Jump to content

Steve Bruce


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Which in itself speaks volumes as to why we're not getting promoted with him in charge.

The players come and go but the lack of any identity, and thus any progress, remains.

Quite probably.

But, the original point was I don’t see them sacking him, and I wouldn’t be wildly impressed if they did.

Since then, most posters have pointed out, in different ways, why they don’t see Bruce as the man........but that’s not the point.

The owners DID see him as the man, just a month ago. And they knew all they needed to know then.

One must presume they were either ok with that - in which cas3 a change after a month would be nonsensical, or they weren’t ok with it ( which is my view) but had no available alternative. So, I think they stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Paragraph 1 - I don’t think the owners would sack him because of a bad week, nor shoukd they.

Paragraph 2 - I don’t think any of that should be news to the owners, I think he’s delivering largely what one would have anticipated. Certainly not something so different to the past as to warrant a change of view by the owners.

Possibly. I for one though would not have anticipated being 12th and out of the Carabao at this point of the season given who we have played so far. It's not like Bruce hasn't had a full pre-season with the majority of this squad regardless of the uncertainty around the club, when he would have still been paid to do the job.

I would also not have expected Bruce to try and shift Adomah out so he could apparently try to bring in Jason Puncheon. Another sign of his scary scatter-gun approach to transfers and squad building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnnyp said:

Nobody. Not one person here is channelling all of their angst at Steve Bruce because of losing a single game 4-1. Its cumulative. 100% cumulative. And the whole "relax lads it's only one game " is patronising and condescending to be fair. Not from yourself but I've seen it a bit after yesterday's result. It's 80 odd games. I've had enough now.

But the owners knew the cumulative story. And made a choice....( in my opinion because of the absence of a suitable - in their eyes - candidate.

Nothings changed.

As you correctly point out, the angst is cumulative. 

They - effectively - appointed him a month ago, in full knowledge of his record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Hull A = 3-1 win, ok performance.

Wigan H = 3-2 win, ok in patches, came from behind and won in 4 mins of stoppage time.

Yeovil A = 1-0 win, poor performance but mitigated by playing second choice players. Rubbish opposition.

Ipswich A = 1-1, poor performance against 10 men. Lack of ability to unlock a defence owing to a lack of any sort of tactical shape and style.

Brentford H = 2-2, played well in the first half but missed chance.  Opposition coach made half time changes that we didn't respond to. Saved by an equaliser on 90+5.

Reading H = 1-1, rubbish aimless passing resulting in lots of possession and lots of hit and hope shots that never really troubled their keeper. Drew because of a silly penalty.

Burton A = 0-1 defeat, played appallingly against lower league opposition. Even with the changes, the lack of a tactical identity means the team has to be full strength to stand a chance, even against crap like Burton.

Sheff Utd A = 1-4 defeat, our heaviest loss under Bruce and another performance that exposed our defensive malaise and lack of any sort of a plan other than hoping the mercurial talents we've got up front can occupy the opposition for 90 minutes. It's fingers crossed football.

So surely this list shows what we're worse than.  We're worse than the last match every time we step onto the field, with the exception of 45 minutes against Brentford.

If he's a good manager, that's how we should be playing for 90 minutes every week.  If that's how he wants us to play but can't get the players to do it, even though they've demonstrated they're capable, he's not a good manager.

He's not a good manager.  Not any more.  If he ever was.

He's always been an effective manager, and that's why I bought into him.  A means to an end.  Right now he's ineffective and seemingly lacks the nous to correct that.

Couldn't agree more NV. 

On the bit in bold. There is a reason that we, a championship club are the biggest gig the bloke has ever had in 20yrs of management (his words). And when he finally leaves he will likely rock up somewhere like Ipswich. 

Kind of like fat Sam, he is a good bloke to steady a ship in the short term, but can't build a team over the long term. 

The poor sod that takes over next will have one CB at the club (a we've also let some of young lads go) and 50% of the first 11 will be lost when theirs loans expire. 

Its a constant rebuild with Bruce and the only plan seems to be to throw more players at it.

He's now even having to replace his own signings because either tbey simply aren't good enough or he can't get a tune out of them. 

The only decent players at the club seem to be those he inherited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

If I may be so bold......some seem to be saying that the owners, who effectively appointed him a few weeks ago, shoukd now sack him after one League defeat and some poor play.

You can’t logically throw all your plans away and do that....otherwise no Manager would last a month.

Now, if you talk cumulatively, you may decide enough enough.....or you may not.

But they shouldn’t do that......they knew all there was to know when they decided to keep him.

Or they decided to not spend £1.5-3m or whatever it cost to sack him and use that money on strengthening the squad.

IMO that was a poor call as I said loads of times the best investment we could make in the summer was a new manager.

I'm sure they see the error in their thinking as it's plain to see for anyone and everyone.

Just like last season, from this point on any dropped points will be on the owners for not making the obvious call and getting rid of Bruce.

The longer we wait to get rid the harder the job will be for whom ever takes over.

We are just wasting time with Bruce.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jacketspuds said:

Possibly. I for one though would not have anticipated being 12th and out of the Carabao at this point of the season given who we have played so far. It's not like Bruce hasn't had a full pre-season with the majority of this squad regardless of the uncertainty around the club, when he would have still been paid to do the job.

I would also not have expected Bruce to try and shift Adomah out so he could apparently try to bring in Jason Puncheon. Another sign of his scary scatter-gun approach to transfers and squad building.

You don’t put someone in charge, give them their players, then sack them because of 1 defeat and 3 draws.

As I keep saying, one assumes he was their desired candidate ( whether by lack of alternatives or choice).....don’t see them sacking him after a month.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sne said:

Or they decided to not spend £1.5-3m or whatever it cost to sack him and use that money on strengthening the squad.

IMO that was a poor call as I said loads of times the best investment we could make in the summer was a new manager.

I'm sure they see the error in their thinking as it's plain to see for anyone and everyone.

Just like last season, from this point on any dropped points will be on the owners for not making the obvious call and getting rid of Bruce.

The longer we wait to get rid the harder the job will be for whom ever takes over.

We are just wasting time with Bruce.

Well, there was two points to my OP.....the second was I wouldn’t be wildly impressed if they did sack him......and you’ve mentioned part of the reason why......how impressive would it be if they said “ we didn’t really do our homework when we kept him on, now we see we shoukd have ?”

Your last 2 paragraphs are beside the point, whether true or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Quite probably.

But, the original point was I don’t see them sacking him, and I wouldn’t be wildly impressed if they did.

Since then, most posters have pointed out, in different ways, why they don’t see Bruce as the man........but that’s not the point.

The owners DID see him as the man, just a month ago. And they knew all they needed to know then.

One must presume they were either ok with that - in which cas3 a change after a month would be nonsensical, or they weren’t ok with it ( which is my view) but had no available alternative. So, I think they stick.

It's not like they hired him a month ago, though.  We don't know what was said in that meeting.

One scenario you've not covered is them saying "Results and performances to this point have been inconsistent, but we're willing to see if you can produce an exciting, attacking brand of football."

If that was the case they'll have seen no progress at all, and little if anything to suggest that any progress will be forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, terrytini said:

You don’t put someone in charge, give them their players, then sack them because of 1 defeat and 3 draws.

As I keep saying, one assumes he was their desired candidate ( whether by lack of alternatives or choice).....don’t see them sacking him after a month.

You must also factor in that he has lost the fans and possibly spit the dressing room ( Adomah).

If these new owners have any sense they will be looking at his entire record here and not just the first few games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Fine.

Thars just your view - and that of many others- of Bruce .

But those fears and negatives were there a few weeks ago.

And were all down to Bruce. 

Look Terry its all about opinions and I'd never knock anyone for having a different point of view, even if i strongly disagree with them. But can i ask why you still think Bruce is the right man?

As fans we both want the same thing, so what have you seen going into his 3rd season that makes you think Bruce will deliver that?

Edited by av1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, terrytini said:

You don’t put someone in charge, give them their players, then sack them because of 1 defeat and 3 draws.

As I keep saying, one assumes he was their desired candidate ( whether by lack of alternatives or choice).....don’t see them sacking him after a month.

They didn't put him in charge, though.  He was already here.

What's fair is to see if he can turn things around from when they arrived and have us playing like title contenders.  He can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, terrytini said:

But the owners knew the cumulative story. And made a choice....( in my opinion because of the absence of a suitable - in their eyes - candidate.

Nothings changed.

As you correctly point out, the angst is cumulative. 

They - effectively - appointed him a month ago, in full knowledge of his record. 

That's a fair point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

It's not like they hired him a month ago, though.  We don't know what was said in that meeting.

One scenario you've not covered is them saying "Results and performances to this point have been inconsistent, but we're willing to see if you can produce an exciting, attacking brand of football."

If that was the case they'll have seen no progress at all, and little if anything to suggest that any progress will be forthcoming.

I don’t 7nderstand your first point. They could’ve fired him, they didn’t, so to all intents and purposes they chose him, surely ?

Secondly, as regards paragraphs 2 and 3, I have covered it.....my OP said “ I wouldn’t be wildly impressed if they did”.........if they did what you’ve outlined, they are clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, terrytini said:

Well, there was two points to my OP.....the second was I wouldn’t be wildly impressed if they did sack him......and you’ve mentioned part of the reason why......how impressive would it be if they said “ we didn’t really do our homework when we kept him on, now we see we shoukd have ?”

Your last 2 paragraphs are beside the point, whether true or not.

They are new to owning football clubs, making mistakes is to be expected.

Important thing is to learn from them and make sure they don't have long term effects.

Considering they came in without being surrounded by "football people" it's no surprise they hesitated in making a big call around the manager situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, av1 said:

And were all down to Bruce. 

Look Terry its all about opinions and I'd never knock anyone for having a different point of view, even if i strongly disagree with them. But can i ask why you still think Bruce is the right man?

As fans we both want the same thing, so what have you seen going into his 3rd season that makes you think Bruce will deliver that?

You are allowing your desire for him to go to influence what you think I’m saying.

I agree all down to Bruce.

I am saying if they had no better alternative, knowing all about him, a month ago, what’s changed ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, terrytini said:

You don’t put someone in charge, give them their players, then sack them because of 1 defeat and 3 draws.

As I keep saying, one assumes he was their desired candidate ( whether by lack of alternatives or choice).....don’t see them sacking him after a month.

Fair enough. Sadly, I think you're right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dounavilla said:

You must also factor in that he has lost the fans and possibly spit the dressing room ( Adomah).

If these new owners have any sense they will be looking at his entire record here and not just the first few games.

 

But that’s my whole point. They’ve already done exactly that. 

The fact is they’ve arrived at a different conclusion than some ( or the same, but had no preferred candidate) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

They didn't put him in charge, though.  He was already here.

What's fair is to see if he can turn things around from when they arrived and have us playing like title contenders.  He can't.

We’d have to disagree there.

They are the owners, they took over, they could’ve retained him, or sacked him. They will - one hopes - have studied his record, taken whatever soundings they wanted, and chose him.

As I keep saying, if they DIDNT, and simply said “ oh you are already here, why not have a go” I wouldn’t be impressed with them. But I don’t see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â