Steve Bruce

[TRO]

20 hours ago, terrytini said:

Or to put it another way.

Resukts SINCE the first three games ( which is of course selective, I don’t need that pointing out...but it’s not like I’ve said “ ignoring November to December or such like) would have

Cardiff on 71 Points with a goal difference of 22,

Fulham on 75 with a goal difference of 30,

and Us on 72 Points with a Goal Difference of 29.

I just don’t see how, rationally, anyone can think that puts a BIG difference between the sides.

It doesn't and its a fair point......i guess Fulham and us started slower than Wolves and Cardiff....but we all use our forte's to gain an edge.

We will see Cardiff's in close quarters tonight.....but would i rule out a Villa win, no....but i guess on recent form unlikely.

There isn't a big difference between the sides, thats right.

I guess we are all picking out the best bits of every side and comparing it with our weaknesses.....but i very much take your point.

I accept, we are a bit hard on our own team at times

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

The theory that Bruce has not idea about tactics is aired so much on here.Maybe the point that he said he doesn't put as much store in to it as some has clouded judgments....that is not the same as knowing nothing about it.

I don't think that's the explanation, TRO. I think essentially he sets up his team(s) to play a particular way. So he sets them up with a tactic. But that's pretty much the extent of it. There's not much in the way of flexibility, adapting intelligently to situations, seeing something not working and instigating new tactics or methods.

His tactics seem to be "keep it tight at the back" and give the ball to player A or player B and see what they do. It's been like that from day 1 and it hasn't changed a jot.

I think that my feelings on Bruce haven't changed much at all all the way through. When he came (I didn't want him as manager) I thought, OK, he's here, he's got to have 2 years to see what happens now. He initially stopped us leaking stupid goals, and I was pleased, but concerned that there wasn't much going on in a creative sense.  I hoped that would develop. It hasn't. From say 6 months ago standing at Preston watching us win 2-0 and being bored out of my head, to a couple of weeks ago standing at Bolton watching us lose 1-0 and being bored out of my head. Or any number of homes games where too often Johnson will needlessly kick it long, when there's just no thought going into the play, VIlla are basically (to me at least) mind numbingly boring. They've had a spell each of last season and this where we've looked very competent at what we do, but never remotely have we looked excellent and really worth travelling any distance to go and watch. When you play that way, you have to WIn. you have to get promoted, because unsuccessful and dull football is a one way street to sacksville.

He's not all bad, by a long way. He's mostly bought well, he's got a sense of spirit back to the club, I think, he stopped the rot and truned the ship around, but I wonder if he'll do much else with us.

 

[TRO]

47 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think that's the explanation, TRO. I think essentially he sets up his team(s) to play a particular way. So he sets them up with a tactic. But that's pretty much the extent of it. There's not much in the way of flexibility, adapting intelligently to situations, seeing something not working and instigating new tactics or methods.

His tactics seem to be "keep it tight at the back" and give the ball to player A or player B and see what they do. It's been like that from day 1 and it hasn't changed a jot.

I think that my feelings on Bruce haven't changed much at all all the way through. When he came (I didn't want him as manager) I thought, OK, he's here, he's got to have 2 years to see what happens now. He initially stopped us leaking stupid goals, and I was pleased, but concerned that there wasn't much going on in a creative sense.  I hoped that would develop. It hasn't. From say 6 months ago standing at Preston watching us win 2-0 and being bored out of my head, to a couple of weeks ago standing at Bolton watching us lose 1-0 and being bored out of my head. Or any number of homes games where too often Johnson will needlessly kick it long, when there's just no thought going into the play, VIlla are basically (to me at least) mind numbingly boring. They've had a spell each of last season and this where we've looked very competent at what we do, but never remotely have we looked excellent and really worth travelling any distance to go and watch. When you play that way, you have to WIn. you have to get promoted, because unsuccessful and dull football is a one way street to sacksville.

He's not all bad, by a long way. He's mostly bought well, he's got a sense of spirit back to the club, I think, he stopped the rot and truned the ship around, but I wonder if he'll do much else with us.

 

I don't disagree with that....but it wasn't meant to be an explanation, more an observation.

..and Pete, i am not trying to defend him on every point.....some points are valid.

Equally, i watched all our home games through our finest period under Ron....tactically, i didn't see much difference......what i did see was players in the main doing what was asked most games, ensuring the game plan was adhered to and followed and factoring in a bit of improvisation of their own.

if thats his fault, so be it.

I don't see that now, i see inconsistency in the players adhering to the plans and on bad days, failing to impose themselves in order to carry out the plan.

Every team in top flight football has a plan, its foolish for anyone to think otherwise.

I feel the frustration of changing things to get the desired, result, i don't think the arguments put forward are always particularly accurate.

Edited April 10, 2018 by TRO

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, TRO said:

Equally, i watched all our home games through our finest period under Ron....tactically, i didn't see much difference......what i did see was players in the main doing what was asked most games, ensuring the game plan was adhered to and followed and factoring in a bit of improvisation of their own.

