Steve Bruce

[villabromsgrove]

I don't think Bruce is under any real pressure yet.

When the new CEO has his feet firmly under the desk Bruce will need to be showing he can sort his team, but until then I think he's just being quietly assessed.

Playing players in their proper positions will be part of this, but for now he can argue that he's still waiting for quality loan players before he rolls out the Villa 18/19 system and team. 

[Hoof hearted]

6 minutes ago, av1 said:

How on earth do you work that out? 

Argumentative and unable to accept a perfectly valid point. Deffo a doghead. 

[tomav84]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

from various arguments i've seen on facebook and twitter its mainly based on the summer we had, you cant sack manager who hasnt lost no matter how bad we are playing, some lingering "he's done it before" stuff and the great unknown of who would come next and would he disrupt this wonderful stability that bruce brings

its basically bruce is shit but 3 weeks a go we were in even more shit and if we sack him it could get even shitter

I've not seen many saying "bruce in" because of anything that bruce himself is doing, havent seen a single positive footballing reason given, its more worrying about where we could go

I have a few:

• 7 points from first 3 games of which 2 were away (and the only dropped points were due to a dropped catch), which i think most would have taken that
• McGinn looks like a great signing and will only improve
• The loan window is still open and the players we're linked with are encouraging
• After a poor start Kodjia is improving and his goal will help him kick on
• I dont 100% agree with the 'bruceball' comments i see around - vs Hull our outfield played 50 long balls (and 45 vs Wigan) which is fairly average for the league (46 from WBA, 49 from Leeds and 49 also from the wonderful Brentford at the weekend)

Now, the Ipswich game...56 long balls, 15 of which from Jedi (who also contributed 10 of the 45 vs wigan). He has to be dropped, and no idea what Elphick has done to warrant not playing...he is experienced enough to know that just lumping it forward is not the way to play the game, and i REFUSE to believe that Bruce has instructed him to do that

Total key passes vs ipswich = 7...that's appalling...5 of those were from Jack too. The rest of the midfield + attack had more than enough opportunities to have unlocked that ipswich side but they just didn't create anything.

The players were the cause of dropping points vs ipswich both for the individual error and the lack of creativity, not bruce...but of course, because we dropped points, the 'hysteria' has started again

[Guest av1]

19 minutes ago, Hoof hearted said:

Argumentative and unable to accept a perfectly valid point. Deffo a doghead. 

Edit. Not worth it. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by av1

[srsmithusa]

46 minutes ago, Hoof hearted said:

You sound like a Wolves fan.

Because he appreciates good play and is not happy when players and tactics have obvious and severe shortcomings?   Maybe that’s why they were promoted and we were not   

Edited August 20, 2018 by srsmithusa

[Stephen_Evans]

The official site should adapt their weekly feature to “5 things we’ll never learn from [insert match]”.

[delboy54]

2058 pages of "sack or no sack".....

The way I see it is that the football played under Bruce has been pretty dire to watch. He has ground out results despite this. I wonder if the reason of his past success (and neary acheived in the final) was that to get in older and experienced players in the twilight of their careers and depend on these guys who know how to play football and let them make the "tactics" up as the game goes on (eg JT and Snodders).

There never seems to be any game plan from bruce and we know that he "doesnt do tactics" so he must rely on these old hands to do it for him. In the past its worked (just), but in the event it fails then we lose all the old hands as they were mostly loans and left again with inexperience. So if Bruce is not doing tactics then who is? We just seem to be like a pub team that consists of the first 11 who turn up on Sunday morning with a slightly less worse hangover.

I suspect that Bruce is now under pressure to bring in the young, inexperiednced and hungry players - but they need guidance and tactical awareness dont they?, so if they are not getting it from Bruce then from where?.......and round and round this argument goes.

Is tactics/game/overrated....do wee all read too much into football...because it is a simple game really isnt it?

So maybe Bruce has done the job of stabilising the club but cannot take us any further because of his limitations. However who do we replace him with?, if the new guy comes in and we pick up 1 point from the next 5 games will we be having a similar discussion again?......obviously yes

Regards to all

 

[Stevo985]

I’ll admit that I don’t quite understand the Expected Goal stat. But this makes for grim reading if there’s value in it. 

