Steve Bruce

[praisedmambo]

I've heard that when Micah Richards in the future plays for his local five aside, he's going to be incredible. His mates don't even have a manager—therefore Bruce is a clown.

[Vive_La_Villa]

There’s no such thing as ‘Bruce Ball’. We don’t have a long ball tactic. The long balls are a consequence of our lack of movement and poor passing. More often than not the only option is to go long from the back with the alternative being giving the ball away.

[villabromsgrove]

20 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Or Scott Hogan isn't very good and fluked one decent season in his entire career to date?

Kodjia (pre injury) and Grabban haven't seemed to struggle under Bruce. Plus Davis has been pretty decent for a young lad and RHM looks promising.

Seems unfair to criticise Bruce for Hogan (he deserves criticism for signing him in the first place by the way), especially when part of your criticism is based on a prediction of something that hasn't happened yet.

We're a 'set piece' team and our attacking players don't score enough goals. Is it the way we play, or is it the players?  

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

We're a 'set piece' team and our attacking players don't score enough goals. Is it the way we play, or is it the players?  

Are we a set piece team? Honestly I'm not sure about that. I wouldn't say we overly rely on set pieces but happy to see the stats behind it.

And our attacking players don't score enough goals? As shown earlier in the thread, we're the joint highest scorers in the entire Football League for 2018 year to date. Is that not enough?

I'd say our attacking players do just fine. Yet Scott Hogan struggles.

[allani]

55 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I think the problem of this debate is the outlook on our situation.

While some fans understand that we are a Championship club that has been playing second tier football for the last 3 seasons (or even longer if you consider the quality of previous campaigns), others still see us as an English powerhouse that SHOULD be up there and SHOULD be entertaining and SHOULD attract best managers & players.

I sit within the first group - we are a club that has been badly run for years, we are not to be feared when teams at our level like Leeds or Forest come to town, we are no longer a team with Barry, Young, Milner or Laursen.  

Considering our state of existence right now,  Bruce is the best we could hope for and he has shown that he can deliver results. His home win ratio is excellent, he build a great team spirit, we score goals and he attracts good players.
 

I think actually most people will probably sit somewhere between the two.  I do.  We need to rebuild and that will take time.  However, my problem with Bruce is twofold:  

Firstly, I am not convinced that he will create a team with a long-term plan.  If we rebuild now with Bruce I think we will need to rebuild again (unless he suddenly changes his "usual" approach).  Wolves and Fulham are examples of teams similar to us who have built a team around a plan - they've both invested heavily since being promoted but their style of football does not need to change significantly (it is not certain that either will survive but I fancy their chances better than Cardiff - who I think are closer to a Bruce style team).  Even if we get promoted under Bruce I don't believe that his brand of football will see us survive in the Premier League.  Having to change the style of play and bring in reinforcements and adapt to a higher standard of opposition every week is not easy.  Also I don't think that you can sack a manager who wins promotion - so we would probably be making those changes mid-season whilst trying to get out of a relegation battle.  I would prefer that we were trying to change vision now.  I appreciate that this was almost impossible given the changes in the ownership, etc and to an extent maybe it is better that the new owners can bring in their own man and own "vision" rather than Dr T having fired the bullet in January. 

Secondly, I still find his team selections bizarre and his substitutions strange.  Does he deserve credit for bringing in a battling spirit that helped us snatch a last gasp winner (at home against a newly promoted team) or does he deserve criticism for a shambles of a defensive performance where 3 of the 4 defenders were playing out of position?  Would we have needed a last minute winner if Mile wasn't giving away the ball as the last man, or we had a fullback closing down the winger making a cross and a centre back defending the back post from that cross?  Does he get credit for bringing on the player who provided the assist for the winner or criticism for taking off a striker and bringing on a midfielder with 5 minutes left (at home against a newly promoted team)?  For me, we won at the weekend despite Bruce's team selection, despite his tactical approach and despite his substitutions. 

