Steve Bruce

[AshVilla]

1 hour ago, HeyAnty said:

Dave Jenkins‏ @DaveJenkins56 40m40 minutes ago

More

Leeds looking at alternatives I.e. Biesla/Almeyda but Bruce extremely fancied. Neither Leeds or Villa want to pay to get Bruce out of his contract. A mutual termination will be required and then expect #AVFC to sniff around Dean Smith #LUFC

I think it says a lot when the club that wants you isn't even willing to pay for you. 

[Keener window-cleaner]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

but you are assuming that with a new manager, we will be attacking and still hard to beat....fine if we can do it.....its what we all want.

but we could just as easily revert back to RDM style.....attacking and easy to beat.

nope not assuming anything, just pointing out that I consider our style of play to be a defensive style of play. It quite often is a good tactic, it almost got us promoted and many teams win leagues with it.

fwiw I'm not sure the RDM style was easy to beat, we mostly drew games under RDM. 

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, Keener window-cleaner said:

nope not assuming anything, just pointing out that I consider our style of play to be a defensive style of play. It quite often is a good tactic, it almost got us promoted and many teams win leagues with it.

fwiw I'm not sure the RDM style was easy to beat, we mostly drew games under RDM. 

but we conceded very easy, particularly late in games.

I think it is very much subjective.

I think  a powerful No9 would have given us more aerial power and converted more aerial ball that was primarily wasted, it would have given the midfield more confidence to come forward too, that may have added the edge ,you were looking for.

I think if ground is being lost....it creates a natural tendency to retreat.

not saying the manager has no input....just saying, its not always, just one single factor.

Edited June 12, 2018 by TRO

[Keener window-cleaner]

10 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Set up defensively ? That's right I don't. Id say we stopped doing that around about Burton Away...and I went to pretty much every game Home and Away.

Hard to beat - yes, but that's not the same.

Nothing defensive about playing a Striker Plus Jack, Snodgrass, Albert and CH.....and with Fullbacks getting forward.

But I was more responding to your observation about what the statistics confirmed, which is different to opinions - they don't confirm either view.

 

I would say set up defensively and set up to be hard to beat is more or less the same. I agree that we played more open and attacking in the second part of the season, and much more so than the first season under Bruce. But I would still call it defensively. Playing one striker and Jack, Snodgrass, Albert and CH is not attacking in my mind. It sure is attacking compared to how Bruce set up previously, but not compared to what I think is normal. Snodgrass and Albert are to me normal wingers (not like typical wide forwards) they track back like normal midfield wingers. CH is to me more or less an all action box to box midfielder. Even with the players you mention, we still had one defensive midfielder. Swap that defensive midfielder for a striker and I would call it a normal set up in a traditional 4-4-2. With the players you mention we basically swap one striker for an extra defensive midfielder in a typic 4-4-2, and I would call that to set up defensively.

Then of course it's not just about the players and formation but what instructions you give them, but most games I would say that the style of play was cautious. A kind of direct counter attack style.

Based on how I regard our tactics, I found that statistic confirming it as it says that in the most games we don't score many goals.   

[TRO]

23 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

Definitely agree with this, I'm just judging the stats differently. Whichever way you look at it we scored 72 goals (3rd highest in the league), but the pessimist in me doesn't see it as much of a positive because I'm still sulking that we failed to get promoted.

I would have just liked to have traded one of the 4-0's for a 2-0 and then a 2-1 in the Play-off final. 

Ha ha....if only

I have always said.....The good players get you a goal when you need one......not just fill in a 2-0 to make it 4-0.

truth is its not necessarily about the 72 goals or the 42 against.....the 24 wins wasn't enough, 27 would have done it and we can all guess which ones they could have been?

We all have that defining moment when the doubt seeped in.....for me it was when Ryan Manning beat John Terry at the near post to send QPR in to the lead, I think that was the beginning of the infamous 3 games for me.

Edited June 12, 2018 by TRO

[Keener window-cleaner]

23 minutes ago, TRO said:

72 goals does not suggest we had no interest in attack.