 

[TheStagMan]

22 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

I have a few:

• 7 points from first 3 games of which 2 were away (and the only dropped points were due to a dropped catch), which i think most would have taken that
• McGinn looks like a great signing and will only improve
• The loan window is still open and the players we're linked with are encouraging
• After a poor start Kodjia is improving and his goal will help him kick on
• I dont 100% agree with the 'bruceball' comments i see around - vs Hull our outfield played 50 long balls (and 45 vs Wigan) which is fairly average for the league (46 from WBA, 49 from Leeds and 49 also from the wonderful Brentford at the weekend)

Now, the Ipswich game...56 long balls, 15 of which from Jedi (who also contributed 10 of the 45 vs wigan). He has to be dropped, and no idea what Elphick has done to warrant not playing...he is experienced enough to know that just lumping it forward is not the way to play the game, and i REFUSE to believe that Bruce has instructed him to do that

Total key passes vs ipswich = 7...that's appalling...5 of those were from Jack too. The rest of the midfield + attack had more than enough opportunities to have unlocked that ipswich side but they just didn't create anything.

The players were the cause of dropping points vs ipswich both for the individual error and the lack of creativity, not bruce...but of course, because we dropped points, the 'hysteria' has started again

I'm sorry - are you seriously saying that the loan window still being open is a positive footballing reason to keep Bruce? 

[Johnnyp]

At least the ball and the grass will become acquainted at villa park Wednesday night..Just not by us!

[tomav84]

Just now, TheStagMan said:

I'm sorry - are you seriously saying that the loan window still being open is a positive footballing reason to keep Bruce? 

no but i did indicate in that point that we have been linked with players that would improve the team...who have presumably been identified by bruce (assuming said links are true). apologies if that was unclear

[villabromsgrove]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I’ll admit that I don’t quite understand the Expected Goal stat. But this makes for grim reading if there’s value in it. 

 

I think this is part of Bruce's reasoning for playing Jedinak at CB. He's setting up for goals from set pieces, and feels he needs Jedinak's extra height and muscle for that. It's a tactic, but a fairly depressing one.

[villan-scott]

23 minutes ago, delboy54 said:

2058 pages of "sack or no sack".....

 

I’ve seen a similar game on Twitter, not a game for the feint hearted! 

[srsmithusa]

12 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

no but i did indicate in that point that we have been linked with players that would improve the team...who have presumably been identified by bruce (assuming said links are true). apologies if that was unclear

Actually most of your pro points were optimistic about things you hope will get better. (Still time for Incoming loans to improve us, Kodjia might be firing better.  McGinn looks a good prospect.) or comparison to championship teams.  Pretty damning when the positives are mostly things you hope will get better.  Almost an admission that they are bad 

In all honesty I think there’s one footballing positive.  We have a decent point return (despite playing very poorly).  

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

I think this is part of Bruce's reasoning for playing Jedinak at CB. He's setting up for goals from set pieces, and feels he needs Jedinak's extra height and muscle for that. It's a tactic, but a fairly depressing one.

I think the reasoning for playing Jedinak at CB is he’s our second best CB (behind Chester)

which in itself is very worrying. 

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, srsmithusa said:

Actually most of your pro points were optimistic about things you hope will get better. (Still time for Incoming loans to improve us, Kodjia might be firing better.  McGinn looks a good prospect.) or comparison to championship teams.  Pretty damning when the positives are mostly things you hope will get better.  Almost an admission that they are bad 

In all honesty I think there’s one footballing positive.  We have a decent point return (despite playing very poorly).  

but folks frequently compare us to other championship teams as a stick to beat bruce with so why is it not ok to do so when it's to defend him?

[Hoof hearted]

37 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

Because he appreciates good play and is not happy when players and tactics have obvious and severe shortcomings?   Maybe that’s why they were promoted and we were not   

No. U.

[Hoof hearted]

41 minutes ago, av1 said:

Edit. Not worth it. 

I just thought this thread was a joke and where the trolling was at, my mistake. Carry on.

[Guest av1]

3 minutes ago, Hoof hearted said:

No. U.

 

2 minutes ago, Hoof hearted said:

I just thought this thread was a joke and where the trolling was at, my mistake. Carry on.

[villabromsgrove]

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think the reasoning for playing Jedinak at CB is he’s our second best CB (behind Chester)

which in itself is very worrying. 

I was replying specifically to the "goals from open play" ratio table. Do you not think that Jedinak's physical presence at set pieces is important to Bruce's style of play?

If we're talking about CB's then Elphick is a CB,Tuanzebe is a CB, Jedinak is not. This 'square pegs in round holes syndrome' is stopping us gelling as a defensive unit.