Steve Bruce

[TRO]

1 minute ago, KSV said:

100%. They were soooo poor. One of the worst ive seen this season. Barely wanted to take it to us.. even before the sending off. They just came and rolled over for us. No fight at all. 

You observationist you

spot on.

[terrytini]

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

Do you not think that these times you mention about us being negative is a direct result of the opposition closing us down and winning the duels.....that didn't happen to us last night.

Do you not think, we want to play like we did last night in every game......

I think the clue to that is in the selection. 

I could go right back to Ipswich at home last season and give you factual example after example where the Manager, rather than the opposition, has put us on the back foot.

Mercifully there have also been a good few in the last few months when he’s done the opposite.

Tgat doesn’t mean every single defeat is due to that, anymore than every win is down  to him, but it’s a big part of the picture.

And you say judge them over a season.. I agree but a season is 46 different games.

Like all Managers he gets some right, which deserve praise, and some wrong, which deserve criticism.

I don’t think it’s a hanging offence to make selection errors but I do think it’s a realistic explanation for s large part of our poor games.

 

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I think the clue to that is in the selection. 

I could go right back to Ipswich at home last season and give you factual example after example where the Manager, rather than the opposition, has put us on the back foot.

Mercifully there have also been a good few in the last few months when he’s done the opposite.

Tgat doesn’t mean every single defeat is due to that, anymore than every win is down  to him, but it’s a big part of the picture.

And you say judge them over a season.. I agree but a season is 46 different games.

Like all Managers he gets some right, which deserve praise, and some wrong, which deserve criticism.

I don’t think it’s a hanging offence to make selection errors but I do think it’s a realistic explanation for s large part of our poor games.

 

Terry.....I am not saying your points are irrelevant of course they have merit.....and so do formations in general.

I just look at the oppostion too and see what they do.....and I think they play a significant part.

eg

If was a wolves fan coming to Villa park for their recent game, I would be thinking....if they let us play and stand off us, we will win like we did at home, when we should have beat them by more ( thats me with my wolves hat on)

(Now back as a villa fan) but we didn't let them play and we imposed ourselves on them( yes the formation/ set up was right, because we won, but there was other stuff too) when the right to play football battle was won, we turned it on.

 

 

 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Do you not think that these times you mention about us being negative is a direct result of the opposition closing us down and winning the duels.....that didn't happen to us last night.

Do you not think, we want to play like we did last night in every game......but other teams don't let you.....they compete.

Reading really didn't compete last night.....hardly surprising with one of our cast offs in the middle.

I wouldnt say that is all true, wolves tried to not let us play and we thumped them 4-1. at their place we setup for a point and were woeful and lost. i dont think bruce likes risk alot and sometimes when he thinks we wont match a team he tends to play defensive and catch them on a counter attack 

reading were poor, but other teams like bolton we were just poor tootless and had no idea 

[Zatman]

I think we are a better footballing team with Birkir and Hourihane in midfield and look more comfortable in possession. Not to say not a role for Whelan and Jedinak to play come end of season but need to be benched for the easier games

[TRO]

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I wouldnt say that is all true, wolves tried to not let us play and we thumped them 4-1. at their place we setup for a point and were woeful and lost. i dont think bruce likes risk alot and sometimes when he thinks we wont match a team he tends to play defensive and catch them on a counter attack 

reading were poor, but other teams like bolton we were just poor tootless and had no idea 

Wolves tried, but failed, because we was up for it.

But Blues beat Bolton, because they competed physically not because they are better than us technically.....My point is in this league there are many games where you have to be up for it, physically.....Its nice and pleasant to let the ball do the work, but some teams stop you, if you let them.

I can't argue with your point about Bruce not liking risk or that he sets up cautiously.....but he also sets up to suit the players he has.

I for one think the 2 center halves sit too deep, but I know why, because they lack pace to recover......there was an instance of that last night, when they did come forward and a last ditch tackle from Terry to save Chesters bacon from their breakaway.

[TRO]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

I think we are a better footballing team with Birkir and Hourihane in midfield and look more comfortable in possession. Not to say not a role for Whelan and Jedinak to play come end of season but need to be benched for the easier games

I agree.

but their maybe games when both our opinions change, especially if we are being overrun.

unfortunately, we haven't got players who can do it all.....you change them to gain something and you lose somethings else.....thats the tricky bit.

