Steve Bruce

[Rob182]

My main concern right now, is when Bruce has a tough decision to make about team selection. He's clearly a manager who likes to reward good form with a continued place in the team, but this can be to our detriment if it means shoehorning a player into the 11. There have been a few occasions this year where starting 11 or substitute choices has left many of us scratching our heads.

Bjarnason has been average at best on the wing for Villa, but because Bruce felt that he deserved his place back in the team, he was shoehorned in. We don't have many wingers available right now, but surely Grabban or Hogan would have been better there?

We've seen it throughout his time here too. At the start of the season Adomah was left on the bench for a number of games, despite being one of our best players last year. IIRC, he preferred Snodgrass and Elmo on the wings, until Adomah forced his way back into the team.

During our winning run, Bruce didn't have many tough selection decisions to make. But now that we have injuries, this is where he really needs to show us why he's the man in the hot seat. We have a big enough and good enough squad to cope with the loss of 2 of our attacking players. I just hope that, should Grealish/ Adomah/ Snodgrass be unavailable at the weekend, that Bruce puts out something resembling a team with a plan, and not just a cobbling together of players that Bruce thinks deserve to keep their place.

 

(Don't get me wrong and assume that this is me calling ALL of Bruce's decisions wrong, by the way. I'm simply saying that this is my main worry when it comes to Bruce, at this moment in time).

[TRO]

1 hour ago, omariqy said:

Of course not. The performance and result was down to Preston wanting it more IMO. He's using it as a reason why he went direct, I agree. I am saying the Preston players didn't find it too difficult to play it along the floor and through midfield. The pitch was the same against the Blues, Barnsley and Burton and we didn't go direct. 

and that is exactly how I seen it......but I have to accept, everyone has their own views on games.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

So on the pitch issue, why is it like that?

I read something saying that it was due to the inclement weather etc.

However wasn't the weather similar in years past, whats changed?

We used to have the best pitch in the Premier League no?

(I'm aware that groundsman left but still)

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

So on the pitch issue, why is it like that?

I read something saying that it was due to the inclement weather etc.

However wasn't the weather similar in years past, whats changed?

We used to have the best pitch in the Premier League no?

(I'm aware that groundsman left but still)

I think it has been down 11 years and we are pushing our luck on longevity....but costs are very critical at the moment so I guess tricky decisions are at large.

Edited February 22, 2018 by TRO

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Rob182 said:

My main concern right now, is when Bruce has a tough decision to make about team selection. He's clearly a manager who likes to reward good form with a continued place in the team, but this can be to our detriment if it means shoehorning a player into the 11. There have been a few occasions this year where starting 11 or substitute choices has left many of us scratching our heads.

Bjarnason has been average at best on the wing for Villa, but because Bruce felt that he deserved his place back in the team, he was shoehorned in. We don't have many wingers available right now, but surely Grabban or Hogan would have been better there?

We've seen it throughout his time here too. At the start of the season Adomah was left on the bench for a number of games, despite being one of our best players last year. IIRC, he preferred Snodgrass and Elmo on the wings, until Adomah forced his way back into the team.

During our winning run, Bruce didn't have many tough selection decisions to make. But now that we have injuries, this is where he really needs to show us why he's the man in the hot seat. We have a big enough and good enough squad to cope with the loss of 2 of our attacking players. I just hope that, should Grealish/ Adomah/ Snodgrass be unavailable at the weekend, that Bruce puts out something resembling a team with a plan, and not just a cobbling together of players that Bruce thinks deserve to keep their place.

 

(Don't get me wrong and assume that this is me calling ALL of Bruce's decisions wrong, by the way. I'm simply saying that this is my main worry when it comes to Bruce, at this moment in time).

Really good post. I agree.

But weirdly that attitude of rewarding good performances by not dropping anyone is one that most of the fanbase seem to agree with.

