Steve Bruce

[terrytini]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

26 *3 = 78, plus 11 x 1 = 47 games, 89 points, and in your opinion unlikely to be bettered. (I agree)

Last season, for comparison, from one fewer game Wolves went up with 99, Cardiff with 90. Fulham third with 88.

Agree it’ll be close.....but in my view ( subjective of course) it’ll be so close, a change isn’t warranted.

[terrytini]

6 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Whilst using the same comparison i’d say Klopp has strengthened the main areas of weakness, notably centre half and Goalkeeper. So should improve on his results to date. 

Villa on the underhand have an arguably weaker defence and goalkeeper since losing Johnstone and Terry. Even Samba came in and a did job for several games. If Bruce doesn’t address this issue we will not improve on a run of form that wasn’t even good enough for top 2. 

It’s a real concern in my opinion. 

I won’t argue with that one way or the other as again we would be into subjective areas. The intent of my post was to address those who consider we aren’t on a decent course. It won’t change opinions but at least it’s an objective comparison.

[Stevo985]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

26 *3 = 78, plus 11 x 1 = 47 games, 89 points, and in your opinion unlikely to be bettered. (I agree)

Last season, for comparison, from one fewer game Wolves went up with 99, Cardiff with 90. Fulham third with 88.

Which to be fair means he's right. They don't need to be "much better". 

However, I agree I don't think our results will be as good as that. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do. 

But I don't think Terry's point is incorrect.

[terrytini]

3 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

In other words: not good enough. My view of Bruce is formed over the 90+ games he's been in charge, not just the first five of this season, nor the last 46...They recent results have just been the final straw for me.

Well, or in other other words you need a new manager to guarantee more than that.

If you want to form a view based on 90 plus games, that’s your prerogative of course. Not sure what to think of how you can judge on 90 on the one hand, and the recent results on the other, yet ignore other sample sizes though............

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Agree it’ll be close.....but in my view ( subjective of course) it’ll be so close, a change isn’t warranted.

That's fine.

BTW, now Bruce is manager this season, though I don't think (still, as with the previous 2 seasons) he'll take us up, I'd not sack him at this point. Once you've got someone in place, the only time to sack him is if/when he's doing so badly, and with no sign of turn-round that it's unavoidable.

Sacking someone during the season based on a complete guess as to how things might pan out would be foolish. So far all my bafflement at his selections, style of play, too often negative approach...at this point, sacking would be wrong, IMO. We just have to let things roll. If it goes bad, he goes, if it goes well he stays. 

[Dodgyknees]

59 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't really disagree with any of this. I'd argue we look convincing in a lot of games, but apart from that I don't disagree with your complaints, particularly the over reliance on wingers and crossing too much.

But that in itself goes against the usual lazy bruce-ball stereotype. 

We do like to use wingers, which is never an issue. My problem is we don't set up to give them what they need. We play the ball directly at them (mostly) and expect them to take the last man on and then get the cross in, by then any chance of an early cross is gone. Same for whipped crosses. 

I'd love to see us playing balls in behind players and getting wingers the space they need out wide. It stretches the game and will also allow players like Grealish and Hourihane to take advantage of gaps and get into the box. 

It's not something we do, not often. And I feel it would benefit us.

Bruce ball is no different to tactics Tim, both were used against the manager. It's just what people do.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Dick

[terrytini]

Just now, Dick said:

We do like to use wingers, which is never an issue. My problem is we don't set up to give them what they need. We play the ball directly at them (mostly) and expect them to take the last man on and then get the cross in, by then any chance of an early cross is gone. Same for whipped crosses. 

I'd love to see us playing balls in behind players and getting wingers the space they need out wide. It stretches the game and will also allow players like Grealish and Hourihane to take advantage of gaps and get into the box. 

It's not something we do, not often. And I feel it would benefit us.

Agree. I thought CH, playing slightly further forward than usual when he came on, did just that. About five times I think, it looked good and worked well.

[MrBlack]

21 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well, or in other other words you need a new manager to guarantee more than that.

If you want to form a view based on 90 plus games, that’s your prerogative of course. Not sure what to think of how you can judge on 90 on the one hand, and the recent results on the other, yet ignore other sample sizes though............

I meant more along the lines of my view of him (or indeed anything) is a culmination of all the experiences I've had with him, including the last 5 games that have reinforced and solidified the negative perspective.

