Steve Bruce

[MrBlack]

22 minutes ago, terrytini said:

If you are going to correct me get your quotes and facts straight.

” Averaging close to 2 points per game for more than a seasons worth of games” is what I said.

The last 47 games have produced 89 points at 1.89 points per game.

And that would get us up around top 2.

Which is exactly what I said.

It might not fit what you want to say, but in that case just say what you want, rather than incorrectk6 telling me I’m wrong.

 

That's a very specific sample size though...you take our last 46 (the length of a season) and it's a 1.85 average. 7.5% away from 2 points, and not enough to finish in the top two of either of Bruce's seasons.

Take some other random population and it's worse. Last 20 is a 1.65 average, last 30 is a 1.76.  Last 10 is the only one I would call "close" to 2 points at 1.9. That's including a run in where we were fighting for results and an "easy" start to this season.

I stood by Bruce until very recently, but now even the argument that he's getting the points argument isn't enough, because he's flawed.

However, I Agree with your overall sentiment that only an alternative with a genuine plan is worth trading Bruce for.  I don't know if there is anyone available / willing to come us that fits this mould.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, wilko154 said:

Do you honestly think we are dominating games due to the tactical genius of Steve Bruce? Or do you not think that we happen to have superior players, i.e. McGinn, Grealish, Kodjia who at times perform well leading to dominating the opposition, however due to the poor tactics and selections this does not lead to us winning games.

Are you honestly happy with the recent performances and our 3 points against Ipswich, Brentford and Reading. If you are then you need to give your head a wobble.

Yes, I am happy with the performances, not the results, but the performances. 

[wilko154]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Yes, I am happy with the performances, not the results, but the performances. 

Fair...

I am also happy with the performances in part... we dominate games at times and when we do that we are a real threat going forward. For me we are now at a point where we need to be going into games intending to be on the front foot, dropping the defensive midfielder where we can and going at teams. We also need to sort out the defence with square pegs in round holes.

At the start of the season I was very much pro-Bruce, but the negativity of his tactics, selections and substitions have now worn me down. I just think that we could and should be doing so much better with another manager on board.

Happy to be proved wrong if we win on Saturday, but even if we go on another winning streak I imagine we will find ourselves back in this debate in a few weeks time after a rotation/selection error.

[Keyblade]

18 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

**** hell guys. Why does everything on VT have to be so black and white?

Surely we all know that being unbeaten is not a bad thing.
But simultaneously it isn't necessarily a good thing depending on results and context.

It's good to be unbeaten. It's not necessarily great.
We literally all know this.

 

Why does everything have to be grabbed and twisted into a stick for either side of the argument.

One side of the argument is that it's a good thing that we're unbeaten, and the other side is it isn't necessarily good. This isn't a both sides issue lol

It's good when you won the majority of games and not drawn them as in our case. Seems pretty black and white to me.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Keyblade

[HeyAnty]

45 minutes ago, terrytini said:

If you are going to correct me get your quotes and facts straight.

” Averaging close to 2 points per game for more than a seasons worth of games” is what I said.

The last 47 games have produced 89 points at 1.89 points per game.

And that would get us up around top 2.

Which is exactly what I said.

It might not fit what you want to say, but in that case just say what you want, rather than incorrectk6 telling me I’m wrong.

 

O my facts are right.  47 games?  What are you on about.  Last time i saw, a season was 46 games.

Sure I'll just take it over 1 game against reading to prove that Bruce is rubbish.  That means he averages 1 point per game!

The only thing glaringly obvious thing to use is over a season, (which is the correct sample) and he got 83pts which equates to 1.8 per game.  That was nowhere near top 2 (7pts off which is massive in promotion race.)    

[terrytini]

3 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

That's a very specific sample size though...you take our last 46 (the length of a season) and it's a 1.85 average. 7.5% away from 2 points, and not enough to finish in the top two of either of Bruce's seasons.