BUt I agree with you. Sentimentality is not needed. Pick the team that will win the match, regardless of whose feelings might get hurt. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 hours ago, omariqy said:

Of course not. The performance and result was down to Preston wanting it more IMO. He's using it as a reason why he went direct, I agree. I am saying the Preston players didn't find it too difficult to play it along the floor and through midfield. The pitch was the same against the Blues, Barnsley and Burton and we didn't go direct. 

I thought Preston were also pretty direct to be honest. They were just better at it. 

Agajnst Blues, Barnsley and Burton we actually had a player in the team that could run with the ball. 

Also lets not forget those 3 teams are pretty shit. 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Vive_La_Villa

[TRO]

1 hour ago, Rob182 said:

My main concern right now, is when Bruce has a tough decision to make about team selection. He's clearly a manager who likes to reward good form with a continued place in the team, but this can be to our detriment if it means shoehorning a player into the 11. There have been a few occasions this year where starting 11 or substitute choices has left many of us scratching our heads.

Bjarnason has been average at best on the wing for Villa, but because Bruce felt that he deserved his place back in the team, he was shoehorned in. We don't have many wingers available right now, but surely Grabban or Hogan would have been better there?

We've seen it throughout his time here too. At the start of the season Adomah was left on the bench for a number of games, despite being one of our best players last year. IIRC, he preferred Snodgrass and Elmo on the wings, until Adomah forced his way back into the team.

During our winning run, Bruce didn't have many tough selection decisions to make. But now that we have injuries, this is where he really needs to show us why he's the man in the hot seat. We have a big enough and good enough squad to cope with the loss of 2 of our attacking players. I just hope that, should Grealish/ Adomah/ Snodgrass be unavailable at the weekend, that Bruce puts out something resembling a team with a plan, and not just a cobbling together of players that Bruce thinks deserve to keep their place.

 

(Don't get me wrong and assume that this is me calling ALL of Bruce's decisions wrong, by the way. I'm simply saying that this is my main worry when it comes to Bruce, at this moment in time).

I think you make some fair points.....may i just comment on some

• The highlighted bit says it all "Forced" thats what managers are looking for players that "Force" their way in
• I think Steve Bruce has many subjective decisions right now, even if I thought he got it wrong to begin with on Tuesday.....( but that don't make me right either)
• Bjarnason has been average at best as you say .....I think nearly all the midfielders have been iffy in one way or another, particularly the centre ones.
• Unless we are winning every game, its unlikely we will all agree with who the manager picks, such is the squad where so many players for varying reasons are no better that each other.....Jack and Albert are stand out.
• When Adomah was left out SB had an issue with the defensive side of his game ( keeping possession in the main) he fixed that and he gets in, fine.

I accept we all see the game differently.....I have always seen his teams with a plan( and I don't always agree, but he gets paid for it).....I just sometimes see players struggling to implement it (for one reason or another) or individual errors undoing it, to make it look like there never was one. Its the easiest thing in the world to say a team has no plan when we lose and it has one when we win and I know you haven't said that just me making a point.

This season we have played around with just about every formation, particularly early on, so I don't think he has any leaning to anyone system, he is just trying to get players to impose themselves and win games.

having said all that, I liked your post.

Edited February 22, 2018 by TRO

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

22 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Really good post. I agree.

But weirdly that attitude of rewarding good performances by not dropping anyone is one that most of the fanbase seem to agree with.

BUt I agree with you. Sentimentality is not needed. Pick the team that will win the match, regardless of whose feelings might get hurt. 

Fair enough, but "rewarding" Bjarnsson in the position he has proved effective in, as a pose to where he has proven to be garbage, would seem like common sense to me, for example. Or placing someone in Jacks place who could possibly best replicate the role and set up for continuity. When you have a "system" it is not supposed to disintegrate when you have a couple of players out.

