Steve Bruce

[AvfcRigo82]

16 hours ago, lexicon said:

I never realised things were that simple. Really makes you wonder why we haven't just waved our magic wand and made it happen. 

Magic wand???

It is highlighting that all those managers menetioned are not 'Pep Gaurdiola' standard but have actually managed in this league and all have promotions to their names.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make whilst being blinded by wizardry. 

Steve Bruce has more promotions to his name yet looks so inferior compared to the those mentioned, yet they have all got promotions and not even spent half as much as what Bruce had.

Magic wands indeed.  It looks like Bruce might need one himself!

[Grasshopper]

 

Quote

Magic wands indeed.  It looks like Bruce might need one himself!

well he definately has something „going long“ & „rigid“ rammed up his cautious @r$e 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Grasshopper

[DaveAV1]

On 05/11/2017 at 22:34, RimmyJimmer said:

Poster said we went into the season with 3 centre backs...we didn't, it was 5. Nothing like making stuff up to fit your argument.

Ideally we  would have kept baker and flogged richards but ffp saw to that. How many centre backs do you think we need?

Well generally I believe the perceived wisdom is 4, but of course it depends who the 4 are. I agree we should have kept Baker. I’m not sure it was down to ffp that we sold him, I would imagine selling Richards would benefit ffp much more. I assume the club tried to off load him but he has a very lucrative contract and if he decides to milk it what can we do? Unless of course Steve Bruce meant it when he said something along the lines, “A fit Micah Richards is a no brainier to start.” Hopefully that was a motivational comment or a sales pitch.

Less well financed clubs, who don’t have the same infrastructure and support base  bringing  money as we do, use their academies when money is tight. Surely we have our own young players coming through that can do a better job for us than Chris Samba. Alternatively we could be more savvy in the market. I doubt a clearly unfit, unemployed bloke who we had on trial for months was the  best  available 3rd choice center half. It makes you wonder what the army of back room staff and scouts do.

Edited November 7, 2017 by DaveAV1

[Taxahunter]

11 hours ago, TRO said:

I agree wholeheartedly....if what you suggest is true.

but you have no more idea than me that he is not doing that.....The thing with training is, there is no opposition to distract you away from your instruction.....But they could be doing all the things, we think they are not.

If what you are saying is true, its all managers.....and believe me I know how important they are, so I am not arguing on that point, but why do we have 4 divisions and the best players usually play in top echelons of the Prem and the worst usually play in the bottom of Division 2.

You cannot ignore the individual performance of the player and his training it could be brilliant .....but their form fluctuates, why, because they are not consistent enough or to put a finer point on it not good enough in those terms.....when we have a game and too many are off, we are in trouble.

Ronald Koeman was flying and now he is sacked.....has he suddenly become a bad manager?.....No, but it is easier to sack a manager than 11 highly valued players.....

I am not singing Steve Bruce's praises.....He has stopped us getting spanked, but frankly not much more.

We are not playing convincing football, we are playing " its hard to sack the manager" football or "survival" football.

PS Its not beyond the realms of deduction.....that over the years they have all be substandard....Managers, coaches and most players.

 

 

Of course i dont know what he is doing in training, but during the games i have seen, some of the players are getting the basics of football wrong, waiting for the ball to drop down before attacking it, not running or offering themselves to have the ball, the crosses that are being delivered in the box, freekicks and corners are horrible, even I could do it better than i have seen in games and Im not training as much as the players. If he is not able to get the basics right in training, with players he has bought himself, then i know he is doing something wrong, even without attending training sessions.

Of course there is opposition in training, they are playing against our own defence/midfield/attack/substitution players, he has a squad of at least 25 players at his disposal. If they are doing all the things in training right, but not in the matches, then he must have a serious word with his players and the responsibility falls back on Bruce.

No, Koeman hasnt become a bad manager, but things change, he lost some of his most influencial players. Just like Benteke was important for us, Lukaku was carrying Everton and we all know how tough it was to loose Benteke, but in the end, its koeman who is responsible to find proper replacements.

[Raver50032]

13 hours ago, TRO said:

what a good resume....I am in sync with that.