I agree, and I do think we had interest in attack. My observation and opinion is that we set up defensively, if we scored first we tried to kick on (which was a big improvement from the first season when we reverted to protect our penalty area when we scored), and in some games we scored a lot of goals, as the statistics tell. Those games were really great and I would have liked us to start the games like that. However I understand that it is a quite efficient tactic the way we played.

[holteend1982]

2 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

Does that mean get promotion after all?

What does promotion have to do with anything. We are talking about goals scored and performances

Edited June 12, 2018 by holteend1982

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, Keener window-cleaner said:

I would say set up defensively and set up to be hard to beat is more or less the same. I agree that we played more open and attacking in the second part of the season, and much more so than the first season under Bruce. But I would still call it defensively. Playing one striker and Jack, Snodgrass, Albert and CH is not attacking in my mind. It sure is attacking compared to how Bruce set up previously, but not compared to what I think is normal. Snodgrass and Albert are to me normal wingers (not like typical wide forwards) they track back like normal midfield wingers. CH is to me more or less an all action box to box midfielder. Even with the players you mention, we still had one defensive midfielder. Swap that defensive midfielder for a striker and I would call it a normal set up in a traditional 4-4-2. With the players you mention we basically swap one striker for an extra defensive midfielder in a typic 4-4-2, and I would call that to set up defensively.

Then of course it's not just about the players and formation but what instructions you give them, but most games I would say that the style of play was cautious. A kind of direct counter attack style.

Based on how I regard our tactics, I found that statistic confirming it as it says that in the most games we don't score many goals.   

It's like the old saying what comes first the chicken or the egg.

I think we played defensively ( partly not wholly)because there is not much pace in the team generally and if you get caught too far upfield, you can't get back, if one out of the back 2 has pace it helps, we had 2 who are not blessed with pace so sat deep( ish).....you then allow the opposition to play in between your lines..which is what QPR did, but they had Matt Smith pre-occupying our 2 in the air.

I am not disagreeing with your points or others for that matter, but you have to win your battles and have the players to do it.

Steve Bruce recruits the players and is responsible for their styles, once he has done so....but once he has them, he has to set up to suit them, he can't inject pace in to them if they haven't got it.

I have no problem folk criticising Steve Bruce, its just nifty to say what the criticism is specifically.....I always struggle with the notion that there is no redeeming features is a person....such insinuations leave me dubious.

[penguin]

23 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

Maybe that's it. We were too good to go up as Bruce only works his magic with "bang average" teams.

Maybe I'm misreading the tone of your post but my point is obviously not that's we'd have gone up with a shitter team.

What I do think is that he has a ceiling and increasing the quality of the squad beyond a certain level and you start getting exponentially diminishing returns. He's good at creating defensively solid teams who take very little risks and instead try and grind out results, which could be exactly what we need next year if we have any promotion aspirations with a weaker team than this year.

He's not the ideal tactician for a side who are favourites most games and have one of the best squads in the league though, as we've seen this year imo.

[Davkaus]

A week or two ago I'd have been fairly pleased about him going and us getting a new manager in. 

As things stand, I fully anticipate us getting an underwhelming manager, signing nobody, and finishing significantly below Bruce's Leeds. This **** club.

[dn1982]

55 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Set up defensively ? That's right I don't. Id say we stopped doing that around about Burton Away...and I went to pretty much every game Home and Away.

Hard to beat - yes, but that's not the same.

Nothing defensive about playing a Striker Plus Jack, Snodgrass, Albert and CH.....and with Fullbacks getting forward.

But I was more responding to your observation about what the statistics confirmed, which is different to opinions - they don't confirm either view.

 

We set up defensively in most games IMO. The playoff final was symptomatic of our season. Fullbacks hardly got past their winger even though when we didn’t it was successful. IF Bruce would’ve gambled a bit more and had the confidence to start on the front foot every game i believe we’d have got automatic. It seems fine margins at the top end. 

[PieFacE]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

A week or two ago I'd have been fairly pleased about him going and us getting a new manager in. 

As things stand, I fully anticipate us getting an underwhelming manager, signing nobody, and finishing significantly below Bruce's Leeds. This **** club.

