Steve Bruce

[Grasshopper]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

If we keep him and the results are crap, we should sack him. That seems a sensible and logical process and conclusion.

At the moment, the results aren't crap, we're sixth - the results are okay, they're not wildly brilliant but they aren't bad either. It's not a matter of the results "staying" crap, they'd have to change - so, for now, I say we keep him and in answer to your question, if things change then we should rethink that decision based on that change.

For me, the results aren't the major reason to criticise Bruce - the football is the concern.

 

 

The results are a direct consequence of the football.

is the football getting better?

is the football getting worse?

But the real point is if the football doesnt get us results v top 6 teams, whats the point of trying to beat them in a playoffs situ even if the football only gets you pts enough for playoffs.

It becomes the equiv of buying a lottery ticket.

why not quit with the shit now. when apparently we‘re good enough for the playoffs anyways, then we can try winning the playoffs with a different method of play.

A different method is with a.n.other, not Bruce cos he cant change, wont change.

When all is said and done a new manager is needed anyway

so why not now?

Edited December 26, 2017 by Grasshopper

[Grasshopper]

.......They reply with a question

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

What argument? 

 

Brilliant!

 

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

If we keep him and the results are crap, we should sack him. That seems a sensible and logical process and conclusion.

At the moment, the results aren't crap, we're sixth - the results are okay, they're not wildly brilliant but they aren't bad either. It's not a matter of the results "staying" crap, they'd have to change - so, for now, I say we keep him and in answer to your question, if things change then we should rethink that decision based on that change.

For me, the results aren't the major reason to criticise Bruce - the football is the concern.

 

 

The results could, and should ,be better imo ,but your right about the football ,that is certainly crap . How can anyone be okay about that ,regardless of results  ?

[Grasshopper]

We give up a 2-0 lead

VT goes a bit „Bruce ay gorit azeey?“

day later

iternal hope returns because all fears will go when Brucain triumphs v Brentford

Yes we have stooped to the depths that beating BRENTFORD is a navigational sign to the PL.

So what is when we lose? draw even?

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

.......They reply with a question

 

Brilliant!

 

 

18 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

 

is the football getting better?

is the football getting worse?

why not quit with the shit now. when apparently we‘re good enough for the playoffs anyways, then we can try winning the playoffs with a different method of play.

 

so why not now?

 

That's you replying to a post with questions on this very page.

But well done on avoiding the question again.

 

 

I'll try one more time. I made a point originally. You replied. I asked you what you meant by your reply and you launched into this weird rant about me replying with questions, but failing to actually answer me.

If you fancy answering my original question then maybe we can have a discussion about what you meant.

[srsmithusa]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

If we keep him and the results are crap, we should sack him. That seems a sensible and logical process and conclusion.

At the moment, the results aren't crap, we're sixth - the results are okay, they're not wildly brilliant but they aren't bad either. It's not a matter of the results "staying" crap, they'd have to change - so, for now, I say we keep him and in answer to your question, if things change then we should rethink that decision based on that change.

For me, the results aren't the major reason to criticise Bruce - the football is the concern.

 

 

First, thanks for ignoring my multi post.  Damned phone.   And I actually would have agreed at one point.  But, while there are rare exceptions, generally short lived, it’s clear that good play CAUSES good results.  Good results do not cause good play, and falter when the luck does. (Like injuries, and individual player errors, and stuff like that) 

think about it.  Which causes the other?  (Good play vs. results). If you’re building for a future, where would you put the priority?   Only one of the options really makes sense (IMO of course).   Building wins isn’t really a plan, it’s a beguiling consolation.  

Edited December 26, 2017 by srsmithusa

[OutByEaster?]

6 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

First, thanks for ignoring my multi post.  Damned phone.   And I actually would have agreed at one point.  But, while there are rare exceptions, generally short lived, it’s clear that good play CAUSES good results.  Good results do not cause good play, and falter when the luck does. (Like injuries, and individual player errors, and stuff like that) 

think about it.  Which causes the other?  (Good play vs. results). If you’re building for a future, where would you put the priority?   Only one of the options really makes sense (IMO of course).   Building wins isn’t really a plan, it’s a beguiling consolation.  

I'd agree with that pretty much whole heartedly - the thing is, we as a club have made a conscious and deliberate decision not to build for the future - we've instead gone for a pragmatic attempt to get promoted this season - the plan, successful or not, ends in May. 

