Steve Bruce

[TRO]

41 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

I

Makes the shit football all the more baffling .

Or the criticism.

we all know the football is not good, question that we argue is ,why.

for me we are not sophisticated enough with running off the ball which limits the player playing the ball.....we are not quick enough in thought and not quick enough in delivery.

talking in general, not specifically.

We don't break as a team and show tempo.....not enough pace in the team....all a bit laboured.

(I accept that is the managers responsibility, but if the funds are not there to get the right players, how can we assume that the money will be there for the next man.)

Now the 64 million dollar question

• is it the coaching?
• is the players themselves not capable of carrying out the instructions?

I don't know, i wish i did.....its easy to speculate.

[TRO]

25 minutes ago, Dave J said:

No - in a nutshell at the end of the day  all the average football fan wants is basically to  see some entertainment and winning football - I could not give a flying fig what the system is along as the above applies and for what it’s worth I don’t see Bruce delivering on either front.

my happiest days watching Villa were  under Big Ron the football was poetry in motion and yes I was there at Highbury when we clinched the title but the fayre on offer was no where near as that offered by Big Ron.

so style and substance are both very important imo 

Dave for me the most entertaining side was '77.......the most clinincal was '80/'81.

I know where you are coming from and i will be the first to agree, the football spectacle is not convincing.

The problem is, we all have different views why......as you know, i think as a team we are not good enough.....some players are ,but some are not imo.

The manager for me is just a steady eddie.....but his players in general are not good enough to excel every week.

in terms of consistency perhaps half the team can muster it, the rest are left wanting.

ps JT you can hang your hat on what he will give you....thats what good players do.....we haven't got enough of them.

Edited November 10, 2017 by TRO

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Or the criticism.

we all know the football is not good, question that we argue is ,why.

for me we are not sophisticated enough with running off the ball which limits the player playing the ball.....we are not quick enough in thought and not quick enough in delivery.

talking in general, not specifically.

We don't break as a team and show tempo.....not enough pace in the team....all a bit laboured.

(I accept that is the managers responsibility, but if the funds are not there to get the right players, how can we assume that the money will be there for the next man.)

Now the 64 million dollar question

• is it the coaching?
• is the players themselves not capable of carrying out the instructions?

I don't know, i wish i did.....its easy to speculate.

I'll go with the coaching , please .

[sheepyvillian]

55 minutes ago, TRO said:

Dave for me the most entertaining side was '77.......the most clinincal was '80/'81.

I know where you are coming from and i will be the first to agree, the football spectacle is not convincing.

The problem is, we all have different views why......as you know, i think as a team we are not good enough.....some players are ,but some are not imo.

The manager for me is just a steady eddie.....but his players in general are not good enough to excel every week.

in terms of consistency perhaps half the team can muster it, the rest are left wanting.

ps JT you can hang your hat on what he will give you....thats what good players do.....we haven't got enough of them.

 Most of us as think as a team we're not good enough ,it's just that some of us think it could have something to do with how we're being managed and coached .

He just doesn't possess the tactical nous required to have us playing consistently ,winning ,football. Its one step forward then two steps backwards.  How can you have any confidence in thinking we're going in the right direction with this manager at the helm ?

[BigJim]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Now the 64 million dollar question

• is it the coaching?
• is the players themselves not capable of carrying out the instructions?

.

Isn't the fault at the manager's door whichever way you answer it?  He's the one who brought half of them in and he's the one who  picks all of them every week. Why would you keep selecting players who couldn't carry out your instructions?

[Dave J]

10 hours ago, TRO said:

Dave for me the most entertaining side was '77.......the most clinincal was '80/'81.

I know where you are coming from and i will be the first to agree, the football spectacle is not convincing.

The problem is, we all have different views why......as you know, i think as a team we are not good enough.....some players are ,but some are not imo.

The manager for me is just a steady eddie.....but his players in general are not good enough to excel every week.

in terms of consistency perhaps half the team can muster it, the rest are left wanting.

ps JT you can hang your hat on what he will give you....thats what good players do.....we haven't got enough of them.

77 was very good also - Little, Gray, Deehan up top if I remember rightly -  Burridge, Gidman , Phillips, Nicholl, Robson?

Graydon, Sid?, Carraddus?

have I got this correct? 

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, Dave J said:

77 was very good also - Little, Gray, Deehan up top if I remember rightly -  Burridge, Gidman , Phillips, Nicholl, Robson?

