Dean Smith - Confirmed

[Ads]

Which youngster though? Doyle-Hayes is who I'd like to see but he's been ill and injured, as has O'Hare. But their development has been curtailed too with no loans.

[paul_e]

I largely agree with Brian, if a manager was genuinely bothered about being the best he could be in the job he'd make a effort to keep up to date and he wouldn't come out with bullshit excuses when things don't work out.

If not all about the money then he was at least lazy and unprofessional.

[paul_e]

Which youngster though? Doyle-Hayes is who I'd like to see but he's been ill and injured, as has O'Hare. But their development has been curtailed too with no loans.

JDH is the obvious choice but, as I've said a number of times, I really like Jack Clarke as well and I suspect he's better suited to the role that Smith wants in front of the defence.

[stuart445]

Our squad in 16/17 was lopsided, not too far off what it is this season in fairness. We all thought at start of the season an attack of Ayew, Gestede, Jack, McCormack and Kodjia would rip through the division but it never happened and that was the strongest area of the squad by far.

At the back Elphick massively struggled so we went with Baker-Chester which was o.k in fairness. Gollini also struggled a fair bit so similar to Nyland.

Think the biggest difference was we still had a losing mentality running through the club at the time which resulted in our very slow start to that season.

I never expected play offs that year anyway. Now it's different as we know what this level is about and of course spent loads since.

That attack should've been fine but a midfield of Westwood, Gardner, Tish and Jedinak was nothing like good enough to supply them. Of those 3 the only 1 with any mobility was Tish but he looked far too raw to play regularly meaning we played a combination of the other 3 and couldn't get any control of games. Everything was so slow that our attacking players were marked out of games.

The defence was nothing like as bad as it is now, Bruce took over a team that had conceded 12 in 11, plenty of teams get promotion with that. To go back to the previous point, the lack of presence in midfield meant teams could press on us late in games and we had no

The mentality side of things is a factor but I think a lot of people overstate it. Yes teams do come down and then struggle but that's usually because they're making the same mistakes (as a club) as they did the year before. Teams that accept relegation and start building for promotion in the last few games tend to do much better because they've accepted that they need to make changes. We, as a club, just threw a massive sulk for 2 months and then threw money around like confetti, forgetting that wasting money on older players was what caused all the problems in the first place.

The mentality was overstated?? When we 1at came down under RDM the only thing that had changed from the relegation season was the quality of the opposition. Which meant instead of losing we were drawing.

Bruce had to come in and get a club that had forgotten how to win (Before Bruce the only team we beat was the leagues whipping boys) and turn us into a team that could win. But that's easy isn't I think people underestimate how difficult it is to change the how mentality of a whole club.

[stuart445]

I defend my point about Bruce putting his own material success before the success of the teams he managed.  Bearing in mind  how many apologists he had in these pages it does not surprise me that I should be attacked for suggesting that he did not apply himself with sufficient energy or commitments to his responsibilities especially arch apologist Clampy who will never pass up an opportunity to attack me.

Oh for heavens sake Brian, stop being such a bloody drama queen. I'm disagreeing with the point you made, not because it's you. Your not that important.

No point getting into a debate with the Bruce haters who would have still be having a pop at Bruce if we'd have won the playoff final.

The concern I have about Smith is that he comes with the same reputation as Lambert did and look what happened to him.

[Ads]

I don't understand the logic of the 2nd paragraph at all.

[robleflaneur]

I defend my point about Bruce putting his own material success before the success of the teams he managed.  Bearing in mind  how many apologists he had in these pages it does not surprise me that I should be attacked for suggesting that he did not apply himself with sufficient energy or commitments to his responsibilities especially arch apologist Clampy who will never pass up an opportunity to attack me.

Oh for heavens sake Brian, stop being such a bloody drama queen. I'm disagreeing with the point you made, not because it's you. Your not that important.

No point getting into a debate with the Bruce haters who would have still be having a pop at Bruce if we'd have won the playoff final.

The concern I have about Smith is that he comes with the same reputation as Lambert did and look what happened to him.

I think Bruce might not have lasted much longer if we'd have won the play off final.
Bruce pitting his wits against the other Premier League bosses would not have been a pretty sight.
 We shouldn't be worried about precedence.Didn't SGT and Big Ron have massive reputations when they came ?A manager who establishes a good record at his clubs and has a good reputation for coaching is a better bet than the experience that Pardew,Pulis,McCarthy and Hughes could offer.