Take some other random population and it's worse. Last 20 is a 1.65 average, last 30 is a 1.76.  Last 10 is the only one I would call "close" to 2 points at 1.9. That's including a run in where we were fighting for results and an "easy" start to this season.

I stood by Bruce until very recently, but now even the argument that he's getting the points argument isn't enough, because he's flawed.

However, I Agree with your overall sentiment that only an alternative with a genuine plan is worth trading Bruce for.  I don't know if there is anyone available / willing to come us that fits this mould.

I’m aware one can choose all manner of different date groups. And I agree whichever way you look at it, he never averages the necessary 2 points per game ( and, from memory, never has, anywhere, other than one season).

However, the point I’m making is th points we’ve been getting for a long time are close to what’s needed for top 2.

If they weren’t, I’d want him gone. This time last year his tally since arriving the previous October wasn’t close, so I wanted him out.

But this time, it’s close, so, (whether taking 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 games) I see no point in removing him for the hope of the same return or marginally better.

Ive no issue with anyone who thinks differently. And I’ve no issue if people were to say “ I’d rather a 30% chance of promotion with ‘X’ rather than a 80% chance with Bruce, or whatever.

But I don’t see the wisdom in getting rid on the basis of what I’ve said, and I doubt the owners will, especially when getting a decent replacement may not be possible while the season is on.

I imagine they will monitor to see he keeps us around a viable total, and, if he does, ride it out. Then, regardless of whether he gets us up or not, put their man in next May.

 

[sheepyvillian]

15 minutes ago, wilko154 said:

Do you honestly think we are dominating games due to the tactical genius of Steve Bruce? Or do you not think that we happen to have superior players, i.e. McGinn, Grealish, Kodjia who at times perform well leading to dominating the opposition, however due to the poor tactics and selections this does not lead to us winning games.

Are you honestly happy with the recent performances and our 3 points against Ipswich, Brentford and Reading. If you are then you need to give your head a wobble.

He's really pissed - off with Albert, though.

[terrytini]

Just now, HeyAnty said:

O my facts are right.  47 games?  What are you on about.  Last time i saw, a season was 46 games.

Sure I'll just take it over 1 game against reading to prove that Bruce is rubbish.  That means he averages 1 point per game!

The only thing glaringly obvious thing to use is over a season, (which is the correct sample) and he got 83pts which equates to 1.8 per game.  That was nowhere near top 2 (7pts off which is massive in promotion race.)    

What on earth are you saying ? I’ve not mentioned a season, despite your declaration that it is “ the correct sample .

I think you need to get to grips with it means to offer an opinion.

I offered MY opinion on why I would keep him !!! It’s got absolutely NOTHING to do with whether you prefer to look at it differently !

My original post, and my patient reply, are crystal clear.

You are basically trying to say I have to say what you’d rather I say, ludicrous.

 

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

18 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

Even against that opposition? 

Better in the cup than lose anywhere else and we don't need extra cup games in this league,  there are loads of games allready.

I will judge it all in a few weeks and see where we sit in the table.  It was poor I agree but its still August.  I am not getting fed up this early 

 

[terrytini]

28 minutes ago, Skruff said:

I just read the ongoing discussion. But I 've had a read now. I get what you are saying, and believe its a good argument. It gives us an insight in how he thinks and what a does.  However bunching two seasons together does that actually give us statistics that can tell us anything usefull? Does john terry and snodgrass tell us anything about our current seasons or its trajectory? I'd rather look at how we're doing in our current seasons. 

Does it tell us anything useful ?

Good question.

Ive no idea !

Should we look at just the last game, or last 3, or this season, or last however many ?

What would any of it tell us ? I don’t know.

But, I’m only saying that in my personal view, he’s got a high enough points total for a long enough time for me personally to make a judgment that there’s a reasonable chance he will continue to do so and therefore get us in the top 2.

Im afraid that’s all I can do !

[KevinRichardsonsMoustache]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

 

You are basically trying to say I have to say what you’d rather I say, ludicrous.

