Steve Bruce

[TrentVilla]

8 minutes ago, Jareth said:

They have them there drones for sports TV coverage, one nearly fell on a marathon runner not long ago..

The rules of the Civil Aviation Authority state specifically that drones with camera'a must not be used over 'conguested areas or large gatherings such as concerts and sporting events'.

Guess they could still be used at Saint Andrews on Sunday....

 

 

[TRO]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

I wasn't. The first half was mind numbingly dull. An unambitious Fulham team and a badly set up villa team totally incapable of unsettling fulhams plan. There were some good things in the first half - our midfield pressing, solid defence, positional discipline, but absolutely no threat.

second half was a bit better, with more enterprise from villa, a step up in the quick closing down, but it wasn't until Gestede was taken off that we became genuinely dangerous. Last 10 to 15 minutes was like a different sport, never mind a different match!

it was promising and there are clear signs of the team having been given instruction, guidance, a plan and so on. All of which has been absent for 2 years or so. Also the recent games I've seen Hutton play, plus Nathan Baker and a few others, they look like the aforementioned instructions and clues are of huge benefit. They look like different, better, players.

I'm  pleased, but there's a lot more to be done. And to be fair, Bruce knows it.

I guess we are looking at the shoots of progress and in c 10 days we have gone from Gloom to Zoom.

we are becoming hard to beat.

He is implementing things that should have been done yonks ago and he is buying himself some time while he can work on things that take that bit longer.

"We posed no threat".... yet we had 7 shots on target and 8 off.....they had 3 in total....and their first defeat away this season.

its always a personal thing how we view a game and always will be.

I think in view of the last few years and no sign of any respite.......what he has done in the space of a few days is remarkable.

Edited October 23, 2016 by TRO

[sidcow]

On 21/10/2016 at 21:47, Gary Thomas said:

Steve Bruce with Stephen Clemence tonight watching the blues game. Really liked to see that. The night before a big game he chooses not to put his feet up, but drives over to Burton to study our next opponents.  Love it.  This guy is really growing on me.

I don't want to sound ignorant but do all managers not do this?  I would be amazed if they didn't,  I know the cameras occasionally focus in on managers in the stands but I didn't know only some did it. 

It is the bare minimum I would expect,  they should all definitely be studying the opposition at every chance they get IMO. 

[Gary Thomas]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

I don't want to sound ignorant but do all managers not do this?  I would be amazed if they didn't,  I know the cameras occasionally focus in on managers in the stands but I didn't know only some did it. 

It is the bare minimum I would expect,  they should all definitely be studying the opposition at every chance they get IMO.

I don't know, I kind of assumed they didn't very often.  I assumed they would send others to scout, observe, report back - may be wrong.

 

 

[TRO]

23 hours ago, nazvfc said:

No we weren't they had possession in thier own half or in the middle. In the areas it mattered nothing really. Having possession for the majority means sweet FA as is proved by even the top premier teams. 

Possession can be a good indicator, but not in isolation of other important data.

you have do something effective with the possession for it to be worthwhile.

otherwise its just a cosmetic statistic.

Edited October 24, 2016 by TRO

[TRO]

11 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

You should ask for your money back it's not what we've come to expect at VP!

On the team selections I agree, we have though seen a lot more of these players than him so at the moment there is an element of experimental selections and testing players capabilities. I also think there is an element of other people's players not being quite suited to what Bruce wants.

So I'm not concerned by it at this stage, if it's happening in 5 or 6 games I will feel differently.

As you say, his knowledge and experience mean he is able to make effective changes when things aren't right and that is largely responsible for the points on the last two games.

Well he has admitted at the moment he is picking the team, by picking balls out of a bag......maybe a bit throwaway comment, but he was just making a point.

and it appears pep has admitted similar at Man City.

Its such early days for these guys.

He will get it right.....but in the meantime as he is doing.....pick up points.

Edited October 23, 2016 by TRO

[Woodytom]

On 22/10/2016 at 21:53, TrentVilla said:

With respect mate you are missing the point, their possession was so high precisely because they didn't even try to be productive with it.

Not missing the point at all. 

Doesn't matter what they do with the ball so much. But for a moment of magic near the end,  the game ends 0-0. 

Now it doesn't matter because we won yesterday but I think we will struggle to 'win' many games with 30% possession. That's win. Not lose. Draws are no good to us and a game like yesterday could have easily been a draw.

[StefanAVFC]

And we missed two sitters. Omitted for what purpose?

[Woodytom]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

And we missed two sitters. Omitted for what purpose?

Eh?

[StefanAVFC]

You said that apart from a moment of magic, it finishes 0-0. Well we missed two sitters too, so that's wrong.

