Steve Bruce

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

Genuine question(s).

1. Are any if you at the point where you'd want Villa to lose games to see Bruce go?

In 2016-17 there was a member of our forum who started a "I hope we lose" thread ahead of our FA Cup game against Fleetwood. On the basis that defeat would have brought Lee Johnson closer to the sack (this was in our long bad run that season).

Despite quite a few people at that time being "LJ out" he was, almost entirely, slated for his comment.

 

2. Would you take 3 defeats in your next 3 games- essentially ruling out promotion for this season- if it meant Bruce left.

 

Yeah, you might find you have a full Ashton Gate with everyone cheering your boys on tomorrow 

[TRO]

17 minutes ago, Junxs said:

I'm not saying RDM was good, but it annoys me when people don't take into consideration that we had to play 6 teams that ended the season in the top 10, 2 of which got promoted and one which lost the play off final. To only have 2 defeats in that time wasn't so bad in hindsight. There is certainly no evidence he would have got us relegated when you consider this. Wasn't half as bad as Bruces run after Xmas. 

Watching the games at least he had a plan of playing football, it was last minute equalisers that cost him the job ultimately. 

but Bruce got an almost instant reaction, to RDM's team.....RDM had no where near enough time, but who could run with constant non -wins......Bruce did have poor runs in his career with us, but he bought himself some time.

I don't think its a good time to argue in favour of Steve Bruce, because I think we all favour a change.....but just saying.

[NeilS]

I have a feeling Friday's match could go in a similar vein to the Sheffield United game. Bristol City will sense we are really wobbly and go after us early on, and will be extra fired up to revenge the hammering they took at Villa Park. If it goes as I fear it will (I never want Villa to lose), then I think Bruce will be gone early next week.

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Yeah, you might find you have a full Ashton Gate with everyone cheering your boys on tomorrow 

If I thought I had to do that.....I would cease supporting Aston Villa.....its not fair to the other fans.....I would just walk away.

I cannot honestly imagine a scenario where i would cheer the opposition in order to get rid of a manager.

Billy McNeil was probably the worst I have seen and I wouldn't have dreamed doing that.

I will just rely on the owners making the right call at the right time.

Edited September 27, 2018 by TRO

[villa89]

2 minutes ago, NeilS said:

 then I think Bruce will be gone early next week.

As long as he's gone that's all that matters.

[bannedfromHandV]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

but Bruce got an almost instant reaction, to RDM's team.....RDM had no where near enough time, but who could run with constant non -wins......Bruce did have poor runs in his career with us, but he bought himself some time.

I don't think its a good time to argue in favour of Steve Bruce, because I think we all favour a change.....but just saying.

Has there ever been?

[Wainy316]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

If I thought I had to do that.....I would cease supporting Aston Villa.....its not fair to the other fans.....I would just walk away.

I cannot honestly imagine a scenario where i would cheer the opposition in order to get rid of a manager.

Billy McNeil was probably the worst I have seen and I wouldn't have dreamed doing that.

I will just rely on the owners making the right call at the right time.

Yeah I was jesting, I'd never openly cheer on an opposition.

If however I was offered, defeat tomorrow and Bruce is gone I would take it and hide away while the game is on.

For me that represents a better chance at promotion which is the ultimate goal after all.

[TRO]

I think the sharks are circling.....I think opposition managers have the jist of us....they know the issues.

I don't think we have it in us at the moment to negate that.

I hope I am wrong of course.

[romavillan]

1 hour ago, Thug said:

I suppose they want to secure a replacement before they boot him.

 

there can be no other explanation.

They could be waiting to get the man they want as sporting director/director of football first, or at least sound him out. They might be prepared to give Bruce time to turn it around, or be trying to get DOF, new head coach and coaches , scouts etc all in place for Jan. If they do that they are writing this season off and risking starting from 12 points down after a FFP punishment, who knows what they are doing.

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, villa89 said:

As long as he's gone that's all that matters.

No...If we get a new manager and as long as he wins ( accompanied by believable football)

That's all that matters

[romavillan]

8 minutes ago, TRO said:

but Bruce got an almost instant reaction, to RDM's team.....RDM had no where near enough time, but who could run with constant non -wins......Bruce did have poor runs in his career with us, but he bought himself some time.

