The undermining of Dean Smith

[ROBBO]

The truth around Terry i imagine would be well known in football circles and would be taken into consideration by any future employer, could be why he hasn't got a gig anywhere.
Deans downfall began when he couldn't field a successful side whenever Grealish was out, other clubs had missed their best player and still won games but Dean failed whenever he was out and when it dragged into many weeks the losses mounted up.

[LeonW]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

[ChicagoLion]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

I would be more inclined to blame Purslow, the dicking around at the Lensbury Club, the absence of any leadership during the Jack saga, followed by the panic  buys.

[Nelly]

The bids we put in for Smith-Rowe and Ward-Prowse were seen as insultingly low - would it have been Lange who decided that sort of thing? I agree we didn't really have a cutting edge without Grealish but we were only in our first season up. With some time Smith could potentially have re-shaped and bolstered the squad. That's easy to say in retrospect, I know, but we didn't give it any time to develop either way. Conversely, I think we were promoted ahead of schedule and the extra transfer windows may have been a help in terms of shaping the squad. As it was, we came up a touch undercooked.

I really miss the talk of having a plan and a pathway for each player, be they youth graduate or incoming signing. It felt for a time like we could finally think about getting the 'Prepared' banner back on the badge.

[brontebilly]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

Deano always said he had the final say on all signings, including Ings. He, and no one else, was fully responsible for the shambles of a pre season. At best the situation with the coaching staff was mismanaged but I think too much is made of Terry/ROK leaving but the timing was very odd. Grealish leaving, Purslow said the club were well prepared for given that he nearly went the previous summer. The reality is Smith struggled in two divisions to form any kind of identity in the team without Grealish, that's undeniable. What worried me at the time really was Spurs away last season when Grealish came back from injury. Playing on one leg he was very good but likes of McGinn and Watkins were transformed from playing terribly for weeks to stars. Sure Grealish was/is a top player but how can one player drastically change that level of performance in others? How come Smith couldn't get a tune out of them at all without Grealish? 

It's funny as I think our best performance of this season was when Smith played a scratch team at Chelsea in the cup. Everyone played well, Archer, Sanson etc Winning at Old Trafford, though as the season showed against an average Man United team, was another seemingly big step forward post Grealish. It's amazing how quickly it fell apart soon after. Wolves was a killer defeat but the Arsenal performance and Smith's reaction afterwards suggested his role was in jeopardy. The first half at Southampton worse again. Smith lost the plot really trying to accommodate Ings with a bench full of wingers and those damn long throws...

Gerrard has stabilised things a bit but we are still struggling for that post Grealish identity for me.

[LeonW]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

Deano always said he had the final say on all signings, including Ings. He, and no one else, was fully responsible for the shambles of a pre season. At best the situation with the coaching staff was mismanaged but I think too much is made of Terry/ROK leaving but the timing was very odd. Grealish leaving, Purslow said the club were well prepared for given that he nearly went the previous summer. The reality is Smith struggled in two divisions to form any kind of identity in the team without Grealish, that's undeniable. What worried me at the time really was Spurs away last season when Grealish came back from injury. Playing on one leg he was very good but likes of McGinn and Watkins were transformed from playing terribly for weeks to stars. Sure Grealish was/is a top player but how can one player drastically change that level of performance in others? How come Smith couldn't get a tune out of them at all without Grealish? 

It's funny as I think our best performance of this season was when Smith played a scratch team at Chelsea in the cup. Everyone played well, Archer, Sanson etc Winning at Old Trafford, though as the season showed against an average Man United team, was another seemingly big step forward post Grealish. It's amazing how quickly it fell apart soon after. Wolves was a killer defeat but the Arsenal performance and Smith's reaction afterwards suggested his role was in jeopardy. The first half at Southampton worse again. Smith lost the plot really trying to accommodate Ings with a bench full of wingers and those damn long throws...

Gerrard has stabilised things a bit but we are still struggling for that post Grealish identity for me.

Pre-season last summer was disrupted by:
* Covid impacting friendlies, including cancellations by other clubs on Villa last minute.
* The Joe saga, including the deadline set by the club to match the release clause – a deal which concluded early August.
* It’s subsequent impact on potentially rushed replacements for him – players which would not have been part of Villa’s disrupted pre-season until late.
* Some players returning from international duty after playing tournament football (Martinez, Mings, Joe, McGinn, D.Luiz – all starters for Villa). 4 of these were fairly late for obvious reasons.
* ROK and Terry leaving fairly last minute before the season started.

