Dean Smith - Confirmed

[SamTheMouse]

I am very fond of Dean and hope he's the man to lead us onwards and upwards. But even I'm starting to worry that he might only be "just good enough" to keep us treading water. Not a disaster, not even bad, just lacking the ability to get us into the top half of the table come May.

This observation is mainly based on the fact that so much of our play still revolves around hoofed balls played by Mings under no pressure. I can't see why he tolerates it, unless it's by design.

[AV82EC]

I must admit to being puzzled by this fascination or theory that seems to be developing that we’re a team that constantly pumps it down the left channel for Watkins to chase? Our play on Saturday for the first 65-70 minutes was at times slow but generally progressive and played to feet, yes there were a few long punts down the channels but what I saw was a Villa team trying to protect the ball, keep possession and play some front foot football. Generally we were by far the more progressive team particularly McGinn and Luiz until we collapsed at the end.

[ChicagoLion]

The 3 or 5 at the back needs ditching. All we're doing is putting a back up central defender in at the expense of an attacking player. We're not gaining much defensively as the last two games have shown, and have lost width (especially from the left) and Ings and Watkins aren't working as a front two.

exactly this.

[boozey182]

Just my opinion, but I think we need to show patience for now. We aren't getting relegated. If progress hasn't been good enough, then as soon as the season finishes, we say thanks Dean, but we're moving on, and back his successor to the hilt.

I don't think he's faultless, and I have seen enough to be fairly sure he isn't the manager to establish us in the top 6/8. But despite some frustrating runs and the odd very poor result, in the grand scheme of things he hasn't failed us yet, and has improved us year on year.

If this season turns out to be a disappointment, it's fair to say he has had backing and had time and we need a change to progress. But I think he deserves a graceful transition, and deserves not to be sacked mid-season like some of the wastes of skin that have managed us in the past.

I know many will disagree, but I think if this weekend was his last as our manager, overall he would've done a very good job. Yesterday was a very poor result, but to bin him now would be reactionary, classless and a mistake, in my view.

This is where I am at the moment. Saturday was the sort of punch to the stomach that I thought I wouldn't have to suffer any more, so I can fully understand people's reaction to it. It was a complete farce, and one the fans could clearly see coming - the silence from the Holte when the first went in was as ominous as it was eerie. I think we made more noise in support after the second, that first was just a collective "oh no...we've all seen how this ends".

Things like that take a while to shake off, but we don't have time. This is a massive week for Dean, with three matches coming up that we are certainly capable of winning, but equally capable of losing all three. He said on Saturday that he is the one that makes the decisions, and he has some huge ones to make this week.

~ What do do with the formation. I was so impressed with how well drilled we looked with 3-5-2 following the last international break, and how it was something different to fit the opposition. That seems like I was being a bit generous now, because that has how we've played every match, no matter who the opposition were. I want to see him change things, even though I think 3-5-2 might work for Arsenal away (it is certainly better suited to that fixture than Wolves at home...) - but I want to know that he is capable of adapting.

~ I was worried when we bought Ings. It was an amazing signing in terms of the 'out of nowhere' factor, but I felt it was a bit of a panic, maybe a way to appease the fans, and not a great use of that money. I'm not saying I have been proved right yet, but the fact that don't seem to know exactly what to do with him and Watkins (as well as Bailey and Buenida) does suggest that maybe he wasn't the right signing. Again, if it turns out that we end up playing different formations and line-ups to play different teams, sometimes using him off the bench, then great - but at the moment, we look disjointed and Ollie is suffering as a result. Ings missed two excellent chances on Saturday - we don't create enough, and he doesn't help the rest of our play enough, for him to be so wasteful.

~ I don't think we can rely on Axel week-in, week-out yet. He looked all at sea on Saturday, and was lucky not to have given a couple of goals away in the first half. Hause hadn't done much wrong, so if we are going to insist on 3 at the back, we can't keep picking Axel. He's 4th choice there at the moment.

~ Bailey and Buendia. Everything started going wrong when we took Buendia off on Saturday (not criticising the substitution, as I think he had indicated that he needed to come off). His ball to Ings for the chance in the first half deserved an assist. Obviously we don't really know what is going on with Bailey, but we need to get our best players playing more minutes. That seems so obvious, but we have been giving the ball away far too cheaply, and players like Bailey, Buendia, Luiz, McGinn need to be playing together every single match. I'd like to see 4-3-3, with Buendia either as part of the midfield or forward 3, depending on the opposition. Maybe going 3 at the back when it is absolutely necessary (it has worked at times).