[srsmithusa]

I know that we all know more and think more than we can put in a single (readable) post... but I think sometimes we focus too much on the right player selection OR the right formation OR whatever.  The problem is, football is rarely that simple.  It’s always AND not OR.  I like to think of it as alignment. The opponents strengths and weaknesses AND our strengths and weakness factor into a strategy AND that directs the formation AND player selection AND instructions they are given about where and when to close down which opposition players.  AND ensuring that the players selected are physically, mentally and psychologically prepared to execute that role.  

It’s all about the whole aligned picture and that’s the manager’s job.  That’s why the manager is always responsible for the outcome. Credit Bruce for Reading.  But don’t excuse Bruce for the previous three.   

Edited April 5, 2018 by srsmithusa
Better wording

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, srsmithusa said:

I know that we all know more and think more than we can put in a single (readable) post... but I think sometimes we focus too much on the right player selection OR the right formation OR whatever.  The problem is, football is rarely that simple.  It’s always AND not OR.  I like to think of it as alignment. The opponents strengths and weaknesses AND our strengths and weakness factor into a strategy AND that directs the formation AND player selection AND instructions they are given about where and when to close down which opposition players.  AND ensuring that the players selected are physically, mentally and psychologically prepared to execute that role.  

It’s all about the whole aligned picture and that’s the manager’s job.  That’s why the manager is always responsible for the outcome. Credit Bruce for Reading.  But don’t excuse Bruce for the previous three.   

Absolutely spot on.

[blandy]

Bruce picked the right line up and got them to play on the front foot against a demotivated, inept Reading side and we won easily and played well.  That’s pretty much it, isn’t it. Repeat the part we can control next game - the intent, effort, attacking mindset and selection and essentially challenge Norwich to be better than us.

[Dr_Pangloss]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

Bruce picked the right line up and got them to play on the front foot against a demotivated, inept Reading side and we won easily and played well.  That’s pretty much it, isn’t it. Repeat the part we can control next game - the intent, effort, attacking mindset and selection and essentially challenge Norwich to be better than us.

Helps that they were down to 10 men early.

[AntrimBlack]

25 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Helps that they were down to 10 men early.

I am big on positivity. If you go out there with a positive mindset, things, I believe, will fall for you. Even sending offs, penalties. The rub of the green.

Someone said, correctly, I think, ``The harder I work, the luckier I get''.

If Bruce was a different type of guy, with a more confident attitude, I believe we would have been competing with Wolves this season.

 

[TRO]

19 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I know that we all know more and think more than we can put in a single (readable) post... but I think sometimes we focus too much on the right player selection OR the right formation OR whatever.  The problem is, football is rarely that simple.  It’s always AND not OR.  I like to think of it as alignment. The opponents strengths and weaknesses AND our strengths and weakness factor into a strategy AND that directs the formation AND player selection AND instructions they are given about where and when to close down which opposition players.  AND ensuring that the players selected are physically, mentally and psychologically prepared to execute that role.  

It’s all about the whole aligned picture and that’s the manager’s job.  That’s why the manager is always responsible for the outcome. Credit Bruce for Reading.  But don’t excuse Bruce for the previous three.   

He is always responsible, thats his job.....but in there somewhere there seems an inference that you are ready to pounce.....Now I could be barking up the wrong tree and that its all in MY mind....if so accept my apologies.

and just like no one directly blames Pepe for the 3-0 defeat to Liverpool......Pepe says concentration was lacking and it gets accepted, but yes, he is responsible.....why am  I giving him as an example? because he is probably THE best around.

Steve Bruce like any manager is responsible 24/7.....but things can go on in a game that he has little control over.....They are Human, not machines.

I have never had any problem criticising our manager as long as it is fair.

but let me say, i see Blame and responsible as slightly different, I blame the players, but the manager is responsible.

e. g Barry, Myhill, Evans, Livermore were to blame for the taxi hoist, but Pardew was responsible.

It seems to me you see things that he gets the selection right when we win and wrong when we lose.....While I am not arguing that, that has some merit....It seems to negate the notion that the opposition have a say in the game.....We could in theory get the preparation right, the selection right and the tactics right.....but the other team play better than us......What has the manager done wrong in that scenario, nothing......but forgive me if I am wrong, but I can't remember that line being rolled out.

I don't seem to get your logic.....I see a managers appraisal over a much longer period of time, not game to game.

Edited April 6, 2018 by TRO

[TRO]

7 hours ago, AntrimBlack said:

I am big on positivity. If you go out there with a positive mindset, things, I believe, will fall for you. Even sending offs, penalties. The rub of the green.

Someone said, correctly, I think, ``The harder I work, the luckier I get''.

