Jump to content
lake district canary

Smith making excuses...or just saying it as it is?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

At the press conference after yesterday's match he said we are "a team recruited to play with the ball" and that they are not good enough at that nor good enough off the ball as a result.  The choice of words is interesting  - suggests recruitment was poor for this level, that the philosophy was wrong to want to try and play football - so is that just saying it as it is?  Or is he just passing the buck?

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

At the press conference after yesterday's match he said we are "a team recruited to play with the ball" and that they are not good enough at that nor good enough off the ball as a result.  The choice of words is interesting  - suggests recruitment was poor for this level, that the philosophy was wrong to want to try and play football - so is that just saying it as it is?  Or is he just passing the buck?

If he’s passing the buck he will fit in very well here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty much spot on to me, was the problem at this level under Farke, trying to get the ball down and play in the Premier League with Championship standard centre midfielders, losing the midfield battle every time. 

Then you've got players like Josh Sargent with a dreadful first touch. Now I like our yankie friend, hope he becomes a cult hero, but he isn't exactly built for fluid passing football is he, what with him being extremely one footed and hit and miss when it comes to trapping a ball with his strong foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

At the press conference after yesterday's match he said we are "a team recruited to play with the ball" and that they are not good enough at that nor good enough off the ball as a result.

That really stood out didn't it.  But then he's continually said that the players are capable of survival and there won't be major changes needed next season.

So does that mean that he will develop a footballing team in the championship as the level is lower? I'm still not sure on his identity as a manager or what he brings to us as a team.

Seems imperative that he needs his own players to me, perhaps he's managing the board & players with these interviews and will start to turn as the season comes to a close - explaining that he didn't have the pieces needed to execute his preferred style(?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major changes for the sake of it will throw the team back, so he has a heck of a point there, the question is which direction will a gentle evolution go?

The big thing to take from yesterday was Springett's debut start, and he didn't do badly. Gilmour leaves our midfield unbalanced - he'll have a very good future but evidently does not fit this team. He'll no doubt play the remaining games just to lower the fee we pay to Chelsea so we'll have a bit more in the kitty for the next step of the evolution.

Next year, for me, is a big one in terms of which youngsters start to emerge and how their fledgling careers are handled. I do suspect one's going to do an Omo, come from nowhere and rather than get a loan, end up in the firsts. Going off this, I suspect Springett's the more likely one, and Rowe will probably get a loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

At the press conference after yesterday's match he said we are "a team recruited to play with the ball" and that they are not good enough at that nor good enough off the ball as a result.  The choice of words is interesting  - suggests recruitment was poor for this level, that the philosophy was wrong to want to try and play football - so is that just saying it as it is?  Or is he just passing the buck?

So what in essence he is saying is we can't play with the ball and can't play without the ball. Prerequisites for a footballer eh? And also prerequisite for a coah to instill it in the players. That is why in a nutshell for me DS is clearly not good enough and should go

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s just telling it like it is, think he’s generally been towing the party line but he looks increasingly frustrated with these players. 

He’s in impossible position, he was obviously sold the job but told there was no more money this year. When he came in he made the right noises but he’s since lost two young players he seemed to really rate in Idah and Sargent, now lost McClean, Rupps been basically injured as well, players like Normann and Rashica who looked the business at one point now look completely disinterested and have for a while.

There is quality in our squad, it should boss the championship, but it’s not good enough for the PL and the player mentality has been crap all season apart from a few glimpses of pride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Major changes for the sake of it will throw the team back, so he has a heck of a point there, the question is which direction will a gentle evolution go?

Once the loans come back we're very bloated so there will need to be more than a gentle cull, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Monty13 said:

He’s just telling it like it is, think he’s generally been towing the party line but he looks increasingly frustrated with these players. 

He’s in impossible position, he was obviously sold the job but told there was no more money this year. When he came in he made the right noises but he’s since lost two young players he seemed to really rate in Idah and Sargent, now lost McClean, Rupps been basically injured as well, players like Normann and Rashica who looked the business at one point now look completely disinterested and have for a while.

There is quality in our squad, it should boss the championship, but it’s not good enough for the PL and the player mentality has been crap all season apart from a few glimpses of pride.

Not only that, Idah and Sargent were key in terms of helping the midfield compete as the ball was sticking up top for more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

Once the loans come back we're very bloated so there will need to be more than a gentle cull, don't you think?