The only element of the above that could be remotely laid at Smith’s door is on ROK and Terry leaving at his behest or on their own accord after being side-lined by Smith. Terry was added to his coaching staff by the club in the first place. ROK had worked with Smith since 2012. Other theories are available as to why both left. So to say Smith was solely responsible for the disrupted pre-season is unjustified.

Smith’s position at Villa was Head Coach working with a Director of Football (Suso followed by Lange). Recruitment within this structure is not as transparent as in the distant past where the manager was all controlling. It's now data driven. So Smith’s responsibilities/involvement are not clear here. For a successful model of this kind, the manager is supposed to be superfluous- players are signed that are right for the club and its’ working model – not what the manager or Head Coach at the time necessarily wants, although as we’ve seen with Coutinho, this was clearly someone Gerrard wanted and could help with signing. Sanson under Smith, perhaps less so. For Smith to say he didn’t have final say on all players recruited would be to undermine himself and offer hostages to fortune -even if it was a potential reality.

Tactically, did Smith change the system this season from what he’s broadly used previously because 2 of his 3 wingers (Bailey and Traore) were not fit/injured for the majority of his time at the club this season? It may also have been a method to try and force the other players to take more responsibility. We’ve seen that the side has struggled without Joe but this has largely continued post Smith apart from a few sparks. And Smith didn’t have Coutinho to use. I thought that Watkins & Ings couldn’t work but the last couple of months has shown that isn’t true.

With regard Joe, the focus is almost always on how he was good for Villa – less so on how good Villa were for him. Smith got the best out of him. Last time I checked, he’s had 1 goal and 1 assist in the league for a side who have scored 84 league goals this season so far. He didn’t even start the recent vital games against Liverpool, A.Madrid or Real Madrid.

So I do think that fault lies beyond just Smith -just as our recent successes (10 game winning run, cup final, promotion, staying up, first half of last season) aren't solely his alone. It's also why there’s been no major upward trajectory thus far since he left. It's the classic case of 'Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.'

[robbo1874]

Good post Leon, I’d have made similar general points, but you’ve backed it up with the details. Smith was unlucky with how the pre-season panned out, I think. But you and others are correct, he had no plan B when Grealish wasn’t playing or after he was sold. Not an easy problem to fix though and Gerrard has still struggled with it also, for some of the same reasons as Deano did.

[RamboandBruno]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

Deano always said he had the final say on all signings, including Ings. He, and no one else, was fully responsible for the shambles of a pre season. At best the situation with the coaching staff was mismanaged but I think too much is made of Terry/ROK leaving but the timing was very odd. Grealish leaving, Purslow said the club were well prepared for given that he nearly went the previous summer. The reality is Smith struggled in two divisions to form any kind of identity in the team without Grealish, that's undeniable. What worried me at the time really was Spurs away last season when Grealish came back from injury. Playing on one leg he was very good but likes of McGinn and Watkins were transformed from playing terribly for weeks to stars. Sure Grealish was/is a top player but how can one player drastically change that level of performance in others? How come Smith couldn't get a tune out of them at all without Grealish? 

It's funny as I think our best performance of this season was when Smith played a scratch team at Chelsea in the cup. Everyone played well, Archer, Sanson etc Winning at Old Trafford, though as the season showed against an average Man United team, was another seemingly big step forward post Grealish. It's amazing how quickly it fell apart soon after. Wolves was a killer defeat but the Arsenal performance and Smith's reaction afterwards suggested his role was in jeopardy. The first half at Southampton worse again. Smith lost the plot really trying to accommodate Ings with a bench full of wingers and those damn long throws...

Gerrard has stabilised things a bit but we are still struggling for that post Grealish identity for me.

Pre-season last summer was disrupted by:
* Covid impacting friendlies, including cancellations by other clubs on Villa last minute.
* The Joe saga, including the deadline set by the club to match the release clause – a deal which concluded early August.
* It’s subsequent impact on potentially rushed replacements for him – players which would not have been part of Villa’s disrupted pre-season until late.
* Some players returning from international duty after playing tournament football (Martinez, Mings, Joe, McGinn, D.Luiz – all starters for Villa). 4 of these were fairly late for obvious reasons.
* ROK and Terry leaving fairly last minute before the season started.