Yes Bruce has been hamstrung by the off-field issues this close season and if McGinn was his recommendation then he definitely deserves credit for that because he looks like a player (for now and if / when we get promoted).  But he's had plenty of time and money now to build a vision and I don't quite know what it is.  There were several matches last season where we just didn't turn up (particularly after we'd just snuck into the automatic promotion places) and the players didn't look like they knew what to do or what to change.  Obviously you are never going to win every game but you'd like to try and win every game.  We seemed to settle for hanging onto a draw too quickly.

Also you say that Bruce is the best we could hope for.  Is that really the case?  Wolves have brought in two more progressive managers in the last two seasons, Fulham are unrecognisable with their new approach, Newcastle were in just a dire state as us and got Rafa (although I'm not his biggest fan)?  Compared to most European leagues the Championship is still pretty competitive and a big team in our league would still represent a step up from the top flight of many European leagues.  Obviously there was no time to do that this close season with everything else that was going on. 

Maybe with a couple of extra players a new style will magically appear - I am very excited about the prospect of Jack, McGinn and Hourihane ripping teams to pieces.  I hope that Bruce (or whoever) is targeting the type of players who will see a change of mentality rather than just the type who will steady the boat (which is what we needed 2 seasons ago) and that he is then willing to let them rip.  Forest / Leeds / etc should be worried about coming to Villa Park.  A couple of additional signings and a more dynamic style of football will mean that they will.  More "steady Eddie" Brucey specials won't.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I'll try this once more, we are - out of 72 teams, the (joint) highest scorers in 2018, goals win games - we've won a lot of games, we've scored a lot of goals, I, and many others are entertained

Quite right, and that's why we got promoted, as was the aim. It was worth putting up with the often ponderous, slow and cumbersome football because the end justifies the means. Now we're in the Premier League, playing.....hang on, are Hull and Wigan in the...?...um....we...er.... how. 

[bannedfromHandV]

54 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

If we're talking about different ways to judge a manager, then Scott Hogan might be worth considering as an example of SB's skills as a manager.

Dean Smith got Hogan involved in a free flowing attacking system and Scott scored goals for fun.

Bruce bought him having been impressed by his goal scoring prowess, evidently without realising that we didn't play the free flowing football with service that Hogan needs.

I saw a rumour just now that Sheffield United are interested in loaning Hogan. Chris Wilder coaches a fully attacking system there, and SH would get the service he needs to flourish again.

One player, three different managers, and very different results (potentially in Wilder's case).

If strikers can't flourish as part of a team at Villa, then it's fair to criticise the manager.

 

The rest of the team seem to have very little difficulty in finding the net.

Do we judge the Manager on a squad of 15+ players scoring with regular ease or 1 player who can't score?

[villabromsgrove]

5 minutes ago, allani said:

I think actually most people will probably sit somewhere between the two.  I do.  We need to rebuild and that will take time.  However, my problem with Bruce is twofold:  

Firstly, I am not convinced that he will create a team with a long-term plan.  If we rebuild now with Bruce I think we will need to rebuild again (unless he suddenly changes his "usual" approach).  Wolves and Fulham are examples of teams similar to us who have built a team around a plan - they've both invested heavily since being promoted but their style of football does not need to change significantly (it is not certain that either will survive but I fancy their chances better than Cardiff - who I think are closer to a Bruce style team).  Even if we get promoted under Bruce I don't believe that his brand of football will see us survive in the Premier League.  Having to change the style of play and bring in reinforcements and adapt to a higher standard of opposition every week is not easy.  Also I don't think that you can sack a manager who wins promotion - so we would probably be making those changes mid-season whilst trying to get out of a relegation battle.  I would prefer that we were trying to change vision now.  I appreciate that this was almost impossible given the changes in the ownership, etc and to an extent maybe it is better that the new owners can bring in their own man and own "vision" rather than Dr T having fired the bullet in January. 

Secondly, I still find his team selections bizarre and his substitutions strange.  Does he deserve credit for bringing in a battling spirit that helped us snatch a last gasp winner (at home against a newly promoted team) or does he deserve criticism for a shambles of a defensive performance where 3 of the 4 defenders were playing out of position?  Would we have needed a last minute winner if Mile wasn't giving away the ball as the last man, or we had a fullback closing down the winger making a cross and a centre back defending the back post from that cross?  Does he get credit for bringing on the player who provided the assist for the winner or criticism for taking off a striker and bringing on a midfielder with 5 minutes left (at home against a newly promoted team)?  For me, we won at the weekend despite Bruce's team selection, despite his tactical approach and despite his substitutions. 