At the end of the year there will be no more Samba, no more Hutton, no more Terry, no more Jedinak, no more Whelan, no more Snodgrass, no more Johnson, no more Onomah - and most likely no more Bruce. We've sacrificed the more ambitious, longer term club building goals for a pragmatic attempt to go up in this term - somebody at the club believes that there is sufficient evidence that the style of play we're employing is robust enough to survive through the playoffs, Bruce's history indicates that's possible. In the long term and the medium term, that plan isn't going to help us at all, it's strictly 2017-18 and I think this is reflected in our one-season-squad. 

I haven't agreed with that policy and I don't agree with that policy - in terms of where we are though, we're on the ride and I don't think we can get off until the end, hopefully that's in the playoffs and hopefully it's good enough to get us through them. I'm not sure it will, but all we can really do is hold on tight and hope for the best.

I think Bruce is a manager to get us through the club's first plan, I think a good chunk of our squad is here on that basis too and I think that plan ends one way or the other at the end of this season. I hope to see Bruce stride off into the sunset as the heroic figure that got us promoted, but one way or the other I think he'll be here until then.

(Also, and I know it's a completely different scenario, but Tony Pulis would like to talk to you about this 'good play causes good results' thing).

 

[striker]

Really looking at Villa over a number of years it been the wrong managers employed buying the wrong players using the wrong systems with not enough investment at the right times.

[Guest av1]

11 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

 

For me, the results aren't the major reason to criticise Bruce - the football is the concern.

 

 

Agreed, sort of. The trouble with playing crap football is that results take on even more importance (if thats possible).

If we were top 2 and playing rubbish i think most people would execpt that, at least in the short term. But like Pullis at WBA, when the football is crap and the results start to fall away questions will inevitably be asked as to what the point is. 

[sheepyvillian]

7 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

First, thanks for ignoring my multi post.  Damned phone.   And I actually would have agreed at one point.  But, while there are rare exceptions, generally short lived, it’s clear that good play CAUSES good results.  Good results do not cause good play, and falter when the luck does. (Like injuries, and individual player errors, and stuff like that) 

think about it.  Which causes the other?  (Good play vs. results). If you’re building for a future, where would you put the priority?   Only one of the options really makes sense (IMO of course).   Building wins isn’t really a plan, it’s a beguiling consolation.  

On point . " A beguiling consolation " . I knew it was something like that .

[TRO]

20 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

What if we keep him and the result stays crap?  What then?

We can only sack him once not 4 times

Of course he will have to go.

[markavfc40]

I think Bruce is sailing very close to the wind in terms of his job. We are on a 4 game run with out a win and are just about in a play off place which at the half way stage I'd imagine would be the minimum expectation of the owner.

If we were to fail to win either of the next two then we are likely to find ourselves in around 10th place with a tough home game against Bristol to come and it could then be very hostile if things don't go well.

We have seen in the last couple of days two clubs who expected better in Sheff Wednesday and Boro both sacking pretty highly regarded managers with half a season to go and a transfer window on the horizon. If we fail to pick up at least 4 points from the next three games I would not be at all surprised to see us make a change.

Edited December 26, 2017 by markavfc40

[TRO]

18 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

Which part of „BL as temporary boss till DrT appoints a new manager“

Even a 20year out of date BL is more tuned in to some sort of football style than a useless Brucasaurus

even ‚arry would get more out of us v Brentford & BristolC than Bruce ffs

or do you want to see Jedi at CB again? more RB‘s than strikers

FFS Bruce cant even „tactic“ a way through a home game with a 2 goal lead after 10mins

Get rid now

ANYBODY in

Even tro

Don't bring me in to it.....I'm his mom......err Dad.

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I think Bruce is sailing very close to the wind in terms of his job. We are on 4 game run with out a win and are just about in a play off place which at the half way stage I'd imagine would be the minimum expectation of the owner.

If we were to fail to win either of the next two then we are likely to find ourselves in around 10th place with a tough home game against Bristol to come and it could then be very hostile if things don't go well.

We have seen in the last couple of days two clubs who expected better in Sheff Wednesday and Boro both sacking pretty highly regarded managers with half a season to go and a transfer window on the horizon. If we fail to pick up at least 4 points from the next three games I would not be at all surprised to see us make a change.

Totally Agree.

[TRO]

The likes of Steve Bruce ,Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce are good managers at what they do arrest a slide, instill resilience, shut up shop,park the bus.

When it comes to promotion or winning titles ( and I am well aware of Steve's 4 successes) its unlikely their style will suffice.

