Steve Bruce

[mykeyb]

I wonder what the honest opinion would be from fans of Wigan, Sunderland, Hull & Birmingham on Steve Bruce the manager.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

2 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

I wonder what the honest opinion would be from fans of Wigan, Sunderland, Hull & Birmingham on Steve Bruce the manager.

He's a legend at the shit. Undeniable. 

[TRO]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I take issue with this.

Not because it's not happening, we do hoof it too much.

But at the insinuation that Bruce is instructing the team to bypass the midfield and hoof it to the forwards.

his fault here is not getting the team to play the way he wants them to. I highly doubt he is instructing his players to play hoof ball. it's just a product of a lack of movement and options.

I think you are spot on Steve.....and a point I have been frustrated in expressing.

There does seem to be a void on here of what Steve Bruce is purported to be saying to his players and what they are actually producing.

I do accept it is ultimately his responsibility to get them to do what he is asking.

but that can take time, especially with the level of disruption.

and if I am right about Jedinak affecting the balance how can he fix that until he gets him back....unless he can get someone else to do that job, but I fancy, he can't or he would.

[mykeyb]

I am pretty sure that this link has been posted before but just reading the first couple of paragraphs and its like it has been written this morning about his management down Villa Park.

Damning of Bruce?

[dont_do_it_doug.]

10 minutes ago, weedman said:

And that itself is a byproduct of the players not yet being a team. The only way to resolve that is for them to play and train together consistently. Changing the manager changes the training and they would have to start "gelling" and getting to know each others game all over again. It's a painful process, but one we have to go through whether we have Bruce or anyone else in charge, and Bruce has at least proven he is capable of doing this for multiple clubs over his career, most of the other candidates I've seen here haven't

Steve Bruce himself doesn't pick a consistent side, so I doubt bringing in somebody else at this stage would change much. 

IF we were to appoint another manager, they would undoubtedly come in with the remit of "here's the squad, we spent a **** ton of money assembling it, it's full of experienced internationals and captains, work with it".

[TRO]

2 hours ago, striker said:

With all due respect and I may be wrong in this so apologies if I am. I don't think there has been much of a new manager bounce at the Villa in recent times. If that were the case then surely Villa would still be in the Premiership or doing much better in the Championship.

Those pushing forward Clement as just one example of changing managers to get better performances are right to do so because it is the perfect answer to those who say bringing another manager in would just create more change and more instability. Monk has also changed Leeds fortunes pretty quickly. McClaren at Derby is doing the same. Rowett at Birmingham did a fantastic job there on a shoe string budget.

So to say that there's one Big Sam for every Clement is missing the point entirely. The point is that changing manager again can work without creating further instability if you get the right man in.

 

 

but that is simply not true......He got 41% win rate in his first 12 games......the average for our whole history is 43% and include those Halcyon days of the 20's and 30's

He then had to deal with further levels of disruption that has derailed him.

McLaren & Monk had levels of development to take advantage of when they took over.....why did Mclaren not fix Newcastle.

Why did Monk get sacked by Swansea but Clement seems ok.

These are just pot luck quips that just satisfy the moment.....look most of them out there have been sacked at some stage even the great LVG

If you tell me Steve Bruce does not know what he is doing, I don't buy that.

If you tell me the football is **** i do buy that.

If you tell me Steve Bruce is responsible, I do buy that.

If you tell me its as a direct result of Steve Bruces management, that we are playing ****, I don't buy that.....we are WIP

If you tell me Steve Bruce will never fix it ( provided he is given time) I don't buy that.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

2 hours ago, AVFCDAN said:

The massive difference between LVG and Bruce is that they weren't happy with LVG because he didn't have 70% win ratio in one of the most competitive leagues in the world.

We're not happy with Bruce because he can't even win a bloody game in the championship with a budget equivalent to Man City's in the premier league.

Fans aren't just moaning for the sake of it, we are terrible and have the worst form in the English football league, if that doesn't put your job under pressure and incite negative comments and actions from the fans then I don't know what does.

No one is criticising fans for being irate, it is understandable.

The issue is Steve Bruce is responsible, we all know that.

I just don't think its directly his fault......there is a difference.

[mykeyb]

Quote

Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure.

Quote

If he failed to cut it as a tactician, the 50-year-old did not seem much of a strategist either. Including loans, 30 players were signed – several of whom have subsequently been moved on – during Bruce's two-and-a-half years on Wearside. That represents an unsettling "churn" factor and hardly proved conducive to developing either a clear playing philosophy or strong team spirit.

Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages

Just 2 quick comments taken from the article in The Guardian I referenced just above.

