Is Smithy Up To The Job?

Five league matches against London clubs have produced 15 goals against! I don't think I want to see another London club in quite a while!

Well, was today's result more to do with hard luck? Ramsey had to go off early and then the red card matter just after half-time, after all, which both interfered with matters. Added to the bad decision in allowing the follow-up score in last week's injury-time penalty and it could be said that hard luck is the cause.

But no. I am a believer in making your own luck, and Villa's play last week in the first half was nowhere near good enough. Then the collapse the previous week has to be considered. As to today, Young was perhaps a satisfactory replacement for Ramsey, I thought, and for the red card incident, I thought that Hause was the one that should have gone off moments earlier for his crazy swipe at the West Ham player. But maybe it could have been two red cards in one breath - it was certainly such a situation with Konsa being the last line of defence.

But let's get back to basics. Having failed to dismantle 5-3-2 before last week, Dean Smith then decides to drop Captain Mings in a week when he plays a totally new midfield and attack. Too much change in one go, I'm afraid, Smithy! Particularly with Sanson, Luiz and Ings all non-available for sickness reasons, I believe.

Is Hause a better player than Mings? No.

Do Villa have a player better suited as captain than Mings? In my opinion, no again.

In today's match - no matter what gaff or two he's committed of late - Mings should have been out there from the first as both defence and leadership was obviously something that Villa would have to rely on against a confident Hammers. Hause for Mings did nothing other than make Mings feel punished for his misdemeanours at the detriment of the team as a whole. Hause is a very useful player who sometimes rises above himself, but he, also, shows the odd deficiency.

So. what do I say is the root cause of Villa's problem? Unfortunately, the manager. His stubbornness in holding on to 5-3-2 for one week too many has cost the Villa a lot of confidence. And today's debacle puts us too close to the bottom three, partly as a result of Smith's stubbornness. In my opinion, of course.

From the time of relying so much on Jack to raise the Villa's performances, to these latest gaffs in team organisation, I'm afraid he now gives me doubts as to his suitability as a Premiership manager. If Graham Potter can do so well with a Brighton team with such little resources at hand, why cannot Smithy do equally well? Look at West Ham, as well. Why did Villa start to play better today when they were down to 10 men?

I have wanted Smith to succeed, but I am feeling - particularly after today - that his tenure must end if Villa is not to be relegated or at least finishing in the bottom half again. I'm sure the owners are thinking the same thing. 

Villa have a good enough squad to be in the top-8, and we should be showing that level by now, player absences or not. If you want success then you have to have the right manager to take you there.

Sorry, Dean. And I mean that - you're a decent feller and you have tried.

UTV!

London Teams Should Be Relegated!

Four visits to London in the league have not only produced 'nil points', but 11 goals against in those matches!

It's a historical fact that until London teams started to appear in big league football (ca. 1905), the Villa was regarded as the country's greatest club - even by Londoners. But that is by the way except to say they have been a nuisance ever since, though mainly since WW2!

But it's more than all that isn't it? Having seemed to have succeeded with the 3-5-2 system against Everton, with an impressive 3-0 win against a hitherto unbeaten team (but was it more to do with Bailey's appearance on the pitch?) and then that much-vaunted success at Old Trafford (but was it more to do with playing a team of prima donnas?), a different set of opponents came up.

Spurs were itching to find themselves when Villa arrived at their home, and we lost. OK, we were probably willing to take that, but to throw that game away against Wolves after being 2-0 up was a bit much - especially playing at home. And now the latest humiliation at Arsenal, when Villa were really wiped off the pitch in the first half. Again, Arsenal were being pushed to redeem themselves after a horrendous start to their season.

What is certainly not acceptable is how John McGinn is suddenly vilified for his sub performance at Arsenal when only last week people were saying he was back to his best! Fickle? Well, that's football supporters - and journalists too.

For me, I have to point the finger mainly at the manager. Sorry Dean, but we have come to know you a bit now after three years, and what comes across is a feller that's often rather stubborn. It's a trait that is not always bad, of course, but I think that after the Wolves match everyone was expecting the 3-5-2 system to be dropped - at whatever cost - and yet it took until half-time at Arsenal before the penny dropped in Dean's head. Perhaps.

Even in the second half, it was still not a great Villa performance, but it was hugely better than the first half, and in my view both Watkins and Ramsay had late chances to reduce the margin further, or even equalise! But that would have been something that Villa hardly deserved after a first-half without even mustering one shot in 45+6 minutes. I shan't talk about the Gunners' late, late first-half penalty except to say "Get rid of VAR!" But they were worth a 2-goal lead, so let's let it be.

Well, perhaps Dean thought that the 3-5-2- system was good enough to keep Villa going until Bailey was back in action, but is this another Dean Smith weakness, of relying on one player to lift the Villa to success? Dean says not, but with Beundia, Watkins and Ings not yet fully 'there', it does look like a one-player hope from Dean.

The great downside is that the Villa has now lost three on the trot and the goals against column has taken a hit, while worryingly sliding down the table. It's now almost "We have to win the next match!" And what have we next week - another London team fixture! We haven't won against a London team yet!

All I can say is ... Get Up, The Villa! ...

UTV!

Hunted Down By Wolves!

Ouch!

Well, let's perhaps write this off as one of those derby matches that was - a derby! They are always unpredictable as to how they turn out, but it was really a game that should have been well and truly in Villa's pockets before half-time. Villa - in my estimation - should have been leading around 3-1 by then.

Cash had three good shooting chances over the whole match and put them all over the top (clearly why he's not a forward!) and Ings could possibly have done better when put through by Beundia. Apart from other scoring chances that were put wide or over.

But, straight after half-time, despite the rather worrying danger of Adama Troure (how did we let him go?!), we went into that overdue lead and then a second goal when the Wolves defence was beginning to look all at sea.

What happened next turned the match around completely on its head. They made key substitutions, while we made lesser ones ... and they then made their own luck, with the Villa defence looking somewhat loose - as it had throughout the whole match, in fact, but which Wolves failed to capitalise on until late.

Anyhow, that's as it may be, but surely there are lessons to be learnt. Aren't there, Dean?!

I like our manager, but sometimes I wonder whether he's too soft with the players. They very often seem to drop from their true ability, and I thought that showed in defence, though Traore was clearly causing panic just by his own efforts.

Tuanzebe seemed to lack confidence and early on took a crazy free-kick across his own penalty area, giving Wolves a big chance. Konsa looked short of his best self, while Mings was doing things like giving away one or two unnecessary corners. Cash seemed lost in his defensive work (probably because of Villa's wing-back strategy with him as a major part of that).

Well, we may have Bailey ready to be launched, and I liked Beundia's play, though I am expecting him to make a greater impact. But Watkins seems to be looking a bit lost without JG, and a combination with Ings does not seem to be doing that well just now.

The attack may well sort itself out, but the rearguard (apart from the goalie) and midfield are not quite there, for some reason. Maybe it's the three centre-back formation that's causing a problem now, but if so, why did it look so commanding against Man U? Unless that was because of Man U - as was seen yesterday with such big names looking like prima donnas.

I fear that we have a way to go before a good team really gels. We probably have the players, but for how long can McGinn play as he is before he gets wallopped? We do have both Bailey and Sanson still to start league matches this season, and they may both develop and be the key to Villa's success, aided by the others.

Hey ho! Now to win at Arsenal...

UTV!