The only element of the above that could be remotely laid at Smith’s door is on ROK and Terry leaving at his behest or on their own accord after being side-lined by Smith. Terry was added to his coaching staff by the club in the first place. ROK had worked with Smith since 2012. Other theories are available as to why both left. So to say Smith was solely responsible for the disrupted pre-season is unjustified.

Smith’s position at Villa was Head Coach working with a Director of Football (Suso followed by Lange). Recruitment within this structure is not as transparent as in the distant past where the manager was all controlling. It's now data driven. So Smith’s responsibilities/involvement are not clear here. For a successful model of this kind, the manager is supposed to be superfluous- players are signed that are right for the club and its’ working model – not what the manager or Head Coach at the time necessarily wants, although as we’ve seen with Coutinho, this was clearly someone Gerrard wanted and could help with signing. Sanson under Smith, perhaps less so. For Smith to say he didn’t have final say on all players recruited would be to undermine himself and offer hostages to fortune -even if it was a potential reality.

Tactically, did Smith change the system this season from what he’s broadly used previously because 2 of his 3 wingers (Bailey and Traore) were not fit/injured for the majority of his time at the club this season? It may also have been a method to try and force the other players to take more responsibility. We’ve seen that the side has struggled without Joe but this has largely continued post Smith apart from a few sparks. And Smith didn’t have Coutinho to use. I thought that Watkins & Ings couldn’t work but the last couple of months has shown that isn’t true.

With regard Joe, the focus is almost always on how he was good for Villa – less so on how good Villa were for him. Smith got the best out of him. Last time I checked, he’s had 1 goal and 1 assist in the league for a side who have scored 84 league goals this season so far. He didn’t even start the recent vital games against Liverpool, A.Madrid or Real Madrid.

So I do think that fault lies beyond just Smith -just as our recent successes (10 game winning run, cup final, promotion, staying up, first half of last season) aren't solely his alone. It's also why there’s been no major upward trajectory thus far since he left. It's the classic case of 'Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.'

Excellent post Leon

[dave.woodhall]

Some good points there, and one touches on something I've long thought. For all the talk that Smith couldn't do anything without Ratboy, nobody seems to say the reverse. Until Smiffy arrived, the comparisons were with Lee Hendrie. Twelve months later it was Gordon Cowans.

[Abbeyfealeavfc]

Exactly. If bench boy was all that how come it took us 3 seasons to get out of the Championship.  He contributed of course, but Smith unlike his predecessors also contributed hugely as did Mings, Tammy etc.

[Legion]

Some good points there, and one touches on something I've long thought. For all the talk that Smith couldn't do anything without Ratboy, nobody seems to say the reverse. Until Smiffy arrived, the comparisons were with Lee Hendrie. Twelve months later it was Gordon Cowans.

It's Steve Hodge now.

[dave.woodhall]

What mostly pisses me off is the idea that without him we'd be bottom half of the Championship. Top goalscorer was Tammy Abraham, player of the year John McGinn, man of the match in the final McGinn.
 

[brontebilly]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

Deano always said he had the final say on all signings, including Ings. He, and no one else, was fully responsible for the shambles of a pre season. At best the situation with the coaching staff was mismanaged but I think too much is made of Terry/ROK leaving but the timing was very odd. Grealish leaving, Purslow said the club were well prepared for given that he nearly went the previous summer. The reality is Smith struggled in two divisions to form any kind of identity in the team without Grealish, that's undeniable. What worried me at the time really was Spurs away last season when Grealish came back from injury. Playing on one leg he was very good but likes of McGinn and Watkins were transformed from playing terribly for weeks to stars. Sure Grealish was/is a top player but how can one player drastically change that level of performance in others? How come Smith couldn't get a tune out of them at all without Grealish? 

It's funny as I think our best performance of this season was when Smith played a scratch team at Chelsea in the cup. Everyone played well, Archer, Sanson etc Winning at Old Trafford, though as the season showed against an average Man United team, was another seemingly big step forward post Grealish. It's amazing how quickly it fell apart soon after. Wolves was a killer defeat but the Arsenal performance and Smith's reaction afterwards suggested his role was in jeopardy. The first half at Southampton worse again. Smith lost the plot really trying to accommodate Ings with a bench full of wingers and those damn long throws...