Obviously there are mitigating circumstances for our up-and-down start, but as john e says, the time for making excuses is now over. Bailey's injury is incredibly frustrating, but we shouldn't be so dependant on one player (again). The pre-season was all over the place, but we've had two international breaks now to start putting things right.

I remain positive about Dean and our prospects for the season, but the next three matches are going to have such a huge say in how justified this positivity is. We weren't great on Saturday, but we should have done enough to win that match. We have beaten Man U and a pretty decent Everton side so far, and shown signs in some other matches that we are improving. Our youth team continue to impress, playing great football and winning consistently. We have the best 'keeper in the world, McGinn looks better than ever and Bailey could be one of the most exciting players we've seen down VP for years and years. We are getting there, but any more afternoons like Saturday and Dean might not be the one taking us.

He's not stupid though - he'll know that we need a response on Friday. I hope he gets it right.

[SoccerHQ]

I must admit to being puzzled by this fascination or theory that seems to be developing that we’re a team that constantly pumps it down the left channel for Watkins to chase? Our play on Saturday for the first 65-70 minutes was at times slow but generally progressive and played to feet, yes there were a few long punts down the channels but what I saw was a Villa team trying to protect the ball, keep possession and play some front foot football. Generally we were by far the more progressive team particularly McGinn and Luiz until we collapsed at the end.

I thought we played some lovely football at times first half, that Ings chance he should've scored was a wonderful move with balls being played into players moving into space like Buendia. WOuld've been a really good team goal and chance Cash put over right at the end was also a decent move.

That sitter Targett missed at Old Trafford was also a very good move that ripped apart a 300m + team.

Perhaps if people want us to do it for 90 minutes every week then they should wait until we start spending 50m on full backs and 70m + on attacking players otherwise it's a bit too much to ask.

[kippaxvilla2]

Back to game management.  We were so much better at that last season.  I think it is a lot to do with Terry having left.  The defence is so much worse in my view and he used to manage the games himself so passed that knowledge on to the players.  I think his is a bigger loss than we realise (as a Defence Coach and Advisor) that is.  In terms of this squad, the best one we have had for years.  So the question is, where should it be punching ?  I would argue top 8.  You have got the sky five, Leicester, West Ham and then who else?  I don't even think West Ham's squad is better (but they do have Soucek who we are missing) but they are clearly all working for Moyes and shithousing decent results even if they don't play well. 

[john e]

I must admit to being puzzled by this fascination or theory that seems to be developing that we’re a team that constantly pumps it down the left channel for Watkins to chase? Our play on Saturday for the first 65-70 minutes was at times slow but generally progressive and played to feet, yes there were a few long punts down the channels but what I saw was a Villa team trying to protect the ball, keep possession and play some front foot football. Generally we were by far the more progressive team particularly McGinn and Luiz until we collapsed at the end.

It’s got to the point with me that I’m actually glad when Mings hoofs it forward
The alternative is to see them trying to control a ball passing it round the back slowly and very often panic stations As soon as there is any pressing
It’s actually embarrassing to watch at times and is without doubt the weakest part of our game

The centre backs aren’t good enough to play out effectively a more competent ballplayer from the midfield needs to drop back to get things going that’s why we should only play 2 centre backs

As soon as the ball is in the middle of the park with the midfield players progressing to the final third I actually think we are quite decent And are capable of playing some attractive football

But The link up play between defence and midfield coming out from the back is abysmal

[Risso]

Are you being a bit harsh on Konsa, John? He looks quite comfortable on the ball to me, and has brought it out quite nicely on a few occasions this season.

[ozzjim]

I must admit to being puzzled by this fascination or theory that seems to be developing that we’re a team that constantly pumps it down the left channel for Watkins to chase? Our play on Saturday for the first 65-70 minutes was at times slow but generally progressive and played to feet, yes there were a few long punts down the channels but what I saw was a Villa team trying to protect the ball, keep possession and play some front foot football. Generally we were by far the more progressive team particularly McGinn and Luiz until we collapsed at the end.

