Woodytom Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, tismyk said: We had 60% to70 % possession in most of the matches we played and only won once this season, winning is everything not how long you have the ball without doing anything with it, I am a pessimist my nature, but your anti Villa posts are now becoming seriously boring, credit where credit is due. Would this be my anti villa posts that on this occasion derived from me saying that my only slight concern would be the possession stats..... Other than that I highlighted that I had nothing to complain about. Don't let that get in your way though. Edited October 23, 2016 by Woodytom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V01 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Fulham passed it around the back the back trying to draw us out of shape to then get in behind us with their pace, we didn't oblige them and they showed they didn't have any clue what else to do to create chances. Their possession posed no threat to us so we kept our shape and waiting for them to move the ball forwards or make a mistake, it was a risk free approach that worked. Should we come up against a team that aren't as accommodating as Fulham our possession will be higher, we were creating chances and giving them nothing so there was no need to try and pad stats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted October 23, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2016 Anyway Steve Bruce...... Would? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mantis Posted October 23, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted October 23, 2016 At this stage it's probably worth reminding people that when we lost 6-1 to Southampton we had 64% possession... 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderball Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Mantis said: At this stage it's probably worth reminding people that when we lost 6-1 to Southampton we had 64% possession... Lol, after the fastest hat trick in PL history early in the first half they didn't really need the ball! Er, back to Steve Bruce..... Edited October 24, 2016 by thunderball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, thunderball said: Lol, after the fastest hat trick in PL history early in the first half they didn't really need the ball! Er, back to Steve Bruce..... Yes I know. I was pointing out how misleading possession stats can sometimes be. We let Fulham have the ball because they were doing **** all with it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted October 24, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Mantis said: Yes I know. I was pointing out how misleading possession stats can sometimes be. We let Fulham have the ball because they were doing **** all with it. Just rewatched the channel 5 "highlights" which I recovered from deleted on my Tivo on a drunken wish to relive it again and basically they showed 1 Fulham wide shot and about 6 Villa chances + goal. We were utterly dominant with 30% possession 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 8 hours ago, Mantis said: We let Fulham have the ball because they were doing **** all with it. Don't you think that's a pretty dangerous tactic at 0-0? Once we're winning, fine totally get it. But at 0-0, it doesn't seem a smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 24, 2016 Author Share Posted October 24, 2016 33 minutes ago, Woodytom said: Don't you think that's a pretty dangerous tactic at 0-0? Once we're winning, fine totally get it. But at 0-0, it doesn't seem a smart move. not if the side is creating absolutely nothing with it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted October 24, 2016 Administrator Share Posted October 24, 2016 This is the Steve Bruce thread. Not a tactics thread or a reactions thread. Please get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 (edited) 11 hours 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. i take your point woody, its not so much about their 66%.... its more about our 34. If we haven't got the ball, we can't do anything....that is understandable and I am sure SB is well aware of it.....but he has to work incrementally, slowly,slowly catch a monkey. However, I was beginning to think, no manager will sort out this 5-6 years of demise. It was never going to be fixed by turning a turning a tap on so its no surprise to me we are far from being right. He will have his short, medium & long term plans....He realises there will be no medium or Long if we don't pick up, points.....thats his immediate task. I believe it will get better on the eye, but in the meantime, he has to do what he is doing. It never was going to be pain free. but also remember, some fans appreciate the art of denying the opposition, closing down, staying tight.....just being organised and hard to beat....Something we could only dream of not long ago. Edited October 24, 2016 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 9 hours ago, Mantis said: Yes I know. I was pointing out how misleading possession stats can sometimes be. We let Fulham have the ball because they were doing **** all with it. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 9 hours ago, Mantis said: At this stage it's probably worth reminding people that when we lost 6-1 to Southampton we had 64% possession... interesting. Possession cannot be ignored, be it needs to comprehensively explained and appreciated in full. The stat alone can be misleading, unless it is accompanied but other stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 (edited) 13 hours 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 think its the difference of having a committed manager. I don't want to go in to the workings of the previous managers, because i can only speculate.....but on the surface it was inadequate. We have a manager now IMO who is not known as a mastermind.....but a well rounded manager that ticks most of the boxes and is well aware of the old adages of " building from the back" and " winning the right to play football" we will morph as a team, i am sure.....but first things first. Edited October 24, 2016 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted October 24, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 24, 2016 Given that Steve Bruce has said our players aren't fit, and given that we've thrown away a glut of points by conceding in the last few minutes of games, and given how we've all seen our team out on its feet in the last 20 minutes - it's no wonder Bruce has set us up to let the opposition have the ball and then try to pick them off. Closing teams down is hard work, and it's tiring. Look at Liverpool's injury record since Klopp took over. Look how Tottenham ran out of steam at the end of last season. Bruce has got to paper over the cracks for now while he gets the team fit enough to play his way. Meyler, Snodgrass, Livermore and Elmohamady all appear to cover a lot of ground; and his Small Heath team were grafters too. We'll get there! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 On 22/10/2016 at 22:42, Villan_of_oz said: Humble pie anyone? I am going to pick you up on this. I'm not sure that your inference is an entirely fair reflection of the debate prior to the managerial appointment or the events post the managerial appointment and it doesn't at all fairly frame the situation. What I think is a much better, balanced and fair narrative is that there were some people on board and supportive of the appointment having all the evidence they wanted and some people not at all on board requiring more assurance of the appointment. I am not sure now that that assurance has been given particularly as, from my reading of the debate, the issue seemed to revolve around the longevity of his stint as manager and whether or not he would, could or should be a long term appointment. In fact in this last item there were a number of those broadly in favour of him being our manager who suggested that it should only be a short term appointment which very much became the crux of the debate for me short term v long term. Not many thought he was ideally suited to long term, So I'd say it is highly unlikely whether the humble pie to which you refer will ever be eaten. In fact people were saying we should give him a chance before judging so I'd even suggest that that chance should be given, and it is not 3 games. Either way we are winning games and getting points and is something for us all to be thankful of rather than points against each other. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 24, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 24, 2016 6 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Given that Steve Bruce has said our players aren't fit, and given that we've thrown away a glut of points by conceding in the last few minutes of games, and given how we've all seen our team out on its feet in the last 20 minutes - it's no wonder Bruce has set us up to let the opposition have the ball and then try to pick them off. Closing teams down is hard work, and it's tiring. Look at Liverpool's injury record since Klopp took over. Look how Tottenham ran out of steam at the end of last season. Bruce has got to paper over the cracks for now while he gets the team fit enough to play his way. Meyler, Snodgrass, Livermore and Elmohamady all appear to cover a lot of ground; and his Small Heath team were grafters too. We'll get there! They all say that, don't they Rob? - Because it's a get out of jail free card. Managers won't generally criticise a predesessors tactics, or motivational skills, or team selections because it's an attack on a colleague, basically. But by saying the players need to be fitter, or some such, it both answers a press question like "what are you going to do to turn things around" without slagging anyone off, and it also tells the players they need to work hard. WHen we got a late goal against Newcastle, our "fitness" wasn't an issue. And as you say., when you're chasing the ball, rather than keeping the ball, it's harder work - we had lots of the ball under RDM so should have been less tired. And look at Arsenal every year - they always seem to finish a season strongly and start it less well. Their fitness is "different" to that of (say) Burnley. There's stamina over a long season and there's individual game fitness. Where I do agree is that Bruce clearly wants more "high energy" players in midfield to do the closing and chasing and so on which is essential, whereas RDM seemed more towards wanting to fit in players who have different attributes. All the lettign in goals late on stuff is/was (IMO) mentality, brought about by years of poor management and being up against teams with better players and better organisation, leading to mental frailty at the back, in particular. Under MON I can remember many a game thinking "we won't concede" under pressure late on, because I felt we had good defenders, with strong minds who were well organised and who knew how to do their jobs. I hope Bruce will be able to set us up similarly, to defend with organisation, discipline and heart. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 14 hours ago, TrentVilla said: 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.... Is that not off topic ?...just teasing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, blandy said: Where I do agree is that Bruce clearly wants more "high energy" players in midfield to do the closing and chasing and so on which is essential Or midfielders as they are called at other clubs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Woodytom said: Don't you think that's a pretty dangerous tactic at 0-0? Once we're winning, fine totally get it. But at 0-0, it doesn't seem a smart move. With all due respect I think this is where it helps massively to be at the game rather than relying on stats and intermittent updates. We never looked like losing the game, admittedly until we scored we didn't look like winning it either. Not a 'better fan than you' post just cos I was there, it was the first game I'd been to this season but am just saying that unless we're live on sky the only way you can form a true opinion this year is to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts