kodjia...hogan is not a one man up front 

[Nigel]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Touching the ball would be a start for Hogan.

When he was playing well he only bothered to touch it when scoring!

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, Nigel said:

When he was playing well he only bothered to touch it when scoring!

You lost me at playing well  

[hippo]

1 hour ago, Bazmonkey said:

Some good points in the post above.

I think the playing style Smith wants to play is beyond the level of some of the players we have...especially in midfield.

The defence and attack are actually not that bad...the midfield is a concern.

We have midfielders who are to ridgid in their positions...adomah will always sit on the touch line...whealan will always sit in the middle.

Norwich's midfield were more mobile last night...always having two three options 10 or 15 yards away..we for most of the game have one...long or the hoof ball.  This often leads the play down dead ends.

If the fitness is a problem then this will come in time...though..as sky pointed out we have to many seniors..theres only so much you can get out of them regarding how fit they are. .younger more mobile players are needed...this would help the midfield be more mobile and improve our play...i looked at most of the Norwich team last night and it was the little things that made them look good...one touch football...beating a player...playing in triangles...moving with the ball rather than ball just moving.

Only mistake I thought Smith mad was Hogan on instead of kodjia...hogan is not a one man up front 

Really think the fitness thing is a red herring - every new manager says\implies  the players aren't fit enough its just ear candy.

Grealish last season was probably the best midfielder in the division - Mcginn is looking at home at this level , the at leaves Horihanne, Bjannarson, lansbury and maybe O,Hare - surely he can get a passing midfield out of that lot ?

With a new GK - we have a top six squad its up to smith to mould them into a unit

[hippo]

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

What Smith says is one thing and is potentially misinterpreted for something it's not, how he manages the team is another and will show his intent. Even in the event his plans don't come off the way he had hoped, there will be telltale signs of what was attempted. In multiple interviews Smith has articulated that you need to have a skill-set to play appropriate to the various situations that come along. This philosophy is for the tactics a coach employs as well as expecting the players he trains to develop ability and decision making skills.

I posted in another thread a brief tactical analysis of Brentford's game against Leeds, which I found to be a good indication of a coach who's methods are not limited in approach and can adapt according to the tendencies of the opposition. Ironically the tactics involved high pressing, which saw Leeds finish with a 70% pass completion rate, and in the end Leeds managed to equalise in the 88th minute, perhaps an indication of Brentford's fatigue.

However there are endless factors that make up the complexities of how a football game is determined and having some consistency in approach can be favourable if it's relative to the challenge. There will be exploitable traits in any and every approach.

The standout note for me in that match was that Brentford had 8 shots, 7 on target at HT, playing on the counter. Because they ended up drawing doesn't necessarily indicate that the tactics weren't good enough to have won it, clearly they had more than enough opportunity to do so, what it indicates to me is that a coach has come up with a plan to optimise his teams chances of coming out on top of the contest.

For Smith to set the goal of the team performing to standards that are above their current ability is what we want, even if they can't sustain those standards for an entire match. Both teams endure the fatigue and physical exertion of competing throughout the game. If a team has to wait 60 odd minutes to have a marginal energy advantage over us we are doing well in my view. Fitness levels are going to be relative to the work players put in as individuals but mostly as a team. If a team can't overcome our strategy for 60 minutes and are dependent on us tiring I would suggest we are the more resilient and conditioned team to compete over the last 30 minutes as well, even if those 30 minutes are where you will find us more vulnerable to lapses of some sort, the onus is still on the opposition to find a way to effectively expose it if and when one arises. There is also the point that 60 of 90 minutes is roughly 66%, a fairly considerable amount greater than half of the game. Odds are in the favour of any team with effective strategy or superiority over that time and I don't agree with the notion that the benefits of an effective pressing game are outweighed by the compromise of fatigue. It's not black and white.

Aside from changing formations and selections from time to time Bruce was so rigid in his philosophy that we were predictable to the opposition, making it easier to plan for and nullify our attempts to control a game. Bruce's undoing was also that any consistency we had under him lacked the appropriate quality required to impose our will and play the game on our terms.  There will be aspects of any coach's approach which become trademark for at least some period of time and therefore potentially predictable, for Smith it may be a high pressing defensive approach in most games. That's not a problem until it becomes evident that it's more of a hindrance than it is an advantage.

Planning for the outcomes desired in each fixture is a demanding task in a highly competitive league. It's early days yet but from the very little in which I've been exposed to Smith, he seems like he has the right attitude and awareness of what's required in order to develop himself and his teams. He seems to have a fundamental understanding of how the game works, not limited by any sort of doctrine or philosophy which would neglect a component of the game.

Yet to be seen if he has it in him to prevail over the challenges he faces as our head coach and whether or not he has it in him to win promotion from this division but I don't think he can be accused of lacking in tactical approach due to the desire for his side to play a pressing game designed to expose but also force errors in our opponents game, which then will lead to opportunity and chances created for us. Not if he is instilling it effectively and the players are producing performances that indicate as much.

