Steve Bruce

[TRO]

37 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

But what if he was?  Exciting new project, massive financial backing and made one of the highest paid managers in the league. You interested? 

Why cant we have both Grealish and Messi in the team? 

Too much of a ego clash.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

46 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

This. He has found players like Zaki, Gyan, those Hondoruns, Hernandez, Valencia. 

He has a good scouting worldwide network and knows value for for money it seems. He does not just go for over paid British players. (Ahem MON).  I'm not concerned he will flop in the transfer market so even if he did eventually get sacked, hopefully he leaves the next manager with a good team. 

Fair enough.

Perhaps one area of thought is, not being able to keep these players at the "lesser clubs" to which he was employed played a part in the downfall, as well as lack of continuity?

Maybe being able to keep them at a relatively larger club  like ours(Able to offer bigger wages) and ambitious project could be the tonic he needs.

Hoping.

[AvfcRigo82]

4 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

They're all shit now, Dave.

Blues (10th) had their second best placed PL finish under Bruce, with Mikael Forssell, who he signed, being their top scorer.

Wigan (11th) had their second best placed PL finish under Bruce, with Amr Zaki, who he signed, being their top scorer.

Hull (16th) had their best placed PL finish while Bruce was manager.  They also reached the FA Cup Final for the first time.

Sunderland (10th) had their 3rd best placed PL finish under Bruce, with Asamoah Gyan, who he signed, ending as their top scorer.

They're all properly shit (again) now though.

Steve Bruce is the new Martin O'Neill  

[Dave J]

9 hours ago, vreitti said:

This game can be played in more than one way... looking at the state of those clubs now, if that's the sign of Bruce's legacy...

 

 

 

I say give him a 20 year contract immediately! 

On a more serious note, should we get promoted, and someone better is available, we absolutely need to change manager. We all know Bruce's ceiling, cus we're there or thereabouts now, imho.

Don't get me wrong, Bruce is doing well at the moment, but still it took him ages to get going, all things considered, and we're by no means in the clear yet. All it takes is a couple of losses on the trot, and we can kiss goodbye to automatic promotion.

 

Excellent post 

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

If we get promoted and say we did part ways with Bruce..

We would be back in the Prem, a new team needing built (needed anyway regardless who's manager), an ambitious owner, projects in the pipeline combined with some great young talent already at the club - Based on this I am sure we would now be able to attract some of the big names in the managerial world a lot easier than ever before.

Last time in the Premier League we where rotten under the old regime and by the end we would have been lucky to have attracted Ron Bassett!

When we return (in 4 months ideally) we will be under our new owner who will already have been with us for two years and we will be seen in a whole new light than before.

Tony does not come across as a chairman who will splash the cash and then be content with the aim of seeing if we can avoid relegation in our first season back.

 

This scenario sounds very Di Matteo like. I would like to give Bruce at least the first couple of months to see how we get on  I do think we go up sack bruce before a ball has been kicked will damage morale, make terry less likely to stay and make us a laughing stock.

next season the target if we go up will be to stay up, i think bruce could achieve this he would deserve the chance if he takes us up 

[Stevo985]

It kind of annoys me that managers still get all the credit and all the blame for transfers.

Obviously they are involved, but I imagine Bruce's transfers at Sunderland weren't that great because Sunderland are a circus and have been for years. Their transfer record has been shit forever. So the people who work on transfers over the years at that club have been poor.

Similarly, Bruce's transfers at Wigan were good because, presumably, Wigan had a good team in place working on transfers. Do you think Bruce went to Honduras scouting players? Seeing as people like Martinez came in after Bruce and carried on making decent signings is testament to this.

 

Gone are the days of managers being solely responsible for all that stuff. Managers are of course part of the process and deserve SOME blame/credit for transfers, but to me it's more about how they use their signings rather than the signings themselves.

Deciding how good Bruce is or isn't depending on the players he has signed is pointless, imo. It's so dependent on the people he's working with at the time.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Stevo985

[alreadyexists]

They are the disposable man unfortunately. Can’t easily sack players, or even the Board since the board would have to sack themselves... so the manager is usually the fall guy. It is an odd state of affairs, but until player contracts become more sensible and allow for termination by either party in extreme circumstances, then I think it’s here to stay. 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It kind of annoys me that managers still get all the credit and all the blame for transfers.

