Steve Bruce

[AVTuco]

What the owners see is three wins and a draw. No losses. Why on earth would they sack him now?

[Keyblade]

One big problem with Steve is that he's very reactive as opposed to proactive. We don't impose ourselves on other teams, but instead react to them. 

If the line of thinking on here is true then his bizarre team selection yesterday was supposedly to counteract Ipswich's aerial prowess. In the end, Jedinak who was supposed to nullify this despite his other shortcomings was still out-jumped from a long throw-in and it was all for naught.

On the other hand, to accommodate this we played a centre back at right back that offered nothing going forward and we had a completely disjointed right side of our attack. We show far too much respect to teams especially when we are away from home.

The man just doesn't want to lose. With a game plan like that, sooner or later it's going to backfire and we won't win. This isn't the mentality of contenders which our owners expect us to be and I think it'll be coming into review very soon if we draw or lose a few more games in this manner.

[Reivax_Villa]

We know deep down that Bruce is not going to get us promoted.

However we are in a sticky situation, we need suitable replacements to become available. 

We also need a CEO and DOF to identify the suitable replacement that suits their vision for this football club.

I cannot see bruce being sacked until we have top level appointments.

 

[mikeyp102]

16 minutes ago, AndyM3000 said:

The sooner is he gone the better. Iv said it for a long time but we are going nowhere under him.

 

At present we have: 

A) Someone we know (from the last couple of seasons) doesn’t understand football and is stuck in China),

B ) Someone who has run a mediocre basketball team,

C) Someone who has links to Adidas,

 

running our club. 

Whilst the manager is currently getting results, would it not be prudent to keep said manager in place until we have a CEO and Football director in place who understand Football to make an informed decision on the new manager? The last thing we want is something like Blues had when rowett went. 

 

[sharkyvilla]

18 minutes ago, AVTuco said:

What the owners see is three wins and a draw. No losses. Why on earth would they sack him now?

Exactly, with two home games coming up shortly we could be in a very good position.  I'm not a huge fan of Bruce by any means but if they gave him their support when taking over, there is little evidence of a need to change based on what has happened so far.  It's just wishful thinking that he will get sacked after the first points we dropped.  If I'm being honest the squad hasn't changed that much since I was bricking it that the club was going down the toilet on and off the pitch before the takeover, so I'm not sure quite what my expectations for the season are.  Let's hope for two or three quality loans or free transfers.

[NurembergVillan]

23 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

Whilst the manager is currently getting results, would it not be prudent to keep said manager in place until we have a CEO and Football director in place who understand Football to make an informed decision on the new manager? The last thing we want is something like Blues had when rowett went. 

 

100%.

I'd replace Bruce.  We have to.  But it's got to be part of a root and branch change in approach to management at AVFC.

Get a proper CEO in, with a vision.  Have him get the DoF in that can execute that vision on the football side of the business.  Have him get in a Head Coach that can bring it to life on the pitch.

It's not easy, and it won't be quick.  Until we can get the right bodies in the top roles, Bruce is ideal to keep us in contention.

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

Until we can get the right bodies in the top roles, Bruce is ideal to keep us in contention.

I think you've summed it up right there. 

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, Taxahunter said:

I suggest you watch the game once more and read the comments from the match thread, because they were, even the commentators said so

Ok mate

[Vive_La_Villa]

41 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

At present we have: 

A) Someone we know (from the last couple of seasons) doesn’t understand football and is stuck in China),

B ) Someone who has run a mediocre basketball team,

C) Someone who has links to Adidas,

 

running our club. 

Whilst the manager is currently getting results, would it not be prudent to keep said manager in place until we have a CEO and Football director in place who understand Football to make an informed decision on the new manager? The last thing we want is something like Blues had when rowett went. 

 

Yes. 

Those calling for him to be sacked right now are just being emotional. It’s not as simple as Bruce is sacked and then team starts playing well. 

I get why everyone wants change. I do to. But sacking him without a plan or replacement would be very dangerous.

 

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, AVTuco said:

What the owners see is three wins and a draw. No losses. Why on earth would they sack him now?

As others have said better, they would not do that if results in the now were good. But it's borrowed time, if the owner of your club actually likes and watches the game, as we do, then they will understand that if you're 1-1 against 10 men then you bloody go for it. For whatever reason we did not, but AVFC is now the pet project of seriously rich, seriously enthusiastic, and seriously ambitious football fans - Bruce cannot survive. 