Gerrard has stabilised things a bit but we are still struggling for that post Grealish identity for me.

Pre-season last summer was disrupted by:
* Covid impacting friendlies, including cancellations by other clubs on Villa last minute.
* The Joe saga, including the deadline set by the club to match the release clause – a deal which concluded early August.
* It’s subsequent impact on potentially rushed replacements for him – players which would not have been part of Villa’s disrupted pre-season until late.
* Some players returning from international duty after playing tournament football (Martinez, Mings, Joe, McGinn, D.Luiz – all starters for Villa). 4 of these were fairly late for obvious reasons.
* ROK and Terry leaving fairly last minute before the season started.

The only element of the above that could be remotely laid at Smith’s door is on ROK and Terry leaving at his behest or on their own accord after being side-lined by Smith. Terry was added to his coaching staff by the club in the first place. ROK had worked with Smith since 2012. Other theories are available as to why both left. So to say Smith was solely responsible for the disrupted pre-season is unjustified.

Smith’s position at Villa was Head Coach working with a Director of Football (Suso followed by Lange). Recruitment within this structure is not as transparent as in the distant past where the manager was all controlling. It's now data driven. So Smith’s responsibilities/involvement are not clear here. For a successful model of this kind, the manager is supposed to be superfluous- players are signed that are right for the club and its’ working model – not what the manager or Head Coach at the time necessarily wants, although as we’ve seen with Coutinho, this was clearly someone Gerrard wanted and could help with signing. Sanson under Smith, perhaps less so. For Smith to say he didn’t have final say on all players recruited would be to undermine himself and offer hostages to fortune -even if it was a potential reality.

Tactically, did Smith change the system this season from what he’s broadly used previously because 2 of his 3 wingers (Bailey and Traore) were not fit/injured for the majority of his time at the club this season? It may also have been a method to try and force the other players to take more responsibility. We’ve seen that the side has struggled without Joe but this has largely continued post Smith apart from a few sparks. And Smith didn’t have Coutinho to use. I thought that Watkins & Ings couldn’t work but the last couple of months has shown that isn’t true.

With regard Joe, the focus is almost always on how he was good for Villa – less so on how good Villa were for him. Smith got the best out of him. Last time I checked, he’s had 1 goal and 1 assist in the league for a side who have scored 84 league goals this season so far. He didn’t even start the recent vital games against Liverpool, A.Madrid or Real Madrid.

So I do think that fault lies beyond just Smith -just as our recent successes (10 game winning run, cup final, promotion, staying up, first half of last season) aren't solely his alone. It's also why there’s been no major upward trajectory thus far since he left. It's the classic case of 'Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.'

Agreed that Smith did a superb job with Grealish. Giving him the captaincy was a master stroke and maybe more importantly moving him to the left wing when both the team and Grealish were struggling when we first came up. Deano deserves a lot of credit for the club banking 100m last summer.

I don't see any sign that Ings/Watkins can work really. We aren't lucky enough to play Norwich every week. Both good players in their own right but it was just a poor signing and displayed muddled thinking in trying to replace Grealish. I'll be stunned if Ings is still with us starting next season.

[LeonW]

We still do not know who was responsible for the shit show of a summer for which Smith ultimately paid the price with his job.

Dean Smith.

I think the faults are at multiple doors brontebilly. The manager being part of the equation.

Deano always said he had the final say on all signings, including Ings. He, and no one else, was fully responsible for the shambles of a pre season. At best the situation with the coaching staff was mismanaged but I think too much is made of Terry/ROK leaving but the timing was very odd. Grealish leaving, Purslow said the club were well prepared for given that he nearly went the previous summer. The reality is Smith struggled in two divisions to form any kind of identity in the team without Grealish, that's undeniable. What worried me at the time really was Spurs away last season when Grealish came back from injury. Playing on one leg he was very good but likes of McGinn and Watkins were transformed from playing terribly for weeks to stars. Sure Grealish was/is a top player but how can one player drastically change that level of performance in others? How come Smith couldn't get a tune out of them at all without Grealish? 

