Dean Smith

[MaVilla]

Just now, Adam2003 said:

Think the good thing is Konsa and Engels could both play either in the centre or on the right, Mings could play centre or on the left, Hause definitely on the left, and then that means we can cope with any one of them being out. Chester as additional cover but maybe need one more if we stick with this formation.

Yeah if we are sticking with a back 3, we probably do need 1 additional CB, especially as mings and engels have been or are out currenrly/recently.

[HeyAnty]

Admire Smith for being brave enough to change the system as the previous one wasn’t. My main hate of Bruce was his arrogance, was getting worried that smith was the same.  Thankfully he isn’t and adapts.

[KHV]

39 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Deano, as you obviously read this forum , this is our strongest 11:

                      Heaton

         Konsa - Mings - Hause

Guilbert  -  Marv - Luiz  -  Targett

           Grealish  -  McGinn

                     Wesley

Subs: Steer, Engels, Elmo, Hourihane, El Ghazi, Trez, Davis      (Jota??)

 

my only debate is Engels, part of me thinks he should be in the back 3 as a starter, but part of me also thinks with Konsa, Mings & Hause, all of them have a turn of speed so the whole back 3 can play that bit higher up the field without fear of being turned, thoughts?

If Engels did get in that 3, would probably be Konsa - Engels - Mings  OR  Engels - Mings - Hause......thoughts?

I’d rather have Taylor over Targett

[Dave-R]

I do not believe Smith will be the one to relegate us anyway, I'm afraid there is one culprit who will, the Culprits name is VAR and it manages our games poorly most games.

I thoroughly enjoyed the game but I can't stand watching games as well, it wouldn't surprise me if Smith is Vocal on the Burnley game.

We were full of life in the first, owned them, second however is where we got ours and while we had glimpses it's not good enough to be put under that stress for a whole half. I hope that these refinement signings who come in will be all about pressure, they know it's ins and outs and can deal with it fast, it's as much a priority to find a few players who can deal with pressure quick, efficient and aggressively. We had a few players that when under pressure today, they really struggled.

[A'Villan]

Don't want to put too much importance on the change in formation being responsible for the win, or the answer to our season.

4-3-3 is an attacking formation and relies on a few things which we lack at the moment, but I'm hoping will develop as the season progresses.

Desired traits for a 4-3-3 are 4 confident and resolute defenders working in tandem, as well as midfield players making tackles before the ball enters our defensive half or third.

This is because in such an attacking setup, men are constantly committed forward and the emphasis and shape is designed to maximise attacking potential.

Without the tackles from midfield preventing opposition from taking the ball out of our attacking areas, then we allow it to enter a defensive territory covered by four defenders.

That means we're on the back foot and are spread thin, and the opposition has space and angles to make use of in abundance, that's why 4 confident and resolute defenders are a must.

Then in midfield and upfront, you generally have the players occupying these positions interchange frequently using overlaps and one-two's to draw in defenders and play into space.

With the exception of one forward and one midfielder, the rest generally rotate to keep the defense guessing and to make the overlaps and one-two's effective.

That's how we've managed to be a European placed team based on goals for without a prolific striker. At the same time, it's the reason we're relegation material on goals conceded.

Another important trait here is that your designated striker needs to be making threatening runs in behind and beating offside traps for easy finishes and pulling defense out of shape.

Successfully doing so means 1vs1's with the keeper, and also creating chances for those overlaps and one-two moves in build up to turn into goals for other teammates.

Perhaps most important is that the designated midfielder who sits back is one who has all the necessary skill and vision to spark attacks and decide the best route for an attack.

In this setup, the designated midfielder has to make good decisions whether to play it down a flank or central, whichever has the optimal chance of creating a successful play forward.

I think this is partially the reason we have seen Grealish come so deep to pick up the ball, essentially making him play two separate roles and using energy to cover both.

Luiz is meant to be the designated midfielder, but hasn't quite got the reliability and decision making ability to allow for the formation to work to it's desired effect. It will come.

