Dean Smith - Confirmed

[paul_e]

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

38 of those games were under different management, in a different league, after which we had a huge change in staff at all levels so the idea that all the new people under completely new management had a hangover from the season before and needed Bruce to come in and turn things around is, as I said, massively overstated by the people who were desperate to defend him.

What he actually gave us was a new manager bounce, no one argues over that, but after his first 7-8 games we went on a run of 1 win in 10 that's not the ship steadying turn-around you're desperate to give him credit for. Once he replaced the midfield and they got a few games under their belts we looked a far better team and from there on we were decent, which is exactly what I said, he inherited a team which had a non-functioning midfield.

As I said before, a huge part of the problem was that we made so many changes in the summer, many after the season had started, and hadn't done anything like enough work to form a team out of the squad we had, which, again as I said, was just a case of us repeating the same mistakes that had gotten us relegated in the first place.

If a team is relegated with awful morale and keeps most of that unit together without addressing the morale issues then they can, as Sunderland did, drop straight through but the circumstances were nothing like that.

Aside from that I'm not completely dismissing the need to address some aspects of the culture but that's true for almost every new manager at any club and is why you often get a new manager bounce.

What I refuse to give credit for is this idea that Bruce stabilised us, he did nothing of the sort, he put us into a cycle of short-term shit or bust football which is why 2 years on, with him having left, we have most of the same issues, with the addition of him gutting the defence.

[ChicagoLion]

Spot on Paul-e.

[stuart445]

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

38 of those games were under different management, in a different league, after which we had a huge change in staff at all levels so the idea that all the new people under completely new management had a hangover from the season before and needed Bruce to come in and turn things around is, as I said, massively overstated by the people who were desperate to defend him.

What he actually gave us was a new manager bounce, no one argues over that, but after his first 7-8 games we went on a run of 1 win in 10 that's not the ship steadying turn-around you're desperate to give him credit for. Once he replaced the midfield and they got a few games under their belts we looked a far better team and from there on we were decent, which is exactly what I said, he inherited a team which had a non-functioning midfield.

As I said before, a huge part of the problem was that we made so many changes in the summer, many after the season had started, and hadn't done anything like enough work to form a team out of the squad we had, which, again as I said, was just a case of us repeating the same mistakes that had gotten us relegated in the first place.

If a team is relegated with awful morale and keeps most of that unit together without addressing the morale issues then they can, as Sunderland did, drop straight through but the circumstances were nothing like that.

Aside from that I'm not completely dismissing the need to address some aspects of the culture but that's true for almost every new manager at any club and is why you often get a new manager bounce.

What I refuse to give credit for is this idea that Bruce stabilised us, he did nothing of the sort, he put us into a cycle of short-term shit or bust football which is why 2 years on, with him having left, we have most of the same issues, with the addition of him gutting the defence.

You refuse to give Bruce for stabilising us, which hs did.  Paul just stop now as quite frankly you're making yourself look stupid. If he didn't stabilise us why aren't we playing in league 1.  I think it's best this is the last time we mention this as you're looking a bit foolish

[Malandro]

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

38 of those games were under different management, in a different league, after which we had a huge change in staff at all levels so the idea that all the new people under completely new management had a hangover from the season before and needed Bruce to come in and turn things around is, as I said, massively overstated by the people who were desperate to defend him.

What he actually gave us was a new manager bounce, no one argues over that, but after his first 7-8 games we went on a run of 1 win in 10 that's not the ship steadying turn-around you're desperate to give him credit for. Once he replaced the midfield and they got a few games under their belts we looked a far better team and from there on we were decent, which is exactly what I said, he inherited a team which had a non-functioning midfield.

As I said before, a huge part of the problem was that we made so many changes in the summer, many after the season had started, and hadn't done anything like enough work to form a team out of the squad we had, which, again as I said, was just a case of us repeating the same mistakes that had gotten us relegated in the first place.

If a team is relegated with awful morale and keeps most of that unit together without addressing the morale issues then they can, as Sunderland did, drop straight through but the circumstances were nothing like that.

Aside from that I'm not completely dismissing the need to address some aspects of the culture but that's true for almost every new manager at any club and is why you often get a new manager bounce.

What I refuse to give credit for is this idea that Bruce stabilised us, he did nothing of the sort, he put us into a cycle of short-term shit or bust football which is why 2 years on, with him having left, we have most of the same issues, with the addition of him gutting the defence.

You refuse to give Bruce for stabilising us, which hs did.  Paul just stop now as quite frankly you're making yourself look stupid. If he didn't stabilise us why aren't we playing in league 1.  I think it's best this is the last time we mention this as you're looking a bit foolish

Hilarious.

[chrisw1]

We have been over this time and again.  Some people agree with you and some disagree.