 

 

 

[HeyAnty]

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

What on earth are you saying ? I’ve not mentioned a season, despite your declaration that it is “ the correct sample .

I think you need to get to grips with it means to offer an opinion.

I offered MY opinion on why I would keep him !!! It’s got absolutely NOTHING to do with whether you prefer to look at it differently !

My original post, and my patient reply, are crystal clear.

You are basically trying to say I have to say what you’d rather I say, ludicrous.

 

Well the last time i looked, it was over an entire season that counted, not 2 games from a previous seasons or 2 games into the next season.  No matter what way you try to twist it and all the wee crying/laughing faces you put in to emphasis it, that is absolutely the correct sample to use to judge his points tally in terms of getting promotion.  

[bobzy]

18 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

One side of the argument is that it's a good thing that we're unbeaten, and the other side is it isn't necessarily good. This isn't a both sides issue lol

It's good when you won the majority of games and not drawn them as in our case. Seems pretty black and white to me.

The poster who brought it up said there was nothing good about being unbeaten and that it was an irrelevant cliche like "must win game".  It's **** obvious that being unbeaten is good.

 

This place is ridiculous.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, privateer said:

At the end of the game I threw up my own pelvis and one young kiddie near me cried all the water out of his body. Just imagine how his mother felt. It's a **** disgrace.

 Like Dante meets Bosch in a crack lounge!

er, I think the phrase the journalists use is "familiar failings for Steve Bruce". Seems exactly right/

[MrBlack]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I’m aware one can choose all manner of different date groups. And I agree whichever way you look at it, he never averages the necessary 2 points per game ( and, from memory, never has, anywhere, other than one season).

However, the point I’m making is th points we’ve been getting for a long time are close to what’s needed for top 2.

If they weren’t, I’d want him gone. This time last year his tally since arriving the previous October wasn’t close, so I wanted him out.

But this time, it’s close, so, (whether taking 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 games) I see no point in removing him for the hope of the same return or marginally better.

Ive no issue with anyone who thinks differently. And I’ve no issue if people were to say “ I’d rather a 30% chance of promotion with ‘X’ rather than a 80% chance with Bruce, or whatever.

But I don’t see the wisdom in getting rid on the basis of what I’ve said, and I doubt the owners will, especially when getting a decent replacement may not be possible while the season is on.

I imagine they will monitor to see he keeps us around a viable total, and, if he does, ride it out. Then, regardless of whether he gets us up or not, put their man in next May.

 

Fair points, I've just finally reached the point where I think history is repeating itself and we're going to end up falling short again, whilst you feel there's still enough potential to get there that it's worth riding out a bit longer.  I think waiting until we do drop below target will be a missed opportunity.

Yes, there is absolutely a chance that won't happen, and he'll get us enough points for the playoffs, and maybe even automatic promotion, but I think the balance has shifted the way of it being less likely than more for me and its early enough in the season to make a change worthwhile.

I still reserve the right to be happy to be proven wrong and see Bruce get us promoted, even if he isn't the long term managerial ideal.  I'd never take joy in us failing but being right

[terrytini]

7 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

Well the last time i looked, it was over an entire season that counted, not 2 games from a previous seasons or 2 games into the next season.  No matter what way you try to twist it and all the wee crying/laughing faces you put in to emphasis it, that is absolutely the correct sample to use to judge his points tally in terms of getting promotion.  

Right out of politeness I’ll try once more. I will use some Caps to try to get you to focus on the important bits.

For MY opinion, I can count 1 game, 2 games, 3 games, 4 games, 23 games, 30 games, 50 games, or what ever I Darned well want !! ( edited for decorum).

Ok ? It’s up to ME.

And if I’m giving MY OPINION I’m not “ twisting” anything .

And there IS no CORRECT sample to “ judge”.