[imavillan]

1 hour ago, AVTuco said:

What the owners see is three wins and a draw. No losses. Why on earth would they sack him now?

Maybe not now...

but one thing is fore sure....they will do one day.

and i reckon it will be this season if not this year

[MrBlack]

14 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

100%.

I'd replace Bruce.  We have to.  But it's got to be part of a root and branch change in approach to management at AVFC.

Get a proper CEO in, with a vision.  Have him get the DoF in that can execute that vision on the football side of the business.  Have him get in a Head Coach that can bring it to life on the pitch.

It's not easy, and it won't be quick.  Until we can get the right bodies in the top roles, Bruce is ideal to keep us in contention.

This sums it up perfectly for me. I was in support of Bruce at the start of the season, to the point where I was worried who we'd end up with when he inevitably walked away during the administration threat.

I perhaps naively thought he'd get us promotion this year, the history of his performance in this league suggests he should. But the start to this season has rapidly changed my mindset. We do need a change, but one that is considered and matches the modern game.

Bruce deserves his role currently, if only due to the personal tragedy he had last year, and his commitment to the club. But it isn't only that. His points return is very respectable given the shower he took over. It just isn't sustainable, and only an approach like the above is a long term solution.  

[DaveAV1]

39 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Yes. 

Those calling for him to be sacked right now are just being emotional. It’s not as simple as Bruce is sacked and then team starts playing well. 

I get why everyone wants change. I do to. But sacking him without a plan or replacement would be very dangerous.

 

Who says the owners would sack him without a plan? Do you think these guys are sitting twiddling their thumbs. Bruce has said that a new CEO is coming in within the next 2 weeks. These guys aren’t idiots like the last pair we’d had. Behind the scenes they’ll be in touch with a lot of football people, taking advice and putting things in place. 

I said in a previous post, that good clubs are always looking to the future and have a number of plans in place for various scenarios. They will know that the manager’s job is a vital one and appointing the right one is extremely important. I don’t believe they will do anything in a knee jerk reactionary way, neither do I believe that they aren’t working behind the scenes to identify possible managerial candidates for when they decide a change is required. 

 Bruce out without a plan, absolutely not. Bruce out with a properly researched manager identified and a plan to support him both financially and structurally yes. 

[srsmithusa]

5 hours ago, TRO said:

Well on Hogan.....Alan Shearer, would not necessarily agree with you, his argument is that the player has to adapt.

Blimey, if you were looking as you suggest, you would never sign anyone.....all teams play different to a degree.

I do happen to think more due diligence on character, in particular should be implimented.....but when a player struggles with a first touch or loses the ball too easily, i find it hard to blame the manager.

but who wouldn't have signed John Terry? or Snodgrass or Johnstone.....I think you are barking up the wrong tree.....We could so easily have gone up, its fine margins......How did Bayern feel when we beat them in the Euro cup......sometimes best teams don't always get over the line, thats the magic of football.

And the final defense for incompetence?   

It’s not all Teflon Steve’s fault.  He has done some good. But he had clear objectives each year and he failed twice in a row.  In the second attempt he bet the farm on experienced players and still lost.  I have never failed to meet my employers annual targets twice in a row.  But if I did, I would rightly fear for my job.  And rightly be held to account for those failures   

He has failed over almost 2 full years to implement a positive and coherent style.  He has failed to recruit players that can execute whatever system it is he envisions.  He has failed to train and prepare them effectively, to play those roles, and yet we still debate how much of it is his fault rather than note the unacceptable shortcomings and take action. And this is what has always bothered me.  We are compounding the same error.  Teflon Steve can see that we are too slow on the ball and yet it stays that way for months on end.  We can see that the performances are woeful and yet as a club, we give a thousand excuses why we should just accept it.  When the manager, the fans, and the club accept failure to perform, how can we be surprised if players have the same attitude. 

We are all far too tolerant if inept performance. That, for the thousandth time, is why we remain and will remain in the championship.  We tolerate ineptitude and failure and blame it on something or somebody else.  So the changes the player needs to make are not made.  The changes the coaching staff need to make are not made, the changes the manager needs to make are not made.  Result?  Doldrums.  Ineffectual  performances rinse repeat. 

