Tactical Masterminding

[Stevo985]

21 hours ago, Kingman said:

I have a feeling that we will play Leeds in the semis... 

Nah.

 

They won't lose their last 2 and neither will we. And I think either scenario is the only way that could happen.

And that would still rely on West Brom or Derby winning all of their games (depending on which scenario)

[sidcow]

 

[Cjay]

Are things really that much better under Dean Smith?

Know the football is probably better but results wise it still seems dependant on Jack Grealish being fit.

10 wins on the bounce but Grealish played in 9 didnt he?

Previous 14 in all competitions without him ,2 wins.

 

[Kingman]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Nah.

 

They won't lose their last 2 and neither will we. And I think either scenario is the only way that could happen.

And that would still rely on West Brom or Derby winning all of their games (depending on which scenario)

Leeds wouldn't have to lose there last 2, If we beat them Sunday and they draw the last game then that would see Sandwell go above them should they win last 2. 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Kingman said:

Leeds wouldn't have to lose there last 2, If we beat them Sunday and they draw the last game then that would see Sandwell go above them should they win last 2. 

Fair enough. I still think it's pretty unlikely, but not quite as unlikely as I thought  

[Stevo985]

53 minutes ago, Cjay said:

Are things really that much better under Dean Smith?

Know the football is probably better but results wise it still seems dependant on Jack Grealish being fit.

10 wins on the bounce but Grealish played in 9 didnt he?

Previous 14 in all competitions without him ,2 wins.

 

Yes. In short it is.

Grealish or not, we've literally just set a club record for league wins in a row. Not since the prem began, or in the championship. For all time.

For a club that has 7 league titles under it's belt, it's a phenomenal run.

[Kingman]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Fair enough. I still think it's pretty unlikely, but not quite as unlikely as I thought  

Trouble is now I reckon all teams that have qualified will be playing 60/70% fringe squad players so will be a bit of an unknown. 

For that reason I've got one bollock and a bit of foreskin on us at 4/1 Sunday 

[KenjiOgiwara]

16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yes. In short it is.

Grealish or not, we've literally just set a club record for league wins in a row. Not since the prem began, or in the championship. For all time.

For a club that has 7 league titles under it's belt, it's a phenomenal run.

For me it's more about the football being played. Comparing the football of Steve Bruce to what we now are playing under DS is night and day. One was a negative, no plan, soak pressure, hoofball bullshit of embarrassing proportions, and the other one is filled with off ball movement, passing, collective pressure and coached moves. Night. And. Day. 

[VILLAMARV]

11 minutes ago, Cjay said:

Are things really that much better under Dean Smith? Know the football is probably better but results wise it still seems dependant on Jack Grealish being fit.10 wins on the bounce but Grealish played in 9 didnt he? Previous 14 in all competitions without him ,2 wins.

Yes.

Forget all the money and FFP and all the loan players and all that for a minute.

It's not just that the football is better (and it is. Loads better), or that the subs might make sense or happen before the 70th minute, or that we can keep the ball at a throw in. Something is happening here.

We hope (and after the last 2 that's all it is with most of us at the moment) that with the new owners we may have actually got someone that knows what they're doing. We have a manager that as a local lad and a fan has a lot of good faith with the fan base and breaking 100 year old records for the right reasons, in my eyes, means he'll ride out any losing runs. He sees what we see. He wants to play the game the way fans want to flock to watch.

Sure, Grealish is a freak of nature, but McGinn is the best signing we've made in years. Mings seems to have found a home at VP. He is the difference for a lot of us. El Ghazhi is starting to show what he's capable of. We supposedly have options to buy on those 2.

Bruce's tenure was a calculated gamble and it failed. It also left us in a right mess. This feels like we're building something worthwhile.

As for all the rest of it, the money, the FFP and so on. As we're learning every year down here it means the spectre of losing all your good players, so obviously we're hoping we are this years Fulham when it comes to the play-offs and we can sign 'em all up and add to what we've got. If there's any way on earth that we can keep hold of/get those 4 players up there and we don't make it up, I truly believe we'd be top 2 next year.