What cannot be in dispute is we had been in the doldrums for some time before Bruce arrived.  Nor can it be disputed that we got to the play off final and therefore did better than all but 3 teams last season - albeit with a better squad than most.

But what also shouldn't be disputed is that we finished last season very, very poorly and his approach to the play off final (and semi's to be fair) was pretty unforgivable.  He should have gone there and then but circumstances made that impossible.

It also can't be disputed that he left us with an unbalanced squad, although we'll never know if the final decision to let Elphick go was his alone and it's not his fault the Board failed to sign the french and Scottish defenders we were in for.  He definitely lost the plot at the start of this season and it was a relief when he was finally sacked.

But with all of this said, suggesting he didn't want to be a good manager is just daft.  Whether his methods or abilities are up to scratch can be debated, but the inference that he didn't want to be successful is just ridiculous.

[LukeJames]

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

38 of those games were under different management, in a different league, after which we had a huge change in staff at all levels so the idea that all the new people under completely new management had a hangover from the season before and needed Bruce to come in and turn things around is, as I said, massively overstated by the people who were desperate to defend him.

What he actually gave us was a new manager bounce, no one argues over that, but after his first 7-8 games we went on a run of 1 win in 10 that's not the ship steadying turn-around you're desperate to give him credit for. Once he replaced the midfield and they got a few games under their belts we looked a far better team and from there on we were decent, which is exactly what I said, he inherited a team which had a non-functioning midfield.

As I said before, a huge part of the problem was that we made so many changes in the summer, many after the season had started, and hadn't done anything like enough work to form a team out of the squad we had, which, again as I said, was just a case of us repeating the same mistakes that had gotten us relegated in the first place.

If a team is relegated with awful morale and keeps most of that unit together without addressing the morale issues then they can, as Sunderland did, drop straight through but the circumstances were nothing like that.

Aside from that I'm not completely dismissing the need to address some aspects of the culture but that's true for almost every new manager at any club and is why you often get a new manager bounce.

What I refuse to give credit for is this idea that Bruce stabilised us, he did nothing of the sort, he put us into a cycle of short-term shit or bust football which is why 2 years on, with him having left, we have most of the same issues, with the addition of him gutting the defence.

You refuse to give Bruce for stabilising us, which hs did.  Paul just stop now as quite frankly you're making yourself look stupid. If he didn't stabilise us why aren't we playing in league 1.  I think it's best this is the last time we mention this as you're looking a bit foolish

Pot, kettle.

[dave.woodhall]

We have been over this time and again.  Some people agree with you and some disagree.

What cannot be in dispute is we had been in the doldrums for some time before Bruce arrived.  Nor can it be disputed that we got to the play off final and therefore did better than all but 3 teams last season.

But what also shouldn't be disputed is that we finished last season very, very poorly and his approach to the play off final (and semi's to be fair) was pretty unforgivable.  He should have gone there and then but circumstances made that impossible.

It also can't be disputed that he left us with an unbalanced squad, although we'll never know if the final decision to let Elphick go was his alone and it's not his fault the Board failed to sign the french and Scottish defenders we were in for.  He definitely lost the plot at the start of this season and it was a relief when he was finally sacked.

But with all of this said, suggesting he didn't want to be a good manager is just daft.  Whether his methods or abilities are up to scratch can be debated, but the inference that he didn't want to be successful is just ridiculous.

I pretty much agree with all this. He got rid of the losing mentality but didn't instill a winning one. He identified players he wanted during the summer but when they didn't arrive left it too late to bring in anyone else (Although we don't know how much time/money he had to work with once the new ownership dust had settled). He'd definitely lost it by the time he was sacked but trying to score points by going na na na na naa I always said he was rubbish is a bit daft because most managers end up as failures so it would save time and be at least 80% accurate to say that every new manager will be useless and spend their whole time in charge saying they should be sacked. 

[paul_e]

You refuse to give Bruce for stabilising us, which hs did.  Paul just stop now as quite frankly you're making yourself look stupid. If he didn't stabilise us why aren't we playing in league 1.  I think it's best this is the last time we mention this as you're looking a bit foolish

Being lectured on looking foolish by a guy who said Benteke was shit because he missed a few chances has made my day. I guess you are at expert at least.  I've given plenty of reasons why I think you're wrong, if all you can answer is "well he did" then you're right, I should just stop because you're not worth the time.

[algy]

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

All of this.

For my money, Steve Bruce was a canny appointment at the time.  When Villa went down, I was convinced we'd be playing League 1 football a couple of seasons' down the road (if not the next season), much like Sunderland have ended up, and several teams before them.  That didn't happen under Steve Bruce, and I don't think there was any danger of it happening.  Should've either jumped or been pushed after the playoff final defeat, but circumstances weren't great, and having kept him on for the start of this season, it wouldn't have been fair to deny him a fair crack at the whip.