[omariqy]

Tbf Bruce did put Jedi in for the Blues game when Thor didn't deserve to be dropped and it proved to be a good decision. Generally speaking I think Bruce's in-game management has been very good. Where Bruce hasn't been good is when he becomes fearful and reverts to type. Yes we are missing key players but every team has done at some stage. At this critical point we need to be bolder I think. In hindsight, yes the Preston game was probably a point gained but I think with different personnel we win that game. For example Bruce acknowledged that Jedi finds it difficult to play 2 games in a week yet plays him after Fulham made him work very hard. We know Thor has been a key player for us in the DM role at home and we know he has been terrible on the left. Why play him there? Without Grealish to link play we knew Hogan would be isolated, why not get Grabban up near him or play Davis? These were all questions being asked when the line up was announced and prior to the game. 

[DaveAV1]

Surely Callum O’Hare was the obvious replacement for Jack? Also why have we forgotten all about RHM. Both played against Wolves for the U21 in a superb 6-1 win. RHM on the bench at least would give us some pace late on when legs are tired. 

The concern is, that SB  built a team around Jack, but had no plan B when he was long term injured. He comes back and runs the show and the results reflect that. Now he is injured again and we are clueless creatively. Last season he relied on Kodjia this season it is Jack. Of course key players make a difference to how a team performs, but to be so reliant on individuals is extremely dangerous. 

[TRO]

11 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Surely Callum O’Hare was the obvious replacement for Jack? Also why have we forgotten all about RHM. Both played against Wolves for the U21 in a superb 6-1 win. RHM on the bench at least would give us some pace late on when legs are tired. 

The concern is, that SB  built a team around Jack, but had no plan B when he was long term injured. He comes back and runs the show and the results reflect that. Now he is injured again and we are clueless creatively. Last season he relied on Kodjia this season it is Jack. Of course key players make a difference to how a team performs, but to be so reliant on individuals is extremely dangerous. 

The thing is Dave at that level its all about playing football with very little distraction from physical contact.....and don't get me wrong they did great, but the step up is a whole different ball game pardon the pun.

You can be a star at that level and still look lost at first team level.

Look at Jack.....no one questioned his ability, but he had a job imposing that skill on a first team pitch.

Its took him some time.....and I guess why young players take that bit longer today with the physical rigours they have to endure and overcome.

[DaveAV1]

10 minutes ago, TRO said:

The thing is Dave at that level its all about playing football with very little distraction from physical contact.....and don't get me wrong they did great, but the step up is a whole different ball game pardon the pun.

You can be a star at that level and still look lost at first team level.

Look at Jack.....no one questioned his ability, but he had a job imposing that skill on a first team pitch.

Its took him some time.....and I guess why young players take that bit longer today with the physical rigours they have to endure and overcome.

Oh I agree TRO and I’m sure we can all think of plenty of players that never really made the step up. But O’Hare has made some first team appearances and looked capable as has RHM. In fact I think RHM played in some Premiership games. If you don’t give them a try how will you know? It’s not as if we have anyone similar to Jack, who is an experienced player. O’Hare looks the part, but of course I’m not suggesting for a moment he is the finished article. However a few games whilst Jack is injured and youthful confidence may see him perform well, provided we don’t pile unreasonable expectations on the lad too early. 

[Eastie]

Bruce has always been a cautious manager rather than a brave one - the Wyness comments that Bruce hardly sleeps for fear of losing tell a lot about his approach to football , he is always more likely to play safe rather than take a gamble .

not a criticism as such of him but that’s his sty;e of management and it’s taken him so far in the game.

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, Eastie said:

Bruce has always been a cautious manager rather than a brave one - the Wyness comments that Bruce hardly sleeps for fear of losing tell a lot about his approach to football , he is always more likely to play safe rather than take a gamble .

not a criticism as such of him but that’s his sty;e of management and it’s taken him so far in the game.