Not necessarily, when you consider many were youth / reserve players. This is another thing that will gradually become clear in pre-season. Have the likes of Martin, Mumba, McCullum et al kicked on with their time out on loan? Not to mention we're losing four loan players ourselves who were very much envisaged as first-teamers but didn't always make it there.

McCullum looks an obvious back-up/competition to Giannoulis. Mumba looks like obvious competition for Byram for that reserve right-back spot, or back-up if Aarons goes. Martin's the odd one and for me his days could be numbered with the emergence of Rowe and Springett, unless it's decided that they go on loan.

We still don't have a clue about Sinani and if Huddersfield will exercise their option. Bournemouth probably won't with Cantwell, which throws another dark horse into the mixer - where's his head at and what's his level in pre-season?

But I don't think you'll see too many new faces as there's a fair bit of upheaval with the current loanees leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

At the press conference after yesterday's match he said we are "a team recruited to play with the ball" and that they are not good enough at that nor good enough off the ball as a result.  The choice of words is interesting  - suggests recruitment was poor for this level, that the philosophy was wrong to want to try and play football - so is that just saying it as it is?  Or is he just passing the buck?

I also think he just stating the facts tbh. He isn’t saying anything we don’t know to be true, or that we have been mostly saying ourselves on here. We recruited for Farkeball then realised we couldn’t do it as well as the others in the league.

Edited by Jambomo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn’t look like the big changes I think we need next season. Don’t think I can stomach another season of this group of players. 

ECA989D5-0F66-4977-9919-79291CF6CCC5.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

If he’s passing the buck he will fit in very well here. 

Although the buck may not reach its intended target or be held on to if it does get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

At the press conference after yesterday's match he said we are "a team recruited to play with the ball" and that they are not good enough at that nor good enough off the ball as a result.  The choice of words is interesting  - suggests recruitment was poor for this level, that the philosophy was wrong to want to try and play football - so is that just saying it as it is?  Or is he just passing the buck?

I agree with him. Completely. 

The concern for me is if he has to work with too many of Webbers failures next season instead of getting his own players. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not his biggest fan but agree with that statement.

First half last night, with the game so open, I thought our midfield looked better on the ball and we created space for players to actually pass to in space. But at the same time, Leicester were able to capitalise on our open play to exploit us as well and it made for an entertaining half.

Second half, when we were closed down in midfield, we looked lost again. And consequently created little.

We have to find the balance we had two years ago next season. One sitting, one with flair and two willing runners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

players like Normann and Rashica who looked the business at one point now look completely disinterested and have for a while.

This is one of my concerns with Smith. I accept that he was given a poisoned chalice and the majority of the team wasn't up for the job but fact he hasn't really brought any players on and the only decent ones have now gone backwards. He doesn't appear to be much of a motivator.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

Once the loans come back we're very bloated so there will need to be more than a gentle cull, don't you think?

It depends how many of those who have been loaned out we want to keep for next season, but I think there will be more incomers - permanent transfers and loanees - than Smith seems to be suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Foxes were no great shakes and the first half was akin to two upper table Championship sides with good saves from both keepers and could have gone either way....Second half Mini Rodgers must have no beating about the brush screeched at the mange addled Foxes who then upped their game....Whereas we played like little boys lost.....and therefore, we subsequently, lost....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posited a while ago that Webber saw a need for a change in style that was reflected in the transfers and also, in part, a reason why he was happy to move Farke on.

He's clearly right about what this group of players do off the ball- they don't harry, they don't press, they don't hunt in packs and they lack the positional discipline to hold their shape. 

Smith teams have always pressed. Farke teams barely ever did. One of my biggest bug bears with the Farke way of playing was how often we let teams saunter up to the halfway line without so much as a hint of pressure. The focus on recruiting players like Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent to me suggested Webber wanted a team who could play on the counter attack and not defend so passively. 

Farke couldn't make that work, so Smith got a shot. He hasn't been able to change them either- whether this down to the fact Webber recruited the wrong players for it, or the fact that Smith is struggling to overturn the mentality installed with 5 years of Farkeball I don't know. But if you compare how we play vs most teams to how Brentford do you'll see that off the ball it is night and day. That has to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Second half Mini Rodgers must have no beating about the brush screeched at the mange addled Foxes who then upped their game

Probably remembered the fate of Benitez, Ranieri & Dyche after losing to us and **** his pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, rock bus said:

This is one of my concerns with Smith. I accept that he was given a poisoned chalice and the majority of the team wasn't up for the job but fact he hasn't really brought any players on and the only decent ones have now gone backwards. He doesn't appear to be much of a motivator.