Yes Bruce has been hamstrung by the off-field issues this close season and if McGinn was his recommendation then he definitely deserves credit for that because he looks like a player (for now and if / when we get promoted).  But he's had plenty of time and money now to build a vision and I don't quite know what it is.  There were several matches last season where we just didn't turn up (particularly after we'd just snuck into the automatic promotion places) and the players didn't look like they knew what to do or what to change.  Obviously you are never going to win every game but you'd like to try and win every game.  We seemed to settle for hanging onto a draw too quickly.

Also you say that Bruce is the best we could hope for.  Is that really the case?  Wolves have brought in two more progressive managers in the last two seasons, Fulham are unrecognisable with their new approach, Newcastle were in just a dire state as us and got Rafa (although I'm not his biggest fan)?  Compared to most European leagues the Championship is still pretty competitive and a big team in our league would still represent a step up from the top flight of many European leagues.  Obviously there was no time to do that this close season with everything else that was going on. 

Maybe with a couple of extra players a new style will magically appear - I am very excited about the prospect of Jack, McGinn and Hourihane ripping teams to pieces.  I hope that Bruce (or whoever) is targeting the type of players who will see a change of mentality rather than just the type who will steady the boat (which is what we needed 2 seasons ago) and that he is then willing to let them rip.  Forest / Leeds / etc should be worried about coming to Villa Park.  A couple of additional signings and a more dynamic style of football will mean that they will.  More "steady Eddie" Brucey specials won't.

What a good post!

I'm firmly in the minority that see a change as being necessary now. We need vision, we need a clearly defined plan, and more of the same will only delay any future progress.

Is Bruce the answer? In my opinion .... No .... but I like your argument, as it's more balanced than my black and white certainty. It's a more reasonable explanation of where we are right now. 

[bannedfromHandV]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Quite right, and that's why we got promoted, as was the aim. It was worth putting up with the often ponderous, slow and cumbersome football because the end justifies the means. Now we're in the Premier League, playing.....hang on, are Hull and Wigan in the...?...um....we...er.... how. 

Blandy:

a) I'm surprised you would take such an absolute view on it all, but that's your prerogative irrespective of what I think

b) I was not extolling the virtues of SB having done a 'great' job - I agree a 'great' job would have been promotion, my post was in relation to the constant accusation that he's a dinosaur, that we are not entertaining. Our goals for record suggests otherwise.

 

[Mic09]

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

Quite right, and that's why we got promoted, as was the aim. It was worth putting up with the often ponderous, slow and cumbersome football because the end justifies the means. Now we're in the Premier League, playing.....hang on, are Hull and Wigan in the...?...um....we...er.... how. 

So if we won one game of football at Wembley all would be fine?

[allani]

5 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

What a good post!

I'm firmly in the minority that see a change as being necessary now. We need vision, we need a clearly defined plan, and more of the same will only delay any future progress.

Is Bruce the answer? In my opinion .... No .... but I like your argument, as it's more balanced than my black and white certainty. It's a more reasonable explanation of where we are right now. 

I think there was a discussion a while back about how we rebuild.  If we are at A and need to get to C (where C is being competitive in the Premier League) - we either adopt a plan now (as per Wolves / Fulham) that will hopefully take us the whole way with incremental changes along the way.  Or we try and get from A to B and then B to C.  I personally think that two transitions is riskier than one (twice as many changes).  The other worry is that if you get from A to B then you need to make sure that you don't just go straight back to A.  Given timescales with the takeover we didn't have enough time for the A to C approach.  So I hope that Bruce can get us from A to B and that the new owners then give him a huge pat on the back and replace him - I just think he would be more likely to take us back to A than on to C (an argument supported by his career to date).  So here is hoping that the team play progressive football, win loads of matches, score plenty of goals and keep a few more clean sheets despite whatever SB is up to!