I think there is a danger that we have been in the cess pit so long, anything with a modicum of joy attached to it like a win, is welcome.

some of us older fans have experienced players with a far higher level of skill and application....I think we have had so many misses with players signings and players we should not have let go, they we are pardon a phrase punch drunk with poor decisions.

I am a results first man...but I do not ignore some of the fans who are critical of our play....because i know they are right.

Right now I am no more confident than I am nervous about the next game, I think we are very predictable in our play, but unpredictable as to what form we will be in on matchday.

I think Steve Bruce is very much like Tony pulis in so much that the sack is never far away.

I accept that Steve relies on his players reactively as opposed to proactively making sure they are prepared...i.e Snodgrass.

I think we will be in trouble without JT, but also disturbs me how many injuries we get to key players, we do rely on too few players to do 80% of the damage....the others are passive link men.

I think our style lends itself to attracting injuries and suspensions.

 

That bit in bold for me, is like every game since Bruce came in as manager. The problem I have with Bruce's Villa is that there is the perceived predictability about how we might set up, how we might perform. Indicators from previous games lead the supporters (some of us anyway) to be nervous about what will happen. We don't get to build confidence as a fan base, let alone any chance the players get. That's all subjective of course, I can only speak for myself.

My issue with Villa at the moment is your bit in bold... I would never bet on Bruce's Villa because I just don't know or can't predict what kind of Villa is going to turn up in the next game. I can however virtually guarantee though that a win doesn't always leave me feeling like we've won. Does that make sense?

[mykeyb]

11 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

What can't be denied ,is that a lot of these non performing players are Bruce acquisitions, surely he brought them with a mind to fitting them into a system of play 

You would have thought.

If the newspapers are correct and they arent always he now wants to shift Hogan, Lansbury and Bree so he can sign some more players.............I can see that working well. I wouldnt be suprised if Grealish is moved out as a saleable assest even though Steve was planning to build his whole team around him, we will see on that.

I think Terry obviously and Johnstone is the only signings you can say are of the standard needed so I am not sure I want Steve to sign another 2 or 3 players "he knows".

[Grasshopper]

43 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

You would have thought.

If the newspapers are correct and they arent always he now wants to shift Hogan, Lansbury and Bree so he can sign some more players.............I can see that working well. I wouldnt be suprised if Grealish is moved out as a saleable assest even though Steve was planning to build his whole team around him, we will see on that.

I think Terry obviously and Johnstone is the only signings you can say are of the standard needed so I am not sure I want Steve to sign another 2 or 3 players "he knows".

Bruce -> Lansbury, Hogan and Bree out

Verses

Lansbury, Hogan and Bree -> Bruce out

anyone care for a vote on which?

 

[lexicon]

6 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

Magic wand???

It is highlighting that all those managers menetioned are not 'Pep Gaurdiola' standard but have actually managed in this league and all have promotions to their names.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make whilst being blinded by wizardry. 

Steve Bruce has more promotions to his name yet looks so inferior compared to the those mentioned, yet they have all got promotions and not even spent half as much as what Bruce had.

Magic wands indeed.  It looks like Bruce might need one himself!

It could be the guy in your avatar that prompted the wizardry thoughts...

On the topic of it though, there's no guarantee that those guys would come in and get things working.

Chris Houghton - a mixed bag of success as a manager, not the most attractive style of play, unlikely to drop down a division now.

Eddie Howe - unlikely to drop down,  only time he wasn't at Bournemouth he was pretty average so an unknown quantity due to a small sample size.

Rafa Benitez - No chance, not worth mentioning. 

Sam Allardyce - Very similar to Bruce, same complaints would be levelled at him. 

Neil Warnock (not our former LB) - Another man with a mixed career, style not that great, flavour of the month but not a given that he'd succeed.

Sean Dyche - Unlikely to drop a division, never managed a club of this stature. Not a guarantee there. 

Ronald Koeman - Overrated IMO and no doubt he thinks he's better than 2nd tier. Just had an abysmal run as Everton manager. Wouldn't want him here.

David Wagner - Unlikely to drop down, never managed a club of this size, relatively inexperienced and no guarantee there either. 