Graydon, Sid?, Carraddus?

have I got this correct? 

Very correct , although for some reason Alex Cropley ,comes to mind ,but then so does Ally Robertson .

[romavillan]

13 hours ago, TRO said:

Or the criticism.

we all know the football is not good, question that we argue is ,why.

for me we are not sophisticated enough with running off the ball which limits the player playing the ball.....we are not quick enough in thought and not quick enough in delivery.

talking in general, not specifically.

We don't break as a team and show tempo.....not enough pace in the team....all a bit laboured.

(I accept that is the managers responsibility, but if the funds are not there to get the right players, how can we assume that the money will be there for the next man.)

Now the 64 million dollar question

• is it the coaching?
• is the players themselves not capable of carrying out the instructions?

I don't know, i wish i did.....its easy to speculate.

It is the coaching. Completely 100% no doubt the coaching.

[VillaChris]

13 hours ago, TRO said:

Or the criticism.

we all know the football is not good, question that we argue is ,why.

for me we are not sophisticated enough with running off the ball which limits the player playing the ball.....we are not quick enough in thought and not quick enough in delivery.

talking in general, not specifically.

We don't break as a team and show tempo.....not enough pace in the team....all a bit laboured.

(I accept that is the managers responsibility, but if the funds are not there to get the right players, how can we assume that the money will be there for the next man.)

Now the 64 million dollar question

• is it the coaching?
• is the players themselves not capable of carrying out the instructions?

I don't know, i wish i did.....its easy to speculate.

Anyone who's watched a previously managed SB team will realise it's very much coaching.

There was a post somewhere else that Hogan was very unhappy at the day-to-day coaching. At Brentford it was all detailed sessions between the different areas of the team. Here I imagine it's more run around a bit, pass the ball around a bit, work on team shape a bit and then go home. And repeat that all the week.

If it was any different we would see better on matchday. There are plenty of good players in this squad. It's not like SB is coaching the 15/16.

SB dosen't strike me as a coach anyway, just someone who comes in towards the end of week to assess things and then motivates them on matchday like MON used to do.

Are Clemence and Calderwood the best coaches we could get, that could be a question worth considering.

[vreitti]

Of course it's the coaching, everyone and his mother can see that. Even though Bruce is clueless, I'm sure even he would have realized this. I just think he's so thick that he actually believes it won't matter, and he'll be able to achieve promotion regardless, simply due to the sheer quality of the team. 

[TRO]

14 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

 Most of us as think as a team we're not good enough ,it's just that some of us think it could have something to do with how we're being managed and coached .

He just doesn't possess the tactical nous required to have us playing consistently ,winning ,football. Its one step forward then two steps backwards.  How can you have any confidence in thinking we're going in the right direction with this manager at the helm ?

Sheepy.....My views are not set in tablets of stone.....I understand fully, what you and GH allude to.

I am not suggesting either That SB is blameless, I just think he has his views that many don't agree with, he is from the Pulis, Allardyce mould.

Folk in an and around him players ex players, other managers, don't have a bad word to say.....thats important in man management.

as you know, my view have leanings towards the players, for instance.....I think Wolves have better players than us in key positions....I am not  convinced Nuno taking over our squad would make the difference some fans allude to.

I would be the first to admit the manager has to take responsibilty fir the players he signs and that is what i would be more inclined to criticise him for.

Hogan, was a miss

some say players have played well at other clubs but not with us.......Tshibola is one of them, but he can't hack it at Mk Dons for gods sake and didn't do anything at Nottm Forest.....Players imo have to take responsibility for their performances.

I think managers do have an affect.......De Bruyne is obviously benefitting from working with Pepe, but you could hardly say Jose is a duffer either.

I think Steve Bruce like many managers develops his decisions from past experiences and sets his team up by the skills they have.....if they haven't got the skill base to play and expansive game, its beacause in the main we haven't got players who can play it, without exposing ourselves defensively.

He wants to play in a way that he thinks will get us promotion and buys players accordingly....he has done it 4 times, so could be forgiven for capitalising on that experience, whether that will work I don't know.

For me.....I see things in our players play, that concern me....where i differ, from some fans like you and GH is I don't think all those concerns are the result of the managers set up, more the fact that he signed them.

but i will be the first to say, I have no monopoly on what is right or wrong, its just my humble opinion.

