Steve Bruce

[striker]

Can't say i've enjoyed watching Villa under Bruce (didn't see the Fulham game as away on holiday) but I do remember someone on site posting that Bruce gained his other promotions while being at those clubs for a season and a half or more. So the closer he is getting to that milestone (not sure exactly how long he's been at Villa) the results are improving and it is results and points that will get Villa promoted rather than just performances.

I'm still not warming to him though as I didn't like a lot of things he said and where blame was placed for poor form but I could stomach it if he gets Villa promoted.

[briny_ear]

6 hours ago, vreitti said:

Why not show stats for Bruce's whole tenure thus far?

Or is that not relevant? 

Don't get me wrong, the last 10 games are looking really good, but therein lies the problem, it is only 10 games. 

We could likewise choose 10 games from last January to March, that will be far from favorable.

No, it's totally NOT relevant.

That's just how football works.

Whatever happened last season, it's gone, done & dusted, dead & buried. The only thing that matters is how are we doing this season. That's why, despite winning the premier league with Leicester, Ranieri was gone by February the next season - he was being judged solely on the current season's results. Same thing happened to a chap called Mourinho at Chelsea a season earlier (except he went before Christmas).

So what a manager did last season, whether perceived as good or bad, is just not relevant - it's all about how are you doing now.

So:

"Bruce is doing better this season"

"But don't you care that he was awful last season?"

"No."

Edited October 25, 2017 by briny_ear

[TRO]

13 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

As good as JW was, he was no Alex Higgins.

But its a bad analogy anyway SD could really turn the screw, knew how to kill opponents off and could do all the amazing shots.

JW just went for everything, if it came off great, if not, he came 2nd out of 2.

Anyway SB is no SD by any stretch of the imagination.

don't think you have really read my analogy the way it was intended....but hey ho

pretty, pretty football is all well and good.....and nice to watch......but sometimes a more dull offering brings results.

[Eastie]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

don't think you have really read my analogy the way it was intended....but hey ho

pretty, pretty football is all well and good.....and nice to watch......but sometimes a more dull offering brings results.

Agreed , winning football is what matters in this division - as long as we do that and keep up the form of the last 10 games I’m quite happy for Bruce to continue - he rightly got a lot of flak and was lucky to keep his job but equally credit where due he has turned things around in the last 2 months  with one loss in 10 and 21 points .

[TRO]

6 hours ago, vreitti said:

Why not show stats for Bruce's whole tenure thus far?

Or is that not relevant? 

Don't get me wrong, the last 10 games are looking really good, but therein lies the problem, it is only 10 games. 

We could likewise choose 10 games from last January to March, that will be far from favorable.

Well its not relevant from the point of view that last season was WIP

He reversed a trend of dropping points and conceding late goals, he was building a new squad and integrating players, so the season was a massive disruption of repair.

If you want to judge him on that, you're welcome.

[TRO]

5 minutes ago, Eastie said:

Agreed , winning football is what matters in this division - as long as we do that and keep up the form of the last 10 games I’m quite happy for Bruce to continue - he rightly got a lot of flak and was lucky to keep his job but equally credit where due he has turned things around in the last 2 months  with one loss in 10 and 21 points .

Eastie, I am not trying to be smug.

I want the free flowing football that they want too.

but I'm with you.....results first.

and surely we can find it in our hearts to give him a bit of credit for that.

[TRO]

19 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

99Are you suggesting ,that in this analogy, Bruce is Steve Davis, because imo , that's a bold statement. I'm struggling to recall any trophies, as a manager ,that is ?

No, I'm suggesting the style of play.

see my response to Grasshopper, save me writing it again.

[sheepyvillian]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

don't think you have really read my analogy the way it was intended....but hey ho

pretty, pretty football is all well and good.....and nice to watch......but sometimes a more dull offering brings results.

Sometimes it doesn't bring results . You can have aesthetically pleasing football and still have results ,one doesn't preclude the other . Hence Man City being top of the premier and Wolves top of the Championship .

[sheepyvillian]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

No, I'm suggesting the style of play.

see my response to Grasshopper, save me writing it again.

Which is the same thing , my point being Davis won trophies, Bruce hasn't. 

[TRO]

Just now, sheepyvillian said:

Sometimes it doesn't bring results . You can have aesthetically pleasing football and still have results ,one doesn't preclude the other . Hence Man City being top of the premier and Wolves top of the Championship .

Oh I agree.

my point was -

points v eye candy.

right now I will take points.....when we are promoted and we have no chance of winning the league i may have a different view.

[sheepyvillian]

Just now, TRO said:

Oh I agree.

my point was -

points v eye candy.

right now I will take points.....when we are promoted and we have no chance of winning the league i may have a different view.

Slightly presumptuous, don't you think ?

