Steve Bruce

[terrytini]

Or to put it another way.

Resukts SINCE the first three games ( which is of course selective, I don’t need that pointing out...but it’s not like I’ve said “ ignoring November to December or such like) would have

Cardiff on 71 Points with a goal difference of 22,

Fulham on 75 with a goal difference of 30,

and Us on 72 Points with a Goal Difference of 29.

I just don’t see how, rationally, anyone can think that puts a BIG difference between the sides.

[terrytini]

2 minutes ago, Dave J said:

It's a different point of view - if it goes against the point of view that you wish to make surely Terry? I would think many people not Villa fans alone would look to the difference in assembling the two squads ? 

I see where you are going - but not sure you can choose to ignore the financials of this ?

Yes I can ignore it because it’s totally different point to the one I’m making, just as mentioning injuries would be, or the amount of local derbies, or the volume of support at home or away ...

The only point I’m addressing is the one I’ve tried to spell out.....which is I hear people @TRO( sorry mate) mentions it regularly, say Warnock has given his side steel, or we don’t head the ball, or we lack the determination of his side, or the aggression......yet in terms of outcomes it’s much of a muchness.

The argument about what our spending should buy us is fine, but it’s a totally different point.

And I hesitated before Posting as I guessed this would happen !!

[Dave J]

33 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Yes I can ignore it because it’s totally different point to the one I’m making, just as mentioning injuries would be, or the amount of local derbies, or the volume of support at home or away ...

The only point I’m addressing is the one I’ve tried to spell out.....which is I hear people @TRO( sorry mate) mentions it regularly, say Warnock has given his side steel, or we don’t head the ball, or we lack the determination of his side, or the aggression......yet in terms of outcomes it’s much of a muchness.

The argument about what our spending should buy us is fine, but it’s a totally different point.

And I hesitated before Posting as I guessed this would happen !!

But Terry - whether you like it or not sooner or later finance does come onto the radar when debating the two teams - yes you can discuss the footballing merits until the cows come home but unfortunately money always finds it's way into the debate and will do so again if  Cardiff finish above us.

Thats just how it is I'm afraid 

[terrytini]

14 minutes ago, Dave J said:

But Terry - whether you like it or not sooner or later finance does come onto the radar when debating the two teams - yes you can discuss the footballing merits until the cows come home but unfortunately money always finds it's way into the debate and will do so again if  Cardiff finish above us.

Thats just how it is I'm afraid 

I don’t agree.

In as much as you are 100% correct money is part of the debate about these two or any other teams. But it is 100% beside the point entirely to my Post.

You can have any debate you want, we all can. You can use any line of logic you wish, we all can. That’s all fine. 

But if I want to make an observation about how crime is affected by the weather, it doesn’t mean I also - or even worse instead - have to make the point that crime is aff3cted by age, upbringing, law enforcement, politics, economics, and video games. And any observation I make about crime and the weather isn’t invalid because I don’t include those things.

So if I want to make the point that Points wise there is little difference between us and Cardiff and as such I find the views of some that Cardiff are better physically, mentally, aggression wise, or whatever, I can do so without reference to anything else.

If you can’t see that’s perfectly acceptable that’s fine. But it is.

To do otherwise creates entirely the rather tedious repetitive sloganeering that often passes for debate. 

“ We are close points wise so are they much better ?”

” But we’ve spent more”

” I think their Right Back is poor “

” But we’ve spent more”

” I think 80 Points is quite a lot of Points”

”So it shoukd be with what we’ve spent”

And so on. And that’s leaving aside whether or not I even think spending has much relevance ( I don’t as it happens...except at the highest levels).

I hope you see what I mean. I’m talking about specific criticisms and comparisons made between us and another team, and I’m suggesting that ( regardless of cause) they are overdone because in practice there is little difference.

[sheepyvillian]

TRO, from now on it's Alex.

[sheepyvillian]

55 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I don’t agree.

In as much as you are 100% correct money is part of the debate about these two or any other teams. But it is 100% beside the point entirely to my Post.

You can have any debate you want, we all can. You can use any line of logic you wish, we all can. That’s all fine. 

But if I want to make an observation about how crime is affected by the weather, it doesn’t mean I also - or even worse instead - have to make the point that crime is aff3cted by age, upbringing, law enforcement, politics, economics, and video games. And any observation I make about crime and the weather isn’t invalid because I don’t include those things.

So if I want to make the point that Points wise there is little difference between us and Cardiff and as such I find the views of some that Cardiff are better physically, mentally, aggression wise, or whatever, I can do so without reference to anything else.

If you can’t see that’s perfectly acceptable that’s fine. But it is.

To do otherwise creates entirely the rather tedious repetitive sloganeering that often passes for debate. 

“ We are close points wise so are they much better ?”

” But we’ve spent more”

” I think their Right Back is poor “

” But we’ve spent more”

” I think 80 Points is quite a lot of Points”

”So it shoukd be with what we’ve spent”

And so on. And that’s leaving aside whether or not I even think spending has much relevance ( I don’t as it happens...except at the highest levels).

I hope you see what I mean. I’m talking about specific criticisms and comparisons made between us and another team, and I’m suggesting that ( regardless of cause) they are overdone because in practice there is little difference.

Weather and crime ? I was always more averse to a bit of graft in the Summer. I would sweat profusely, leaving a trail of DNA in my wake. It's just not the same these days, the dice are well and loaded .

[villabromsgrove]

It's our 42nd league game tomorrow night. We still don't have a tried and tested positive system that can be used as a match winning formula, so we're having to make it up reactively once we get out there on the pitch and that should not be the case after 41 games. I haven't got a clue how we're going to get on tomorrow, neither I suspect has Steve Bruce.

That's why he's got to go, after the play offs at the end of the season whatever the outcome. He's not the man to take us forward.

[sheepyvillian]

1 hour ago, villabromsgrove said:

It's our 42nd league game tomorrow night. We still don't have a tried and tested positive system that can be used as a match winning formula, so we're having to make it up reactively once we get out there on the pitch and that should not be the case after 41 games. I haven't got a clue how we're going to get on tomorrow, neither I suspect has Steve Bruce.

That's why he's got to go, after the play offs at the end of the season whatever the outcome. He's not the man to take us forward.

Your right,  comrade. I mean it's not like we're blessed with players who can provide that little bit of spontaneity - Jack, maybe? - when needed. 

What a time for us to get infected with that losing bug. And I was assured by various VT experts, that we were no longer a team to crumble under pressure, whom, may I add, have become somewhat conspicuous by their absence. And I so wanted them to be right, what self- respecting Villa fan wouldn't ?

[Keener window-cleaner]

I actually wasn't that upset after the Norwich game, I've more or less accepted that this is the way we are. I would like to have seen some more urgency, but on the whole, we didn't really play that much different to most other games. The difference was that we didn't have the little bit of luck to take our chances first. We rely on pressing and high tempo and individual preformances. We don't have a style of play or any patterns in our play, no real tactic. With this tactics we will win some, lose some. Hopefuly Bruce can fire them up to the play-offs so that we put in BFC/Wolves-performances.

I think it was wrong of Bruce to give the players that bashing and let them hang out to dry, they more or less did the same as they do in his team with his tactics.

Regarding the changes, I don't have much to say against the substitutions, yes he put on a lot of strikers, but Kodjia or at least Grabban played out wide so it wasn't like we sacrificed our midfiled. We gave it a go, had to attack and that left us open for them to punish us, which they did.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

In the absence of any found winning formula, I just hope the players can reactively make it up like they did when we won ten out of twelve games including the 4-1 hammering of Wolves 

[TRO]

5 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

TRO, from now on it's Alex.

My middle name too.

[sheepyvillian]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

My middle name too.

Alex it is then. 

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

In the absence of any found winning formula, I just hope the players can reactively make it up like they did when we won ten out of twelve games including the 4-1 hammering of Wolves 

I can't see us being able to conjure up the momentum, that is so desperately required for us to achieve promotion.  What a time to mess up. Typical us.

[sheepyvillian]

10 hours ago, lexicon said:

He should be judged on results but they themselves are currently inconclusive as they're neither bad nor good. It's almost as if the lack of black or white is messing with people's minds, as they can't work out that they don't need to be strongly for or against the manager. 

As with a lot of things, I blame brexit. 

If we're not promoted, then the manager has failed. It's as simple as that. 

Forget the conditional tense . No promotion, Auf Wiedersehen.

[lexicon]

5 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

If we're not promoted, then the manager has failed. It's as simple as that. 

Forget the conditional tense . No promotion, Auf Wiedersehen.

I agree but that has not been determined yet. 

[Sam3773]

I think the job changes if we're still in this league next season, and therefore we should see a change in manager. 

This, and last season, have been pressured situations. We MUST get up before our funds dry up, whatever the route. Most were willing to accept a certain brand of football to achieve that aim. 

Failure now would lift that pressure, but also remove the 'quick win' of coming to a club with money to burn and ambition. We still have the ambition, but not the money to throw at the problem. 

If we are still in the Championship next season, we should look to build, not buy the most expensive and best players around. That takes a manager with the skill to build a team of players with a couple of quid and the draw of a big badge. It won't be quick either, it may take another 2/3/4 seasons, but is that a bad thing? I mean, to build a proper 'Villa Way' that the fans enjoy watching and shows improvement over time until we are finally ready to go up. 

In my opinion, the man to do that is not Steve Bruce, though I've been wrong before. 

[omariqy]

The Norwich game was a perfect example of Bruce's naivety when it comes to game plans/tactics. Norwich struggled massively against Davis and have done all season against physical target men. Yet Davis was not even on the bench. We play Hogan up front, which is fine considering he had scored the previous game. However, we then play in the style that you would expect us to play with Davis up top but instead with Hogan. Norwich defenders easily dealt with the long balls and it meant we were conceding possession at every opportunity. What Wolves, Fulham and Cardiff have done well is that they have changed the personnel to suit the different games when needed. We just stick with the same players regardless of the opposition. 

[PieFacE]

Bruce doesn't do tactics. It's painfully obvious to see. We have no style of play or identity, no plan B.

We hoof it long, fight for the second ball, get it out wide to Snodgrass or Adomah, see if they can make something happen. That's it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I guess you can say that's our identity.

To win this division you need more than that,  Bruce is past it. Football has moved on. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by PieFacE

[TRO]

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

Bruce doesn't do tactics. It's painfully obvious to see. We have no style of play or identity, no plan B.

We hoof it long, fight for the second ball, get it out wide to Snodgrass or Adomah, see if they can make something happen. That's it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I guess you can say that's our identity.

To win this division you need more than that,  Bruce is past it. Football has moved on. 

Fight for the second ball?....i must have blinked and missed it.

[TRO]

The theory that Bruce has not idea about tactics is aired so much on here.Maybe the point that he said he doesn't put as much store in to it as some has clouded judgments....that is not the same as knowing nothing about it.

given that journalists are as desperate for a story as a starving Hyena is for food, would not seem feasible that they would centre on this in view of the fact, we are all searching for a reason for our wobble.

It seems strange to me, that i have not heard a quality football journalist mention it.

certainly the birmingham mail, who have a vested interest in Villa doing well....i have never read that line.