Steve Bruce

[sheepyvillian]

4 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

I think (know) that compared to the ambitions of City's owners then "failed" may be a strong word but he certainly hasn't met his targets.

He's not been brought there to win the league.  Pellegrini could do that.

The kind of football his teams produce. Can only be worthy of praise. It's an absolute joy to watch, and thank God he's managing in this country, because his influence hopefully will make the premier league even more entertaining, and like I said,  that's what football should be .

[terrytini]

The more I read the more it sounds like - for some -  ‘exciting’ football appears to be inextricably linked to one or both of the 2 concepts below ;

1.  Being almost used as a synonym for - possession based ‘passing’ football.

There are various reasons I’ve formed this view, not least

- the fact that when the subject comes up we invariably hear the same Clubs mentioned, each of which do indeed play possession football but none of which, (other than Man City who surely anybody can see as an exception) are necessarily any more ‘ exciting’ than any other side.....

and

- the almost total absence of any other clear indication of what the term means.

Yet, oddly, even the terms “ possession based” and “passing game” were in infrequent use for much of the 70’s - 90’s .......when football matches contained plenty of excitement ( as indeed games still do now regardless of possession and passing ).

Perhaps the only other clear link other than the “possession” one I hear is

2.   That “exciting” equates perhaps to “ attacking”.

Well you don’t score the goals we have without attacking, regardless of any further subjective view.

And there is the blurring of “ exciting “ with “ good”".........in some way the only real good football is exciting .....a huge red herring in my view and one which says more about the times and the fans than the game itself......(as a cricket fan I often hear how ‘exciting’ T20 is, particularly when compared to Test Cricket.....nooooo......)....

I can’t write a definitive dissertation on the subject, so I’m sure there will be those eager to point out that “ no no it’s Bruceball, he’s negative etc”.......but that’s how I see it.

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by terrytini

[terrytini]

15 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I rewatched the match the next day (in a less nervous state obviously) and it was not dross.

We played some really great stuff on Tuesday especially in the 2nd half. Pass and move, driving from midfield and creating chances. (16 shots I think.) We also defended really, really well.

Yes.

Im not sure what some are watching, or hoping to see.

[Eastie]

Very interesting to see how Bruce goes about the play off final - we cannot play with shackles on and try to contain Fulham - we have the players to hurt them and must be prepared to attack them to - fulham will give us space to play as did wolves and Bristol city - it will hopefully be a great game with a great result for us .

obviously we cannot go out all guns blazing but we cannot afford to sit too deep .

two very good sides with extremely good offensive players - all about who performs on the day .

Edited May 20, 2018 by Eastie

[TRO]

12 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

The kind of football his teams produce. Can only be worthy of praise. It's an absolute joy to watch, and thank God he's managing in this country, because his influence hopefully will make the premier league even more entertaining, and like I said,  that's what football should be .

He is arguably the best manager in the World.....Furthermore his humility and love of the game is amazing.....it seems he is happy to divulge his philosophies at the drop of a hat and his approach to football is open and approachable....He clearly is a Top man.

But, and its a very big but.....He is fortunate that he has been able to convince the clubs with the best players to appoint him and they too have the resources to add to that, its self perpetuating.

He will tell you himself, he has some of the best players in the world playing together.

From what I have seen of the man.....He would fully endorse what other managers have achieved with lesser players......He is that sort who appreciates what he has and what others have not.

He is a Top Man.

[sheepyvillian]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

He is arguably the best manager in the World.....Furthermore his humility and love of the game is amazing.....it seems he is happy to divulge his philosophies at the drop of a hat and his approach to football is open and approachable....He clearly is a Top man.

But, and its a very big but.....He is fortunate that he has been able to convince the clubs with the best players to appoint him and they too have the resources to add to that, its self perpetuating.

He will tell you himself, he has some of the best players in the world playing together.

From what I have seen of the man.....He would fully endorse what other managers have achieved with lesser players......He is that sort who appreciates what he has and what others have not.

He is a Top Man.

He has had some of the best players, but it's his system they had to adapt to. His teams have played some of the most aesthetically pleasing football, I've had the pleasure of watching. Even if he was at a club without the resources he has had at most teams, I believe he would still try and play in the same way.

He has revolutionised the game, and certainly for the better.

[TRO]

9 hours ago, terrytini said:

The more I read the more it sounds like - for some -  ‘exciting’ football appears to be inextricably linked to one or both of the 2 concepts below ;

1.  Being almost used as a synonym for - possession based ‘passing’ football.

There are various reasons I’ve formed this view, not least

- the fact that when the subject comes up we invariably hear the same Clubs mentioned, each of which do indeed play possession football but none of which, (other than Man City who surely anybody can see as an exception) are necessarily any more ‘ exciting’ than any other side.....

and

- the almost total absence of any other clear indication of what the term means.

Yet, oddly, even the terms “ possession based” and “passing game” were in infrequent use for much of the 70’s - 90’s .......when football matches contained plenty of excitement ( as indeed games still do now regardless of possession and passing ).

