DaveAV1

Under RDM we conceded 11 goals in 10 games under SB we've conceded 37 in 36 games, not much of a defensive improvement and we swapped it for zero attacking intent. He gave up on the Jedi role today because we didn't have Jedi, was it a conscious decision or just circumstances. Worried of Villa Park.

Under RDM we conceded 11 goals in 10 games under SB we've conceded 37 in 36 games, not much of a defensive improvement and we swapped it for zero attacking intent. He gave up on the Jedi role today because we didn't have Jedi, was it a conscious decision or just circumstances. Worried of Villa Park.

I can always blame someone for bringing on Elfick! You're right about left back my mistake. But would it really have mattered as it was a dead rubber? It would just have been nice to give the kid a go. Davis did really well, but would Bruce have brought him on if Hogan didn't get injured?

Move Bree to center half, drop Amavi to left back and bring on O'Hare. We were 1-0 down in a dead runner, it would have given the kid a run out and perhaps as a striker he may have even scored. We could have found out a bit about the kid, whereas we already know Elfick is a liability, which he didn't take long to prove!

Happy Birthday for yesterday. Perhaps the Doc will have a late present for you.

Yeah, it's a good job our current manager hasn't alienated him, he'll be raring to go when he comes back from loan. Fabulous man management, that's why he's getting the very best out of our current squad.

I find myself nodding in agreement with much you've written above and indeed I've been on the fence up until recently. However I just don't see any improvement in playing style and whilst I absolutely agree that it's a results business, I feel that if the set up on the pitch doesn't change, then we will continue to have erratic results. It's not the aesthetics that bothers me it's that I feel we are not in control of games and therefore we don't have control of our own destiny. Im pretty certain that we will start next season with Steve Bruce and in that case I hope we end the season with him too, as that would surely mean we've had a successful season. I like him as a bloke, he passes my, "would I have a pint with him", test. I just hope that you're right and I'm wrong.

As an excuse?

Always a pleasure young man

I like to base my opinion on what I watch at Villa Park and televised games, not what I read second hand, even though the views of my esteemed fellow VTers are as fascinating as they are insightful. The main reason I am not enamoured with Mr Bruce isn't that the football isn't pretty, but that it isn't consistently effective. Winning always glosses over the performance and so on a good run hope obviously grows. However my problem is that in the cold light of day, after either disappointment or joy, when I look back on the game, leaving aside the result, I see no difference in the way in which we have played between each individual game. What im trying to say is, that we play every game in the same manner, which you're right ain't pretty, and the performance has no real bearing on the result. A moment of good play, generally by Kodjia, or a slip up somewhere changes the result, rather than the actual game plan. If that continues next season then we'll win some, lose some amd draw some which will result in a similar league position as this season which I think you'll agree, isn't good enough. In my 40+ years of watching The Villa, I don't think I've ever seen us play pretty football. But I've seen us play exciting attacking football under the likes of Ron Saunders, BFR and Sir Brian and I've seen us play pragmatic effective football under Graham Taylor and MON. All of those managers had a game plan of how to win the game. Sometimes you thought we'd played well after a game and sometimes poorly and the performance was generally reflected in the result. Under Steve Bruce the performance is always uninspiring and negative and the resulting score line as predictable as the toss of a coin. Bruce out! (If we have a clear plan as to what we do next and with who). P.S. I assume the great posts you've read in support of SB were laden with facts about his experiences and achievements at other clubs that lead the poster to believe he needs more than 35 games and a preseason to put things right. His previous achievements are indeed facts, how much time he needs is opinion. In his time here he has averaged 1.5 points per game and it is a fact that if we replicate that next season we will not be promoted. It's my opinion that 35 games is enough time to show he is developing a plan for how we intend to play next season and I believe that he won't achieve our main goal of getting out of this division. In an upward direction!

Perhaps we can pull our own "unknown" from nowhere. If we have the right men in at the top that's what they should be looking for. It's alright for us fans to suggest names or ask who can we get? But it's not our job and we don't have the same amount of time or resources.

Grasshopper?

Perhaps it indicates the type of players we want and the style we'd like to play. It would therefore indicate that if the manager can't or won't implement that style then perhaps the next move is to find someone who will.

I guess we're all hoping that one way or the other, new coach, new manager whatever, a light will suddenly come on and things will be much brighter. I'm not sure what the real answer is, I've lost faith in Steve Bruce but to sack him without a plan is definitely not it. It's the lack of a cohesive plan that considers the short , medium and long term that has been killing us.

There lies the risk in not being decisive at the end of the season. If it's hard to get good coaches mid season it's even harder to get a good manager.

But what's the definition of ipsation? Answers on a post card please.

To be objective then, we conceded 12 goals in 11 games under RDM and we've conceded 35 goals in 34 games under SB, so that's an extremely negligible improvement. It's a myth that he's improved us defensively and made us hard to beat.

The point is TRO he has bought players which definitely on paper improve the squad, but we still don't look like a team that knows what it is trying to achieve. He's not using the squad he has effectively. In my ever so humble opinion you understand.

To be honest, although I now have almost no faith in Steve Bruce improving us next season, we must only sack him if we have a proper plan for the future and we can identify and secure his replacement to implement the plan. The problem has been over the years that there has been no plan and we have always been reactive rather than proactive. How on earth could we think that Gerard Houllier and Alex McCleish could be the answer to the same question? So I'm Bruce out the new Ron Saunders in, but definitely not, Bruce out now what do we do? At least we won't have Randy and his poxy jet flipping here there and everywhere.

The problem is 5 or 6 games into the season it will be difficult to find a quality replacement and we will have thrown another shed load of dosh at new players that won't fit in with whoever we do appoint. I'm not saying it's an easy decision but I'm now of the opinion that keeping him is a bigger risk than letting him go.

You do have a point Stevo and United would have sacked Fergie etc. But perhaps in those cases they could see progress and saw that they had a plan.

He inherited a decent Championship squad but a poor team. It's his job to make the squad into a good team, I'm afraid he hasn't done that.

The argument against Steve Bruce is that we play poor, turgid, football with negative, outdated tactics that he can't change during or between games. After 34 games, which is almost a premier league season, he has had enough time to at least give us hope for the future, but he hasn't done that. The argument for is that he's done it before so he can do it again. It won't be pretty but he gets results. I'm sorry but all managers have varying experiences at the different clubs they manage. SB hasn't been a success everywhere, and so the evidence of past performance should be heavily weighted towards what he's done here. And that just isn't good enough. An average of 1.5 points per game won't make the play offs and only the bottom two plus SHA have scored fewer goals. It ain't working Steve and it doesn't look like you know how to change it.

The point is it's a myth that he's made us harder to beat. I'm not holding up RDM as a beacon of managerial light. Far from it!

Apologies for repeating this. RDM loses 3/11 = 27% SB loses 13/34 = 38%