I don't see that now, i see inconsistency in the players adhering to the plans and imposing themselves in order to carry out the plan.

Every team in top flight football has a plan, its foolish for anyone to think otherwise.

I feel the frustration of changing things to get the desired, result, i don't think the arguments put forward are always particularly accurate.

Of course, you're right. Every team sets out (whether it was in the 80s or now)  with a game plan, a way to (in the view of their manager) maximise the chances of getting a good result. Some build teams to play fast pass and move football, some to long ball it and foul and bully and shirt pull and kick and Cardiff their way through games, and some to keep it tight and play on the break or whatever.

The best teams and managers have an adaptibility to make small changes within games when something isn't working. This is where Bruce falls down too often. Our team that won the league was a bit like the Leicester side that won the league  - worked their socks off in every game, but Saunders' side could play on the break, they could play possession football, they could play "canny" football, they could adapt to good or bad pitches. Obviously the ability to use substitites to change the game was not there. There was one sub allowed, and that was it.

Being in the Championship, not the top level, most of the players are going to be more inconsistent than top flight players and the age profile of Villa isn't helping at the tail end of the season and with a lot of games in a short time. I said a bit ago that I expected this slump to happen, partly because of that reason.

[striker]

48 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think that's the explanation, TRO. I think essentially he sets up his team(s) to play a particular way. So he sets them up with a tactic. But that's pretty much the extent of it. There's not much in the way of flexibility, adapting intelligently to situations, seeing something not working and instigating new tactics or methods.

His tactics seem to be "keep it tight at the back" and give the ball to player A or player B and see what they do. It's been like that from day 1 and it hasn't changed a jot.

I think that my feelings on Bruce haven't changed much at all all the way through. When he came (I didn't want him as manager) I thought, OK, he's here, he's got to have 2 years to see what happens now. He initially stopped us leaking stupid goals, and I was pleased, but concerned that there wasn't much going on in a creative sense.  I hoped that would develop. It hasn't. From say 6 months ago standing at Preston watching us win 2-0 and being bored out of my head, to a couple of weeks ago standing at Bolton watching us lose 1-0 and being bored out of my head. Or any number of homes games where too often Johnson will needlessly kick it long, when there's just no thought going into the play, VIlla are basically (to me at least) mind numbingly boring. They've had a spell each of last season and this where we've looked very competent at what we do, but never remotely have we looked excellent and really worth travelling any distance to go and watch. When you play that way, you have to WIn. you have to get promoted, because unsuccessful and dull football is a one way street to sacksville.

He's not all bad, by a long way. He's mostly bought well, he's got a sense of spirit back to the club, I think, he stopped the rot and truned the ship around, but I wonder if he'll do much else with us.

 

I think in bold that will be Bruce's epitaph from the most kind hearted Villa fans when he leaves but if Villa are not promoted it falls short of what was initially expected.

[TRO]

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

Of course, you're right. Every team sets out (whether it was in the 80s or now)  with a game plan, a way to (in the view of their manager) maximise the chances of getting a good result. Some build teams to play fast pass and move football, some to long ball it and foul and bully and shirt pull and kick and Cardiff their way through games, and some to keep it tight and play on the break or whatever.

The best teams and managers have an adaptibility to make small changes within games when something isn't working. This is where Bruce falls down too often. Our team that won the league was a bit like the Leicester side that won the league  - worked their socks off in every game, but Saunders' side could play on the break, they could play possession football, they could play "canny" football, they could adapt to good or bad pitches. Obviously the ability to use substitites to change the game was not there. There was one sub allowed, and that was it.

Being in the Championship, not the top level, most of the players are going to be more inconsistent than top flight players and the age profile of Villa isn't helping at the tail end of the season and with a lot of games in a short time. I said a bit ago that I expected this slump to happen, partly because of that reason.

Can't and don't want to argue with any of that Pete.

If we can get a manager to add to his ability.....then i would say change him.

if its an outright gamble as opposed to a calculated gamble, i'm not so sure.

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, TRO said:

If we can get a manager to add to his ability.....then i would say change him.

if its an outright gamble as opposed to a calculated gamble, i'm not so sure.

I understand that view. It's reasonable.

Personally, I think if (when) we don't go up, the nature of the task changes for next season - it's not try and get promoted while having a financial advantage over the other clubs (or most of them) it's about how not to fall away whilst losing a significant part of the current squad and changing the age profile of the squad. It's a much harder challenge, and a different one.

The notion of using mainly seasoned pro's with some knowhow of the league, will go out of the window. And I think longer term that's a good thing. For all that Wyness mentioned one team to go up, one to stay up and one to challenge in the Prem, I think promoted clubs that thrive have (like Bournemouth and Burnley) thrived beyong their "natural" level because there's an ethos and spirit throughout the club - it's less about discarding one set of players and replacing them with a new set, and more about managerial excellence, coaching excellence, hunger, and a whole load of other (almost) clichéd attributes, none of which are short term things.