It's funny as I think our best performance of this season was when Smith played a scratch team at Chelsea in the cup. Everyone played well, Archer, Sanson etc Winning at Old Trafford, though as the season showed against an average Man United team, was another seemingly big step forward post Grealish. It's amazing how quickly it fell apart soon after. Wolves was a killer defeat but the Arsenal performance and Smith's reaction afterwards suggested his role was in jeopardy. The first half at Southampton worse again. Smith lost the plot really trying to accommodate Ings with a bench full of wingers and those damn long throws...

Gerrard has stabilised things a bit but we are still struggling for that post Grealish identity for me.

Pre-season last summer was disrupted by:
* Covid impacting friendlies, including cancellations by other clubs on Villa last minute.
* The Joe saga, including the deadline set by the club to match the release clause – a deal which concluded early August.
* It’s subsequent impact on potentially rushed replacements for him – players which would not have been part of Villa’s disrupted pre-season until late.
* Some players returning from international duty after playing tournament football (Martinez, Mings, Joe, McGinn, D.Luiz – all starters for Villa). 4 of these were fairly late for obvious reasons.
* ROK and Terry leaving fairly last minute before the season started.

The only element of the above that could be remotely laid at Smith’s door is on ROK and Terry leaving at his behest or on their own accord after being side-lined by Smith. Terry was added to his coaching staff by the club in the first place. ROK had worked with Smith since 2012. Other theories are available as to why both left. So to say Smith was solely responsible for the disrupted pre-season is unjustified.

Smith’s position at Villa was Head Coach working with a Director of Football (Suso followed by Lange). Recruitment within this structure is not as transparent as in the distant past where the manager was all controlling. It's now data driven. So Smith’s responsibilities/involvement are not clear here. For a successful model of this kind, the manager is supposed to be superfluous- players are signed that are right for the club and its’ working model – not what the manager or Head Coach at the time necessarily wants, although as we’ve seen with Coutinho, this was clearly someone Gerrard wanted and could help with signing. Sanson under Smith, perhaps less so. For Smith to say he didn’t have final say on all players recruited would be to undermine himself and offer hostages to fortune -even if it was a potential reality.

Tactically, did Smith change the system this season from what he’s broadly used previously because 2 of his 3 wingers (Bailey and Traore) were not fit/injured for the majority of his time at the club this season? It may also have been a method to try and force the other players to take more responsibility. We’ve seen that the side has struggled without Joe but this has largely continued post Smith apart from a few sparks. And Smith didn’t have Coutinho to use. I thought that Watkins & Ings couldn’t work but the last couple of months has shown that isn’t true.

With regard Joe, the focus is almost always on how he was good for Villa – less so on how good Villa were for him. Smith got the best out of him. Last time I checked, he’s had 1 goal and 1 assist in the league for a side who have scored 84 league goals this season so far. He didn’t even start the recent vital games against Liverpool, A.Madrid or Real Madrid.

So I do think that fault lies beyond just Smith -just as our recent successes (10 game winning run, cup final, promotion, staying up, first half of last season) aren't solely his alone. It's also why there’s been no major upward trajectory thus far since he left. It's the classic case of 'Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.'

Agreed that Smith did a superb job with Grealish. Giving him the captaincy was a master stroke and maybe more importantly moving him to the left wing when both the team and Grealish were struggling when we first came up. Deano deserves a lot of credit for the club banking 100m last summer.

I don't see any sign that Ings/Watkins can work really. We aren't lucky enough to play Norwich every week. Both good players in their own right but it was just a poor signing and displayed muddled thinking in trying to replace Grealish. I'll be stunned if Ings is still with us starting next season.

The games against Leeds and Southampton also gave some glimpses of a partnership. I like Ings link up play and I think Coutinho quite likes playing with him. Ollie is trying to improve this aspect of his game which is needed in a partnership but he does have that tendency of getting his head down, doing a step over and shooting against someone's legs when there are better options available if he got his head up. 12 goal contributions from Ings (6 goals, 6 assists) could be better, especially for the money but I think he's only started 19 games and so it isn't the worst by any means. As we're not going to get much by way of a fee back for him, he's probably worth keeping. He's been playing with the other guys now for a while so they should have better understanding of each other. Here's hoping.

[DYWTBAU?]

Thanks Dave, great article, tackled all the key issues, as the subsequent lively debate shows. Not unusually for the Villa, the jury is still out on if there are any winners in all of this. Another summer of big changes is just around the corner now too.