Marvelous simply doesn't have the passing range or reading of how to spark an attack to play the designated midfielder, and as a tackling asset he sits too deep for the formation.

I believe this is why we generally see Luiz accompany Marvelous in the deeper role, Smith doesn't trust Marvelous to be our catalyst in starting attacks.

I think the real game changer more so than formation was that there was purpose and quality in our use of the ball in the first half, cohesion and understanding a game plan is vital.

A formation is only one aspect of whether or not a team is setup adequately to have a chance in the contest, and every formation has assets and liabilities.

I'm not calling it either way, as it might be more suited to our personnel and opted for, but I don't think formation change alone is going to see us succeed in future.

We need to constantly be developing as a side, as we've had to less time and significantly more personnel changes than the rest of this division.

A team organised and cohesive with understanding for a shared plan will always have significant advantage over a team that doesn't.

It's a bit unfortunate but that's the challenge we have to face at this point in time, we've had less time to develop ideas and plans and extensive changes to playing personnel.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing us develop the 4-3-3 but for the reasons I've outlined already, it being a viable go-to is still a work in progress.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by A'Villan

[Zhan_Zhuang]

I think Smith was trying to implement a style of football playing 4-3-3 and sticking to it considering many of our players are new to English football and indeed the PL the last thing which they needed and Villa was to be changing systems every week.

Smith said today after the Burnley match he has implemented three centre-halves before at Walsall and Brentford and I would imagine they've been working on it in training at Villa too. He said he needed three big fellas at the back to counter their crosses so I imagine we'll be back to 4-3-3 next game?

[Keyblade]

9 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Its fast becoming my pet hate. It's just an easy stick to criticise the manager with  

As though moving a player slightly or using a sub will always get you back dominating. 

We are a newly promoted team aiming to finish 17th. If we succeed most games will go like today

You can tell it's nothing more than a stick to beat the manager with because the in-game management crowd were conspicuously silent after Smith made the crucial sub of Hourihane for Nakamba against Norwich that literally won us the game.

[Tomaszk]

8 hours ago, KentVillan said:

I thought Hause had a good game, understood the system, and was better in possession than usual. There were a few occasions when he found himself in a bit of trouble from holding on to the ball too long, but he didn't panic - clearing it down the line or into touch if necessary.

100% there was more willing to put the ball into touch today. Konsa, Mings and Hause all did it at times. Obviously it's not the end game, but it was a safer play in a team that needed points.

I thought Hause was good yes.

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

I think Smith was trying to implement a style of football playing 4-3-3 and sticking to it considering many of our players are new to English football and indeed the PL the last thing which they needed and Villa was to be changing systems every week.

Smith said today after the Burnley match he has implemented three centre-halves before at Walsall and Brentford and I would imagine they've been working on it in training at Villa too. He said he needed three big fellas at the back to counter their crosses so I imagine we'll be back to 4-3-3 next game?

Surely a 4-3-3 would have to consist of Luiz - Marvelous - Grealish in central midfield? I wouldn't trust Hourihane or Lansbury. Not without McGinn's quality in there.

I think a midfield three of Luiz - Marvelous - Hourihane would be an accident waiting to happen. It's a formation with an emphasis on having the ball in attacking areas.

Neither Marvelous or Hourihane possess the individual technical skill to connect defense to attack, they're going to be facing traps and screening from City, so added pressure.

That leaves Luiz who is still learning his trade as our only central midfielder capable of taking it into our attacking third, and he is limited to the right side.

Assuming that Grealish plays on the left side of the front three, that becomes a dynamic that leaves us frustrated as we fail to get our best asset the ball where he wants it.

Don't get me wrong Hourihane has moments, but those moments come when he is able to position himself with enough space as a consequence of a teammate being the focus.

Not only is there the responsibility to contribute to getting forward and making overlapping runs with forwards but there's the need for them to spoil opposition build up early.