Don't really understand the criticism of Dean Smith at the moment.  Some of the points would be very valid in one or two season's time, but given the run of fixtures and the injury problems he's faced, he's done better than you could reasonably expect anyone to do. 

With Grealish out and the run of fixtures, I wouldn't have thought it was a good time to field a load of (basically untested) youngsters out.  I'd be more inclined to give them time when the fixtures are a bit more forgiving of mistakes, and there's a stronger set of players around them to support them.

Likewise, rotating captaincy - depends on how much the current squad wants (or is capable of) doing that.  I don't know, but I'd have thought you'd need several strong leaders in the first team to make that work - again, to offer that room for error and support that a less experienced captain might need.

For me, he doesn't exactly get a free pass, but I'd give him a lot of leeway this season and next.  Seeing what sort of coach he came across as at Brentford, I'd expect it'll only be in 2 or 3 years that we'll even start to see what he's capable of.

[stuart445]

You refuse to give Bruce for stabilising us, which hs did.  Paul just stop now as quite frankly you're making yourself look stupid. If he didn't stabilise us why aren't we playing in league 1.  I think it's best this is the last time we mention this as you're looking a bit foolish

Being lectured on looking foolish by a guy who said Benteke was shit because he missed a few chances has made my day. I guess you are at expert at least.  I've given plenty of reasons why I think you're wrong, if all you can answer is "well he did" then you're right, I should just stop because you're not worth the time.

Bringing Benteke up how predictable... Remind me how has has he done since he left us??? 
Benteke failed at Liverpool and now barely starts for Crystal Palace. Basically so far Bentekes form at Villa was the exception.

One thing I can't get my head round is a Villa fan wanting an Villa manager to fail

[Malandro]

You refuse to give Bruce for stabilising us, which hs did.  Paul just stop now as quite frankly you're making yourself look stupid. If he didn't stabilise us why aren't we playing in league 1.  I think it's best this is the last time we mention this as you're looking a bit foolish

Being lectured on looking foolish by a guy who said Benteke was shit because he missed a few chances has made my day. I guess you are at expert at least.  I've given plenty of reasons why I think you're wrong, if all you can answer is "well he did" then you're right, I should just stop because you're not worth the time.

Bringing Benteke up how predictable... Remind me how has has he done since he left us??? 
Benteke failed at Liverpool and now barely starts for Crystal Palace. Basically so far Bentekes form at Villa was the exception.

One thing I can't get my head round is a Villa fan wanting an Villa manager to fail

Predicting a manager to fail, is not the same as wanting them to fail.

The stability you talk about, shit or bust is not stability.

[brontebilly]

Given the thread is about Dean Smith....

He gets a bit of a pass at the moment, there are chronic issues in the squad that can only be fixed by recruitment. Injuries have came at the wrong time, worrying that a number of them continue to be soft tissue mind....Taylor, Lansbury..But recent results against some very average sides have been very poor. I was very concerned with bringing in Terry as defensive coach and that has proved a real issue thus far.

Also I see nothing entertaining in 5-5 type games. Smith has done little or nothing to address the fecklessness of the likes of Hourihane and McGinn without the ball, or our widemen offering zero protection in the wide areas. That simply isn't good enough and appears to be tolerated. All that matters is what happens within the white lines, not post game chats.

[Malandro]

Given the thread is about Dean Smith....

Now that is a valid point!

[Mister E]

What I refuse to give credit for is this idea that Bruce stabilised us, he did nothing of the sort, he put us into a cycle of short-term shit or bust football which is why 2 years on, with him having left, we have most of the same issues, with the addition of him gutting the defence.

I think this encapsulates the issue we had with him very well. When he first came in, he did exactly what you'd expect as a minimum - he proved he'd 'been there before' by calming the nerves and getting some short-term stability. the underlying issues were never addressed in his time.

[pauliewalnuts]

Bruce's approach to management is old school 'get the lads geed up' style, light on tactics and pretty limited. By applying that to a squad of decent players he fell just short.

The problem with the Bruce time is that it was obviously shit or bust (getting in trouble for missing PAYE payments? That's about as ominous as it gets). We were very very lucky to have two billionaires rescue us. If that hadn't happened, who knows where we would be now.

We don't even know if Bruce knew how dangerous that strategy was, but Xia certainly did, and it reflects very badly on him that he let the club get into such a state.

I don't feel any animosity towards Bruce, and I wish him well. I know he's had a few pops and his son has too, but he's defending his record and his son is defending his dad, what do people expect?

He's no idiot, he wouldn't have walked into a decent size job if he was. It's just that his style of doing things is painfully anachronistic and frequently awful to watch.

Ironically, Dean Smith now finds himself with the third richest owners in British football, yet unable to spend much cash because of FFP considerations. He's also come to the club and inherited a woefully unbalanced squad which Bruce was clearly not getting a tune out of.

That's a difficult job and whatever he achieves with us, it is going to take time.