jjaacckk91 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I don't think you can point to his first 12 games and praise him for a 'minor miracle' just because we've been dreadful since the turn of the year. We didn't win much under RDM but we didn't lose much either, there wasn't a giant chasm missing, a bit of composure in the last 10 minutes would have done. Our drop off in form has been unbelieveably bad. I don't know if you've read the interview above but Bruce sounds desperate, I appreciate how honest he is, but it's obvious he knows you can't spend the amount we have and keep losing week after week, he has at most 3 games to get a result imo. If we do end up changing managers I'd like them to be here with at least 6 games left in the season, just to be able to properly assess the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) If we get relegated then he has to go, if we finish just above the relegation zone its difficult to make a case for him to be given more time by contrast if he finishes 7th or 8th then I doubt many would argue that he should be given next season. The whole middle ground of the table would require us looking at the performances upto the end of the season. Have we improved, does he look like he knows his best eleven, do the team look as though they know what they are doing? Surely its not much to ask to see some measure of improvement in general, he cannot just flail around and expect to get more money and time. In his 4 promotions I dont think he has been in the situation he is now with a major rebuild ongoing, he may or may not be the person to finish the job, I would like to see signs that he can do it but I am not hopeful. Edited February 20, 2017 by mykeyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, BOF said: I suppose I just interpreted "minimum requirement" to be an attempt to quantify what to me is an intangible thing. The turning of the tide. The gradual improvement of a squad and team. I used your post but I could have used many many others to say the same thing, because I read similar sentiments a lot. No offence intended! None taken, I was just trying to see if someone who has been very supportive of the manager has a "tipping point" as to when they would change their mind, I am not a supporter of the manager but would accept he should be given more time if he had the team playing better football and getting results and for me finishing in the top 12, below that the style and manner of our play would determine the final decision 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 20, 2017 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, mykeyb said: If we get relegated then he has to go, if we finish just above the relegation zone its difficult to make a case for him to be given more time by contrast if he finishes 7th or 8th then I doubt many would argue that he should be given next season. The whole middle ground of the table would require us looking at the performances upto the end of the season. Have we improved, does he look like he knows his best eleven, do the team look as though they know what they are doing? Surely its not much to ask to see some measure of improvement in general, he cannot just flail around and expect to get more money and time. In his 4 promotions I dont think he has been in the situation he is now with a major rebuild ongoing, he may or may not be the person to finish the job, I would like to see signs that he can do it but I am not hopeful. Yep that's fair enough and it's what I'm getting at. The odds are that we will occupy that middle bit where it's the performances, the mood and the direction that all need to be taken into account when deciding if he's worth sticking with. Which is why I think we'll all have our own (no doubt differing) opinions on him come the end of the season, and will probably have arrived at those opinions based on a combination of things that are quantifiable and many that are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, BOF said: I hoped it. But history tells us the odds were not in our favour, and sadly that's how it has played out. 1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said: It was a massive ask for Bruce to come in after 10 games with 11 points and expect promtion. True it has not exactly improved that much since but even then it was more of a rebuild job than getting to the top 2. We were not too far off the playoff places, so I thought we would achieve more than we have. Not being a fan of Bruce, I was however convinced he would take us up into the playoff spots and thence into the Premier League. So I am naturally disappointed with what has happened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, BOF said: Why the insistence on always putting a cold hard number on something though? It's making a rod for the poster's back and it's not really constructive IMO. For me it's more a case that you can get a feel for whether things are beginning to turn around or not. For example if he was to say '12th' and we end up 13th then people say "ah then you want him gone". It's not that simple. For me, while the past month with this new squad has seen poor results, the last 2 matches have seen improved performances, so hopefully that's the first step and the results can quickly follow - because as we know, they need to follow. This is basically where I am. If things don't improve over the next few games and we genuinely face relegation then I'd be more inclined to pull the trigger. But apart from that how we finish the season is critical to whether I want him next season. If we end up 13th, but get there by lsoing the next few games and then winning 6 on the bounce with amazing performances, then I'd be saying things have clicked and we should keep him. If we did the opposite, and we won the next few games and then slumped to another 6 defeats in a row, but still finished in 13th then I'd be saying he should probably go. but both standings are the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 20, 2017 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said: We were not too far off the playoff places, so I thought we would achieve more than we have. Not being a fan of Bruce, I was however convinced he would take us up into the playoff spots and thence into the Premier League. So I am naturally disappointed with what has happened. The history I'm referring to is twofold. Firstly, statistically, sides who go down tend not to go straight back up. Secondly, the sides who do achieve it tend to be the squads that remained largely intact and can start the season relatively stable. We didn't stay intact largely because we didn't want to keep that lot together. So as much as I or anyone else hoped and wanted it to happen, it was never likely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, DCJonah said: Is it? How many teams in the top 6 currently have managers that have done it? Would they all swap their manager for Bruce because he's done it before? So we should have stuck with RDM? Eric Black? I hate these sort of argumentative points because football is just full of massive variables which can change very quickly (see: Claudio Ranieri). Why would any of the top 6 currently swap their manager for Steve Bruce? They're doing well and have realistic ambitions of getting promoted currently. Why would they swap their manager(s)? The "sticking with" part is interesting - not so much with Eric Black, but certainly with RDM. For what it's worth, we played better football than we currently do and he "only" lost 4 games. Ultimately, 7 draws (or however many it was) cost him his job early on, based on the investment the team had seen. Pressure mounts with the Aston Villa job incredibly quickly - maybe quicker than any other job in English football currently. As soon as things go remotely badly, the fans turn and want <x> out of the club/team. Should we "have stuck" with RDM? Who knows. Was he given enough time, though? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 BOF, I might be one of those to which you refer. And I understand your concern. I think we should let Bruce go, but I won't get into the "who should be get instead" for the same reason you are concerned about a hard and fast numbers. It becomes a distraction and a stick to beat the ideas with. All I can say is that wasn't my intent or goal. I seriously think we should let Bruce go and I genuinely want to understand the views and rationale of those who disagree. 90-95% of the time I agree with TRO on these boards, but not on this. Tro clearly thinks we should keep Bruce because he has confidence he'll have us back in top flight end of next season, based largely on Bruce's history of promoting teams. I don't agree with his view, but at least I think I understand his rationale on it. (BTW - obviously, if Bruce stays I hope he proves me completely wrong and TRO a genius.) There are many others who say we should give him to the end of the season and see. And I really don't think I understand that. I'm solidly Bruce out. IMO a forum is as much about learning what others think as it is about expressing what I think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 hours ago, srsmithusa said: I don't see the value of keeping him till the end of the season and then re-evaluating. Which seems to a relatively common view. If, at the end of the season we're terrible... the idea would be replace him, but if that's the future, wouldn't it be better to replace him now? If, at the end of the season we're doing great (almost into the playoffs)... the idea would be to keep him another year and then replace him because he's not the one to take us to the chairman's ambitions? But he would have failed to get us back to top flight this year which was supposedly a reason he was appointed. (at least according to VT at the time it was) If, at the end of the season he finishes somewhere between those two (if there is such a thing), then what? I would think it would be to replace him because a) he didn't reach the goal he was hire to obtain and b ) he is still not the long-term answer. So the way I look at it, 2 out of 3 outcomes we'll be looking to replace him anyway. I say do it now. But I am curious, those who think we should wait till end of season to decide.... what is the minimum standard Bruce would have to meet that you would keep him for next year too? Bruce would've had to do an incredible job to have us go up though. For me, the value is in whether we improve. Paying off a manager now and then having another £50m turnover in the squad in the summer when the next manager wants his team is madness IMO. Then, what if he has a slow start to, do we go with the attitude that he should be sacked too? We'd be financially **** with no hopes of going up for years. If we improve, then I'm happy to continue with him in to next season. Every manager has a blip somewhere. Unfortunately Bruce's is with us. He's proven in this league and if we improve decently by the end of the season, then why not continue with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 35 minutes ago, bobzy said: I hate these sort of argumentative points because football is just full of massive variables which can change very quickly (see: Claudio Ranieri). Why would any of the top 6 currently swap their manager for Steve Bruce? They're doing well and have realistic ambitions of getting promoted currently. Why would they swap their manager(s)? The "sticking with" part is interesting - not so much with Eric Black, but certainly with RDM. For what it's worth, we played better football than we currently do and he "only" lost 4 games. Ultimately, 7 draws (or however many it was) cost him his job early on, based on the investment the team had seen. Pressure mounts with the Aston Villa job incredibly quickly - maybe quicker than any other job in English football currently. As soon as things go remotely badly, the fans turn and want <x> out of the club/team. Should we "have stuck" with RDM? Who knows. Was he given enough time, though? Probably not. My point about the top 6 was in response to the argument that it's better to have someone who has done it previously than not. You're probably right about RDM but initially the club set the aim for promotion this year, hence his lack of time. If we'd have known it was just survive then yes I think I'd have liked RDM to have more time. We certainly played much better football under him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, BOF said: The history I'm referring to is twofold. Firstly, statistically, sides who go down tend not to go straight back up. Secondly, the sides who do achieve it tend to be the squads that remained largely intact and can start the season relatively stable. We didn't stay intact largely because we didn't want to keep that lot together. So as much as I or anyone else hoped and wanted it to happen, it was never likely. Both very good points, BOF,and I fully understand why you and others thought we would not go back up. But based on his very good record of promotions, I thought he was a sound, though, for me, uninspiring, choice, and I thought he gave us an excellent chance of immediate promotion. I was wrong, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Boring man. Boring manager. Boring football. Boring! Win or lose tonight and he will remain...... and the thought of that bores me. Irritating, boring Geordie accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, Woodytom said: Boring man. Boring manager. Boring football. Boring! Win or lose tonight and he will remain...... and the thought of that bores me. Irritating, boring Geordie accent. Did you like Tim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: Did you like Tim? No... Bit unsure of your point either way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, Woodytom said: No... Bit unsure of your point either way. I actually wasn't trying to be a clearing in the woods. I often see you say "boring" this, that etc. I was one who always wanted a young manager with a big personality, and swagger etc. I actually liked Tim so I was genuinely curious. lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: I was one who always wanted a young manager with a big personality. I'm one that wants someone good. Don't mind if they are boring or in the papers every second day. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Looks like a new formation tonight. Wonder how many more ways we will see before something sticks? Shame he didn't have a plan in the months leading up to January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 message for Steve Bruce ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regista Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 A narrow 4-4-2 where the full backs need to provide all the width and ours don't get forward. Looks like Bruce is picking formations out of a hat and hoping to get lucky. What his obsession with starting this Icelandic guy is i don't know. He looks f**king awful. He may come good, I'll give him time, but he's way off the pace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts