Steve Bruce

[rubberman]

15 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

It's like a Man Utd fan wanting Man Utd to play, and win, and entertain like City. I think they probably all do.

Amusingly the first caller on 606 yesterday wanted Mourinho out because Man U are doing so badly and for him to be replaced by Bruce.  I chuckled.

[Taxahunter]

5 minutes ago, rubberman said:

Amusingly the first caller on 606 yesterday wanted Mourinho out because Man U are doing so badly and for him to be replaced by Bruce.  I chuckled.

Great, then Man U can buy him out for a chunkload of money...then most will be happy  

[srsmithusa]

TBF, Terry's fact about us being top 9 our of 92 is very impressive.  It does make me wonder if my expectations are overly high.  On the other hand, it does have questionable validity given that the 92 teams are playing in different leagues. 

The fact that an under 10 boys team is undefeated is certainly very positive, and should be praised, but it's hardly strong evidence that they are playing at the top levels. (Even I think Villa could likely beat them head to head.)

Personally, I'm not easily satisfied when it comes to things I am really passionate about.  For most of my life, that has served me well.  But that's OK, anytime I start to feel positive about Villa, I can always read the match threads from December to remind me that we still have miles for improvement.

[holteend1982]

1 hour ago, sheepyvillian said:

The football was dire, and MON apparently said it was the worst squad he ever inherited. 

Surely that proves how good Bruce must be to get the worst squad MON has ever inherited to finish tenth then no? 

 

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

TBF, Terry's fact about us being top 9 our of 92 is very impressive.  It does make me wonder if my expectations are overly high.  On the other hand, it does have questionable validity given that the 92 teams are playing in different leagues. 

The fact that an under 10 boys team is undefeated is certainly very positive, and should be praised, but it's hardly strong evidence that they are playing at the top levels. (Even I think Villa could likely beat them head to head.)

But nobody has used it as strong evidence for that.

All terry used that stat for was to contend the statement that "it's not like we play consistently winning football"

Even if you want to isolate it to this league, only TWO teams have won more games than us.

How can that possibly labelled as us not winning consistently?

Maybe you could say we don't win consistently ENOUGH (to win the league/get promoted automatically).
But that's not what the original statement said, and that's all terry was trying to contend.

You cannot say we don't win consistently. And if you do insist on saying that, then neither do 21 of the other 23 teams in this league (and Cardiff have only won 2 more games, so even that is a fine margin)

Edited April 16, 2018 by Stevo985

[srsmithusa]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But nobody has used it as strong evidence for that.

All terry used that stat for was to contend the statement that "it's not like we play consistently winning football"

Even if you want to isolate it to this league, only TWO teams have won more games than us.

How can that possibly labelled as us not winning consistently?

Maybe you could say we don't win consistently ENOUGH (to win the league/get promoted automatically).
But that's not what the original statement said, and that's all terry was trying to contend.

You cannot say we don't win consistently. And if you do insist on saying that, then neither do 21 of the other 23 teams in this league (and Cardiff have only won 2 more games, so even that is a fine margin)

Stevo, I think my last sentence you omitted was pretty key.  I prefer high expectations.  I manage the crushing disappointments they cause, quite well.

Perhaps I lost the original intent of the stat as it kept coming round and round.  But my appreciation of it's meaning, and criticism of it's statistical validity, are still fair comments.

I think my problem with the interpretation of those stats might be the word "consistently."  I understand how your are using it in the post above, but for me consistency doesn't have long spells of abysmal play and long winning streaks.  The end result in season standing may be OK.   But it's hard for me to see the word "consistency" applicable when we speed and falter, speed and falter.  If my car did that, I would not call it consistent.

If your point is that the club is much improved this season, I'll agree.  If your point is that we are improved since Bruce took over, I'll agree.  If your point is that we are not utterly abysmal and should be relegated, I'll agree.  If your point is we should be satisfied and not desire or expect any better from Aston Villa because we "consistently win" more than all but those ahead of us in the table, I will disagree.  Aim high.  Aim higher.  I'm still clinging to hope that we meet the pre-season goal of automatic promotion.  If not, we'll all have to settle for the consolation that comes from the playoffs.  I would feel better about those, if we were "consistently winning."  But since we sputter and falter with distressing regularity, the play-offs feel too much like a lottery for my taste.

[vreitti]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But nobody has used it as strong evidence for that.

All terry used that stat for was to contend the statement that "it's not like we play consistently winning football"

Even if you want to isolate it to this league, only TWO teams have won more games than us.

How can that possibly labelled as us not winning consistently?

Maybe you could say we don't win consistently ENOUGH (to win the league/get promoted automatically).
But that's not what the original statement said, and that's all terry was trying to contend.

You cannot say we don't win consistently. And if you do insist on saying that, then neither do 21 of the other 23 teams in this league (and Cardiff have only won 2 more games, so even that is a fine margin)

You're absolutely correct. We are winning consistently, compared to last year, and compared to 20+ teams in the championship, but as you've alluded, we aren't winning consistently enough to get automatically promoted. It's a question of expectations in the end, and I suppose some of us expected automatic promotion, given the resources and squad we have. Was it a realistic expectation? Given the mess we were in... yes, I still think so.

However, we can still achieve promotion... the hard way, but it'll do just fine, as long as it happens. AND if it don't, it's fine too, because it'll most likely mean no more Bruceball.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, srsmithusa said:

Stevo, I think my last sentence you omitted was pretty key.  I prefer high expectations.  I manage the crushing disappointments they cause, quite well.

Perhaps I lost the original intent of the stat as it kept coming round and round.  But my appreciation of it's meaning, and criticism of it's statistical validity, are still fair comments.

I think my problem with the interpretation of those stats might be the word "consistently."  I understand how your are using it in the post above, but for me consistency doesn't have long spells of abysmal play and long winning streaks.  The end result in season standing may be OK.   But it's hard for me to see the word "consistency" applicable when we speed and falter, speed and falter.  If my car did that, I would not call it consistent.

If your point is that the club is much improved this season, I'll agree.  If your point is that we are improved since Bruce took over, I'll agree.  If your point is that we are not utterly abysmal and should be relegated, I'll agree.  If your point is we should be satisfied and not desire or expect any better from Aston Villa because we "consistently win" more than all but those ahead of us in the table, I will disagree.  Aim high.  Aim higher.  I'm still clinging to hope that we meet the pre-season goal of automatic promotion.  If not, we'll all have to settle for the consolation that comes from the playoffs.  I would feel better about those, if we were "consistently winning."  But since we sputter and falter with distressing regularity, the play-offs feel too much like a lottery for my taste.

I didn't miss your last sentence. Hence:

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

 

Maybe you could say we don't win consistently ENOUGH (to win the league/get promoted automatically).
But that's not what the original statement said, and that's all terry was trying to contend.

You cannot say we don't win consistently. And if you do insist on saying that, then neither do 21 of the other 23 teams in this league (and Cardiff have only won 2 more games, so even that is a fine margin)

Again, all terry was using that stat for was to contend the statement "it's not like we play consistently winning football"

If you think we don't play consistently ENOUGH winning football, then that is fair enough. And a valid point.

But it's not the point terry was talking about. 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, vreitti said:

You're absolutely correct. We are winning consistently, compared to last year, and compared to 20+ teams in the championship, but as you've alluded, we aren't winning consistently enough to get automatically promoted. It's a question of expectations in the end, and I suppose some of us expected automatic promotion, given the resources and squad we have. Was it a realistic expectation? Given the mess we were in... yes, I still think so.

I expected that too and have never said anything different.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

Let me know when I have your permission to express my opinions, then.  Thanks, 

Meanwhile I'll sit over here quietly and remember what it was like to enjoy discussion and debate.  

(Oh, that was sarcasm, I'll still post my thoughts.  some of which are positive and supportive, so be sure to click "Like" on those.)

Oops sorry, did I suggest supporting the club again? My bad.

What a wonderful group of fans we have, that at the business end of a season where we could get promoted people are more interested in scoring some points with their 'friends' on a forum rather than get behind the club.

 

[srsmithusa]

15 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Oops sorry, did I suggest supporting the club again? My bad.

What a wonderful group of fans we have, that at the business end of a season where we could get promoted people are more interested in scoring some points with their 'friends' on a forum rather than get behind the club.

