Steve Bruce

[briny_ear]

Said this before, but shouldn't the debate about whether Bruce has "failed" wait until at least after the 2nd playoff semi - fingers crossed until after the playoff final?

If we get promoted by that route it would be a bizarre argument tjhat maintained he had "failed".

[Vive_La_Villa]

7 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well without going through them I’d be content to admit we probably didn’t play well in the majority.....as I suspect Fulham didn’t play well in the 20 they didn’t Win .

I mean, usually when a good side doesn’t Win it’s a combination of them not playing well and the opposition playing well......but that’s just normal, that’s a truism.

Teams - especially Championship teams - don’t play well all the time ?

Burnley drew 15 games the year they Won it.

I don’t understand the point.

Terry the point is people aren't against Bruce just because of the teams poor performances in isolation. It's because of the poor performances along with not enough points to finish second. 

I think it's unfair to think that the football is the only criticism. Ultimately it's the fact we fell short of promotion via the top 2. 

[terrytini]

7 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

Said this before, but shouldn't the debate about whether Bruce has "failed" wait until at least after the 2nd playoff semi - fingers crossed until after the playoff final?

If we get promoted by that route it would be a bizarre argument tjhat maintained he had "failed".

I take the point but if it’s ones view ( as it is mine) that there’s more to whether he should be sacked than whether we go up, it’s just as good a time now .......

[Vive_La_Villa]

9 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

Said this before, but shouldn't the debate about whether Bruce has "failed" wait until at least after the 2nd playoff semi - fingers crossed until after the playoff final?

If we get promoted by that route it would be a bizarre argument tjhat maintained he had "failed".

Agree but I think the debate tends to centre around whether we think he should be our manager next season.  So it's a hypothetical on the basis we don't go up. 

Hopefully it turns out irrelevant because we get promoted. But at least it passes the time. 

[terrytini]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Terry the point is people aren't against Bruce just because of the teams poor performances in isolation. It's because of the poor performances along with not enough points to finish second. 

I think it's unfair to think that the football is the only criticism. Ultimately it's the fact we fell short of promotion via the top 2. 

I agree - but then I’ve never suggested people want him gone just because of poor performances. I agree many will cite us not getting automatic. I don’t share the view that that leads to the sack....but I was really responding to your point about too many non- wins ?

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I agree - but then I’ve never suggested people want him gone just because of poor performances. I agree many will cite us not getting automatic. I don’t share the view that that leads to the sack....but I was really responding to your point about too many non- wins ?

 

Yep. 21 non wins where we played poorly. We drew 11 of these. That's 11 points out of a possible 63. Not good enough in my opinion. 

[terrytini]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Yep. 21 non wins where we played poorly. We drew 11 of these. That's 11 points out of a possible 63. Not good enough in my opinion. 

Well I tried to debate that with my previous post but one but you didn’t address it, I won’t repeat it all but how many non wins is ok ?

Ive no idea what the playing poorly part is about ? Are you complaining that we should get “ non Wins” whilst playing well ? 

Your last post said it’s not about playing poorly ?

Do you accept that every team in the country suffers “ non Wins” when thr6 play poorly, or sometimes when they play well ? What’s the actual point, other than it being a different way of saying you think he should be sacked because we should have 4/5 more points ?

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well I tried to debate that with my previous post but one but you didn’t address it, I won’t repeat it all but how many non wins is ok ?

Ive no idea what the playing poorly part is about ? Are you complaining that we should get “ non Wins” whilst playing well ? 

Your last post said it’s not about playing poorly ?

Do you accept that every team in the country suffers “ non Wins” when thr6 play poorly, or sometimes when they play well ? What’s the actual point, other than it being a different way of saying you think he should be sacked because we should have 4/5 more points ?

We're going around in circles mate. Forget about it. 

[terrytini]

8 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Yep. 21 non wins where we played poorly. We drew 11 of these. That's 11 points out of a possible 63. Not good enough in my opinion. 

Wolves got 9 points “ out of 45” using your ( interesting) viewpoint.

Fulham have 13 out of 60.

Cardiff “8 out of 54”

The year we won the League we got a pitiful 16 Points “ out of 48”...shocking.

A sort of upside down Table where teams non Wins are recorded is fascinating...but means what ?

[terrytini]

2 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

We're going around in circles mate. Forget about it. 

Sorry I didn’t see that before I posted. I’m happy to forget it as I’m utterly baffled...

[briny_ear]

17 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I take the point but if it’s ones view ( as it is mine) that there’s more to whether he should be sacked than whether we go up, it’s just as good a time now .......

It would bring the issue out more clearly if he succeeded in his objective and people nonetheless wanted to reward him with the sack.

At the moment it seems there is vague talk about him "failing" linked without much logic to talk of sacking him.

The fat lady hasn't quite finished singing yet.

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Sorry I didn’t see that before I posted. I’m happy to forget it as I’m utterly baffled...

I'll try one last time. 

Lets forget how we played for the wins because 3 points are 3 points and it doesn't matter how we get them. 

10 defeats which I feel we were comfortably beaten. 

11 draws which I feel only 3 we played well in and deserved more than a point.