If Bruce was a different type of guy, with a more confident attitude, I believe we would have been competing with Wolves this season.

 

It was " Gary Player"......and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

but as you may glean from my posts, I disagree with the last line.

I think he has a confident attitude, I think Tony Pulis and Sam Allardyce have confident attitudes too......but they all have a way of playing, which could be deemed as cautious.

Andy Gray was a massively confident person.....but it was intrinsic, nothing to do with the managers he played for.....Trevor Francis was the same, He had the mind set from within.

When managers have unlimited funds like the top managers they target these type of players......The hard work is with the ones with the more fragile belief in themselves.

[sheepyvillian]

6 minutes ago, TRO said:

It was " Gary Player"......and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

but as you may glean from my posts, I disagree with the last line.

I think he has a confident attitude, I think Tony Pulis and Sam Allardyce have confident attitudes too......but they all have a way of playing, which could be deemed as cautious.

Andy Gray was a massively confident person.....but it was intrinsic, nothing to do with the managers he played for.....Trevor Francis was the same, He had the mind set from within.

When managers have unlimited funds like the top managers they target these type of players......The hard work is with the ones with the more fragile belief in themselves.

Confident and cautious, almost sounds like a contradiction in terms. 

I'm hopeful from here on in, the team Will go out with nothing but confidence in the belief that automatic promotion is still within our grasp, because, trust me, that is the only way will achieve that goal.

As someone pointed out recently, when we play without caution we are fine. All the experienced players throughout our side, there can be no excuses should we somehow  crumble along the way.

 

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Confident and cautious, almost sounds like a contradiction in terms. 

I'm hopeful from here on in, the team Will go out with nothing but confidence in the belief that automatic promotion is still within our grasp, because, trust me, that is the only way will achieve that goal.

As someone pointed out recently, when we play without caution we are fine. All the experienced players throughout our side, there can be no excuses should we somehow  crumble along the way.

 

It could be, if it was deemed as cautious in every minute of every game......I don't believe that to be so.

I accept he maybe cautious when you don't want to be....but there is only one manager Sheepy.

I have issues with no man upfront when we are defending corners, but hey ho....its his job on the line.

[sheepyvillian]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

It could be, if it was deemed as cautious in every minute of every game......I don't believe that to be so.

I accept he maybe cautious when you don't want to be....but there is only one manager Sheepy.

I have issues with no man upfront when we are defending corners, but hey ho....its his job on the line.

Yes, it is his job on the line,all the more reason to throw caution to the wind and go for the only thing that matters, otherwise he may not have a job.

[srsmithusa]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

He is always responsible, thats his job.....but in there somewhere there seems an inference that you are ready to pounce.....Now I could be barking up the wrong tree and that its all in MY mind....if so accept my apologies.

and just like no one directly blames Pepe for the 3-0 defeat to Liverpool......Pepe says concentration was lacking and it gets accepted, but yes, he is responsible.....why am  I giving him as an example? because he is probably THE best around.

Steve Bruce like any manager is responsible 24/7.....but things can go on in a game that he has little control over.....They are Human, not machines.

I have never had any problem criticising our manager as long as it is fair.

but let me say, i see Blame and responsible as slightly different, I blame the players, but the manager is responsible.

e. g Barry, Myhill, Evans, Livermore were to blame for the taxi hoist, but Pardew was responsible.

It seems to me you see things that he gets the selection right when we win and wrong when we lose.....While I am not arguing that, that has some merit....It seems to negate the notion that the opposition have a say in the game.....We could in theory get the preparation right, the selection right and the tactics right.....but the other team play better than us......What has the manager done wrong in that scenario, nothing......but forgive me if I am wrong, but I can't remember that line being rolled out.

I don't seem to get your logic.....I see a managers appraisal over a much longer period of time, not game to game.

several responses.

1. as prone as you are to see me as overly engaged or predictably in blame of Bruce, I see you as overly engaged or predictably coming to his defense.