[Tayls_7]

Brian was immediately disparaging of the Bruce appointment. From my perspective it seemed he felt at that point we should remove ourselves from the sort term fix managerial merry-go-round and look towards a longer term plan.  He was certainly right in that regard. No question.

[paul_e]

Our squad in 16/17 was lopsided, not too far off what it is this season in fairness. We all thought at start of the season an attack of Ayew, Gestede, Jack, McCormack and Kodjia would rip through the division but it never happened and that was the strongest area of the squad by far.

At the back Elphick massively struggled so we went with Baker-Chester which was o.k in fairness. Gollini also struggled a fair bit so similar to Nyland.

Think the biggest difference was we still had a losing mentality running through the club at the time which resulted in our very slow start to that season.

I never expected play offs that year anyway. Now it's different as we know what this level is about and of course spent loads since.

That attack should've been fine but a midfield of Westwood, Gardner, Tish and Jedinak was nothing like good enough to supply them. Of those 3 the only 1 with any mobility was Tish but he looked far too raw to play regularly meaning we played a combination of the other 3 and couldn't get any control of games. Everything was so slow that our attacking players were marked out of games.

The defence was nothing like as bad as it is now, Bruce took over a team that had conceded 12 in 11, plenty of teams get promotion with that. To go back to the previous point, the lack of presence in midfield meant teams could press on us late in games and we had no

The mentality side of things is a factor but I think a lot of people overstate it. Yes teams do come down and then struggle but that's usually because they're making the same mistakes (as a club) as they did the year before. Teams that accept relegation and start building for promotion in the last few games tend to do much better because they've accepted that they need to make changes. We, as a club, just threw a massive sulk for 2 months and then threw money around like confetti, forgetting that wasting money on older players was what caused all the problems in the first place.

The mentality was overstated?? When we 1at came down under RDM the only thing that had changed from the relegation season was the quality of the opposition. Which meant instead of losing we were drawing.

Bruce had to come in and get a club that had forgotten how to win (Before Bruce the only team we beat was the leagues whipping boys) and turn us into a team that could win. But that's easy isn't I think people underestimate how difficult it is to change the how mentality of a whole club.

And this is a perfect example of how it's overstated, we'd forgotten how to win and he had to change the whole mentality of the club, if that's true then we shouldn't have sacked RDM and he hadn't done all that bad a job to turn defeats into draws and we were already on the right path.

I like that you've used "Before Bruce the only team we beat was the leagues whipping boys" in talking about a manager who thought it was acceptable to give the fans shit after a victory over the exact same team.

Individuals can have a confidence issue, a management structure can have fundamental issues, a club that has replaced everyone more senior than a teaboy and spent a fucking fortune on the best part of a new squad doesn't have confidence issues because the same club was relegated the season before, linking the 2 is just an easy explanation for people who can't be bothered to look at the real issues. It's actually exactly the sort of shit I'd expect from people like Wyness and Bruce.

[sickbeggar]

Brian was immediately disparaging of the Bruce appointment. From my perspective it seemed he felt at that point we should remove ourselves from the sort term fix managerial merry-go-round and look towards a longer term plan.  He was certainly right in that regard. No question.

Yep. For those of us that didn't want him its hard not to see  his 2 years in charge as just wasted time.

[West Derby Villan]

Brian was immediately disparaging of the Bruce appointment. From my perspective it seemed he felt at that point we should remove ourselves from the sort term fix managerial merry-go-round and look towards a longer term plan.  He was certainly right in that regard. No question.

Yep. For those of us that didn't want him its hard not to see  his 2 years in charge as just wasted time.

I'm sorry but in my opinion Steve Bruce steadied a sinking ship. The fans didn't like or respect the players, the players didn't respect the fans and the management were just amateurs clutching at straws. Steve Bruce came in and halted the decline, whether by design or not, we are in a better place as a club since he came in. We were in the same boat as Sunderland don't forget and look what happened to them! As much as Steve Bruce's last months disappointed us all let's not forget it could have been so much worse.
Dean Smith is a coach who wants to learn and he's one of us, so the pressure is almost personal. He is the type of appointment most of us have wanted for many years, we have to show patience and support. This bloke has the same love, passion and ambition for our beloved club that we all have. UTV

[ChicagoLion]

I largely agree with Brian, if a manager was genuinely bothered about being the best he could be in the job he'd make a effort to keep up to date and he wouldn't come out with bullshit excuses when things don't work out.

If not all about the money then he was at least lazy and unprofessional.