 

Very few of those are gettable anyway and most of them aren't up to much. I wouldn't roll the dice, as things stand.  

 

[AntrimBlack]

There won't be any rolling dice - Bruce is here for the season now. We just have to hope that he can get the one job he had to do, done.

[dn1982]

If anybody thinks we went into this season with 5 avaiable they are grasping at straws. You may aswell include the kids in counting squad numbers. We went into this season with 2 CB's 1 LB and 3 RB's none of whom Bruce trusts so he posts Elmo there. I say 2 CB's because Elphick and Richards are non existent and not wanted anywhere near the team by Bruce and our back up is Samba who you wouldn't want to play unless you have to. A squad is supposed to be full of players who can come in and out them team. Terry being injured means Chester moves left where he isnt as good regardless who he plays with. We've one left footed defender. Hopefully we go 433 until Terry gets fit as we need extra cover in midfield to help the defence now.  I'll be surprised if we are in the playoffs by the time he gets back. 

[TRO]

16 hours ago, vreitti said:

I respect your view, but think you seriously underestimate the squad we have. Most of the oldies are on loan or short term contracts. The rest would almost certainly adapt, if given proper instructions and motivation.

Equally,respect yours too.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, villarocker said:

Making that point twice makes me question if TRO really is Steve Bruce in disguise  

Huddersfield played some decent footie last season but now they are in the top flight they have put a lot of emphasis on having a tight defence. 

I think it is all about finding the right balance. For me, I'd rather watch a game where my team tries to out-score the opposition rather than try to concede less.

No, I'm not Steve Bruce in disguise......but having c 6 years of not being able to defend it comes kinda precious to me.

The sad thing is the samba goal could have won us the match.....yes the first was a worldy, but we give beach acres of room to do it.

I believe in building from the back, but i also recognise your point of being able to attack.

watching our front 6 (midfield and forwards)perform week in week out, i don't see the skill on the ball to take us up automatically.

It could well be Steve Bruce at fault, but i also see things from the players i find hard to blame the manager for.....I accept they are his signings and that bit is partly his fault, unless of course, he wants x player and we can only afford y.

I do understand the arguments put forward against Bruce i just think some blame him for too much......some of it, is scapegoat territory for me.

just one example on sat.....i thought Elmo was woeful, absolutely nondescript.no assertion, no passion, no drive....however, I do blame the manager for keeping him on, but not the way he played.

Edited November 7, 2017 by TRO

[Grasshopper]

 

15 minutes ago, TRO said:

just one example on sat.....i thought Elmo was woeful, absolutely nondescript.no assertion, no passion, no drive....however, I do blame the manager for keeping him on, but not the way he played.

This is where I am convinced you dont have a leg to stand on TRO

He is NOT a RB. But it‘s BRUCE who plays him there. The through ball and movement for the second goal could have been prevented by a cohesive defensive unit commiting itself to challenge and/or cover when need be.

Elmo at RB, Samba in any defensive capacity, moving JC to LCB and Hutton over Taylor at LB are ALL STEVE BRUCE decisions.

However, you prefer to blame the players.

On which grounds do you place your logic?

[TRO]

7 hours ago, Taxahunter said:

Of course i dont know what he is doing in training, but during the games i have seen, some of the players are getting the basics of football wrong, waiting for the ball to drop down before attacking it, not running or offering themselves to have the ball, the crosses that are being delivered in the box, freekicks and corners are horrible, even I could do it better than i have seen in games and Im not training as much as the players. If he is not able to get the basics right in training, with players he has bought himself, then i know he is doing something wrong, even without attending training sessions.

Of course there is opposition in training, they are playing against our own defence/midfield/attack/substitution players, he has a squad of at least 25 players at his disposal. If they are doing all the things in training right, but not in the matches, then he must have a serious word with his players and the responsibility falls back on Bruce.

No, Koeman hasnt become a bad manager, but things change, he lost some of his most influencial players. Just like Benteke was important for us, Lukaku was carrying Everton and we all know how tough it was to loose Benteke, but in the end, its koeman who is responsible to find proper replacements.