2. Pep? Really?  I don't see Pep putting out an aligned match plan (strategy based on opponents and your strengths and weaknesses, aligned with formation, aligned with player selection, aligned with player instructions, aligned with assuring players are mentally, physically and psychologically prepared to fill that role.  OF COURSE, he's got better players.  I would argue that's because he has done those things right SO CONSISTENTLY, that he is one of the best, so he gets the clubs and the backing to get those players.  Bruce? signs old players in a championship team.  That's not a fluke.  It's because he doesn't and has never gotten all those variables right as consistently as Pep .  Few have TBF

3. I said the exact opposite of "if he gets the selection right when we win and wrong when we lose.  I said it's much bigger and more complex than that.  The selection must match the strategy, (Bruce IMO often misses on the ALIGNMENT between those)  Those 2 must align with formation.   Those thee must also align with instructions.  Those 4 must also align with the players preparation.  Bruce, IMO gets the ALIGNMENT wrong.  He gets 2 of them or even 3 of them, but then misses badly with one of the others.  There's not a one for one, but if that manager gets all of those factors ALIGNED well, the club wins much more regularly and loses less frequently.  Performances don't fluctuate between dominating and embarrassing if a manager creates an alignment of all those factories.

4. It feels a little patronizing  (and more than a little inaccurate) to say that I judge over one match.  I judge over a longer period of time.  The wild fluctuations from match to match are an indication that there is not a coherent alignment of the multiple and varied components of match performance, over ALL of which the manager is responsible.  He deserves credit when they work.  He deserves blame when they don't.  So, match by match is certainly an indicator, but it is the sum of much more than did we win? 

5. Finally, IMO, the manager is accountable when there are too many poor performances  (PEP hasn't have many at all) the manager is also responsible when those multiple variables don't align consistently.  That is often evident in poor or inconsistent performances.  Inconsistent performances are often because the manager has a real weakness in one or more of the areas that must all be aligned for a team to perform well.

6. Just to make you happy, against Reading (and multiple other times) it looked like Bruce got all those variables in alignment.  Hurrah!

[TRO]

3 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

several responses.

1. as prone as you are to see me as overly engaged or predictably in blame of Bruce, I see you as overly engaged or predictably coming to his defense.

2. Pep? Really?  I don't see Pep putting out an aligned match plan (strategy based on opponents and your strengths and weaknesses, aligned with formation, aligned with player selection, aligned with player instructions, aligned with assuring players are mentally, physically and psychologically prepared to fill that role.  OF COURSE, he's got better players.  I would argue that's because he has done those things right SO CONSISTENTLY, that he is one of the best, so he gets the clubs and the backing to get those players.  Bruce? signs old players in a championship team.  That's not a fluke.  It's because he doesn't and has never gotten all those variables right as consistently as Pep .  Few have TBF

3. I said the exact opposite of "if he gets the selection right when we win and wrong when we lose.  I said it's much bigger and more complex than that.  The selection must match the strategy, (Bruce IMO often misses on the ALIGNMENT between those)  Those 2 must align with formation.   Those thee must also align with instructions.  Those 4 must also align with the players preparation.  Bruce, IMO gets the ALIGNMENT wrong.  He gets 2 of them or even 3 of them, but then misses badly with one of the others.  There's not a one for one, but if that manager gets all of those factors ALIGNED well, the club wins much more regularly and loses less frequently.  Performances don't fluctuate between dominating and embarrassing if a manager creates an alignment of all those factories.

4. It feels a little patronizing  (and more than a little inaccurate) to say that I judge over one match.  I judge over a longer period of time.  The wild fluctuations from match to match are an indication that there is not a coherent alignment of the multiple and varied components of match performance, over ALL of which the manager is responsible.  He deserves credit when they work.  He deserves blame when they don't.  So, match by match is certainly an indicator, but it is the sum of much more than did we win? 

5. Finally, IMO, the manager is accountable when there are too many poor performances  (PEP hasn't have many at all) the manager is also responsible when those multiple variables don't align consistently.  That is often evident in poor or inconsistent performances.  Inconsistent performances are often because the manager has a real weakness in one or more of the areas that must all be aligned for a team to perform well.

6. Just to make you happy, against Reading (and multiple other times) it looked like Bruce got all those variables in alignment.  Hurrah!

wow....If I have my alignment right, I disagree.....but then I have no idea what I am disagreeing with.

I always thought football was not rocket science....11 players not much to over analyse.....you have proved me wrong on that.

just as a matter of interest, do you live near Cape Canaveral?

PS I was not comparing him with Pepe, just comparing that when Pepe looses emphatically ( that raises emotions), they don't blame him.....don't confuse the context.

pps so if I have read this correctly (and I doubt it very much) Managers with inferior players and who indulge in loosing quite a bit have a bucket load of alignment issues?

Edited April 6, 2018 by TRO

[romavillan]

Dear Steve,

Please don't **** it up tomorrow by playing Jedi instead of Thor in front of the back four, and don't drum it into the players to be cautious, we have to start like Liverpool came out of the blocks the other night and rip Norwich a new one before half time.

Love, 

Villa.