[Woodytom]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

You said that apart from a moment of magic, it finishes 0-0. Well we missed two sitters too, so that's wrong.

How is that wrong? We 'missed' two sitters. Not sure what they have to do with anything?

Our inability to be clinical in front of goal only supports the debate that we will struggle to win games with 30% possession. More of the ball gives us more chance to create and ultimately more chance to score. 

[StefanAVFC]

No because it infers we didn't create anything because of our low possession when in truth, 3-0 would have been a fair result.

[Woodytom]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

No because it infers we didn't create anything because of our low possession when in truth, 3-0 would have been a fair result.

No it doesn't. 

It infers that we limit our chances to create something and seen as we are not prolific I see that as a potential issue.

30% possession is an extremely low percentage. I don't think it's very controversial to suggest that that is something we may want to improve upon.

[sidcow]

5 hours ago, dn1982 said:

I need Bruce's 3 games so far he's won us 6 points by doing attacking substitutions. Unfortunately against Wolves injuries stopped him doing anything to change the game but it's so refreshing having a manager who caaffect games from the bench. RDM hadn't a clue how to do this. I think given time which these wins will afford he'all get us playing better stuff but as I said on Tuesday I'll take 30 crap games as long as we win from now until May!! 

I feel this is exceptionally harsh on RDM. It's hard to change it up front when you've already got all 6 strikers on the pitch! 

[tom_avfc]

16 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Not missing the point at all. 

Doesn't matter what they do with the ball so much. But for a moment of magic near the end,  the game ends 0-0. 

Now it doesn't matter because we won yesterday but I think we will struggle to 'win' many games with 30% possession. That's win. Not lose. Draws are no good to us and a game like yesterday could have easily been a draw.

We had 17 shots and 7 on target. That's more than enough to win a game of football. Fulham were pretty good at playing no risk possession football so dominated possession. They had 4 shots with 0 on target. 

We could have evened up possession by passing the ball around in areas where Fulham didn't want to press but we'd have been less likely to score. If anything, our more direct, less posession based game helped us win that game.

Edited October 23, 2016 by tom_avfc

[Woodytom]

Just now, tom_avfc said:

We had 17 shots and 7 on target. That's more than enough to win a game of football. Fulham we're pretty good at playing no risk possession football so dominated possession. They had 4 shots with 0 on target. 

We could have evened up possession by passing the ball around in areas where Fulham didn't want to press but we'd have been less likely to score. If anything, our more direct, less posession based game helped us win that game.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply highlighting that not every game/opposition will be as accommodatING. 

[sidcow]

3 hours ago, PieFacE said:

I do sometimes wonder how managers can manage properly from the side of the pitch like that. I'd be in the stands, get a much better view of what's going on. 

I have often thought this. 

I obviously always sit in a elevated position behind the goal (Holte) and feel I get a really good perspective of the game,  what's happening with the team,  what's going well and what's not right. 

On the few occasions I have sat down the front and double especially at the side it really hits home to me that I have absolutely no idea what's going on. 

I am serious about this,  I often think it's one of the reasons why you see bizarre substitutions. 

I remember Graham Turner used to sit behind the goal at moolyianouex when their behind the goal stand was being built on a scaffolding arrangement. I would love to know his thoughts on this theory. 

[tom_avfc]

6 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

No it doesn't. 

It infers that we limit our chances to create something and seen as we are not prolific I see that as a potential issue.

30% possession is an extremely low percentage. I don't think it's very controversial to suggest that that is something we may want to improve upon.

I don't think the 34% possession did particularly limit our chances to create something. In reality we got the ball forward as quickly as possible to our creative players. If we'd have passed the  ball around the back and midfield for a bit we'd have been no more likely to create chances.

The natural instinct of players such as Ayew, Kodjia and Adomah is to get the ball and run at players to make things happen. This will limit our time on the ball and they will concede possession a fair few times. I didn't think they played particularly well yesterday but we still had 17 shots on goal. For me it's important to look at the overall game rather than just the stats. 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, tom_avfc said:

For me it's important to look at the overall game rather than just the stats. 

He didn't watch it.

[sidcow]

35 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

How is that wrong? We 'missed' two sitters. Not sure what they have to do with anything?

Our inability to be clinical in front of goal only supports the debate that we will struggle to win games with 30% possession. More of the ball gives us more chance to create and ultimately more chance to score. 

Woodytom. You're trying to have your cake and eat it. Your trying to say we rode our luck so were fortunate to get the goal whilst ignoring that we definitely did miss 2 sitters so were actually extremely unfortunate not to win 3 - 0. You can't ignore those late chances which really should have been put away.