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

For me it's more about the football being played. Comparing the football of Steve Bruce to what we now are playing under DS is night and day. One was a negative, no plan, soak pressure, hoofball bullshit of embarrassing proportions, and the other one is filled with off ball movement, passing, collective pressure and coached moves. Night. And. Day. 

Well I don't agree about Bruce's football being that bad, but yes Smith's is certainly far far better.

For me the style of football has always come second to results. I'd happily see us win every game 1-0 and go up as champions.

But usually better football produces better results. Usually.

 

That seems to be proving true with Smith.

[KenjiOgiwara]

I understand why that's being said, but it's an akward argument to make for me. Ultimately football is entertainment. So if you are playing really boring football, yet getting promoted, that does not tickle me at all. 

[NurembergVillan]

On 23/04/2019 at 15:35, BOF said:

The Millwall attendance (39,839) means that if we want to reach an average gate of 36,000 for the season, we need a minimum gate of 41,075 against Norwich.  That would round up to 36,000.  No rounding would need 41,086.  Make it happen!

[Mark Albrighton]

3 hours ago, Cjay said:

Are things really that much better under Dean Smith?

Know the football is probably better but results wise it still seems dependant on Jack Grealish being fit.

10 wins on the bounce but Grealish played in 9 didnt he?

Previous 14 in all competitions without him ,2 wins.

 

Without wanting to turn this into another thread about our previous manager, this season, how many games do you think we won with Jack in the team before Smith came in?

It was 3 wins in 12 (pre Smith). So in answer to your question, yes, it is much better.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Shropshire Lad

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Cjay said:

Are things really that much better under Dean Smith?

Know the football is probably better but results wise it still seems dependant on Jack Grealish being fit.

10 wins on the bounce but Grealish played in 9 didnt he?

Previous 14 in all competitions without him ,2 wins.

Mix of the two.

Yes, things are much better (now) under Dean Smith - we tend to control matches far more effectively.  By that, we don't tend to just hold on to the ball at the back for the sake of it (as we did under Bruce); we now build out from the back quickly.  Without the ball, our pressing much higher up the pitch is far better.  Personally, I think we're still vulnerable defensively - as we were under the poor run of form - but rather than soak up pressure, we relieve it in attacking areas of the pitch.

But, of course, having the best player in the Championship (I remember you saying it was Hernandez... it really isn't ) fully fit and arguably in the form of his career is a huge boost.

The home game against Bristol City was a big test really.  They had beaten Sheff Utd and Boro away and WBA at home and were in great form.  Obviously, we were in great form too but then Grealish had to miss the game through illness plus we had to deal with Mings' suspension.  It could have been a morale dampener but, instead, we dominated and won easily (despite the scoreline).

So, yeah, a mix.  Grealish being back is fantastic - he's completely irreplaceable - but the team as a whole is much more confident now.  We're not unbeatable at all, but we're not anywhere near as nervy as we have been for some time either, and that's credit to Dean Smith and the coaching team IMO.

[Herman22]

3 hours ago, Cjay said:

Are things really that much better under Dean Smith?

Know the football is probably better but results wise it still seems dependant on Jack Grealish being fit.

10 wins on the bounce but Grealish played in 9 didnt he?

Previous 14 in all competitions without him ,2 wins.

 

I think there are two parts to this. The first "Are thing better under DS?" The quick answer is yes. The slightly longer answer, even when we were winning games under Bruce we were never controlling the game. When we went 1 up the plan was always to sit back and try spring a break. It worked at times last season but it was dour football. Under Smith, the players are encouraged to play and actually try to influence the game no matter what the score. I would love to get promoted this season but with DS I'm confident if it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year. 

The second part is about Super Jack, there's no doubt we are a much much better team with him in there. He is so important not only in what he does but also the amount of attention he gets from the opposition which creates space for others. For me he's the best player in this league and any team would miss that in their team. I think most of us know that without promotion this year he will most likely go in the summer, but he's been unplayable at times since he's returned. I'd be tempted to leave him out at the weekend, no doubt Leeds will target him and he doesn't get much protection from refs. Any sort of injury right now could mean missing the playoffs. 