Otherwise we are very vulnerable in transition with only a back four that's on the back foot to thwart City being able to play into space and in behind our final line of defense.

I don't trust a 4-3-3 with Marvelous and Hourihane responsible for being the catalyst of attacks, Grealish would inevitably drop deep to receive. We might as well play him there then.

I don't think we've developed the overlapping runs and one-two passing sequences to an adequate level to play it around an outfit like City yet. Not as our go to over 90 minutes.

I think it might be 4-2-3-1 with Luiz and Marvelous playing the double pivot in front of the back four, with El Ghazi reintroduced in the wide role.

Gives us two extra men who sit in front of the back four to nullify City in advanced areas, and means our final defensive line doesn't push so high up and can remain in shape.

It means our forward men will have less support and players pushing into attacking areas, so more onus on them to beat their man and conjure up chances.

Most importantly though it should mean that we're not losing the ball in vulnerable positions and being punished every other transition by a City side who will given the opportunity.

Only way I see a 4-3-3 happening is if Trez and Anwar play wide of the striker and Grealish joins the midfield three.

 

[TRO]

13 hours ago, Rob182 said:

Where’s @TRO gone from this thread?

  
 

(Joking mate, I’m sure you’re just busy)

too many invites out...I'll get up to speed.

but when we are winning that is what we are supposed to do, so whats to say, except ,great.

 

[Tomaszk]

Really pleased Smith was willing to change. At times we went between a 343 and a 352, with Jack right up as the striker.

One thing we need to watch for is the number 10 area from the opposition. Because Mings sits deepest in the middle of the defence a hole can form behind the midfield, Jay Rodriguez picked up the ball time and time again there. Would suit McGinn so much this midfield two, very frustrating.

[villalad21]

Never thought the formation was the issue. But the lack of desire, effort and aggression.

Still didn't think our defending was that great but the desire at least was there yesterday.

[KenjiOgiwara]

The big advantage for us with a 3 man centreback line is that it relieves pressure where we are the worst on the pitch. 

Our wingers aren't that much in focus  as we can bring our wingbacks higher without being exposed. And our inexperienced cosi cosi central midfield have more safety behind them and you could see it was more comfortable for them against Burnley.

Thirdly, where McGinn was so good for us by starting attacks by breaking play and charging forward, we can now utilize Konsa and Mings and still have plenty of bodies in position. 

[A'Villan]

10 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Really pleased Smith was willing to change. At times we went between a 343 and a 352, with Jack right up as the striker.

One thing we need to watch for is the number 10 area from the opposition. Because Mings sits deepest in the middle of the defence a hole can form behind the midfield, Jay Rodriguez picked up the ball time and time again there. Would suit McGinn so much this midfield two, very frustrating.

Maddison had a field day against us too.

Iheanacho and Vardy just needed to make a run to pull our last line apart and they breezed through between our midfield and defensive lines.

Not so much 10's but effecting that territory, Lerma and Billing forced Luiz to collect the ball between the center backs.

That then created a big gap between Luiz and any pass into midfield or beyond and consequently Bournemouth picked it off.

[penguin]

10 hours ago, Keyblade said:

You can tell it's nothing more than a stick to beat the manager with because the in-game management crowd were conspicuously silent after Smith made the crucial sub of Hourihane for Nakamba against Norwich that literally won us the game.

Well at least that's some acknowledgment that in-game management exists and isn't akin to expecting a magic switch to be flicked as suggested by others.

I'm critical of Smith in this area; I think it's a reoccurring theme that we are often way too slow, if the change happens at all, to make adjustments when we are crying out for it. The games where the opposition have gone down to 10 men being the prime examples off the top of my head. 

I actually thought the Hourihane sub in the Norwich game was an excellent decision which funnily enough made it more frustrating when the game yesterday would have been perfect for the same sub in the second half, long before the injuries.

[A'Villan]

11 minutes ago, penguin said:

Well at least that's some acknowledgment that in-game management exists and isn't akin to expecting a magic switch to be flicked as suggested by others.

