Steve Bruce

[praisedmambo]

23 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Maybe if the player had been around a while. For example MON got the best out of players like Collins and Dunne but they were pretty awful after he had gone. 

This is the first long injury free spell Jack has had since under Sherwood. 

And arguably he was just as good then as he has been now considering it was a at higher level. Sherwood deserve credit for that? 

Overall Sherwood was a disaster. A lot of that came down to the recruitment in his first full summer and then his ability to pull a team together from scratch. I think it was this that showed him to be out of his depth. When he took over from Lambert, there was a team in place, even if it wasn't performing, and he got a few players to really start playing—Cleverly springs to mind. I can definitely give credit to Sherwood for that. I don't like him overall, but he wasn't all bad. Just mostly bad.

However, I'm not sure Jack did much under him apart from the semi-final.

Jack was certainly not taking his talent seriously and was at risk of throwing his opportunity away before Bruce came in. I think Bruce, through his management of the club as a whole, an apparent increase in professionalism, and presumably through focusing on Jack one-to-one, whether personally or through the coaches, has definitely made a difference. It is possible to give a manager credit even if you don't like everything about them, which seems to be a bit of a stretch at times on this website where black and white rules. For me, I'm sure Bruce has had a positive impact. Nobody is suggesting that Jack's improvement doesn't ultimately come down to him and his taking things on board and becoming more professional himself.

One other thing—he is playing at a much higher tempo under Bruce. I always thought he slowed our attacks down in the past, because he kind of ambled about with the ball when he got it, but now he is so much more direct. No credit where it's due though.

Edited August 4, 2018 by praisedmambo

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, Dave J said:

Grabban, Elmo - I think you have to say the jury is still well and truly out on these pair - Stevo  you can't put Jack's form last season down to Bruce!! Jack was always going to grow up at some point and realise what he was putting on the line.

No, YOU can’t put Grealish’s form down to Bruce, because that would be complimenting Bruce and you couldn’t possibly allow that. 

Everything Bruce does is bad. And if anything good happens it was an accident or a coincidence.

Don't worry, I’ve learned how it works. 

(This is the part where you reply and say you can’t be bothered)

Edited August 4, 2018 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

As mentioned above I’d argue his form was pretty impressive under Sherwood by playing a massive part in getting us promoted and to an FA cup final. 

He was very good for a couple games, I agree. 

But this is the only time he’s put a sustained run of form together. 

Like I said above, those with an agenda will put that down to coincidence. But I don’t think it’s any surprise that a manager with very good man management skills has had that kind of effect, especially when he brought in players like Terry who we know have positively influenced Grealish. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Stevo985

[Michael118]

13 minutes ago, praisedmambo said:

Overall Sherwood was a disaster. A lot of that came down to the recruitment in his first full summer and then his ability to pull a team together from scratch. I think it was this that showed him to be out of his depth. When he took over from Lambert, there was a team in place, even if it wasn't performing, and he got a few players to really start playing—Cleverly springs to mind. I can definitely give credit to Sherwood for that. I don't like him overall, but he wasn't all bad. Just mostly bad.

However, I'm not sure Jack did much under him apart from the semi-final.

Jack was certainly not taking his talent seriously and was at risk of throwing his opportunity away before Bruce came in. I think Bruce, through his management of the club as a whole, an apparent increase in professionalism, and presumably through focusing on Jack one-to-one, whether personally or through the coaches, has definitely made a difference. It is possible to give a manager credit even if you don't like everything about them, which seems to be a bit of a stretch at times on this website where black and white rules. For me, I'm sure Bruce has had a positive impact. Nobody is suggesting that Jack's improvement doesn't ultimately come down to him and his taking things on board and becoming more professional himself.

One other thing—he is playing at a much higher tempo under Bruce. I always thought he slowed our attacks down in the past, because he kind of ambled about with the ball when he got it, but now he is so much more direct. No credit where it's due though.

I agree with a lot of this. Bruce probably deserves some credit for Grealish's improvement - I actually think they're on a similar wavelength.

I also think having so many leaders and solid and reliable players and characters around him, in particular Terry and Jedinak, but also Snodgrass, Hutton and Chester can't be underestimated. 

It will be interesting to see if Grealish continues to improve this season in the absence of Terry and Snodgrass. Terry seemed like a mentor for him and Snodgrass for me was kind of the glue which held us together offensively. For me, Chester could struggle without Terry. Some vital and dificult to replace cogs in the wheel will be missing so it will be a massive test for Bruce if he doesn't replace them with some real quality.

 

[TRO]

8 hours ago, Dave J said:

Grabban, Elmo - I think you have to say the jury is still well and truly out on these pair - Stevo  you can't put Jack's form last season down to Bruce!! Jack was always going to grow up at some point and realise what he was putting on the line.

The jury is still out on Elmo for me too.

on the other point......its difficult to take serious an argument that promotes negativity towards a positive speculative action.....and then promotes positivity towards a negative speculative action.

We have no idea, if SB is responsible for jacks progress anymore than he is responsible for some of the negative stuff too.

its the lack of balance that defeats the point.

Edited August 4, 2018 by TRO

[TRO]

I hear nothing but praise from ex pro's on Steve Bruces management.

I hear many managers names mentioned where ex pro's refrain from comment....so its not the old boys club.

I do feel its a small section that fail to see any good in him.

somebody said to me the other day, it's because he was connected with blues....i said tell me anything, but don't tell me that small minded excuse.

Edited August 4, 2018 by TRO

[Tommo_b]

I’ve forgotten Sherwood signings, Ayew, Troare, Amavi to name some off top of my head.

[omariqy]

22 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Yep, and the rest would still call him a useless dinosaur if we won every single game between now and May. 