With all the levels/ tiers  of football in this country are you trying tell me the players at this level need to be told by the manager for some of the stuff you mention.

I accept that as a team and the interaction of players is down to him......individual flaws is down to the players to iron out....sure they can ask for help, but they have the reputation, they have to live up to it.

Look, there are things the players themselves are responsible for.....keeping themselves in shape, in form etc.......the manager can't trap a ball for them or indeed pass it.He can't make their decisions of when to release the ball or who to pass to.

as for losing your best player it is the managers job.....but they don't grow on trees, its a setback.....i'm sure Koeman wanted to replace Lukaku.

There is opposition in training, but they all know each other, its synthetic.....its not like real life, players you don't know ( in comparison) and unsure what they are going to do.

I seen SB screaming on saturday for players to get forward, so i think there is a fair bit of suppostion at play at times.

I prefer to say its the players and the manager, to single out one sector, i would have to see a lot more behind the scenes.

If it was so conclusive that SB is wrong for us.....why do people that have money at risk continue with him?

Edited November 7, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

 

This is where I am convinced you dont have a leg to stand on TRO

He is NOT a RB. But it‘s BRUCE who plays him there. The through ball and movement for the second goal could have been prevented by a cohesive defensive unit commiting itself to challenge and/or cover when need be.

Elmo at RB, Samba in any defensive capacity, moving JC to LCB and Hutton over Taylor at LB are ALL STEVE BRUCE decisions.

However, you prefer to blame the players.

On which grounds do you place your logic?

This is where i think you have even less legs to stand on.

• since going to LB Alan Hutton has aquitted himself so well he has kept the resident LB out
• When Jedinak went to CB he aquitted himself well too.
• Albert Adomah is arguably playing better on his unnatural side too.

Martin O'Neill had a thing of playing players in alien positions siting the theory its one way to get them to understand the game fully.

Players in the past:

Dion Dublin could play up front or defence.

Kenny Burns could play upfront or at the back, John Charles was known for it, Alan Evans could do both.....Kenny swain was a winger, before we bought him.

Tony morley would drift from flank to flank.

GH .....it happens all the time and it happens in player development too....its been happening since the year dot.

Weak argument Imo

[TRO]

7 hours ago, Raver50032 said:

That bit in bold for me, is like every game since Bruce came in as manager. The problem I have with Bruce's Villa is that there is the perceived predictability about how we might set up, how we might perform. Indicators from previous games lead the supporters (some of us anyway) to be nervous about what will happen. We don't get to build confidence as a fan base, let alone any chance the players get. That's all subjective of course, I can only speak for myself.

My issue with Villa at the moment is your bit in bold... I would never bet on Bruce's Villa because I just don't know or can't predict what kind of Villa is going to turn up in the next game. I can however virtually guarantee though that a win doesn't always leave me feeling like we've won. Does that make sense?

Absolute sense.....i totally agree.

[mykeyb]

45 minutes ago, TRO said:

I seen SB screaming on saturday for players to get forward, so i think there is a fair bit of suppostion at play at times.

If we are not controlling the midfield because we are overran shouting at players to get forward is not going to work, the fact he was doing that rather than address the more obvious deficiencies in the midfield makes we wonder if he could see the issues that you, I and thousands of fans could see.

Elmo has had more ineffective games than effective. In the 2nd half against Preston they were deliberately targeting him by playing long diagonal balls into his position. Bruce will not drop him for De Laet or Bree both of whom I would rate much higher. Thats his choice and he will live or die by that.

[TRO]

13 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

If we are not controlling the midfield because we are overran shouting at players to get forward is not going to work, the fact he was doing that rather than address the more obvious deficiencies in the midfield makes we wonder if he could see the issues that you, I and thousands of fans could see.

Elmo has had more ineffective games than effective. In the 2nd half against Preston they were deliberately targeting him by playing long diagonal balls into his position. Bruce will not drop him for De Laet or Bree both of whom I would rate much higher. Thats his choice and he will live or die by that.

I totally agree with your comments about Elmo and yes i do blame SB for that.

as for the midfield, i think we lost it and that must have had an effect on the forwards....but not  a total get out of jail free card.