He would also know if a significant opposition player was available or not.
He would turn up at the training ground more than once a week.

[KevinGage]

I wouldn't have been as emphatic as Mr Green, but I get where he is coming from.

Bruce is a stodgy 'this is the way I have always done it' merchant, Smith at least appears intellectually curious and wants to push on.

It would be wrong to dismiss the upside we had with Bruce - a little over 12 months ago we were just about to embark on a run that got us comfortably in the play-offs and gave us a chance at one point of the automatics. Away to Ipswich, Sheff Wed and Sunderland and the hammerings dished out to Bristol City and Wolves were some of the better days we've had since 2010.

But reading the comments of Sunderland fans on this Wednesday link and it sounds very familiar. He'll spend a heap of money, fail and blame someone else being the gist of it. And opting for Wednesday with his Sheff U connections gives him an immediate get out of jail card when it all starts to go tits up.

[Malandro]

I defend my point about Bruce putting his own material success before the success of the teams he managed.  Bearing in mind  how many apologists he had in these pages it does not surprise me that I should be attacked for suggesting that he did not apply himself with sufficient energy or commitments to his responsibilities especially arch apologist Clampy who will never pass up an opportunity to attack me.

Oh for heavens sake Brian, stop being such a bloody drama queen. I'm disagreeing with the point you made, not because it's you. Your not that important.

No point getting into a debate with the Bruce haters who would have still be having a pop at Bruce if we'd have won the playoff final.

When you’ve been proved wrong, just add a few what ifs in there.
Stabilise is one of the last words I’d associate with Bruce’s  reign.

Thank god the misery of Bruce football is gone.

[stuart445]

Our squad in 16/17 was lopsided, not too far off what it is this season in fairness. We all thought at start of the season an attack of Ayew, Gestede, Jack, McCormack and Kodjia would rip through the division but it never happened and that was the strongest area of the squad by far.

At the back Elphick massively struggled so we went with Baker-Chester which was o.k in fairness. Gollini also struggled a fair bit so similar to Nyland.

Think the biggest difference was we still had a losing mentality running through the club at the time which resulted in our very slow start to that season.

I never expected play offs that year anyway. Now it's different as we know what this level is about and of course spent loads since.

That attack should've been fine but a midfield of Westwood, Gardner, Tish and Jedinak was nothing like good enough to supply them. Of those 3 the only 1 with any mobility was Tish but he looked far too raw to play regularly meaning we played a combination of the other 3 and couldn't get any control of games. Everything was so slow that our attacking players were marked out of games.

The defence was nothing like as bad as it is now, Bruce took over a team that had conceded 12 in 11, plenty of teams get promotion with that. To go back to the previous point, the lack of presence in midfield meant teams could press on us late in games and we had no

The mentality side of things is a factor but I think a lot of people overstate it. Yes teams do come down and then struggle but that's usually because they're making the same mistakes (as a club) as they did the year before. Teams that accept relegation and start building for promotion in the last few games tend to do much better because they've accepted that they need to make changes. We, as a club, just threw a massive sulk for 2 months and then threw money around like confetti, forgetting that wasting money on older players was what caused all the problems in the first place.

The mentality was overstated?? When we 1at came down under RDM the only thing that had changed from the relegation season was the quality of the opposition. Which meant instead of losing we were drawing.

Bruce had to come in and get a club that had forgotten how to win (Before Bruce the only team we beat was the leagues whipping boys) and turn us into a team that could win. But that's easy isn't I think people underestimate how difficult it is to change the how mentality of a whole club.

And this is a perfect example of how it's overstated, we'd forgotten how to win and he had to change the whole mentality of the club, if that's true then we shouldn't have sacked RDM and he hadn't done all that bad a job to turn defeats into draws and we were already on the right path.

I like that you've used "Before Bruce the only team we beat was the leagues whipping boys" in talking about a manager who thought it was acceptable to give the fans shit after a victory over the exact same team.

Individuals can have a confidence issue, a management structure can have fundamental issues, a club that has replaced everyone more senior than a teaboy and spent a fucking fortune on the best part of a new squad doesn't have confidence issues because the same club was relegated the season before, linking the 2 is just an easy explanation for people who can't be bothered to look at the real issues. It's actually exactly the sort of shit I'd expect from people like Wyness and Bruce.

Before Bruce came in we had won 4 games in 49..... You're right we had no problem winning games did we.

You can keep talking crap about it being over stated but 4 wins in 49 are the facts, but why let facts get in the way of the crap you talk