Would you not say he’s brought Rowe and Springett on? I would, given there wasn’t a suggestion of them playing first team football at the start of the season. I’d add Idah to that for the few games he was fit!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think he is being honest. The problem is we cannot play Farkeball possession type game in the premier league, most teams pressing is too good for us and we just cough up possession in midfield or defense. Likewise we can’t really keep it tight and play on the counter as we have no defensive midfield player. Similarly we can’t bypass the midfield now that Idah and Sargent are both injured and play more direct.

Basically the season can’t end soon enough……

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those comments from Dean were the first time I've connected with anything he's said since he's been here.

Now it's obvious the way we will evolve. We won't be seeing the likes of Wes or Super Mario for a while. Unless they have the physicality of Emi and there's few, if any, like him available to championship clubs.

Football is like fashion. Tippy tappy has been replaced by power athletic. (Perhaps Michael Bailey was ahead of the game🙃).

Some will call for the perennial halfway house but we just tried that and came last.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin has got some points our other midfielders haven't namely a goal and an assist.  Our current midfielders have few if any.  In the two appearances he has made looked creative, an unusual trait.  Also Mumba when he came on as sub once crated havoc and was instrumental in coming from behind.  Would like to see them improve next season and be important players.  Suspect they will be gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vlad666 said:

Well it doesn’t look like the big changes I think we need next season. Don’t think I can stomach another season of this group of players. 

ECA989D5-0F66-4977-9919-79291CF6CCC5.jpeg

Four loanees - confirms Normann and Kabak have gone then on top of Gilmour and Williams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, king canary said:

I posited a while ago that Webber saw a need for a change in style that was reflected in the transfers and also, in part, a reason why he was happy to move Farke on.

He's clearly right about what this group of players do off the ball- they don't harry, they don't press, they don't hunt in packs and they lack the positional discipline to hold their shape. 

Smith teams have always pressed. Farke teams barely ever did. One of my biggest bug bears with the Farke way of playing was how often we let teams saunter up to the halfway line without so much as a hint of pressure. The focus on recruiting players like Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent to me suggested Webber wanted a team who could play on the counter attack and not defend so passively. 

Farke couldn't make that work, so Smith got a shot. He hasn't been able to change them either- whether this down to the fact Webber recruited the wrong players for it, or the fact that Smith is struggling to overturn the mentality installed with 5 years of Farkeball I don't know. But if you compare how we play vs most teams to how Brentford do you'll see that off the ball it is night and day. That has to change.

I think you’re attributing way too much thought to the reasoning and plan behind our cr@p signings other than they were just cr@p.

Reminds me of Hot Fuzz where he comes up with the elaborate motive why they murdered everyone and turns out it was all about being the best village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, king canary said:

I posited a while ago that Webber saw a need for a change in style that was reflected in the transfers and also, in part, a reason why he was happy to move Farke on.

He's clearly right about what this group of players do off the ball- they don't harry, they don't press, they don't hunt in packs and they lack the positional discipline to hold their shape. 

Smith teams have always pressed. Farke teams barely ever did. One of my biggest bug bears with the Farke way of playing was how often we let teams saunter up to the halfway line without so much as a hint of pressure. The focus on recruiting players like Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent to me suggested Webber wanted a team who could play on the counter attack and not defend so passively. 

Farke couldn't make that work, so Smith got a shot. He hasn't been able to change them either- whether this down to the fact Webber recruited the wrong players for it, or the fact that Smith is struggling to overturn the mentality installed with 5 years of Farkeball I don't know. But if you compare how we play vs most teams to how Brentford do you'll see that off the ball it is night and day. That has to change.

I disagree we didn't press under DF. We couldn't sometimes but he did try where possible. Remember the 3-2 against ManC? We scored because we pressed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I disagree we didn't press under DF. We couldn't sometimes but he did try where possible. Remember the 3-2 against ManC? We scored because we pressed.

We did press as well as we could but this again goes back to what Smith just said. We had players players more suited to  other skills. Other teams had athletes more able to press effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...