Steve Bruce

[Tomaszk]

Chat has moved on slightly now but Lambert did a much better than Bruce has managed thus far.

Bruce has had a better squad in the division below and produced garbage football for the most part. He's had more money for wages than Lambert and we've sludged our way to many of our good results. 

The whole experience watching him deflect desperately at every turn has been most unpleasant. I'm excited for him leaving.

[Dave J]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The evidence suggesting otherwise.

It's all in the last couple of pages of this thread, have a look if you like.

Not bothered enough Stevo - cheers anyway 

[bannedfromHandV]

21 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

No TRO , it's the football  I don't like , nothing against Bruce as a person .

The fact is ,no matter where he has managed ,the football as been average at best .

Out of interest, when did you last enjoy the football? 

[Dave J]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Out of interest, when did you last enjoy the football? 

I guess you would say during MON's early reign.And  Regardless of your views on Sherwood you have to admit the guy does spread positivity 

[Stevo985]

Edit

Edited January 17, 2018 by Stevo985

[DCJonah]

I am not a huge bruce fan but to say lambert did better is madness and to mention Garde in the conversation is even worse. 

[markavfc40]

40 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

The fact is ,no matter where he has managed ,the football as been average at best .

Just having a quick look at who is  currently managing in the top flight and I think I'd say the football most managers have their team playing would be considered so so and average at best. Dyce, Allardyce, Moyes, Pardew, Carvalhal, Hodgson, Wagner, Benitiez, Hughton, Lambert, Silva, Puel. Then you have the likes of Hughes and Pulis who have just lost their jobs. I don't consider that any of these have their teams playing great free flowing attractive easy on the eye football. Now of course some of them have had to cut their cloths to suit in the Premier League to play a style to grind out results due to a lack of resources,  just as Bruce has had to in the past, but the three teams that got promoted from the Championship last season were hardly renowned for an attractive style of play. Huddersfield in particular. 

Certainly this season I think we have played some decent stuff at times and for the most part I have enjoyed watching us. Winning plenty of games helps of course to put a favourable slant on things but I'd say compared to every other side in this league, aside from Wolves, our style of football is no worse than others and certainly more effective than most.

Edited January 17, 2018 by markavfc40

[Michael118]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Why am I assuming, for the sake of your argument, that he would have been relegated with Sunderland, when he was sacked with the team in 16th? I agree it's not a promising position, but it isn't in the relegation zone and it just seems to be doing your argument a favour for no good reason. 
 

Even if I grant it, though, he was a 'bottom 3 manager' (your claim), less than 50% of the time, including with some clubs whose resources would presumably be significantly smaller than our own were we to be promoted. 

But nobody is arguing that Steve Bruce is a better relegation-avoider than the two most famous relegation-avoiders in the country. Merely that he's finished outside the bottom three far more often than he's finished inside it. Which is a weird statistic for a 'bottom three' manager (your claim). 

So by your logic, he needs 4 more relegations in his next 4 attempts so he can reach 6 relegations in his last 11 seasons (relegated more than 50% of the time) before he can be regarded as a 'bottom 3 manager''?

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, Michael118 said:

So by your logic, he needs 4 more relegations in his next 4 attempts so he can reach 6 relegations in his last 11 seasons (relegated more than 50% of the time) before he can be regarded as a 'bottom 3 manager''?

I mean, it totally depends on what you're defining as a "bottom 3 manager". You've made this term up.

If it means a manager who will more than likely finish in the bottom 3 when managing a team in the Premier League (which I think is how both I and Hanoi have interpreted it), then yes the above is absolutely correct. If a manager has more often than not finished OUTSIDE the bottom 3 in the league then it's hard to justify saying he's a bottom 3 manager, if it's defined as I have here.

 

If you mean something else by it then you'll have to enlighten us as to your definition.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Stevo985

[TRO]

44 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

No TRO , it's the football  I don't like , nothing against Bruce as a person .

The fact is ,no matter where he has managed ,the football as been average at best .

I can find most games, where i could easily agree with you....but you have to give a bit of credit to opposition players....their job is to frustrate us.

I too would love to steam roller teams like we did with Ron Saunders, when we went up....but we have just seen Cardiff and Sheff utd wobble, not to mention Bristol.

Its a grind and despite Wolves flying, they are having a wobble too by their standards.

I'm just watching Norwich and Chelsea....hardly a classic for Chelsea.