[rubberman]

I'd rest Jack for Leeds to mitigate the injury risk.  Bring him back for a nice gentle run out against the champions when neither of us have anything to play for.  McGinn plays Leeds, until/unless he gets a yellow. Prob rest him for Norwich to recharge the batteries.  Otherwise not too bothered, maybe give a couple of others a game off, but don't think we need wholesale changes.

The next games just need to avoid injury and bookings, but if we can keep winning as well, that's a bonus.

[Cjay]

5 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Yes.

Forget all the money and FFP and all the loan players and all that for a minute.

It's not just that the football is better (and it is. Loads better), or that the subs might make sense or happen before the 70th minute, or that we can keep the ball at a throw in. Something is happening here.

We hope (and after the last 2 that's all it is with most of us at the moment) that with the new owners we may have actually got someone that knows what they're doing. We have a manager that as a local lad and a fan has a lot of good faith with the fan base and breaking 100 year old records for the right reasons, in my eyes, means he'll ride out any losing runs. He sees what we see. He wants to play the game the way fans want to flock to watch.

Sure, Grealish is a freak of nature, but McGinn is the best signing we've made in years. Mings seems to have found a home at VP. He is the difference for a lot of us. El Ghazhi is starting to show what he's capable of. We supposedly have options to buy on those 2.

Bruce's tenure was a calculated gamble and it failed. It also left us in a right mess. This feels like we're building something worthwhile.

As for all the rest of it, the money, the FFP and so on. As we're learning every year down here it means the spectre of losing all your good players, so obviously we're hoping we are this years Fulham when it comes to the play-offs and we can sign 'em all up and add to what we've got. If there's any way on earth that we can keep hold of/get those 4 players up there and we don't make it up, I truly believe we'd be top 2 next year.

I cant see how you could afford El Ghazi, Mings, the Wolves lad and Abraham without promotion unless the parent clubs fancy doing you a favour tbh. Dont you have a lot of players out of contract to? Huge rebuilding job surely if you dont get promotion this season?

Its funny how a perceived style of play can placate fans despite results, fans are always more willing to give time if as you say they feel something may come of it in the future.

I like Dean Smith as a manager, not my cup of tea as a person, bit of a chip on his shoulder imo but he does get teams playing good football.

[Cjay]

4 hours ago, Shropshire Lad said:

Without wanting to turn this into another thread about our previous manager, this season, how many games do you think we won with Jack in the team before Smith came in?

It was 3 wins in 12 (pre Smith). So in answer to your question, yes, it is much better.

Take your point mate, Bruce was in a bit of a mess.

But without him this season you are still a bit of a state results wise.

Could you rest him vs us do you think? The loss of Grealish for the playoffs imo would be the difference between you being a possible winner and a beaten semi finalist.

[Lord Willard]

1 minute ago, Cjay said:

Take your point mate, Bruce was in a bit of a mess.

But without him this season you are still a bit of a state results wise.

Could you rest him vs us do you think? The loss of Grealish for the playoffs imo would be the difference between you being a possible winner and a beaten semi finalist.

So that's your plan eh!

Wouldn't every team suffer without their best player? Without him it would be alot harder 100% but we have other quality players. McGinn for example is also a vital player 

 

[Mark Albrighton]

36 minutes ago, Cjay said:

Take your point mate, Bruce was in a bit of a mess.

But without him this season you are still a bit of a state results wise.

Could you rest him vs us do you think? The loss of Grealish for the playoffs imo would be the difference between you being a possible winner and a beaten semi finalist.

Jack was a factor in that bad run, the biggest factor admittedly, but there were others things at play I think. If we played those dozen or so fixtures right now, without Jack, I reckon our points return would be much higher.

Regarding resting him for this match, I’m unsure/indifferent to it. 

I can see the argument for playing our best players, going for the win, keeping the momentum going. I can see the argument for not tempting fate and resting players.

I really don’t mind. What could have been a pivotal fixture for both teams (almost a season curtain closer) now appears more likely to be a damp squib. 

In answer to your question, yeah, I think we could rest him and get a result, because I think this game is almost going to be like a friendly in it’s manner, potentially a bit of a free-for-all. Both clubs will be playing with one eye on the fixtures in May.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Shropshire Lad