It’s got to the point with me that I’m actually glad when Mings hoofs it forward
The alternative is to see them trying to control a ball passing it round the back slowly and very often panic stations As soon as there is any pressing
It’s actually embarrassing to watch at times and is without doubt the weakest part of our game

The centre backs aren’t good enough to play out effectively a more competent ballplayer from the midfield needs to drop back to get things going that’s why we should only play 2 centre backs

As soon as the ball is in the middle of the park with the midfield players progressing to the final third I actually think we are quite decent And are capable of playing some attractive football

But The link up play between defence and midfield coming out from the back is abysmal

Also telling that the best sides playing 3 often incorporate a full back into the back 3 as their outlet on the ball. Playing 3 proper centre backs just limits your ability on it.

Even then though, in game it was obvious we needed extra in the middle of the park after we scored the second. Shore up the midfield, change shape, close the game. Nothing. Like for like changes. Ings or Watkins as soon as the second goes in should have been off. Konsa right back, 2 centre halves, drop Targett in at left back and get the extra man in the centre of midfield. Keep the ball. Have some width up the pitch as an outlet.

[SoccerHQ]

I actually wonder if Luiz in back 3 might be worth a look playing someone like Burnley at home (I expect it to be scrapped now though).

If you want someone to bring it out from the back well he's one of our best technical players in the squad and would allow us to go McGinn-Sanson as energetic two in CM with a few attackers ahead.

[Risso]

I actually wonder if Luiz in back 3 might be worth a look playing someone like Burnley at home (I expect it to be scrapped now though).

If you want someone to bring it out from the back well he's one of our best technical players in the squad and would allow us to go McGinn-Sanson as energetic two in CM with a few attackers ahead.

Christ no, why on earth would Smith try that?!  For a start, he's only what, 5'8"? Sticking him in defence would be a disaster, Dyche would have every single long ball aimed in his direction.

[john e]

Are you being a bit harsh on Konsa, John? He looks quite comfortable on the ball to me, and has brought it out quite nicely on a few occasions this season.

Not for me he’s not
He’s the best central defender we have because he doesn’t take liabilities with the ball just does the defending part of his job and doesn’t try to be anything more which is fine

In fairness there’s not that many central defenders who are that comfortable with the ball that Ben White probably the best of them along with the two lads from Liverpool and Man City

But you don’t have to be Beckenbauer, players like Terry, Steve Bruce, Tony Adams, our own Sean Teale, Cuellar,  Chester we’re all terrific centre halves without being particularly gifted technically
They can’t all be Paul McGraths

[nick harper]

I think we messed up signing Ings. Not that he’s not a top striker and that we needed to beef up the squad given we were fortunate Watkins got through the whole of last season, but he’s 29, at the peak of his career and is not going to want to rotate and sit on the bench.

It wasn’t a smart signing in the context of the shape Smith has always played.

[Risso]

I think we messed up signing Ings. Not that he’s not a top striker and that we needed to beef up the squad given we were fortunate Watkins got through the whole of last season, but he’s 29, at the peak of his career and is not going to want to rotate and sit on the bench.

It wasn’t a smart signing in the context of the shape Smith has always played.

I'm starting to worry you might be right. The whole signing came out of nowhere once we'd signed Greasy, so it looked a bit like the management team were told to go out and get it done once Ratboy was offically gone. He's a good player and I'd rather have him than not, but the sum of him and Watkins is less than the parts.

[Mister E]

I think we messed up signing Ings. Not that he’s not a top striker and that we needed to beef up the squad given we were fortunate Watkins got through the whole of last season, but he’s 29, at the peak of his career and is not going to want to rotate and sit on the bench.
It wasn’t a smart signing in the context of the shape Smith has always played.

I'm starting to worry you might be right. The whole signing came out of nowhere once we'd signed Greasy, so it looked a bit like the management team were told to go out and get it done once Ratboy was offically gone. He's a good player and I'd rather have him than not, but the sum of him and Watkins is less than the parts.

As I said earlier on this thread, I believe it was a panic buy and we paid over the odds for someone in their last season.
However, he and Watkins may need to get used to sharing that furthest-forward player, with Watkins either on the left of a three or one of them starting from the bench.