I can't encourage you to like it, its up to you.....but maybe looking for the positives, might help.....thats not meant to be patronising, i genuinely want you to get some joy out of our wins.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, sheepyvillian said:

No TRO , it's the football  I don't like , nothing against Bruce as a person .

The fact is ,no matter where he has managed ,the football as been average at best .

Because in the main, like many managers, he has had it hard. he hasn't been spoilt with money.

Edited January 17, 2018 by TRO

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Because in the main, like many managers, he has had it hard. he hasn't been spoilt with money.

What a ridiculous excuse ,he Hasn't had it relatively hard with us . How do you explain the likes of Dean smith and Lee Johnson  , who , regardless of a tight budget , still send their teams out to play in a way that is a pleasure to watch . We are a much more methodical team ,and for some that's fine ,as long as we're winning , but when we lose ,you see it for what it is , dull negative football ,and that is how ,in the main ,his team's tend to play , but I fail to see ,it's because he ,like most managers ,is having it hard .

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

Just having a quick look at who is  currently managing in the top flight and I think I'd say the football most managers have their team playing would be considered so so and average at best. Dyce, Allardyce, Moyes, Pardew, Carvalhal, Hodgson, Wagner, Benitiez, Hughton, Lambert, Silva, Puel. Then you have the likes of Hughes and Pulis who have just lost their jobs. I don't consider that any of these have their teams playing great free flowing attractive easy on the eye football. Now of course some of them have had to cut their cloths to suit in the Premier League to play a style to grind out results due to a lack of resources,  just as Bruce has had to in the past, but the three teams that got promoted from the Championship last season were hardly renowned for an attractive style of play. Huddersfield in particular. 

Certainly this season I think we have played some decent stuff at times and for the most part I have enjoyed watching us. Winning plenty of games helps of course to put a favourable slant on things but I'd say compared to every other side in this league, aside from Wolves, our style of football is no worse than others and certainly more effective than most.

Huddersfield ? Do some research , I think you'll find the general consensus is ,that Huddersfield play an attractive style of football ,akin to the style Liverpool have . Wagner was schooled at Dortmond ,so I doubt very much ,he's a disciple of negative dull football .

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, Dave J said:

I guess you would say during MON's early reign.And  Regardless of your views on Sherwood you have to admit the guy does spread positivity 

And , in his first season , always sent us out to play on the front foot . I remember the defeat away to Man City ,where even though we lost , I still came away proud of the way we took the game to them . Could you for one second ,imagine Bruce doing that ? I think not .

[Michael118]

37 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I mean, it totally depends on what you're defining as a "bottom 3 manager". You've made this term up.

If it means a manager who will more than likely finish in the bottom 3 when managing a team in the Premier League (which I think is how both I and Hanoi have interpreted it), then yes the above is absolutely correct. If a manager has more often than not finished OUTSIDE the bottom 3 in the league then it's hard to justify saying he's a bottom 3 manager, if it's defined as I have here.

If you mean something else by it then you'll have to enlighten us as to your definition.

I just don't think finishing in the bottom 3 more than 50% of the time is any kind of measure for saying a manager is or isn't bottom 3 quality.

For me, relegation says more about a manager than survival. Plenty of fairly poor managers have survived, but very few decent managers get relegated.

Bruce has been relegated twice in the last 7 seasons, which is more than any other current manager and equal 2nd most in Premier League history.

Most seasons there are a lot of underwhelming managers striving to avoid relegation so he'll always be in with a chance, but if the competition is strong his chances of staying up will be slim.

[terrytini]

For me parts of the debate are like trying to catch the wind ...... for example “very few decent Managers get relegated”".........what can we deduce from that ?

Maybe decent Managers get better jobs with better players ? So they are less likely to get relegated.

Or maybe we end up calling them decent Managers because they don’t get relegated - whereas in fact getting relegated is largely a crap- shoot ......despite how it’s painted there is usually one very poor side each season - rarely due to the Manager and more often poor decisions by a Club - and really, the other 2 places (Premier League) could be from any of about 10 sides.......38 games is NOT (statistically speaking) a big enough sample size to guarantee the final positions accurately and precisely place a Manager where he “ belongs”.

Bruce relegated twice in 7 seasons ? Well, yes, but you’ve got to be there to get relegated ! You could easily disregard the Managers of about 7 Clubs, who are pretty safe, then look at how many Managers have been IN the PL as long as Bruce......I’ve no figures but I’m pretty sure he’ll have been there long enough to increase his odds of getting relegated.......and that’s without factoring in that he will have been with poorish Clubs.

Its a bit like Win Ratios, net spend, etc.....they are spurious figures ( in as much as they don’t really stand up to any real analysis) and as such can be used to erroneously validate opposite arguments.

And the “ quality of football” aspect ? Well I must admit I find the football under Bruce pretty gruesome for a large part, certainly in an attacking sense ( I get more out of our defensive game usually) although it’s picked up a bit on and off this last 4 months or so. 

BUT.....I find most football to be fairly uninspiring - except when it’s us and we are winning.

For example every two years I sit down with my pad and watch every game in the World Cup/ Euros. One of the many sad things I do is mark the teams and games out of ten. Have done for years. The amount that get more than 6 is always tiny. Likewise Champions League ( which I’ve stopped bothering to watch). Yes I can see how some might enjoy the “technical” skills but I find a lot of the football simply dull.

And I’ve only seen a couple of particularly entertaining teams play us. I just think people seem to want more than is likely. I heard people say the football was crap under Gregory, DOL, MON, Mcleish, Lambert, .......yet under Sherwood And RDM where we arguably tried to play “ better” football we were lightweight and failing.

I DO think he has been very cautious ( he has said so himself), and i DO think we lack the attacking intent, movement and control that several of the sides we play against manage....but the League position ( currently) suggests we are a more effective overall package than all but a couple of those sides and as such Bruce would be entitled to say he is doing a good job.

If the points weren’t there, if it was clear we would be 10 points better off playing a different way, fair enough, but as it is I’m not sure there is much he can be knocked for.

 

 

 

[terrytini]

I have absolutely no idea what Garde did that led to some rating him. Each to their own, but for me we may as well have put one of the Turnstile operators in charge. Anyway.....

[srsmithusa]

18 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I have absolutely no idea what Garde did that led to some rating him. Each to their own, but for me we may as well have put one of the Turnstile operators in charge. Anyway.....

I will admit that I KINDA rate him.  But it's not because of anything he did.  It's because of what I THINK he might have done if he had gotten backing.  Truthfully a portion of it is a sympathy vote.  He truly was hung out to dry.  Look at the roster he started with.

[TheAuthority]

7 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

Chat has moved on slightly now but Lambert did a much better than Bruce has managed thus far.

Bruce has had a better squad in the division below and produced garbage football for the most part. He's had more money for wages than Lambert and we've sludged our way to many of our good results. 

The whole experience watching him deflect desperately at every turn has been most unpleasant. I'm excited for him leaving.

I respectfully have to disagree with you, however I understand why you feel the way you do.

For me, Lambert was a large part of the beginning of Aston Villa's recent decline. Whatever the mitigating circumstances (see: Randy UnLerneard) he stuck around filling his wallet with our club's money whilst overseeing a team nose diving in terms of quality, style, confidence and ultimately heading towards oblivion.

As the 5th Manager*  to take over after Lambert, Steve Bruce has stopped the rot and decline of our once great club.
With limited funds (Hogan aside) Bruce has galvanized a squad which now looks as though it's going to compete at the minimum in the playoffs and if (fingers crossed, breath held in) looks like it is going to mount a challenge for automatic promotion (albeit 2nd place.)
This is no mean feat. When Sir Graham of Taylor arrived in the 80's he described us as a shambles.
In some ways, mainly because of the financial crater we are in, Bruce has actually found us in an even poorer state than that SGT did.
I know Bruce is flawed, I know he is not Pep Guardiola, but he has, on limited resources, dragged us to where we are now. A position which could see us return to the money laden promised land of the PL. ( I have mixed feelings as to whether or not it's worth returning, but despite all of the PL's shortcomings the club should be in the top flight of English football.)

These are the reasons I feel that Bruce has had a positive impact on AVFC whereas Lambert is a taste I cannot seem to wash out of my mouth.

 

*Sherwood, Garde, Black, RDM

Edited January 18, 2018 by TheAuthority
Spelling

[villan_007]

4 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

Huddersfield ? Do some research , I think you'll find the general consensus is ,that Huddersfield play an attractive style of football ,akin to the style Liverpool have . Wagner was schooled at Dortmond ,so I doubt very much ,he's a disciple of negative dull football .

hmmm depends. They literally stumbled into the prem. In 3 play off games they scored one goal and went up/through from two penalty shoot outs. Not exactly total football is it.

Play some decent stuff occasionally but hit and miss for me.