[TRO]

4 hours ago, av1 said:

If, and it's a big if, there were any truth to the Henry rumours, it would suggest that they weren't overly struck on Bruce from the outset. 

In which case i would suggest that any slump.in form, coupled with the shit football, and he'll be gone. 

 

With a win ratio of 48.9%.....I think that will be difficult.

it will be results alone that will remove him.....if he goes.

[Mazrim]

It surely goes without saying we have a plan to replace him before actually doing it? They're not morons.

The new owners seem like the real deal. They will absolutely have a contigency and a method of how they want things done. We already hear of their desire for a younger more progressive team for instance.

We don't need to worry about tactical changes because any tactical changes will involve actually having some tactics. It can only have a postive effect.

I was of the mind that Bruce is keft in charge for now as we can't buy permanent players and it may cause disruption. But if we carry on playing as we have done in the last 4 ganes we will be nearer mid table than the promotion shake up and so may as well maje the change sooner rather than later, using the rest of the season as a transitional period.

 

To sum up. The football had been terrible. The results have papered over it against average teams. It can improve, even with Bruce in charge. Especially if we get the end of this loan window right. But there's no grace period with Bruce left now for me. Stop the daft line ups, play the right players in the right positions, be positive in intent, be proactive with subs and get the right players in. Or the axe will and should fall swiftly.

[TRO]

27 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

And the final defense for incompetence?   

It’s not all Teflon Steve’s fault.  He has done some good. But he had clear objectives each year and he failed twice in a row.  In the second attempt he bet the farm on experienced players and still lost.  I have never failed to meet my employers annual targets twice in a row.  But if I did, I would rightly fear for my job.  And rightly be held to account for those failures   

He has failed over almost 2 full years to implement a positive and coherent style.  He has failed to recruit players that can execute whatever system it is he envisions.  He has failed to train and prepare them effectively, to play those roles, and yet we still debate how much of it is his fault rather than note the unacceptable shortcomings and take action. And this is what has always bothered me.  We are compounding the same error.  Teflon Steve can see that we are too slow on the ball and yet it stays that way for months on end.  We can see that the performances are woeful and yet as a club, we give a thousand excuses why we should just accept it.  When the manager, the fans, and the club accept failure to perform, how can we be surprised if players have the same attitude. 

We are all far too tolerant if inept performance. That, for the thousandth time, is why we remain and will remain in the championship.  We tolerate ineptitude and failure and blame it on something or somebody else.  So the changes the player needs to make are not made.  The changes the coaching staff need to make are not made, the changes the manager needs to make are not made.  Result?  Doldrums.  Ineffectual  performances rinse repeat. 

I empathise with your comments, that we lack coherent football, but we clearly have differences why that is.

you say if you failed in your job's targets,twice in a row you would possibly go and then mitigate that by saying held to account.which is it?

In most companies, if you fail your objectives, but have feasible rationale why that is and it is accepted by the directors as reasonable mitigation, you will possibly survive.

We don't know, whether those conversations have been made or not.

The question here is.....is it all Bruces fault, is it partly his fault or is it none of his fault at all.

Our football currently has issues, I don't think its ALL his fault.

Edited August 19, 2018 by TRO

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, AVTuco said:

What the owners see is three wins and a draw. No losses. Why on earth would they sack him now?

Because statistics can be misleading.

[sheepyvillian]

4 minutes ago, TRO said:

I empathise with your comments, that we lack coherent football, but we clearly have differences why that is.

you say if you failed in your job's targets,twice in a row you would possibly go anf then mitigate that by saying held to account.

In most companies, if you fail your objectives, but have feasible rationale why that is and it is accepted by the directors as reasonable mitigation, you will survive.

We don't know, whether those conversations have been made or not.

The question here is.....is it all Bruces fault, is it partly his fault or is it none of his fault at all.

Our football currently had issues, I don't think its ALL his fault.

Whether it's his fault or not, he has to carry the can, simple as. That football is unacceptable.

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, AVTuco said:

What the owners see is three wins and a draw. No losses. Why on earth would they sack him now?

Maybe because they have actually watched the games and realise like anyone else who has watched them that the three wins and a draw is Emperors New Clothes?