[bannedfromHandV]

5 minutes ago, allani said:

I think there was a discussion a while back about how we rebuild.  If we are at A and need to get to C (where C is being competitive in the Premier League) - we either adopt a plan now (as per Wolves / Fulham) that will hopefully take us the whole way with incremental changes along the way.  Or we try and get from A to B and then B to C.  I personally think that two transitions is riskier than one (twice as many changes).  The other worry is that if you get from A to B then you need to make sure that you don't just go straight back to A.  Given timescales with the takeover we didn't have enough time for the A to C approach.  So I hope that Bruce can get us from A to B and that the new owners then give him a huge pat on the back and replace him - I just think he would be more likely to take us back to A than on to C (an argument supported by his career to date).  So here is hoping that the team play progressive football, win loads of matches, score plenty of goals and keep a few more clean sheets despite whatever SB is up to!

What would your opinion be if they both came back down this season? 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

a) I'm surprised you would take such an absolute view on it all, but that's your prerogative irrespective of what I think

b) I was not extolling the virtues of SB having done a 'great' job - I agree a 'great' job would have been promotion, my post was in relation to the constant accusation that he's a dinosaur, that we are not entertaining. Our goals for record suggests otherwise.

In my pretty dumb way I was trying not to just say yet again that "well I find our football boring and think we're too slow and ponderous and lack cohesion and really we ought to have developed a much more dynamic style of play by now" which is what I do think, but to put it more succinctly and a little differently

The argument was made some while back that Bruce is very successful at this level..."4 promotions...knows what he's doing...and OK the football's not great to watch, but it works, it'll get us up. - in essence a price worth paying."

But, here we are struggling to perform against Hull and Wigan.

Perhaps we'll go ona Fulhamesque winning/unbeaten run and romp the league. I hope so, but I can't see it. Still ropy at the back, predictable elsewhere (apart from Jack and the excellent new bloke). We rely as much on the opponents to make mistakes as we do on our players to make chances.

Just my take on it. I'd love to be more up beat. 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

So if we won one game of football at Wembley all would be fine?

No, my point was the exact opposite of that. We'd still have the "ponderous, slow and cumbersome football". It was others who said it was worth the pain for the potential gain. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I think the problem of this debate is the outlook on our situation.

While some fans understand that we are a Championship club that has been playing second tier football for the last 3 seasons (or even longer if you consider the quality of previous campaigns), others still see us as an English powerhouse that SHOULD be up there and SHOULD be entertaining and SHOULD attract best managers & players.

I sit within the first group - we are a club that has been badly run for years, we are not to be feared when teams at our level like Leeds or Forest come to town, we are no longer a team with Barry, Young, Milner or Laursen.  

Considering our state of existence right now,  Bruce is the best we could hope for and he has shown that he can deliver results. His home win ratio is excellent, he build a great team spirit, we score goals and he attracts good players.
 

I don't think defining people as being in one of two groups is the absolute best way to understand the perspectives of different people.

Personally, I'm not massively fussed what division we're in. The championship is fine, tickets are cheaper and more plentiful at some grounds than if we were in the Prem. I'd like to watch Villa and be roundly entertained. I'm not agitiating for a change of manager. I'd never have chosen him, true, think he should have (under normal circumstances) have left this summer, but he's here still, so it is what it is. No point changing him now the season's underway. I don't think we SHOULD this or SHOULD that...it's just an opinion on a messageboard - Bruce's togger is a bit dull. You're right he's good on team spirit and stuff. Fair play to him for that. Seems like a good egg, too.

Other's will look at it all with a range of feelings and opinions. It's all fine.

[AntrimBlack]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

If, as a fan, you only have one aim, you ( not you personally of course) will spend your life having much to complain about and little to be happy about. Likewise as a player, or even a Club.

Personally I view it that the Club/ Manager has many aims and goals, and as fans we have even more.

So for me, our home record is something I’m happy about, impressed with, and proud of. And it makes me happy. And Bruce did it. So I’m pleased with him too on that score. In fact there’s a whole host of things I’m pleased about, and that I’ve enjoyed, in addition to some that have not been good at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think that home record is excellent. The post would have got a like from me, except that the poster then added a totally unnecessary jibe at the `bruce bashers', and, human nature being what it is, that generated my defensive response.