I'm critical of Smith in this area; I think it's a reoccurring theme that we are often way too slow, if the change happens at all, to make adjustments when we are crying out for it. The games where the opposition have gone down to 10 men being the prime examples off the top of my head. 

I actually thought the Hourihane sub in the Norwich game was an excellent decision which funnily enough made it more frustrating when the game yesterday would have been perfect for the same sub in the second half, long before the injuries.

How do you expect Smith to make appropriate changes and adjustments to a game that is underway and free-flowing for a full 45 minutes at a time?

It's largely up to the players to have developed the tactical awareness and strategies to exploit such a deficit on their own, and that's something we lack already, cohesion.

It's not basketball where you have a quarter time break after 12 minutes, and time-outs mid-game to implement tweaks in tactics and approach.

It's no fault of Smith's that his team is not well versed in playing with each other, and utilising different systems with rapport, it's just a consequence we deal with as a club.

Add to this a team that goes down to 10 men is conscious of their disadvantage, and actively go about adjusting to negate any liabilities open for exploitation.

You speak of magic switches being flicked?

Where's the acknowledgement that this is a fresh team, new to the challenge of honing one system, let alone adopting one apt for a dynamic change that happens mid-game?

 

[penguin]

6 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

How do you expect Smith to make appropriate changes and adjustments to a game that is underway and free-flowing for a full 45 minutes at a time?

It's largely up to the players to have developed the tactical awareness and strategies to exploit such a deficit on their own, and that's something we lack already, cohesion.

It's not basketball where you have a quarter time break after 12 minutes, and time-outs mid-game to implement tweaks in tactics and approach.

It's no fault of Smith's that his team is not well versed in playing with each other, and utilising different systems with rapport, it's just a consequence we deal with as a club.

Add to this a team that goes down to 10 men is conscious of their disadvantage, and actively go about adjusting to negate any liabilities open for exploitation.

You speak of magic switches being flicked?

Where's the acknowledgement that this is a fresh team, new to the challenge of honing one system, let alone adopting one apt for a dynamic change that happens mid-game?

 

I feel like you are going off on a massive tangent.

Substitutions. They often come far too late, if at all, imo.

[A'Villan]

22 minutes ago, penguin said:

I feel like you are going off on a massive tangent.

Substitutions. They often come far too late, if at all, imo.

Apologies, I felt like I was addressing your point that Smith doesn't make desired and if I interpreted correctly obvious changes mid-game to exploit ten men.

Don't mind me, I do tangents all the time.

If you were purely addressing substitutions then I don't have anything to add.

[penguin]

33 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Apologies, I felt like I was addressing your point that Smith doesn't make desired and if I interpreted correctly obvious changes mid-game to exploit ten men.

Don't mind me, I do tangents all the time.

If you were purely addressing substitutions then I don't have anything to add.

Yes I was mostly referring to substitutions, I appreciate the face it's not really viable in football to make wholesale tactical changes to existing personal.

West Ham and Brighton I think we waited far too late to bring on an additional attacker and Arsenal were all over us 2nd half with 10 men and the decision was to make no change, until they took the lead and we bought on 2 CMs leaving our striker on the bench. Yesterday we just couldn't keep hold of the ball 2nd half; Nakamba was very sloppy seemed an obvious swap with Hourihane and Trez faded badly would have swapped for Anwar to try and gain some composure and possession but the call was to keep things the same.

Of course these are all subjective and opinion but I do think we attempt to stick with what isn't working for too long, that said whilst just looking through our previous game information I will have to admit my point is tainted by confirmation bias on this and also have to concede the fact we don't exactly have quality on the bench doesn't help matters either.

[Tom13]

11 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

100% there was more willing to put the ball into touch today. Konsa, Mings and Hause all did it at times. Obviously it's not the end game, but it was a safer play in a team that needed points.

I thought Hause was good yes.

 

Yeah they must have been under instruction to do that.