Obviously they are involved, but I imagine Bruce's transfers at Sunderland weren't that great because Sunderland are a circus and have been for years. Their transfer record has been shit forever. So the people who work on transfers over the years at that club have been poor.

Similarly, Bruce's transfers at Wigan were good because, presumably, Wigan had a good team in place working on transfers. Do you think Bruce went to Honduras scouting players? Seeing as people like Martinez came in after Bruce and carried on making decent signings is testament to this.

 

Gone are the days of managers being solely responsible for all that stuff. Managers are of course part of the process and deserve SOME blame/credit for transfers, but to me it's more about how they use their signings rather than the signings themselves.

Deciding how good Bruce is or isn't depending on the players he has signed is pointless, imo. It's so dependent on the people he's working with at the time.

Good post but I think Bruce's record on transfers is one of his plus points. From memory I don't believe his transfers at Sunderland were all that bad. 

I see Bruce as a good man manager. It does seem like he has a good relationship with his players. In terms of how his team play, I've already remembered Bruce's teams in the Premier League to be quite solid and hard to beat. Good at grinding out results. 

But again how much of this could have been down to the players he had to work with at the time or even his coaches such as Agnew?  

So many different factors must affect a managers success but overall the manager still becomes accountable for the performances and results. 

[AvfcRigo82]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

This scenario sounds very Di Matteo like. I would like to give Bruce at least the first couple of months to see how we get on  I do think we go up sack bruce before a ball has been kicked will damage morale, make terry less likely to stay and make us a laughing stock.

next season the target if we go up will be to stay up, i think bruce could achieve this he would deserve the chance if he takes us up 

It's not Di Matteo like though is it?

Give Bruce a few months.. after he has spent millions? Then what.. if it goes tits up, we are then stuck with shite he has signed. (Look @dont_do_it_doug. post a couple of pages back) Sunderland, Wigan, Hull all suffering after Bruce left - not cause of the managerial prowess of the guy, but the shit he leaves teams in when he leaves.

Who's morale will it damage? The first team? - half of them will be gone.

Terry for me won't cut it in the premier league at 37, sorry but he just won't, If you think he can then so will Hutton, Samba and Richards.

For me the Premier league has moved on rapidly since Bruce last managed there and if I was him I would take a leaf out of Neil Warnocks book. 

 

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

 Sunderland, Wigan, Hull all suffering after Bruce left - not cause of the managerial prowess of the guy, but the shit he leaves teams in when he leaves.

 

You've made a massive, massive leap here, and drawn a false conclusion imo.

Attributing those clubs' misfortunes to Steve Bruce is, at best, a huge stretch.

[sexbelowsound]

19 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

It's not Di Matteo like though is it?

Give Bruce a few months.. after he has spent millions? Then what.. if it goes tits up, we are then stuck with shite he has signed. (Look @dont_do_it_doug. post a couple of pages back) Sunderland, Wigan, Hull all suffering after Bruce left - not cause of the managerial prowess of the guy, but the shit he leaves teams in when he leaves.

Who's morale will it damage? The first team? - half of them will be gone.

Terry for me won't cut it in the premier league at 37, sorry but he just won't, If you think he can then so will Hutton, Samba and Richards.

For me the Premier league has moved on rapidly since Bruce last managed there and if I was him I would take a leaf out of Neil Warnocks book. 

 

Just so i'm clear on this. You are suggesting that If somebody believes that Terry will cut it in the Premier League then they must also believe that Hutton, Samba and Richards can? 

[alreadyexists]

From my point of view saying Hull, Sunderland and Blues are now struggling years after Bruce has gone isn’t really fair. Does he get the credit if they win? No. So why does he get blame when they do poorly.

It’s like saying Spurs are doing well because of Tim Sherwood.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

32 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

 

Give Bruce a few months.. after he has spent millions? Then what.. if it goes tits up, we are then stuck with shite he has signed. (Look @dont_do_it_doug. post a couple of pages back) Sunderland, Wigan, Hull all suffering after Bruce left - not cause of the managerial prowess of the guy, but the shit he leaves teams in when he leaves.

 

Way to twist what I said completely out of context. 