[TRO]

1 minute ago, sheepyvillian said:

Which is the same thing , my point being Davis won trophies, Bruce hasn't. 

I appreciate what your looking at , but I wasn't.

I was looking at Dull football that possibly gains point v pretty football that does not.....Hence Jimmy won very few trophies but played the more entertaining.....Steve played more dull but won the games.

of course there are exceptions to the rule, but it was only meant to be a generalisation, perhaps it's been taken too literally.

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Slightly presumptuous, don't you think ?

No.

[srsmithusa]

54 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

I'm not telling anyone to do anything.  We're (nearly) all grown-ups on here.

I choose to ignore his previous 4 promotions as that information has served its purpose.  That was what got him the job.  It doesn't now make me think we should keep him because of that if he's performing badly.  As I explained previously too, I don't want to use too much of last season to influence my thinking as it's gone now.  I'd have sacked him in the summer.  We didn't.  He's still here.  He's doing alright this season.  Last season is now irrelevant.

Personally, I'm finding it more beneficial to assess him based on his performance this season.  I'm finding it's giving me a slightly different view, one that is both more optimistic and more enjoyable.  I like it.

You're welcome to pay attention to whatever you choose.

Posting in reply to your post was not really fair.  You're not telling people how we should think.  It's just that when I have been critical and called for his dismissal I was frequently told I should be looking back at history.  And while, like you, I am enjoying the current results and would not dismiss him now, I still feel some criticism is justified because I think this string would have happened months ago if we were better managed.  Now I feel like I'm being told NOT to look at past.  (not just by you.) 

I JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT I"M ALLOWED TO LOOK AT !!!!! 

For what it's worth, I think we're pretty close in our perspective.  He didn't do well for far too long.  Should have been let go but wasn't.  Now the results are much better.  I am enjoying that and hoping it continues and he can put 5 promotions on his resume. 

[sheepyvillian]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

I appreciate what your looking at , but I wasn't.

I was looking at Dull football that possibly gains point v pretty football that does not.....Hence Jimmy won very few trophies but played the more entertaining.....Steve played more dull but won the games.

of course there are exceptions to the rule, but it was only meant to be a generalisation, perhaps it's been taken too literally.

I'm struggling to think of a football team that played dull football , and yet won plenty of trophies .

[TrentVilla]

 

Ultimately the debate boils down to this.

For some the present is not quite all that matters, but what matters most as results currently are good and momentum is with us.

For others the present is not the full story because the current good form and momentum is relatively short lived in relation to his whole tenure. Which could mean we don't maintain it.

That is about it really. I think both views have merit and are justifiable in their own rights.

What we need is more games, thankfully they are going to come thick and fast over the remainder of the year.

Whatever anyone thinks of Bruce lets just hope he has a good day come Sunday.

[TRO]

Just now, sheepyvillian said:

I'm struggling to think of a football team that played dull football , and yet won plenty of trophies .

Wimbledon....not sure of the plenty.

Inter Milan

Athletico Madrid

maybe dull is not the right word, but you know what I mean.

[TrentVilla]

4 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

I'm struggling to think of a football team that played dull football , and yet won plenty of trophies .

Man Utd last season

AC Milan in the 90's, Graham's Arsenal.

Anyway... lets stay on topic.

[bannedfromHandV]

16 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Sometimes it doesn't bring results . You can have aesthetically pleasing football and still have results ,one doesn't preclude the other . Hence Man City being top of the premier and Wolves top of the Championship .

If all we're going to do is look around at others with envy then we're never going to be satisfied.

Even if we did start playing expansive football how long would it be before people started asking why we're not as expansive as Barcelona?

Sometimes you just have to be thankful for what you have and after 6 or so years of losing week after week I am happy to be winning games again and operating in the upper echelons of the division.

 

I think people just need to step back sometimes and look at the bigger picture.

[TRO]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

 

Ultimately the debate boils down to this.

For some the present is not quite all that matters, but what matters most as results currently are good and momentum is with us.

For others the present is not the full story because the current good form and momentum is relatively short lived in relation to his whole tenure. Which could mean we don't maintain it.

That is about it really. I think both views have merit and are justifiable in their own rights.

What we need is more games, thankfully they are going to come thick and fast over the remainder of the year.

Whatever anyone thinks of Bruce lets just hope he has a good day come Sunday.

I get all that.

I think last season was a major repair job....thats why some of us struggle to appraise his job during such a period and prefer to judge him on a team that is now somewhat balanced.

The seasons prior to his appointment were a mitigating disaster.....so I guess its how much latitude anyone wants to factor in to that period.

I think you are spot on, about the future and it could well be folk like me may not be so forgiving if the wheels come off and i will then join the Bruce out voices.

as for now, see what he can do.