Perhaps the only other clear link other than the “possession” one I hear is

2.   That “exciting” equates perhaps to “ attacking”.

Well you don’t score the goals we have without attacking, regardless of any further subjective view.

And there is the blurring of “ exciting “ with “ good”".........in some way the only real good football is exciting .....a huge red herring in my view and one which says more about the times and the fans than the game itself......(as a cricket fan I often hear how ‘exciting’ T20 is, particularly when compared to Test Cricket.....nooooo......)....

I can’t write a definitive dissertation on the subject, so I’m sure there will be those eager to point out that “ no no it’s Bruceball, he’s negative etc”.......but that’s how I see it.

 

 

 

Well said, Terry.

"Winning" football is the the one, that encompasses so many virtues of the game.....but "exciting" is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess, to hear the comments on this, from Rocky Marciano fans, would be a view worth listening to......for the younger fans, here was a guy that was never beaten in a professional fight( probably never won a round too, just joking there).....But they must have gleaned from his fights something worth following him for......He was battered in most of them, but he knew how to win.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TRO

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

He has had some of the best players, but it's his system they had to adapt to. His teams have played some of the most aesthetically pleasing football, I've had the pleasure of watching. Even if he was at a club without the resources he has had at most teams, I believe he would still try and play in the same way.

He has revolutionised the game, and certainly for the better.

Sheepy, I agree.

He may "try" and play the same way, but it may not come off like it does now......You have to have the players mate.....and their are incremental degree's of better, until you get to the very best, which he surrounds himself with.....that is not meant to take anything away from him.

He knows what he is asking them to do, they can do.....If you listen to his musings he says this very thing.

You cannot ask a player to do something he is incapable of doing.....you can work on him on the training ground, but some just have limitations.

[TRO]

17 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

That's Bruce In a nutshell.

Not great football, but very effective.

And it will be ever thus.

Bit Like Jimmy White v Steve Davis.

One won all the trophies.....but if they were playing either side of the road, Jimmy would probably be playing to the packed house.

Its what virtues you glean from a game....no one is right or wrong its an opinion.

But results are facts and how you play is irrelevant to the result.

[sheepyvillian]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

Sheepy, I agree.

He may "try" and play the same way, but it may not come off like it does now......You have to have the players mate.....and their are incremental degree's of better, until you get to the very best, which he surrounds himself with.....that is not meant to take anything away from him.

He knows what he is asking them to do, they can do.....If you listen to his musings he says this very thing.

You cannot ask a player to do something he is incapable of doing.....you can work on him on the training ground, but some just have limitations.

It may not look as good, but, trust me.,in his view nothing is more aimless than constant long balls.

I remember the anger etched on his face when Joe Hart just kept kicking the ball aimlessly down the pitch.

And in my view any professional footballer worth his salt, should be able to pass and move.

[sheepyvillian]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

Bit Like Jimmy White v Steve Davis.

One won all the trophies.....but if they were playing either side of the road, Jimmy would probably be playing to the packed house.

Its what virtues you glean from a game....no one is right or wrong its an opinion.

But results are facts and how you play is irrelevant to the result.

You can have both. Just ask Ronnie O' Sullivan ?

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

It may not look as good, but, trust me.,in his view nothing is more aimless than constant long balls.

I remember the anger etched on his face when Joe Hart just kept kicking the ball aimlessly down the pitch.

And in my view any professional footballer worth his salt, should be able to pass and move.

Does it surprise you that I agree, with your first line....I think long balls are sometimes a necessity as opposed to a choice, but the better the player, the more likelihood that that method will not be used.

Any professional footballer can pass and move.....where the doubt comes in or forced error, is when the players on the other side are better and they force the said player in to error, so he ends up giving the ball away, sometimes cheaply.

Any Pro footballer can pass a ball on the training ground and move unhindered from opposition or pressure......That changes everything.

Football can be very frustrating.....usually when the team we are playing are playing better individually which manifests in to collectively.....as fans we have to understand sometimes that our players ARE doing their best, its just the opposition are better.

I honestly believe if any fan can't appreciate what the opposition do.....you can't appreciate properly what your own team is doing.

[TRO]

27 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

You can have both. Just ask Ronnie O' Sullivan ?

Right.....but how many Ronnie O'Sullivans are there?

am I to glean from that no other player is worth watching if they can't do what Ronnie does?

Sheepy, I think you have an Eliteist/Idealistic view of things.....That not a criticism, its an observation.....I think if you could open up your appreciation of lesser mortals, you would be more fulfilled....

Like Steve Bruce ( to get back on topic).

Edited May 20, 2018 by TRO

[PieFacE]

8 hours ago, Eastie said:

Very interesting to see how Bruce goes about the play off final - we cannot play with shackles on and try to contain Fulham - we have the players to hurt them and must be prepared to attack them to - fulham will give us space to play as did wolves and Bristol city - it will hopefully be a great game with a great result for us .

obviously we cannot go out all guns blazing but we cannot afford to sit too deep .

two very good sides with extremely good offensive players - all about who performs on the day .

I think it will be very similar to Boro really. Can see us sitting back and trying to hit them on the break. When Derby were able to break on them they didn't look comfortable at all. 