Those clubs aren't where they are now because of the players Bruce signed. If so, surely he has an FA Cup and a League Cup trophy to his name?

Edited February 6, 2018 by dont_do_it_doug.

[AvfcRigo82]

5 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

From my point of view saying Hull, Sunderland and Blues are now struggling years after Bruce has gone isn’t really fair. Does he get the credit if they win? No. So why does he get blame when they do poorly.

It’s like saying Spurs are doing well because of Tim Sherwood.

I would say immediately after he left.. where they are in 2018 is not soley down to Bruce years later no, but he obviously started the ball rolling.

Bit like how MON is referred to with us.

We never got relegated many years after MON left but many believe he started the rot. 

[AvfcRigo82]

1 minute ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Way to twist what I said completely out of context. 

Those clubs aren't where they are now because of the players Bruce signed. If so, surely he has an FA Cup and a League Cup trophy to his name?

Not twisted intentionally Doug.

Where are these clubs now Bruce used to manage? Why did they start to fall away after Bruce left?

[AvfcRigo82]

14 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said:

Just so i'm clear on this. You are suggesting that If somebody believes that Terry will cut it in the Premier League then they must also believe that Hutton, Samba and Richards can? 

Sorry, but there was no emoji for sarcasm.  

[alreadyexists]

38 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I would say immediately after he left.. where they are in 2018 is not soley down to Bruce years later no, but he obviously started the ball rolling.

Bit like how MON is referred to with us.

We never got relegated many years after MON left but many believe he started the rot. 

I don’t agree. All of those clubs over achieved under Bruce if anything. I can’t see the logic behind blaming him years on for them effectively returning to the status quo. 

I think it’s unfair to blame him for failure but not for any success. What about when Blues got promoted under Alex McLeish in 2009/10 (or was it 08/09?),  you could say that Bruce laid the ground work for that success years earlier. In my opinion to do so is overestimating one managers impact on an entire club and I don’t think he did have much of a hand in their promotion 2/3/4 years after he left, but to ascribe blame you must also award success in similar circumstances. Otherwise that is unfair surely?

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by alreadyexists

[holteend1982]

1 hour ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

(Look @dont_do_it_doug.ost a couple of pages back) Sunderland, Wigan, Hull all suffering after Bruce left - not cause of the managerial prowess of the guy, but the shit he leaves teams in when he leaves.

 

Martinez took over Wigan for a few seasons won the fa cup and got relegated. Sunderland got relegated 6 seasons after Bruce was sacked, they also haven' finished higher than they did when they had Bruce. Hull were in a terrible state when he got them up and they wouldn't back him so he walked. How you can blame Bruce is beyond me, majority of your posts are anti Bruce but these are getting rediculous now your literally just making stuff up. 

[AvfcRigo82]

4 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

I don’t agree. All of those clubs over achieved under Bruce if anything. I can’t see the logic behind blaming him years on for them effectively returning to the status quo. 

I think it’s unfair to blame him for failure but not for any success. What about when Blues got promoted under Alex McLeish in 2009/10 (or was it 08/09?),  you could say that Bruce laid the ground work for that success years earlier. In my opinion to do so is overestimating one managers impact on an entire club and I don’t think he did have much of a hand in their promotion 2/3/4 years after he left, but to ascribe blame you must also award success in similar circumstances. Otherwise that is unfair surely?

 

Don't get me wrong I agree with you that the job he did do at the teams while he was there was very good achievements and where he took them cannot be ignored etc. and not taking that away from him in any means.

 

[AvfcRigo82]

1 minute ago, holteend1982 said:

Martinez took over Wigan for a few seasons won the fa cup and got relegated. Sunderland got relegated 6 seasons after Bruce was sacked, they also haven' finished higher than they did when they had Bruce. Hull were in a terrible state when he got them up and they wouldn't back him so he walked. How you can blame Bruce is beyond me, majority of your posts are anti Bruce but these are getting rediculous now your literally just making stuff up. 

If anything it is a compliment to Bruce stating how the teams fell away after he left surely and shows a good job he done with them then? - At the same time I also feel he has a ceiling to where he can take teams.

Villa where relegated many seasons after MON left, yet why is it in some cases MON's fault that he is pin pointed as the one who left us in the shit and where our demise started.

The patterns to other teams after Bruce left seem a little similar.