See how this works? 

I would never have. I was always for Bruce and I would have applauded him had he got us up via the playoff final. Limited as he is.

 

[holteend1982]

6 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

I’ve forgotten Sherwood signings, Ayew, Troare, Amavi to name some off top of my head.

Vertout, gueye, gestede as well 

[Dave J]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

No, YOU can’t put Grealish’s form down to Bruce, because that would be complimenting Bruce and you couldn’t possibly allow that. 

Everything Bruce does is bad. And if anything good happens it was an accident or a coincidence.

Don't worry, I’ve learned how it works. 

(This is the part where you reply and say you can’t be bothered)

Look Stevo - surely even you must acknowledge that Jack's time to shine would come sooner rather than later - you also make no mention of the fact he is now playing at a lower standard - maybe I am wrong - but I don't see how a manager in the mould of Bruce can impact upon someone with Jack's natural ability - he just goes out and plays football in the only manner  he knows  - almost like he is back in the park - kicking a ball around 

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Dave J said:

Look Stevo - surely even you must acknowledge that Jack's time to shine would come sooner rather than later - you also make no mention of the fact he is now playing at a lower standard - maybe I am wrong - but I don't see how a manager in the mould of Bruce can impact upon someone with Jack's natural ability - he just goes out and plays football in the only manner  he knows  - almost like he is back in the park - kicking a ball around 

Yep. Like i said. Bad = Bruce’s fault. Good = lucky. 

Have a great day, Dave. 

[Dave J]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yep. Like i said. Bad = Bruce’s fault. Good = lucky. 

Have a great day, Dave. 

Stevo - that's very bizarre but you have a good day too

[TRO]

43 minutes ago, Dave J said:

Look Stevo - surely even you must acknowledge that Jack's time to shine would come sooner rather than later - you also make no mention of the fact he is now playing at a lower standard - maybe I am wrong - but I don't see how a manager in the mould of Bruce can impact upon someone with Jack's natural ability - he just goes out and plays football in the only manner  he knows  - almost like he is back in the park - kicking a ball around 

Come on Dave.....of course he doesn't show jack how to dribble a ball.

No manager can be the difference on a players natural ability.....what they can do is get the best out of them.

Thats exactly what SB planned in getting Jack strength training with Olly. Bruce instigated that and Jack has been a better player since......prior to that jacks natural ability was lost in going to ground too easily.

Edited August 4, 2018 by TRO

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, Dave J said:

I don't see how a manager in the mould of Bruce can impact upon someone with Jack's natural ability - he just goes out and plays football in the only manner  he knows

I don't think this is right at all, despite my view on Bruce. He (and many managers) can clearly have a huge impact on talented players. There's so much more to the game than natural talent. Whether it's getting players to release the ball at the right time, to encourage them to try things and not worry about losing the ball, whether it's teaching them when or where not to try things. Or about discipline and not letting opposition wind you up and get you to get booked for reacting. Whether it's calming players down, getting them to relax, or geeing them up. Making them feel wanted and important, or stopping them from getting too big for their boots. He won't be able to teach him new tricks with the ball, but there's so much on the mental side, and professionalism and al the rest that managers can impart.

[TRO]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think this is right at all, despite my view on Bruce. He (and many managers) can clearly have a huge impact on talented players. There's so much more to the game than natural talent. Whether it's getting players to release the ball at the right time, to encourage them to try things and not worry about losing the ball, whether it's teaching them when or where not to try things. Or about discipline and not letting opposition wind you up and get you to get booked for reacting. Whether it's calming players down, getting them to relax, or geeing them up. Making them feel wanted and important, or stopping them from getting too big for their boots. He won't be able to teach him new tricks with the ball, but there's so much on the mental side, and professionalism and al the rest that managers can impart.

Absolutely spot on Pete.

I am surprised these things need explaining to the degree, they do.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by TRO

[Dave J]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Absolutely spot on Pete.

I am surprised these things need explaining to the degree, they do.

 

Your view TRO and you are perfectly entitled to it - even you as one of his staunchest supporters must acknowledge Bruce/tactics don't go hand in glove ? So how would he mould Jack into something different?Jacks time was always coming regardless of who is manager - you could even argue he just grew up !

[Adam2003]

2 hours ago, Dave J said:

Look Stevo - surely even you must acknowledge that Jack's time to shine would come sooner rather than later - you also make no mention of the fact he is now playing at a lower standard - maybe I am wrong - but I don't see how a manager in the mould of Bruce can impact upon someone with Jack's natural ability - he just goes out and plays football in the only manner  he knows  - almost like he is back in the park - kicking a ball around 

Conversely, if Bruce hadn’t come in and straightened the kid out he might have still been passing out in ditches in Marbella this summer and on his way to League 2.

I’m fine with people hating Bruce for all sorts of reasons but I’m really convinced on this one that Bruce - and players like Terry who Bruce brought in - saved Grealish’s career. Plenty of players as good as him faded away because they didn’t have good management.

 

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, Adam2003 said:

Conversely, if Bruce hadn’t come in and straightened the kid out he might have still been passing out in ditches in Marbella this summer and on his way to League 2.

I reckon a bit of both, Bruce providing a bit of calm and belief,  and Grealish waking up after that freak injury doing it for himself - certainly had Sherwood still been in charge then Grealish would not have done so well, would probably be back on the hippy crack, I bloody would with that tw*t in charge. 

[Tommo_b]

So Sherwood signings for most part in hindsight were quite talented and sought after 

[osmark86]

2 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

So Sherwood signings for most part in hindsight were quite talented and sought after 

Well yes, which speaks volumes about what a shite manager he was.