So that's 18 games we did not play well in. Now if out those 18 games we could point to more games where we played decent football and we're unlucky not to win. Then you could make more of an argument that next season should be an improvement under Bruce. 

But the fact nearly half the games we played this season we played poorly in puts a big question mark against the manager in my opinion. How can we be so sure this will improve next season to show more consistent performances? 

So if we just look at the 'non wins' as a stat then yes they probably look irrelevant and sound quite silly even mentioning it. But I'm talking about how we played in these non wins. And in most cases it wasn't good enough. I think that's when it becomes more than a pointless stat. 

Ive no doubt you still don't understand my point but I tried my best 

 

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, terrytini said:

So he is either one of the Best Managers in the League ( yet you’d sack him !?) OR

he isn’t, in which case he hasn’t underachieved .........( yet you’d sack him).

So if he was definitely a much poorer Manager he’d have over achieved and you’d keep him ?

That’s poor Terry. The resources available to the manager have been and are significant. If he doesn’t get the team he’s managing to achieve the objective sought, then he’s under achieved. It’s that simple. If his abilities and input are sub standard, then he’s done badly. Or if he’s incapable of doing well then he should go. That’s the logic. It’s a straightforward sequence.

[Villarocker]

Promoted he succeeds and stay down he fails - surely? 

Whether promotion means he keeps his job all depends on what Dr Tony expects from next season.

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That’s poor Terry. The resources available to the manager have been and are significant. If he doesn’t get the team he’s managing to achieve the objective sought, then he’s under achieved. It’s that simple. If his abilities and input are sub standard, then he’s done badly. Or if he’s incapable of doing well then he should go. That’s the logic. It’s a straightforward sequence.

I’ve not contradicted that - I’m saying if the argument is “ he’s one of the best Managers And has underachieved” it means sacking one of the best Managers.

That isn’t everyone’s argument, it may not be your argument, but it’s the posters point I was addressing and it’s factually true.

Ive no issue if you think he’s underachieved. Im not even sure I disagree. 

My larger argument- which I wasn’t making in that Post - is that I don’t see why underachievement should mean the sack. 

[flashingqwerty]

22 hours ago, TRO said:

You really didn't read my post did you.

I will reiterate.....I said "I am not comparing managers"

 I said " I am making the point to stay with them when the objective is not always acheived"

In some quarters some did expect Pepe to achieve the top prize ( in his first season)given his resources( which some of our fans religiously abide by) and his illustrious past, we are talking probably the best manager in the world here.....and if IRC a few raised eyebrows were asking questions why, he didn't ,such is the absurdity this game has reached...  Pepe himself declared some soul searching moments, such as the ridiculous levels of expectation have engulfed this beautiful game......but they stuck with him( which is something at his level) and they got their rewards and do did he.

 

 

you're doing it again though proclaiming your not comparing things on going on to compare them.

ultimately 1 manager achieved what was asked of him when he arrived and the other did not.  Managers who do not meet expectations regardless of resources lose their jobs and rightly so.

they are hired to achieve X result, if they fail, they lose their jobs - thats just how it works.

Ans should we fail to gain promotion i expect a new manager next season

[flashingqwerty]

21 hours ago, TRO said:

Dave a bit of lateral thinking is required here.....don't be fooled by me supposedly comparing Pepe with SB......I am not that daft.

I was merely using his name to highlight how Man City stuck with him, when some thought he should have won the title in his first stint.....yes, some did.....due to who he was and what resources he had.

the difference being the people who run the club set his expectations as champions league qualification - which he achieved.  whether a section of fans thought the should have done better, quite frankly is irrelevant.

ts chairmans and boards that set targets and decide the extent to which they were or not met. in peps case they were so far in sbs case he hasnt met any

[flashingqwerty]

21 hours ago, TRO said:

And you want to change manager on that basis to create more disruption.

madness.

ps even more reason to keep him.

 

Bruce has shown here and throughout his career that building sides around young players isnt what he is good at.

For Aston Villa to survive should we fail to gain promotion through the play offs lwe will need to build around our youth.

why on earth would we keep a man we know cant do the job that needs doing on the basis that he did alright with the most resources in the division?

[omariqy]

3 hours ago, terrytini said:

So he is either one of the Best Managers in the League ( yet you’d sack him !?) OR

he isn’t, in which case he hasn’t underachieved .........( yet you’d sack him).

So if he was definitely a much poorer Manager he’d have over achieved and you’d keep him ?

Eh? I am saying he is supposedly one of the best managers in the league if not the best. That is why we wanted him as our manager and I include myself in that. He also has one of the best squads. Surely to finish 4th is underachieving no? 

[omariqy]

2 hours ago, terrytini said:

I’ve not contradicted that - I’m saying if the argument is “ he’s one of the best Managers And has underachieved” it means sacking one of the best Managers.

That isn’t everyone’s argument, it may not be your argument, but it’s the posters point I was addressing and it’s factually true.

Ive no issue if you think he’s underachieved. Im not even sure I disagree. 

My larger argument- which I wasn’t making in that Post - is that I don’t see why underachievement should mean the sack. 

That is a rubbish argument I am sorry. No matter who the manager or player is if they underperform then they get dropped/sold/sacked. He's one of the best managers in the league until he proves otherwise, which at the moment he might have. We won't know until the play off final.