I respect the fact that the best managers are usually at the top of the leagues, but i also respect the old adage a manager is only as good as his players......its just that the best managers gravitate to the clubs with best players and vice versa.

we will all see.....and it would not surprise me if a few opinions change towards the end of the season.

one could be mine.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

Anyone who's watched a previously managed SB team will realise it's very much coaching.

There was a post somewhere else that Hogan was very unhappy at the day-to-day coaching. At Brentford it was all detailed sessions between the different areas of the team. Here I imagine it's more run around a bit, pass the ball around a bit, work on team shape a bit and then go home. And repeat that all the week.

If it was any different we would see better on matchday. There are plenty of good players in this squad. It's not like SB is coaching the 15/16.

SB dosen't strike me as a coach anyway, just someone who comes in towards the end of week to assess things and then motivates them on matchday like MON used to do.

Are Clemence and Calderwood the best coaches we could get, that could be a question worth considering.

Chris....I am not saying you are wrong, so lets get that straight,

but....was Remi/ Tim/ Paul/ Roberto.....all their coaching with their reverered names as coaches.....all them clueless too.

I am not saying SB is a good coach.....but I am unsure he is as bad as everyone alludes to either.

I see things i find it hard to blame ANY coach for.

The other point is unless we went to BMH and was sure of what we are looking for, how can we do anything but speculate.

I will stick to commenting on what I see on matchday from the player that is executing his skill or not which ever the case may be and comment on that.

as for the blame, I'll leave it to you guys......because i am simply not in a position to know.

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by TRO

[Dave J]

55 minutes ago, TRO said:

Sheepy.....My views are not set in tablets of stone.....I understand fully, what you and GH allude to.

I am not suggesting either That SB is blameless, I just think he has his views that many don't agree with, he is from the Pulis, Allardyce mould.

Folk in an and around him players ex players, other managers, don't have a bad word to say.....thats important in man management.

as you know, my view have leanings towards the players, for instance.....I think Wolves have better players than us in key positions....I am not  convinced Nuno taking over our squad would make the difference some fans allude to.

I would be the first to admit the manager has to take responsibilty fir the players he signs and that is what i would be more inclined to criticise him for.

Hogan, was a miss

some say players have played well at other clubs but not with us.......Tshibola is one of them, but he can't hack it at Mk Dons for gods sake and didn't do anything at Nottm Forest.....Players imo have to take responsibility for their performances.

I think managers do have an affect.......De Bruyne is obviously benefitting from working with Pepe, but you could hardly say Jose is a duffer either.

I think Steve Bruce like many managers develops his decisions from past experiences and sets his team up by the skills they have.....if they haven't got the skill base to play and expansive game, its beacause in the main we haven't got players who can play it, without exposing ourselves defensively.

He wants to play in a way that he thinks will get us promotion and buys players accordingly....he has done it 4 times, so could be forgiven for capitalising on that experience, whether that will work I don't know.

For me.....I see things in our players play, that concern me....where i differ, from some fans like you and GH is I don't think all those concerns are the result of the managers set up, more the fact that he signed them.

but i will be the first to say, I have no monopoly on what is right or wrong, its just my humble opinion.

I respect the fact that the best managers are usually at the top of the leagues, but i also respect the old adage a manager is only as good as his players......its just that the best managers gravitate to the clubs with best players and vice versa.

we will all see.....and it would not surprise me if a few opinions change towards the end of the season.

one could be mine.

 

 

TRO - pro - football really is jobs for the boys- it’s rare that someone goes public about another manager, player, ex player etc - so I for one genuinely pay no credit to this at all.

Bruce has been around for a long long time and does not have an awful lot to show for it imo.

yes you are right in saying he’s from the same stock as Pulis & Big Sam and I wouldn’t want either of these pair near us.

i also agree that once a player crosses that white line there is nothing a manager can do to stop misplaced passes, or ill thought decisions on an individual basis - what SB can be accountable for is uninspiring ethos that we are- for me it’s in his DNA and I can’t see this changing any time soon

[Dave J]

52 minutes ago, TRO said:

Chris....I am not saying you are wrong, so lets get that straight,

but....was Remi/ Tim/ Paul/ Roberto.....all their coaching with their reverered names as coaches.....all them clueless too.

I am not saying SB is a good coach.....but I am unsure he is as bad as everyone alludes to either.

I see things i find it hard to blame ANY coach for.

The other point is unless we went to BMH and was sure of what we are looking for, how can we do anything but speculate.