[VillanousOne]

Possession football doesn't equal quality and excitement.

I was watching Manure in the Cup final and they were so slow getting forward that Chelsea found it easy to get players back and defend.

This is a trap we fall into sometimes, we take far too long to get forward and get a cross in and our single striker is easily crowded out.

Against Wolves and on numerous other occasions we have played with a bit of counter attacking speed or through the middle and as long as we have that variation and urgency we can defeat Fulham.

But even playing a more safety first approach we can win if a couple of our attackers turn on the style.

[sheepyvillian]

For me, the manager has tendency at times to be too over cautious. We can't afford to go out there Saturday with that mentality, it could cost us dear. We've shown on occasions we can play on the front foot, Wolves found that to their cost.

Don't get it twisted, I'll be delighted however we win. I just think we have the talent to take the game to them not sit off and allow them to dictate the pace, IMO, that would be a huge gamble.

I'm Hoping Grealish can run the show, but if there's one player who can, it's that young man. I think he's good enough to do a job for England, but it seems you need a bit more than flair to play for England, and I'm afraid it was ever thus .

[Vive_La_Villa]

On 20/05/2018 at 06:56, terrytini said:

The more I read the more it sounds like - for some -  ‘exciting’ football appears to be inextricably linked to one or both of the 2 concepts below ;

1.  Being almost used as a synonym for - possession based ‘passing’ football.

There are various reasons I’ve formed this view, not least

- the fact that when the subject comes up we invariably hear the same Clubs mentioned, each of which do indeed play possession football but none of which, (other than Man City who surely anybody can see as an exception) are necessarily any more ‘ exciting’ than any other side.....

and

- the almost total absence of any other clear indication of what the term means.

Yet, oddly, even the terms “ possession based” and “passing game” were in infrequent use for much of the 70’s - 90’s .......when football matches contained plenty of excitement ( as indeed games still do now regardless of possession and passing ).

Perhaps the only other clear link other than the “possession” one I hear is

2.   That “exciting” equates perhaps to “ attacking”.

Well you don’t score the goals we have without attacking, regardless of any further subjective view.

And there is the blurring of “ exciting “ with “ good”".........in some way the only real good football is exciting .....a huge red herring in my view and one which says more about the times and the fans than the game itself......(as a cricket fan I often hear how ‘exciting’ T20 is, particularly when compared to Test Cricket.....nooooo......)....

I can’t write a definitive dissertation on the subject, so I’m sure there will be those eager to point out that “ no no it’s Bruceball, he’s negative etc”.......but that’s how I see it.

For me exciting football is winning football. We win games it excites me. We unfortunately didn’t excite me enough to achieve top 2. But we have another shot at it next week. I’m more than happy to be excited by a 1-0 win next week. 

[TheStagMan]

What you and TRO in your haste to criticize people who complain (or comment) about Bruce-ball - fail to realise is that its not the style of football that is the main concern - it is the implications of the style. 

What I (and others) and surely yourself want is a long-term sustainable upward trajectory for Villa. My main concerns with Bruce's results to-date have been the fact that a lot of the wins looked less than convincing (dare I say lucky). Now this has improved certainly during the second half of the season whereby the run of wins did feel more convincing, and there wasn't the feeling that the wheels were going to come off at any moment as there was last year, although they did, and as a result, we are in the playoffs rather than automatic (which was within our grasp - just - at one point).

Watching games where we defend deep and spend 20 mins + in a game pinned in our penalty area hoofing the ball up the pitch for it to come straight back is not, to me the way to build a sustainable future for us. OK, it worked in the semi final first leg, and you could argue that the end justifies the means. If you are happy seeing that style of play then that's your choice, I'm not happy with it, it won't work all the time, and when it stops working it will have a snowball effect. I want to see an Aston Villa team that play with confidence and swagger and take the game to the opposition, now I realise that is not going to happen for the first season or two if we do get promoted, but by god it should have been happening in the Championship, and there were flashes of it proving that it could be done, and based on that I believe we could have got automatic if our manager had been a bit bolder. 

Now you will say - why dwell on that, it has gone. But the fact that it is in the past does not change the fact that it happened, and the need to see continued and sustainable improvements still exists. Repeating the same thing will usually have the same results.

As for the highlighted bit.. its not my words, but I agree with them (minus your added hyperbole). Do you not push yourself to improve all the time, do you not analyse your own actions and strive to do better? I certainly do. That's not to say you should not enjoy the successes and victories and be proud of them (absolutely), but certainly in my working life (and personal) I look at what I have done, even when it has gone well and look at ways to improve, simplify or streamline things. 

In my opinion, until Villa are winning the league and playing CL football regularly, they need to be doing the same, or are you happy with the idea of us being either a yo-yo club, or one that ferrets around in the lower reaches of the PL, considering a successful season being one where we are not relegated?

 

Now, that said.... Bring on Fulham, let's do this!

 

[TheStagMan]

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

Unrealistic is a massive understatement. We haven't won anything truly meaningful since 1982 and it was hardly a sustained period of dominance. 

How dare you say that about this beauty!

[Mantis]

Don't forget the 2009 Peace Cup.