To me the notion of ending the time with Bruce is an easy one. The difficult part is (as you say) finding someone who better suits the nature of the task.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I understand that view. It's reasonable.

Personally, I think if (when) we don't go up, the nature of the task changes for next season - it's not try and get promoted while having a financial advantage over the other clubs (or most of them) it's about how not to fall away whilst losing a significant part of the current squad and changing the age profile of the squad. It's a much harder challenge, and a different one.

The notion of using mainly seasoned pro's with some knowhow of the league, will go out of the window. And I think longer term that's a good thing. For all that Wyness mentioned one team to go up, one to stay up and one to challenge in the Prem, I think promoted clubs that thrive have (like Bournemouth and Burnley) thrived beyong their "natural" level because there's an ethos and spirit throughout the club - it's less about discarding one set of players and replacing them with a new set, and more about managerial excellence, coaching excellence, hunger, and a whole load of other (almost) clichéd attributes, none of which are short term things.

To me the notion of ending the time with Bruce is an easy one. The difficult part is (as you say) finding someone who better suits the nature of the task.

Well said.

the only thing is Pete, Wyness may not have meant it so literally....I agree with your version.

If we don't go up with these experienced players then that theory, may come in to question and a re- think required.

I am unsure of the ability of steve and his coaches to improve players, but I think a team in our position, its important.....we cannot afford to just buy players and let them loose and expect it to happen.....i am not saying that is the case, because i am not privvy to training....just gleaning inconclusive thoughts from games i watch.

If you remember Ron Saunders built under transition and built more than one side, but he had a philosophy and bought players to fit it, he had some fortune by having such talent as Little and shaw come through which was central to our guile....but his thing was 110 % work rate, even at the time, i could see his point, while they were all waxing lyrical over Ipswich.

I am not trying to labour a point about muscle, in my posts,but he did have sufficient in the key areas....also I saw Kompany drive in the first Goal against Man U he wasn't just aggressive....He was a raging bull on the loose down a lane ....bungling his way through a ruck of bodies.

Particularly on this poor run ....We tend to look tentative for me and passive in our body language.

what i would give for a shaun teale and Des Bremner right now....and a Peter Withe or Andy Gray in the squad.

Edited April 10, 2018 by TRO

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, TRO said:

If you remember Ron Saunders built under transition and built more than one side, but he had a philosophy and bought players to fit it, he had some fortune by having such talent as Little and shaw come through which was central to our guile....but his thing was 110 % work rate, even at the time, i could see his point, while they were all waxing lyrical over Ipswich.

Definitely. I mean we're going off topic a tad, but I seem to remember that he bought Tony Morley and Kenny Swain and maybe Des Bremner too around the same time, and we had a run of bad results until eventually they settled in and then we beat (maybe) Boro 3-0 at home and we were off again, then like you say Peter Withe came in at the end of the season and we started the next one winning twice in a week at Leeds and Peter Withe kept scoring ...

Anyways, managers also got given more time back then, I think and there was less pressure and less difference in styles. - the whole thing was much more even across the league.

[GrassyNoel]

Emotion first. Reason second. That’s football. I’ve flip-flopped badly and will see the season out with a sense of Zen. 

But I wouldn’t miss his inability to let a journalist finish asking a question before starting to answer!

[Zatman]

Shambles of team selection that we have play Jedinak centre back. Why was Elphick and Baker both allow to leave when we had 2 defenders in mid 30s

[Eastie]

9 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Shambles of team selection that we have play Jedinak centre back. Why was Elphick and Baker both allow to leave when we had 2 defenders in mid 30s

Maybe axel at centre half , Barney left back and jedi DM?

[M_Afro]

Think this could be really messy. That is such a puzzling team selection. I hope I am wrong. Please prove me wrong Steve.........long night ahead I fear!

[vreitti]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

what i would give for a shaun teale and Des Bremner right now....and a Peter Withe or Andy Gray in the squad.

Considering how lacklustre we seem atm... heck I'd almost take a Brett Holman tbh.

[mykeyb]

Thor out for Whelan

[rbcuk]

Last time jedinek played centre back he got torn a new one against sheff Utd, another tactical stroke by this prat

[Fairy In Boots]

Results like this truly highlight how his inconsistency as a manager has cost us, we could have won this league at a canter and now it’s the lottery of the playoffs 

[lexicon]

2 hours ago, rbcuk said:

Last time jedinek played centre back he got torn a new one against sheff Utd, another tactical stroke by this prat

Great post mate! 

[sne]

3 points and a lovely goal but

[Zatman]

8 minutes ago, lexicon said:

Great post mate! 

He was all over the place for the one Cardiff chance that hit the post. The rest of game he was OK with the long punts