The more time he invests developing or solidifying our game the better we will become. Playing in a way which enables the development of and ultimately the realisation of certain performances is necessary and we will inevitably be compromised in some way along that road, what's important is that we identify and understand the approach we want to take and adopt it as long as it serves us to.

You are Steve Round and I claim my £5.

[Dom_Wren]

16 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

I think he's some way off that standard, and won't take us as far as Bruce - but I hope I am wrong.

 

I hope you're wrong too!

He will do great, were two games in and he has not had more than a full week with all of steves squad, give him a year of gaffing on the training pitch and two windows to sort out the mess SB left us with and well be grand!

[A'Villan]

14 minutes ago, hippo said:

Really think the fitness thing is a red herring - every new manager says\implies  the players aren't fit enough its just ear candy.

Grealish last season was probably the best midfielder in the division - Mcginn is looking at home at this level , the at leaves Horihanne, Bjannarson, lansbury and maybe O,Hare - surely he can get a passing midfield out of that lot ?

With a new GK - we have a top six squad its up to smith to mould them into a unit

Depends which way you're approaching the fitness topic, who's touting it and why.

Agree with you about it being a red herring in that every manager could use greater levels of fitness.

However, fitness is a serious conversation when you're trying to set targets for training sessions, matches and the season.

If players aren't putting in the work and maintaining it then they will return to being mere mortals. One player might be naturally agile and another technically gifted but both came to their standing in the game through bettering their efforts through hard work and practice.

Intensity, finesse and endurance are key in the outcome of a contest and are determined by a level of fitness.

Even kicking a leather ball at a wide open goal expends energy. Add doing this running from A to B between shots. See how many you can muster in 5 minutes, see how many you can get on target. Compare it to a professional athletes training routine and you'll understand the importance of fitness. The greater the repetition of an action the more reflex it becomes and being an elite athlete means having a better ability and quality than the rest. So the level of commitment an individual or group has to accomplish their desired level of performance is very influential in what the outcomes look like and what standard can be achieved.

If a coach wants his strategy and planning to be effective then he needs to know his players fitness capabilities.

[A'Villan]

52 minutes ago, hippo said:

You are Steve Round and I claim my £5.

Why would I be Steve Round?

Didn't want to ignore your quote  but I'm not sure if I'm to laugh or cry here.

[DaveAV1]

2 hours ago, Bazmonkey said:

Some good points in the post above.

I think the playing style Smith wants to play is beyond the level of some of the players we have...especially in midfield.

The defence and attack are actually not that bad...the midfield is a concern.

We have midfielders who are to ridgid in their positions...adomah will always sit on the touch line...whealan will always sit in the middle.

Norwich's midfield were more mobile last night...always having two three options 10 or 15 yards away..we for most of the game have one...long or the hoof ball.  This often leads the play down dead ends.

If the fitness is a problem then this will come in time...though..as sky pointed out we have to many seniors..theres only so much you can get out of them regarding how fit they are. .younger more mobile players are needed...this would help the midfield be more mobile and improve our play...i looked at most of the Norwich team last night and it was the little things that made them look good...one touch football...beating a player...playing in triangles...moving with the ball rather than ball just moving.

Only mistake I thought Smith mad was Hogan on instead of kodjia...hogan is not a one man up front 

Good post. I think the team needs to be fitter, but as you say younger players are naturally that little sharper in that respect.

We missed McGinn last night. His energy and ability to get up and down the pitch could have made all the difference. 

[hippo]

17 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Depends which way you're approaching the fitness topic, who's touting it and why.

Agree with you about it being a red herring in that every manager could use greater levels of fitness.

However, fitness is a serious conversation when you're trying to set targets for training sessions, matches and the season.

If players aren't putting in the work and maintaining it then they will return to being mere mortals. One player might be naturally agile and another technically gifted but both came to their standing in the game through bettering their efforts through hard work and practice.

Intensity, finesse and endurance are key in the outcome of a contest and are determined by a level of fitness.

Even kicking a leather ball at a wide open goal expends energy. Add doing this running from A to B between shots. See how many you can muster in 5 minutes, see how many you can get on target. Compare it to a professional athletes training routine and you'll understand the importance of fitness. The greater the repetition of an action the more reflex it becomes and being an elite athlete means having a better ability and quality than the rest. So the level of commitment an individual or group has to accomplish their desired level of performance is very influential in what the outcomes look like and what standard can be achieved.

If a coach wants his strategy and planning to be effective then he needs to know his players fitness capabilities.

But he will know them ?

I dont think our fitness levels are much beyond most of this division if I am honest. I thought we finished stronger than Norwich last night - and this season we have scored quite a few last minute goals....I could be wrong but I don't think I have heard  DS complain about of fitness levels.

He has said he wants to run the training sessions differently -But stressed that wasn't a dig at the previous regime just that (quite rightly) he has different ideas, as will the person who one day replaces Smith.

He is massively handicapped by the GK situation at the moment - until he sorts that I don't he can be judged. 

For me Smith has to up his game at villa and do better than he did at Walsall and Brentford - in a sense he has to grow into the role , for me its not a foregone conclusion that he can do that.  (All IMO of course)