I'm in the same boat.

[sheepyvillian]

This dispute about did we set up defensively.  I suggest watching the first - half of our most important game of the season, if anyone has any doubts about the way Bruce wants  his team's to play. It must be one of the most inept  first - half performances in a play-off final ever. 

When you realise the consequences of that defeat, it makes the way we approached that game totally incomprehensible. Unforgivable, as far as I'm concerned. I want a manager  who is prepared to send us out to play on the front foot from the first minute, especially  against opposition, who are considered inferior to us.

It still riles me how a club the size of Fulham were shown so much respect by our players . Why would you allow the opposition to just stroke the ball around like they did in that first - half ? Where was the intensity and will to dominate the game. All that so called experience, and where did it go ? AWOL. 

[Dave J]

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

We didn't play hoofball.

Whatever title you give it and that's totally fine by me - we were pretty turgid on many occasions imo 

[GrassyNoel]

2 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

This dispute about did we set up defensively.  I suggest watching the first - half of our most important game of the season, if anyone has any doubts about the way Bruce wants  his team's to play. It must be one of the most inept  first - half performances in a play-off final ever. 

When you realise the consequences of that defeat, it makes the way we approached that game totally incomprehensible. Unforgivable, as far as I'm concerned. I want a manager  who is prepared to send us out to play on the front foot from the first minute, especially  against opposition, who are considered inferior to us.

It still riles me how a club the size of Fulham were shown so much respect by our players . Why would you allow the opposition to just stroke the ball around like they did in that first - half ? Where was the intensity and will to dominate the game. All that so called experience, and where did it go ? AWOL. 

Fulham came in with this avant garde idea of playing for 90 minutes. It’s risky, but could catch on.

[Dave J]

18 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

A week or two ago I'd have been fairly pleased about him going and us getting a new manager in. 

As things stand, I fully anticipate us getting an underwhelming manager, signing nobody, and finishing significantly below Bruce's Leeds. This **** club.

Yes because of his failure - one of the  bizarre aspects of football is that you can fail and still get another gig somewhere else 

[DCJonah]

31 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

A week or two ago I'd have been fairly pleased about him going and us getting a new manager in. 

As things stand, I fully anticipate us getting an underwhelming manager, signing nobody, and finishing significantly below Bruce's Leeds. This **** club.

Who cares what he does elsewhere. 

He failed here and he isn't the answer to our problems. Keeping him because of the fear of the unknown will not help us.

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

Who cares what he does elsewhere. 

He failed here and he isn't the answer to our problems. Keeping him because of the fear of the unknown will not help us.

I wouldn't trust him to get us promoted if we were looking to be promoted next season. If we had funds, I'd want someone else.

But it doesn't look like we have. It looks like we'll be flogging anything that isn't nailed down, and relying on our players that nobody wants, youth players, and free transfers. In that scenario, I trust Bruce rather than an unknown. Promotion isn't on our radar if a tenth of what the papers are reporting is true. I'm more concerned about the other end of the table.

[Talldarkandransome]

1 hour ago, Keener window-cleaner said:

nope not assuming anything, just pointing out that I consider our style of play to be a defensive style of play. It quite often is a good tactic, it almost got us promoted and many teams win leagues with it.

fwiw I'm not sure the RDM style was easy to beat, we mostly drew games under RDM. 

We should play "The West Ham way", whatever the f**k that is

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Ha ha....if only

I have always said.....The good players get you a goal when you need one......not just fill in a 2-0 to make it 4-0.

truth is its not necessarily about the 72 goals or the 42 against.....the 24 wins wasn't enough, 27 would have done it and we can all guess which ones they could have been?

We all have that defining moment when the doubt seeped in.....for me it was when Ryan Manning beat John Terry at the near post to send QPR in to the lead, I think that was the beginning of the infamous 3 games for me.

For me it was away at Reading....so I guess I had the better of it, after that we were nearly always doing better than I expected, whereas you had your hopes crushed near the end.

Whichever, it’s all part of the game.  Can’t win them all. I actually enjoyed decent chunks of the season - and our football - and thought we had a decent go. Better luck next time !