But yes, I feel like, to guarantee a change we need a new manager. Although per my few previous posts it needs to be a very considered appointment and part of a management structure that is in line with the modern game.  Obviously we could stick with him and know we'll probably make the playoffs (although an injury to Chester would make that unlikely) and then it's toss of a coin time...are we feeling lucky?

Edited August 27, 2018 by MrBlack

[Guest av1]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's fine.

BTW, now Bruce is manager this season, though I don't think (still, as with the previous 2 seasons) he'll take us up, I'd not sack him at this point. Once you've got someone in place, the only time to sack him is if/when he's doing so badly, and with no sign of turn-round that it's unavoidable.

Sacking someone during the season based on a complete guess as to how things might pan out would be foolish. So far all my bafflement at his selections, style of play, too often negative approach...at this point, sacking would be wrong, IMO. We just have to let things roll. If it goes bad, he goes, if it goes well he stays. 

I must admit mate that i take a slightly different approach. Of course you are correct to say that the outcome of the season is based on guesswork, every personal decision ever made (certainly in football) has an element of guesswork about them, nothing is guaranteed. 

All you can try to do is give yourself the best possible chance of making the right decision by assessing performance, results, character and adaptability. 

Now I've already made my thoughts on Bruce clear so i won't go over them again. But like yourself i don't think Bruce is going to get our club promoted, and given that is the ultimate aim for the club, i don't think there is any logic in "letting things roll"

Of course when considering a change you have to make sure you are bringing in someone you believe more capable of achieving your aim, so I'm certainly not at the "anyone but Bruce" stage, but I'm definitely not comfortable with simply letting things roll. We need to be more dynamic that that, if we don't think Bruce will achieve our aim we should get rid and replace him with someone we think will at the easiest opportunity. 

[vreitti]

If we stick with Bruce, then there still has to be belief that he can achieve promotion. There can be no other reason. He isn't ever gonna significantly improve the players, or suddenly develop the 'villa way of playing' that we (all) crave. It's all about the results, however they come. Obviously I don't personally like it, since I'd much rather we go about it more long-term now, but I do understand the reasoning. 

 

[foreveryoung]

They are my thoughts exactly AV1! Do we wait until we are on a losing run to sack him. Then any manager that comes in would have a huge task getting us back up the league.  

One big problem which stands out for me with Bruce is, he cannot coach an average team of players into a quality side, like what Warnock did last season. They by no means had the quality to be promoted, but Warnock got them all grafting.

Bruce needs the best players to win games, for a start that does not show me great coaching. Like, Pep at man City, there is not doubt he is one of the best football coaches in the world, but has he really got the hardest job in the premier league??

Edited August 27, 2018 by foreveryoung

[Guest av1]

2 minutes ago, vreitti said:

If we stick with Bruce, then there still has to be belief that he can achieve promotion. There can be no other reason.

Agreed. Our aim is promotion, the very second that our owners believe that aim won't be achieved with Bruce they should start to consider a replacement. 

Ultimately it will depend on how the board view our squad. If they believe we have a squad capable of achieving a top 2 finish, even pottering along in the relative comfort of 4th/5th may not be enough to keep him in a job. And I'd be pretty confident that if fall outside the top 6 at any point he will be gone. 

Generally new owners like to bring in there own manager, so whenever new guys come in the managers job is always less secure, they almost habe to over achieve and make themselves unsackable. 

Bruce is barely breaking even let alone over achieving so I'd be surprised to see him still in charge after xmas. 

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, av1 said:

like yourself i don't think Bruce is going to get our club promoted, and given that is the ultimate aim for the club, i don't think there is any logic in "letting things roll"

For the sake of discussion - It's wierd, because if I were in charge of the club (thankfully I'm not) then if I were of the exact same view, I'd agree with you.

Thing is though, neither you nor I are in charge. We're just 2 fans with an opnion. The people who own the club -  they (currently) do think Bruce has a decent chance of doing what they want to do, and take us up. So our / your view and the owners' is therefore different, right?

So should we/you be directing criticism at the new owners along the lines of "you don't know what you're doing, Bruce won't get us up, why haven't you sacked him yet?" And if not, why not?

The answer is of course because that would be daft (IMO). Your view, mine, each owner - no one can accurately predict the future in football. It's kind of why "let the dice roll" is the right thing to do given where we are.

We think we're right about Bruce, others think they're right. We can't change anything, and things aren't bad enought to get wrought up about it all, so ...let it roll for a while, then maybe the new guys will have a better handle on things and can take a view, as you say, with replacement manager and coaches lined up, a way to handle the impact on FFP of all the compo... and all the rest.