I will stick to commenting on what I see on matchday from the player that is executing his skill or not which ever the case may be and comment on that.

as for the blame, I'll leave it to you guys......because i am simply not in a position to know.

 

I don’t think RDM was clueless and feel we would now be in a better position if he had stayed - Garde was shafted and I have no clue if he is any good or not- as for Lambert well quite frankly he punched above his weight given what he had to work with and you have to look back and applaud how he kept us in the prem for so long.

Given the the choice I would take RDM and Lambert over Bruce.

[Grasshopper]

3 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

Very correct , although for some reason Alex Cropley ,comes to mind ,but then so does Ally Robertson .

When I hear that name Alex Cropley I can almost hear the sound of a leg breaking. I remember crying when he got carried off (emotional teenager syndrome).

He was a great player. Such a shame.

[Grasshopper]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Sheepy.....My views are not set in tablets of stone.....I understand fully, what you and GH allude to.  

Tro, we don‘t allude to. We say what we say as we see it. No pussyfooting around here.

 

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Folk in an and around him players ex players, other managers, don't have a bad word to say.....thats important in man management.  

Now you know its career suicide not being „politically correct“.

i.e. „ yeah he‘s a good/great manager“ = „he puts me in the team“ „ he‘s British (bloody foriegners nicking our jobs)“

1 hour ago, TRO said:

as you know, my view have leanings towards the players, for instance.....I think Wolves have better players than us in key positions....I am not  convinced Nuno taking over our squad would make the difference some fans allude to.  

This ^ is simply wrong by fact. He WOULD play our players differently to Bruce. You - as a regular match-goer - would be one of the first to see the difference some fans allude to right before your very own eyes

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I would be the first to admit the manager has to take responsibilty fir the players he signs and that is what i would be more inclined to criticise him for.

Hogan, was a miss  

I‘m really confused by the Hogan signing.

If Bruce indeed bought him to play him how he does, then he got it totally wrong - Bad nanagement.

If Round and the scouts carried out the signing/recommended him, then they got one if two things completely wrong.

1 - The wrong players for the manager

or

2 - The wrong manager for the player recruitment policy

1 hour ago, TRO said:

some say players have played well at other clubs but not with us.......Tshibola is one of them, but he can't hack it at Mk Dons for gods sake and didn't do anything at Nottm Forest.....Players imo have to take responsibility for their performances.  

well thats a moot example

1- Bruce didnt buy him

2- Bruce hardly played him

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I think managers do have an affect.......De Bruyne is obviously benefitting from working with Pepe, but you could hardly say Jose is a duffer either. 

this is the exact train of thought you display by exonerating Bruce. Jose‘s ways were not suitable for deB or deB wasnt suited to Jose‘s ways.

I don‘t want to presume for others but, I think Bruce‘s ways are not suitable for the players we have, that‘s why I think he should go.

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I think Steve Bruce like many managers develops his decisions from past experiences and sets his team up by the skills they have.....

he doesnt do this

1 hour ago, TRO said:

if they haven't got the skill base to play an expansive game, its beacause in the main we haven't got players who can play it, without exposing ourselves defensively. 

there is not proof of this because he doesnt try to play this so called expansive game

1 hour ago, TRO said:

He wants to play in a way that he thinks will get us promotion and buys players accordingly....he has done it 4 times, so could be forgiven for capitalising on that experience, whether that will work I don't know. 

correct and perfectly understandable from his pov

1 hour ago, TRO said:

For me.....I see things in our players play, that concern me....

which is because he regularily exposes their weaknesses

1 hour ago, TRO said:

where i differ, from some fans like you and GH is I don't think all those concerns are the result of the managers set up, more the fact that he signed them.  

1- disagree

2- is it 100% clear that he decides every signing?

1 hour ago, TRO said:

but i will be the first to say, I have no monopoly on what is right or wrong, its just my humble opinion.

I respect the fact that the best managers are usually at the top of the leagues, but i also respect the old adage a manager is only as good as his players......its just that the best managers gravitate to the clubs with best players and vice versa.  

true

1 hour ago, TRO said:

we will all see.....and it would not surprise me if a few opinions change towards the end of the season.

one could be mine.  

we will see

you know what my money‘s on

 

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, Grasshopper said:

Tro, we don‘t allude to. We say what we say as we see it. No pussyfooting around here.