However, we have 6 players there to carve up any way you like and in any formation you choose.....but it matters not, if the players are playing poor, its like what comes first the chicken or the egg....hypothetically, you could be allowed another 2 players, but if they are playing poor, what effect?

players have to dominate and if they don't they themselves will get dominated....if you deploy 5 in midfield you are denying the forward with any support.....its like you are best burn't as scolded.

usually, when we lose, i see too many players labouring, before i see a tactical misjudgment.

when we win emphatically like against Barnsley or Burton, i don't see a tactical genius at play.....I see players on form and " at it".

Edited November 7, 2017 by TRO

[srsmithusa]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

With all the levels/ tiers  of football in this country are you trying tell me the players at this level need to be told by the manager for some of the stuff you mention.

I accept that as a team and the interaction of players is down to him......individual flaws is down to the players to iron out....sure they can ask for help, but they have the reputation, they have to live up to it.

Look, there are things the players themselves are responsible for.....keeping themselves in shape, in form etc.......the manager can't trap a ball for them or indeed pass it.He can't make their decisions of when to release the ball or who to pass to.

as for losing your best player it is the managers job.....but they don't grow on trees, its a setback.....i'm sure Koeman wanted to replace Lukaku.

There is opposition in training, but they all know each other, its synthetic.....its not like real life, players you don't know ( in comparison) and unsure what they are going to do.

I seen SB screaming on saturday for players to get forward, so i think there is a fair bit of suppostion at play at times.

I prefer to say its the players and the manager, to single out one sector, i would have to see a lot more behind the scenes.

If it was so conclusive that SB is wrong for us.....why do people that have money at risk continue with him?

TRO, I agree that some of the things our players, far too frequently fail to do.  Show, pass and move, close down quickly, be aware of runners, don't underhit a pass, put some pace on any back pass, etc. are things any school boy player should understand.  You appear to let Bruce off the hook because the player should do better.  I don't.  I agree they should know better.  clearly they knew better at other clubs.  But they aren't doing it AND HE TOLERATES IT.  Don't tell me that I don't know what he says or does at bodymoor heath, because the same culprits still stat the next match.  This is the greatest endorsement he can give to this unacceptable lack of professional pride.

I would start half the u-23 team if that's what it took to wake up those that can be arsed to show for a pass.  But I don't think it would require that drastic of an action.  Most of our pro's have done well before they got here.  Did they forget?  or is an unacceptable lack of professional responsibility tolerated.  My guess is that they have excuses.  So, is Bruce buying those excuses and tolerating poor decision making?  You nor I know that.  what we do know, is that he keeps starting the same players and expecting a different product.  and in post games he regularly talks about the great effort they made.  If you tolerate and therefor, implicitly approve of the conduct, then you are IMO equally responsible for it.

[Grasshopper]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

This is where i think you have even less legs to stand on.

nice try

2 hours ago, TRO said:

• since going to LB Alan Hutton has aquitted himself so well he has kept the resident LB out  

not a legitimate answer as Bruce chooses to play him over Taylor. That is no way an endorsement especially as we lost

2 hours ago, TRO said:

• When Jedinak went to CB he aquitted himself well too.  

You are not accounting for the FACT that at the time jedi was fit and up to speed. Samba is obviously not. So point 2 where you have no leg to stand on

2 hours ago, TRO said:

• Albert Adomah is arguably playing better on his unnatural side too.  

That is purely subjective. he has been both effective and uneffective on either side this/last season

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Martin O'Neill had a thing of playing players in alien positions siting the theory its one way to get them to understand the game fully.  

sounds like spin to me

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Players in the past:

Dion Dublin could play up front or defence.

I saw him, he was as shit as he was good.

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Kenny Burns could play upfront or at the back, John Charles was known for it, Alan Evans could do both.....Kenny swain was a winger, before we bought him.  

see below

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Tony morley would drift from flank to flank.  

what is the point of bringing up examples of players who are on a completely different level than Samba and/or Hutton

2 hours ago, TRO said:

GH .....it happens all the time and it happens in player development too....its been happening since the year dot.

Weak argument Imo

comment for effect without relative substance I‘m afraid