[romavillan]

I think he deserves some credit for the performance against Brentford, at least till the implosion. That was close to the potential of the players he puts out and it's the first time we've played that well for anything longer than a couple of minutes this season. Again though the problem is then against Reading we go back to turd,

Turd + 3 points is ok by me to a degree, it's again not proved sutainable though as turd + a point or turd + no points is right around the corner. It's really frustrating that we can't get a few good performances in back to back, get some kind of rhythm going. We don't seem closer to knowing why we click only once in a blue moon and sorting it out. It's hard to say he's not had time, it's his side too. 

Still though, he does deserve credit for the performance against Brentford it's what all of his critics on here have wanted and for an hour at least it was good. We need some more of it though, and we definitely don't need to be shedding points quite so dramatically as we have been either.

[Guest av1]

@blandy

Fair points. Given the fact that the new owners are new to the game and we don't yet even have a CEO in place i can certainly understand the logic of getting their team in place with experience in the game before making such an important decision, so maybe I'm being a tad rash in suggesting he should be gone straightaway. 

If the new team comes in and decides Bruce is the right man then fair enough, it wouldn't be an opinion i shared but it would be one we would have to accept. One thing i would say is that it's impossible to make the assumption that Bruce has the backing of the new owners based solely on the fact he still has a job, maybe they just acknowledge their lack of experience in this field and are waiting on guidance from their new CEO once one has been identified (which i guess would be a sensible and pleasing approach after what we had with Lerner for instance). 

I guess we'll have a better idea when the new CEO comes in. 

[Guest av1]

3 minutes ago, romavillan said:

I think he deserves some credit for the performance against Brentford, at least till the implosion. That was close to the potential of the players he puts out and it's the first time we've played that well for anything longer than a couple of minutes this season. Again though the problem is then against Reading we go back to turd,

 

I've been going down the VP for longer than i care to remember, and the games against Wolves and Bristol City were 2 of the best performances I've seen down VP for long long time, and not just because of the amout of goals. 

The trouble is it's nowhere near consistent enough. Bruce as a manager is like Kodjia as a player, for every one game of brilliance there is 3 or 4 of shit. And when your aim is promotion rather than keeping a steady ship, that isn't good enough. 

[sne]

4 hours ago, bobzy said:

You can't be in "terrible form" after 2 games ffs.

Fair enough.

But we lost points against Ipswich and Reading.

After 5 games played they are last and second to last with 2 points each.

5 games might be too small a sample to draw any long term conclusions, but I think they'll agree that 2 points out of 15 is not great.

And we met them during this run.

So poor form rather than terrible?

[Guest av1]

19 minutes ago, bobzy said:

As proven last season when we won over 50% of our games, drawing fewer times than promoted Fulham

We obviously both have a different opinion on Bruce and thats fair enough. Let me ask you something though. I see a lot of Bruce supporters on here (so this isn't directly aimed at you) that post a lot of stuff in reply to, and disagreeing with those of us that want him out, but rarely (with maybe the exception of @TRO) do i see many Bruce supporters say

'Steve Bruce is doing a great job and he's the right man to take us up because of XYZ'

Now I'm not trying to lead you down a path here, I just genuinely don't see much detailed argument for keeping him. Now i personally have outlined the reasons i want him gone, so i really would be interested to read a detailed argument for why you would like to keep the bloke. 

What has he done going into his 3rd season in charge that makes you think he has, and will continue to do a good job?

[sheepyvillian]

22 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

 

Key sentence from the owners in the matchday program, and a fact alot of people seem to ignore when trying to downplay why good football and almost NO margin of error matters.

ALSO, why because "he has done it 4 times" matters for sod all in the grand scheme of things.

This is a different era.

Good attacking, football , seems to be going down quite well at Leeds, or should that be going up..

And all the clown remarks aimed at Bielsa, when he arrived at Leeds. Tbh, I can see them tiring out towards the end of the season, but if they continue to play in the same manner, the points gap will be such that it won't really matter.

[srsmithusa]

16 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Good attacking, football , seems to be going down quite well at Leeds, or should that be going up..

And all the clown remarks aimed at Bielsa, when he arrived at Leeds. Tbh, I can see them tiring out towards the end of the season, but if they continue to play in the same manner, the points gap will be such that it won't really matter.

But so many here assured me Bruce would be better than Biesla because Biesla’s World Cup record wasn’t very good.