[terrytini]

Fair enough

[AntrimBlack]

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

I think we won something like 12 home games in the previous 3 seasons combined

That home record, excellent though as it is, must be tempered by the fact that it was achieved in the Championship.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, allani said:

I think actually most people will probably sit somewhere between the two.  I do.  We need to rebuild and that will take time.  However, my problem with Bruce is twofold:  

Firstly, I am not convinced that he will create a team with a long-term plan.  If we rebuild now with Bruce I think we will need to rebuild again (unless he suddenly changes his "usual" approach).  Wolves and Fulham are examples of teams similar to us who have built a team around a plan - they've both invested heavily since being promoted but their style of football does not need to change significantly (it is not certain that either will survive but I fancy their chances better than Cardiff - who I think are closer to a Bruce style team).  Even if we get promoted under Bruce I don't believe that his brand of football will see us survive in the Premier League.  Having to change the style of play and bring in reinforcements and adapt to a higher standard of opposition every week is not easy.  Also I don't think that you can sack a manager who wins promotion - so we would probably be making those changes mid-season whilst trying to get out of a relegation battle.  I would prefer that we were trying to change vision now.  I appreciate that this was almost impossible given the changes in the ownership, etc and to an extent maybe it is better that the new owners can bring in their own man and own "vision" rather than Dr T having fired the bullet in January. 

Secondly, I still find his team selections bizarre and his substitutions strange.  Does he deserve credit for bringing in a battling spirit that helped us snatch a last gasp winner (at home against a newly promoted team) or does he deserve criticism for a shambles of a defensive performance where 3 of the 4 defenders were playing out of position?  Would we have needed a last minute winner if Mile wasn't giving away the ball as the last man, or we had a fullback closing down the winger making a cross and a centre back defending the back post from that cross?  Does he get credit for bringing on the player who provided the assist for the winner or criticism for taking off a striker and bringing on a midfielder with 5 minutes left (at home against a newly promoted team)?  For me, we won at the weekend despite Bruce's team selection, despite his tactical approach and despite his substitutions. 

Yes Bruce has been hamstrung by the off-field issues this close season and if McGinn was his recommendation then he definitely deserves credit for that because he looks like a player (for now and if / when we get promoted).  But he's had plenty of time and money now to build a vision and I don't quite know what it is.  There were several matches last season where we just didn't turn up (particularly after we'd just snuck into the automatic promotion places) and the players didn't look like they knew what to do or what to change.  Obviously you are never going to win every game but you'd like to try and win every game.  We seemed to settle for hanging onto a draw too quickly.

Also you say that Bruce is the best we could hope for.  Is that really the case?  Wolves have brought in two more progressive managers in the last two seasons, Fulham are unrecognisable with their new approach, Newcastle were in just a dire state as us and got Rafa (although I'm not his biggest fan)?  Compared to most European leagues the Championship is still pretty competitive and a big team in our league would still represent a step up from the top flight of many European leagues.  Obviously there was no time to do that this close season with everything else that was going on. 

Maybe with a couple of extra players a new style will magically appear - I am very excited about the prospect of Jack, McGinn and Hourihane ripping teams to pieces.  I hope that Bruce (or whoever) is targeting the type of players who will see a change of mentality rather than just the type who will steady the boat (which is what we needed 2 seasons ago) and that he is then willing to let them rip.  Forest / Leeds / etc should be worried about coming to Villa Park.  A couple of additional signings and a more dynamic style of football will mean that they will.  More "steady Eddie" Brucey specials won't.

It seems that, given all of this is entirely negative about Bruce, you perhaps don’t sit between the two groups and are very firmly in a “please **** off now Brucey” camp?

I mean, you’ve said he has no plan, cannot pick a side, doesn’t use valid tactics, have questioned whether or not he signs good players (I assume he’s pretty much entirely responsible for those who haven’t worked, though) and plays for a draw rather than winning.

Not the most balanced piece for someone who is on the fence! 

[bobzy]

23 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

That home record, excellent though as it is, must be tempered by the fact that it was achieved in the Championship.

Why? That’s the league we’re in. We don’t have a Premier League quality team.