 

OR  Maybe it's possible to be "supporting the club" or "behind the club" and still be honestly critical of things that are done poorly.

You must hate post match interviews when Bruce says "we just didn't compete" or "Too many of our players were tired,"  or  "I got that one wrong"  or anything that's a critical assessment.  Feel free to write him a letter clarifying for him that he can't be "behind the club" and still be critical when we don't do things with excellence.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

34 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

OR  Maybe it's possible to be "supporting the club" or "behind the club" and still be honestly critical of things that are done poorly.

You must hate post match interviews when Bruce says "we just didn't compete" or "Too many of our players were tired,"  or  "I got that one wrong"  or anything that's a critical assessment.  Feel free to write him a letter clarifying for him that he can't be "behind the club" and still be critical when we don't do things with excellence.

 

Okay cool.

One of us is suggesting to let sleeping dogs lie and get behind the team to hopefully push us over the line and back into the premier league.

The other is suggesting to keep going round and round in circles on a debate that's been done to death and with the hoped outcome to be the sacking of the manager.

 

I'll let others decide which is more productive.

[srsmithusa]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay cool.

One of us is suggesting to let sleeping dogs lie and get behind the team to hopefully push us over the line and back into the premier league.

The other is suggesting to keep going round and round in circles on a debate that's been done to death and with the hoped outcome to be the sacking of the manager.

 

I'll let others decide which is more productive.

YAY.  So you admit I win!!!!

1696 pages I think prove that we like pointless and circular. 

[OutByEaster?]

10 hours ago, villa89 said:

With the money spent on the squad and the highest wage bill in the league finishing 8th would have been laughably bad. It would be the equivalent of Man Utd. finishing 7th in the premier league. Being in the top four was the bare minimum and top two the real requirement.

I don't think it would - I don't think we started as Man Utd - I think we're more like Southampton with two seasons of spending like Man Utd. We arrived in this division as a mess, with concerns to ensure that the first thing we did was stop falling. We didn't start out two seasons ago as potential champions and we've come a long way since then.

10 hours ago, villa89 said:

It's the same for us, the idea that we are overachieving by finishing in the top 4 is nonsense. 

I wouldn't necessarily say overachieving is how I'd see it. I think we're about where we should be. At the start of the season I didn't think we'd make it this far, so I'm pleased, my personal expectations for the season have been exceeded - but, as Lexicon says, I knew I was in a pretty small minority in my expectations.  I think automatic promotion would have been overachieving and although possible was always unlikely.

We finished 13th last year and we've got a net transfer spend this season of around minus £5m even before the Amavi money comes in - with loans both out and in, I think we've increased the wage bill, but covered it in transfer profit - we haven't spent a lot of money this season. I thought it was too big a task. I think we've done well, I think it's been a tough job to get us to here and at times it's been a tough watch too - but I'm pleased that we're here even if some consider here to be failure.

All of that said, having got us to here and having seen the current group over the course of the season, I'd very much like the manager to at least take us to the final of the playoffs. From there, I really hope our luck holds.

[terrytini]

6 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

Let me know when I have your permission to express my opinions, then.  Thanks, 

Meanwhile I'll sit over here quietly and remember what it was like to enjoy discussion and debate.  

(Oh, that was sarcasm, I'll still post my thoughts.  some of which are positive and supportive, so be sure to click "Like" on those.)

To the best of my recollection a debate with yourself is just that, no problem...Sadly that isn’t the case for everyone....

[blandy]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd very much like the manager to at least take us to the final of the playoffs.

Which is on 26th of May. What good could possibly ever befall Villa on a 26th May final on neutral ground?

[Dave J]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Which is on 26th of May. What good could possibly ever befall Villa on a 26th May final on neutral ground?

Do you think any one  would notice if we sneaked Withe, Shaw and Morley into the starting 11 

[romavillan]

23 minutes ago, Dave J said:

Do you think any one  would notice if we sneaked Withe, Shaw and Morley into the starting 11 

Shaw's knees might notice.

[Dave J]

8 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Shaw's knees might notice.

Please don't remind me - my favourite villa player of all time 

[Cizzler]

8 hours ago, bobzy said:

Sessegnon as wide left forward? 

What? The position he plays for Fulham? Imagine that.