So....in MY view, the fact that he has obtained around 1.9 ( or nearly 2, as I can call it, since it’s my opinion) points per game for the last 47 games,  or 1.8 for the last 66 odd, or whatever, is reason enough to think he’ll continue to do so.

Its a view. It’s my view. You can get as bothered about it as you like but I really, really, don’t have to follow your personal rules.

 

 

 

[terrytini]

4 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Fair points, I've just finally reached the point where I think history is repeating itself and we're going to end up falling short again, whilst you feel there's still enough potential to get there that it's worth riding out a bit longer.  I think waiting until we do drop below target will be a missed opportunity.

Yes, there is absolutely a chance that won't happen, and he'll get us enough points for the playoffs, and maybe even automatic promotion, but I think the balance has shifted the way of it being less likely than more for me and its early enough in the season to make a change worthwhile.

I still reserve the right to be happy to be proven wrong and see Bruce get us promoted, even if he isn't the long term managerial ideal.  I'd never take joy in us failing but being right

Indeed. It’s anrelief that you at least understand what I’ve said ! You maybe noticed some don’t ......

I agree waiting until we drop below target will be a missed opportunity. Equally, acting before we do may not work. It’s a guessing game, a gamble.

Id agree it’s early enough to make a change if there was an outstanding candidate. In my view that’d have to be Someone who was for the future, yet still able to get us up, who didn’t need prevseason, didn’t need his own players.

The owners may know of such a person, or may know of someone who fits their bill if it’s different to mine. But I don’t.

So I have to add “ likely points total based on past” to “ alternative candidate” and conclude “ stick”.

But, as I’ve said, I could understand other views.

[Keyblade]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

The poster who brought it up said there was nothing good about being unbeaten and that it was an irrelevant cliche like "must win game".  It's **** obvious that being unbeaten is good.

 

This place is ridiculous.

That's one guy. It's not always good tho wtf

If I draw every game, I'm unbeaten but it's not good because I damn near got relegated. That's the point most people are making from what I saw.

We drew 3 out of 5 games. We're unbeaten, it's fine, but I wouldn't class it as good. It's obviously not bad either.

[HeyAnty]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Right out of politeness I’ll try once more. I will use some Caps to try to get you to focus on the important bits.

For MY opinion, I can count 1 game, 2 games, 3 games, 4 games, 23 games, 30 games, 50 games, or what ever I Darned well want !! ( edited for decorum).

Ok ? It’s up to ME.

And if I’m giving MY OPINION I’m not “ twisting” anything .

And there IS no CORRECT sample to “ judge”.

So....in MY view, the fact that he has obtained around 1.9 ( or nearly 2, as I can call it, since it’s my opinion) points per game for the last 47 games,  or 1.8 for the last 66 odd, or whatever, is reason enough to think he’ll continue to do so.

Its a view. It’s my view. You can get as bothered about it as you like but I really, really, don’t have to follow your personal rules.

 

 

 

I never said you couldnt use your own opinion or count what you want.  

What i did say was that in my OPINION the sample you did use is not correct in terms of promotion.  Over a season is the correct sample in my OPINION and gives the most useful sample.  If you dont want people to question your methods to state something or disagree with your opinion then you are def on the wrong board. 

[jimcohen]

I prefer it when we discuss tactics and style on this, rather than argue on weather Bruce should get fired or not as this will always be divisive. There is a strong tendency for us to all want everyone to agree with our opinions on Villa, which wont ever happen. Way I see it there is strong arguments for both and I am firmly on the fence, probably 51% stay. 

For Bruce to stay - Consistency, stability, they are his players, we havn't lost in the league yet, at least we are scoring a few, there have been some signs of better play with JM's pressing and Bruce asking for more energy in midfield, the season has barley started, he has taken us a long way from RDM, its been hard for him under the previous ownership, we couldn't enter the transfer market until very late, we have limited funds. 

For Bruce to go - Burton game, selection of players out of position, reluctance to change things, rigid formations, inability to fix glaring holes in the team ahead of less needed positions etc.