Yeah.. I think that is fair, its his achilles Heel.....frustrating at times ,mind

Edited February 22, 2018 by TRO

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Fair enough, but "rewarding" Bjarnsson in the position he has proved effective in, as a pose to where he has proven to be garbage, would seem like common sense to me, for example. Or placing someone in Jacks place who could possibly best replicate the role and set up for continuity. When you have a "system" it is not supposed to disintegrate when you have a couple of players out.

That was my point.

[Rob182]

1 hour ago, Eastie said:

Bruce has always been a cautious manager rather than a brave one - the Wyness comments that Bruce hardly sleeps for fear of losing tell a lot about his approach to football , he is always more likely to play safe rather than take a gamble .

not a criticism as such of him but that’s his sty;e of management and it’s taken him so far in the game.

A guy who sits next to me in the Holte always moans that Bruce doesn't keep a man upfront when we're defending a corner. I told him on Tuesday night, after he stopped moaning, that Bruce likes to defend with a clear man advantage in the box, so he better just get used to it.

 

I'd say that most of us are used to Bruce's defensive ways, and providing they get us the wins and draws we need, we're happy for him to continue with what he knows. It's when he's being overly cautious, to the point where it seems bad for the team (Bjarnason on the wing etc), that we probably wish he would try something different.

 

[Stevo985]

24 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

A guy who sits next to me in the Holte always moans that Bruce doesn't keep a man upfront when we're defending a corner. I told him on Tuesday night, after he stopped moaning, that Bruce likes to defend with a clear man advantage in the box, so he better just get used to it.

 

I'd say that most of us are used to Bruce's defensive ways, and providing they get us the wins and draws we need, we're happy for him to continue with what he knows. It's when he's being overly cautious, to the point where it seems bad for the team (Bjarnason on the wing etc), that we probably wish he would try something different.

 

I agree with the man who moans about that, because I do it too (quietly).

 

It winds me up that we don't keep at least one man up. You'd still have your man advantage in the box because they'd have to drop at least one man to cover you.

In fact I admire teams who keep two men up. All your best defenders are still in the box and the opposition usually drop 3 men to mark 2 attackers left upfield so there's less people attacking the corner. You still maintain your man advantage in the box and you actually have a chance at recovering a ball that's been cleared upfield.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Stevo985

[omariqy]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I agree with the man who moans about that, because I do it too (quietly).

 

It winds me up that we don't keep at least one man up. You'd still have your man advantage in the box because they'd have to drop at least one man to cover you.

In fact I admire teams who keep two men up. All your best defenders are still in the box and the opposition usually drop 3 men to mark 2 attackers left upfield so there's less people attacking the corner. You still maintain your man advantage in the box.

I'm with you mate. It irks me. 

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I agree with the man who moans about that, because I do it too (quietly).

 

It winds me up that we don't keep at least one man up. You'd still have your man advantage in the box because they'd have to drop at least one man to cover you.

In fact I admire teams who keep two men up. All your best defenders are still in the box and the opposition usually drop 3 men to mark 2 attackers left upfield so there's less people attacking the corner. You still maintain your man advantage in the box and you actually have a chance at recovering a ball that's been cleared upfield.

Yep, it's something that winds me up a bit as well. Even if you clear the corner, chances are you then have to clear the next ball in  

I can only assume it's to do with making sure there isn't the space in the area for attackers to get the edge on attacking the ball before a defender. I would like to leave one up, someone like hogan who isn't going to be an essential defender in tje box and has the pace to chase after a clearance or offer a quick outlet if the keeper claims the corner. 

 

[srsmithusa]

4 hours ago, Eastie said:

Bruce has always been a cautious manager rather than a brave one - the Wyness comments that Bruce hardly sleeps for fear of losing tell a lot about his approach to football , he is always more likely to play safe rather than take a gamble .

not a criticism as such of him but that’s his sty;e of management and it’s taken him so far in the game.

I agree ALMOST completely.  I do think there is a bit of criticism in it (at least from me) because while it MAY work to get us promoted, (and every finger is crossed)  it is NOT the way to push us forward and upward long-term.