 

Now you know its career suicide not being „politically correct“.

i.e. „ yeah he‘s a good/great manager“ = „he puts me in the team“ „ he‘s British (bloody foriegners nicking our jobs)“

This ^ is simply wrong by fact. He WOULD play our players differently to Bruce. You - as a regular match-goer - would be one of the first to see the difference some fans allude to right before your very own eyes

I‘m really confused by the Hogan signing.

If Bruce indeed bought him to play him how he does, then he got it totally wrong - Bad nanagement.

If Round and the scouts carried out the signing/recommended him, then they got one if two things completely wrong.

1 - The wrong players for the manager

or

2 - The wrong manager for the player recruitment policy

well thats a moot example

1- Bruce didnt buy him

2- Bruce hardly played him

this is the exact train of thought you display by exonerating Bruce. Jose‘s ways were not suitable for deB or deB wasnt suited to Jose‘s ways.

I don‘t want to presume for others but, I think Bruce‘s ways are not suitable for the players we have, that‘s why I think he should go.

he doesnt do this

there is not proof of this because he doesnt try to play this so called expansive game

correct and perfectly understandable from his pov

which is because he regularily exposes their weaknesses

1- disagree

2- is it 100% clear that he decides every signing?

true

we will see

you know what my money‘s on

 

Members of the jury ,if I were you ,after that wonderful summing up from the prosecution on behalf of Grasshopper, q.c, I wouldn't even bother deliberating. I think we can safely assume that the verdict is a forgone conclusion. 

Steve Bruce ,You are hereby found guilty of seriously damaging the health and future of Aston Villa F.C , I sentence you to a lifetime of gardening, with a minimum term of 30 yrs ,take this kebab eating oaf down .

[VillaChris]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

Chris....I am not saying you are wrong, so lets get that straight,

but....was Remi/ Tim/ Paul/ Roberto.....all their coaching with their reverered names as coaches.....all them clueless too.

I am not saying SB is a good coach.....but I am unsure he is as bad as everyone alludes to either.

I see things i find it hard to blame ANY coach for.

The other point is unless we went to BMH and was sure of what we are looking for, how can we do anything but speculate.

I will stick to commenting on what I see on matchday from the player that is executing his skill or not which ever the case may be and comment on that.

as for the blame, I'll leave it to you guys......because i am simply not in a position to know.

 

Lambert started off talking a good game but as the years went by we obviously saw he didn't value possession and preferred the counter attacking method.

We played o.k under Sherwood initally. High tempo and some decent passages of play but it didn't last.

Garde tried a possession game but it was too late.

RDM....no idea what the structure was. Out starting 11s were too unbalanced against him.

When have you seen a team coached by SB come to VP in the past and said...blimey they were a good team. He managed SHA, Wigan, Sunderland and Hull on this ground. Early years at SHA he did a good job but it was still more a team or battlers than one seeking to play another off the pitch.

I lump SB in with managers like MON, Pulis, Big Sam etc. Managers who set up teams to defend and don't value possession. Would rather stick men behind the ball and would hope to score from set pieces/balls played over the top.

It's fine in certain situations but trouble is we get back up to the prem and people will be looking at teams like Spurs and wanting us to play in a similar manner and SB obviously wouldn't be the man for that.

[VillaChris]

If we went up I'd like us to go for someone like Eddie Howe.

He has a clear style of play. High tempo, pressing etc, it's a clear identity of Bournemouth and half their team were playing in league one for them so he's got a bunch of players to invest in his ideas and then added in better quality around them year on year.

[briny_ear]

4 hours ago, Dave J said:

I don’t think RDM was clueless and feel we would now be in a better position if he had stayed - Garde was shafted and I have no clue if he is any good or not- as for Lambert well quite frankly he punched above his weight given what he had to work with and you have to look back and applaud how he kept us in the prem for so long.

Given the the choice I would take RDM and Lambert over Bruce.

Seriously, this is the one killer thing that discredits a lot of the anti-Bruce propaganda on here for me. The idea that RDM would have done a better job than Bruce is ludicrous, it's based on nothing. The evidence we do have is that he wasted an awful lot of Xia's money, bought almost an entire team, a lot of whom have had to be replaced. He then stood like a rabbit in the headlights while the team (NB forgot to buy a midfield) slopped around and achieved one win from 11 games. Oh yes, that was top 2 performance of a sort that Steve Bruce can only dream of!

IIRC, Xia himself referred to getting a manager who had some fight about him and some clue how to make things better.

The fact that so many of the anti-Brucers are pro-RDM says a lot.