I think we needed Steve Bruce when we did, but I am unsure he will be able to deliver what we are looking for. I don't want to be overly critical, because i think he has done a job that needed doing.

but I think, it might be as far a he can take us.

I see stuff(flaws) I have been watching for months now, no improvement, not sure what they are doing at BMH.

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, av1 said:

Agreed, sort of. The trouble with playing crap football is that results take on even more importance (if thats possible).

If we were top 2 and playing rubbish i think most people would execpt that, at least in the short term. But like Pullis at WBA, when the football is crap and the results start to fall away questions will inevitably be asked as to what the point is. 

If the football is pretty, and results start to fall away, questions will inevitably be asked.

Results are all that matter; entertaining football is a nice bonus, but it's never kept anyone in a job.

[TRO]

37 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

If the football is pretty, and results start to fall away, questions will inevitably be asked.

Results are all that matter; entertaining football is a nice bonus, but it's never kept anyone in a job.

I think its more effective offensive football folk are alluding to ...not JUST entertaining.....albeit one creates the other.

If you watch Man City or the likes or Chelsea and Man U in their pomp...............There is an element of defensive play in their offensive play, I know it sounds paradoxical, but Ball retention alone can be deemed as good defensive work.....They pass and move and deny the opposition the ball.....what can be a better form of defence......Despite our obsession with it, we are not very good at it, because we don't defend in the right way. How often do we intercept a pass and launch an attack, how often do we win the ball cleanly and do the same, how often do we win a one on one challenge and dominate the opponent....we are scruffy, hesitant and indecisive.

Its not all the Gungo Ho stuff that is the answer either......its a measured approach to offence that brings an element of defence with it.....but you have to have players who are at ease with the ball.

Just like watching the old Brazil teams, we all seen the improvisation, the flicks and reverse passes.....but lets be fair, now.....WHO seen the work rate, these guys were like Trojans, never stopped beavering away and OFF the ball as well as on it, never stopped moving.....ours make a run and then want to have a rest and admire it.

Edited December 26, 2017 by TRO

[srsmithusa]

4 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

On point . " A beguiling consolation " . I knew it was something like that .

Kind of like romantically nourished and shit on at the same time.  

 

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd agree with that pretty much whole heartedly - the thing is, we as a club have made a conscious and deliberate decision not to build for the future - we've instead gone for a pragmatic attempt to get promoted this season - the plan, successful or not, ends in May. 

At the end of the year there will be no more Samba, no more Hutton, no more Terry, no more Jedinak, no more Whelan, no more Snodgrass, no more Johnson, no more Onomah - and most likely no more Bruce. We've sacrificed the more ambitious, longer term club building goals for a pragmatic attempt to go up in this term - somebody at the club believes that there is sufficient evidence that the style of play we're employing is robust enough to survive through the playoffs, Bruce's history indicates that's possible. In the long term and the medium term, that plan isn't going to help us at all, it's strictly 2017-18 and I think this is reflected in our one-season-squad. 

I haven't agreed with that policy and I don't agree with that policy - in terms of where we are though, we're on the ride and I don't think we can get off until the end, hopefully that's in the playoffs and hopefully it's good enough to get us through them. I'm not sure it will, but all we can really do is hold on tight and hope for the best.

I think Bruce is a manager to get us through the club's first plan, I think a good chunk of our squad is here on that basis too and I think that plan ends one way or the other at the end of this season. I hope to see Bruce stride off into the sunset as the heroic figure that got us promoted, but one way or the other I think he'll be here until then.

(Also, and I know it's a completely different scenario, but Tony Pulis would like to talk to you about this 'good play causes good results' thing).

 

Incredibly well reasoned and presented.  Take a bow.

but my what a dark future lives in your mind, cause this plan doesn’t look like succeeding.

One thing about bad plans, there comes a point that you change them.  Hopefully that point is before you are completely derailed.  

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by srsmithusa

[Tomaszk]

54 minutes ago, TRO said:

The likes of Steve Bruce ,Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce are good managers at what they do arrest a slide, instill resilience, shut up shop,park the bus.

They are both well ahead of Bruce.

Sam is far superior in every way.

Pulis at least has a specific way of playing that he will try to implement. He's been very good at it.

Bruce is more comparable to an Alan Curbishly who the game has moved on from. I wouldn't want Curbs here.

[AvfcRigo82]

Guess the result don't matter today.

Wether we Win, lose or draw, Bruce is safe and still on course to reach play offs anyway so pointless even giving a shit any more.

I hope we get 3 points either way for the sake of Villa, not the pr!ck in charge.