All to close to home at the moment and a major reason why I have no faith that Bruce will come good, he might win enough games to avoid relegation but what we are seeing now is what has been seen before from him and will be seen again when he moves somewhere else. He is not a good manager.

[mykeyb]

17 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

7 wins, 7 draws and 3 defeats in games he's played in. (1 win and 3 draws he was a late sub, played less than 10 minutes)

So 3 defeats in 17 games, 28 points won. Is Gary Gardner really as bad as some make out?

Edited February 16, 2017 by mykeyb

[jon_c]

25 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

He's a legend at the shit. Undeniable. 

For the state he's currently got us in?

[HeyAnty]

I genuinely know about 1 person our about 50 personally who wants him to be given more time.  Last time I remember that was under McLeish at the end of his run.  If he wasn't an English manager the press would be having a field day.

[mikeyp102]

One thing I don't get is when Bruce first come in, he looked to make proactive changes to shape the game. Now he seems to accept the result and only makes subs late on.

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I take issue with this.

Not because it's not happening, we do hoof it too much.

But at the insinuation that Bruce is instructing the team to bypass the midfield and hoof it to the forwards.

his fault here is not getting the team to play the way he wants them to. I highly doubt he is instructing his players to play hoof ball. it's just a product of a lack of movement and options.

I'm not so sure. The way baker looks for that hoof ball option to me seems like it's instructed. There's time I've noticed a midfield player not even show for him because they know what he's going to do. 

[theboyangel]

2 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

One thing I don't get is when Bruce first come in, he looked to make proactive changes to shape the game. Now he seems to accept the result and only makes subs late on.

Yes, it's like he's already joined the long line of recent managers who were too afraid to set us up to win a match and instead opted to try not to lose one. 

It's a shame this isn't working out. For all his experience, Bruce looks lost and clueless during recent games. 

 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

I'm not so sure. The way baker looks for that hoof ball option to me seems like it's instructed. There's time I've noticed a midfield player not even show for him because they know what he's going to do. 

I imagine the midfield not showing for him is why he has to hoof it.

I mean think about it. You really think Steve Bruce bought Lansbury and Hourihane in January and then deliberately instructs his defenders to boot it over their heads?

Seriously?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Stevo985

[DCJonah]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

I imagine the midfield not showing for him is why he has to hoof it.

I mean think about it. You really think Steve Bruce bought Lansbury and Hourihane in January and then deliberately instructs his defenders to boot it over their heads?

Seriously?

Yes, I can imagine Steve Bruce wanting his team to play direct football. 

Seriously. 

 

[markavfc40]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

I'm not so sure. The way baker looks for that hoof ball option to me seems like it's instructed. 

I am not so sure that is the case. There was an instance I noticed in in the first half against Barnsley where Baker played a long ball over the top and Bruce had a right go at him from the side line.

We aren't setting up to play hoof ball. Had that have been Bruce's desire he'd have played Gestede more, kept him or in the window purchased another target man. As it is Gestede was sold, three ball playing midfielders purchased and a pacy forward.

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I'm not taking the fault away from bruce. He's the manager so it's his fault.

I'm just distinguishing between it being his fault, and him specifically asking them to do it. I don't believe it's the latter.

I do, and I could give a lot of reasons why, but here's just two.

1. He's always done it.

2. Just watch how we use Lansbury. I absolutely guarantee 100 % the first thing  a passing Manager does is move him 25 yards further forward and give him licence to go past the front two. Bruce had done the opposite.

As I say there are more but for me the fundamental thing with Bruce is that this is his style - it's has worked elsewhere, it doesn't work for us, here, and now.

[mikeyp102]

26 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I imagine the midfield not showing for him is why he has to hoof it.

I mean think about it. You really think Steve Bruce bought Lansbury and Hourihane in January and then deliberately instructs his defenders to boot it over their heads?

Seriously?

I think it's a mental thing for Baker. We start matches playing football on the deck, people moving off and looking for options. If we haven't scored after 20 minutes, something seems to switch in Bakers head and he starts just launching it.

[terrytini]

22 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I am not so sure that is the case. There was an instance I noticed in in the first half against Barnsley where Baker played a long ball over the top and Bruce had a right go at him from the side line.

We aren't setting up to play hoof ball. Had that have been Bruce's desire he'd have played Gestede more, kept him or in the window purchased another target man. As it is Gestede was sold, three ball playing midfielders purchased and a pacy forward.

I agree he hasn't instructed Baker to do it, but the way he sets us up creates a situation where it's all there is.

Its s cautious system which doesn't encourage midfielders going past front men, it doesn't encourage 'pass and move', and it's consequences are what we keep seeing.

Hes set teams up like it all his life. But his style here doesn't work.