Steve Bruce

[TRO]

2 hours ago, vreitti said:

Shutting up shop once we go ahead, may work from time to time, but I just can't see it gaining us promotion. It's still a cowardly approach, and as many have already alluded, it's the only way Bruce knows. For me it's still not good enough, not with the players at his disposal. We need to be more proactive.

Its difficult to be proactive, when your legs have gone, they run themselves in to the ground.

[sheepyvillian]

18 minutes ago, TRO said:

Me too....never missed a game....but we were dogged as well as equipped to score.

 

I was at that Stoke game , Easter Bank holiday, if memory serves me right . Did we manage to get a point ,that became a very important point ,come the end of the season ?

It would be blasphemy to compare Bruce to the Messiah , Saunders .

[srsmithusa]

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

No I didn't. I said the complete opposite. I said we weren't being forced to sit back on saturday. We were choosing to play defensively in a situation where we needed to. And it worked.

What USUALLY happens, imo, is that we regress and end up sitting really really deep and inviting pressure on to us. And the manager absolutely takes blame for that. I don't think he WANTS us to play defensively a lot of the time, but the style of football he has bred means that it happens whether we want it to or not.

Saturday was the exception. We chose to play defensively in a situation that justified it and it worked.

Ok we are USUALLY forced into a defensive sitting back like complete victims of the opposition.  With no plan of our own.  Yeah, I see what you mean now.  

[briny_ear]

7 hours ago, Dave J said:

With respect what I mean is that whilst we are looking far from a cohesive and joined up unit - we have people who are capable of moments of instinctive play that could result in a goal - these moments are not coached they are an inate aspect of this person who has become a professional footballer imo 

I think this is a rather bleak assessment of the state of a team that has won 5 of its last 6 games. It seems to me a rather strained attempt to accommodate our current good run while maintaining the stance that Bruce is a useless manager.

It also remains the case logically that if Bruce had as little influence as you suggest over our wins, he can't be blamed for the losses.

However, since we are doing quite well at present, maybe ) this isn’t very important? If the idiot savants in our team can go on having lots of blinding flashes of inspiration and instinctively winning games, that’s OK with me!!!

[Lerner's Driver]

9 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

but hey ,what do I know ?

You know lots. Will you tell us some more of it?

[Dave J]

7 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I think this is a rather bleak assessment of the state of a team that has won 5 of its last 6 games. It seems to me a rather strained attempt to accommodate our current good run while maintaining the stance that Bruce is a useless manager.

It also remains the case logically that if Bruce had as little influence as you suggest over our wins, he can't be blamed for the losses.

However, since we are doing quite well at present, maybe ) this isn’t very important? If the idiot savants in our team can go on having lots of blinding flashes of inspiration and instinctively winning games, that’s OK with me!!!

I actually agree - with much of what you say  do I think Bruce is useless ? No -  do I think he is good enough to manage Aston Villa ? No I don’t 

[Vive_La_Villa]

7 minutes ago, Dave J said:

I actually agree - with much of what you say  do I think Bruce is useless ? No -  do I think he is good enough to manage Aston Villa ? No I don’t 

I think the majority will agree with this. The question is can he get us promoted this season? Current form suggests it's possible. He has to go though end of the season regardless of how we end this season.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

I was at that Stoke game , Easter Bank holiday, if memory serves me right . Did we manage to get a point ,that became a very important point ,come the end of the season ?

It would be blasphemy to compare Bruce to the Messiah , Saunders .

Yes, 1-1.....it wasn't one of our better games, but my point was how the stoke fans poo,pooed us on one game.

yes to the last line.

[TRO]

17 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

No I didn't. I said the complete opposite. I said we weren't being forced to sit back on saturday. We were choosing to play defensively in a situation where we needed to. And it worked.

What USUALLY happens, imo, is that we regress and end up sitting really really deep and inviting pressure on to us. And the manager absolutely takes blame for that. I don't think he WANTS us to play defensively a lot of the time, but the style of football he has bred means that it happens whether we want it to or not.

Saturday was the exception. We chose to play defensively in a situation that justified it and it worked.

I think you make a good point.....

I agree there is more than one reason for going defensive sometimes its by design, sometimes its due to pressure from the opposition.

[Dave J]

17 minutes ago, TRO said:

Yes, 1-1.....it wasn't one of our better games, but my point was how the stoke fans poo,pooed us on one game.

yes to the last line.

Yes I was there too - it felt almost in touching distance - but also a million miles away at the same time.

[dn1982]

1 hour ago, Dave J said:

I actually agree - with much of what you say  do I think Bruce is useless ? No -  do I think he is good enough to manage Aston Villa ? No I don’t 

But he's good enough to mount a challenge in this league and even though I think we should be playing far better football as long as we grind out enough wins to get up I'll take it. We will win more games by one goal than most and be having conversations about us playing crap and not finishing games off all season but ultimately this year is all about going up. Something BRuce knows how to do even if it's baffling having watched his team. 

[vreitti]

10 hours ago, TRO said:

Its difficult to be proactive, when your legs have gone, they run themselves in to the ground.

Absolutely, that's why I'm advocating an alternate approach, one in which we're either so far ahead that the last 10-15 minutes don't matter, or that we retain our legs for the whole 90+ minutes.

[sheepyvillian]

6 hours ago, Lerner's Driver said:

You know lots. Will you tell us some more of it?

I don't, you're  making me blush , you anal thing ,you .

[alreadyexists]

33 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Absolutely, that's why I'm advocating an alternate approach, one in which we're either so far ahead that the last 10-15 minutes don't matter, or that we retain our legs for the whole 90+ minutes.

If only football were as simple as choosing to be ‘so far ahead’.

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Yes, 1-1.....it wasn't one of our better games, but my point was how the stoke fans poo,pooed us on one game.

yes to the last line.

Who cares ? We were on our way to winning the title , and like I said ,you can't compare that team to today's team . No one listens to a couple of Stoke supporters. 

[vreitti]

19 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

If only football were as simple as choosing to be ‘so far ahead’.

Well it all depends on how you set up and how well you achieve within the aforementioned set up. Just look at ManCity, they're usually 3 goals up before half-time. Of course we don't have their squad of players, nor their manager, then again we don't play their opponents either.

[bobzy]

53 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Well it all depends on how you set up and how well you achieve within the aforementioned set up. Just look at ManCity, they're usually 3 goals up before half-time. Of course we don't have their squad of players, nor their manager, then again we don't play their opponents either.

You know it's a terrible argument when you're choosing "...but Man City!" as your rational behind why we should be out of sight by half time.

[vreitti]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

You know it's a terrible argument when you're choosing "...but Man City!" as your rational behind why we should be out of sight by half time.

Well I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think Man City is the perfect argument, as they've really set an example to the rest of the footballing world. Every team should aspire to be as good as them IMHO.

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Well I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think Man City is the perfect argument, as they've really set an example to the rest of the footballing world. Every team should aspire to be as good as them IMHO.

Well, yeah - every team probably should aspire to be filled with world class players who create amazing opportunities which are tucked away maybe 75% of the time.  It's not going to happen.

In our game against Fulham, where people are complaining we didn't attack enough and kill off the game, we had 15 shots.  In Man City's win against Burnley where they were the perfect team, killing off the game and winning 3-0, they had 15 shots.

If we had the class of player they do, we'd be comfortably done and dusted by half-time.

[bannedfromHandV]

10 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Well I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think Man City is the perfect argument, as they've really set an example to the rest of the footballing world. Every team should aspire to be as good as them IMHO.

Okay cool, got a spare £750M to lend the club?