I don't think its a good time to argue in favour of Steve Bruce, because I think we all favour a change.....but just saying.

Bruce got an almost instant improvement in the shipping of stupid late goals, then shipping of almost any type of goal, but we never played nice football under Bruce that season, not for more than maybe 20 mins a month anyway

[TRO]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Yeah I was jesting, I'd never openly cheer on an opposition.

If however I was offered, defeat tomorrow and Bruce is gone I would take it and hide away while the game is on.

For me that represents a better chance at promotion which is the ultimate goal after all.

If I was offered a defeat tomorrow and a new top manager ( or one that would realistically turn us around).....I would take that.

hypothetically of course.

Edited September 27, 2018 by TRO

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Bruce got an almost instant improvement in the shipping of stupid late goals, then shipping of almost any type of goal, but we never played nice football under Bruce that season, not for more than maybe 20 mins a month anyway

Totally agree....just trying to add balance to the debate.

[sparrow1988]

8 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Bruce got an almost instant improvement in the shipping of stupid late goals, then shipping of almost any type of goal, but we never played nice football under Bruce that season, not for more than maybe 20 mins a month anyway

well we got 7 minutes against sheff weds so I expect the other 13 this weekend

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Has there ever been?

Well, yes I think there has, for me anyway.....I thought in time I would see the improvements on the park in an incremental fashion, with player changes  and time.....sadly I haven't.

I have just reached the point, with as many player changes that there has been, that nothing, I have been unhappy with watching is going to change, with him.

I don't know the reason why and quite frankly I am tired trying to second guess.

I understand others have come to this conclusion a long time before me for reasons that belong to them.

I do like the guy, but I am resigned to the fact that its not going to resemble a team playing cohesive football until he's gone.

However, I am equally tentative on the next man, getting it right.

fingers crossed.

[Made In Aston]

27 minutes ago, TRO said:

but surely that is the point of win ratios.

Lets divorce Steve Bruce from the debate for a second.

A manager in a lower division has a harder time attracting better players, than the higher leagues, so its most likely he has players commensurate with that division, which balances things out.

If a manager is fortunate enough to have better players like Wolves did last season and untold wealth and a brilliant agent to boot, bully for them.....The managers win ratio is still valid IMO.....He still has to blend and motivate them.

Wealth and good players, all aid the ability to win games, but there are many other factors too....you cannot account for them all.

Win Ratios are not the be all an end all....but In my opinion they are a decent Barometer of the managers ability.....don't be blinded by too many conditions/factors, they even themselves out.

Usually, the better division you are in the better equipped players you have to deal with it.

We have gone down to 13th place, so Steve Bruce's win ratio will have deteriorated....that's fair IMO......If he gets us promoted ( which I very much doubt) he will have better players due to investment, to deal with a better league....that's fair too.

Many statisticians use them, if they thought they were unfair of  lacked credibility they wouldn't pursue them.

The best managers around all have the best win ratios, funny that.....and conversely the worst ones always preside over poor win ratios...funny that too.

League placings are also good measurement as we all know.

You aren't completely right there. There were many teams better than villa in the Premier league so win ratios will be low. But in the championship villa are a big team so win ratios will be higher.

The average win ratio for automatic promoted teams over the last 2 seasons is approximately 60%. Bruce's ratio as villa manager in the league is about 42%. Well off the pace with one of the best squads in the division. If he achieved that win ratio with man utd or a similar team in the prem he would have been sacked. 

[TRO]

1 hour ago, Made In Aston said:

You aren't completely right there. There were many teams better than villa in the Premier league so win ratios will be low. But in the championship villa are a big team so win ratios will be higher.

The average win ratio for automatic promoted teams over the last 2 seasons is approximately 60%. Bruce's ratio as villa manager in the league is about 42%. Well off the pace with one of the best squads in the division. If he achieved that win ratio with man utd or a similar team in the prem he would have been sacked. 

I don't think you get my point, sorry.....Even if you don't agree.

Yes, there were better teams in the Prem than us and yes we were in the lower part of the league.

That is the point of win ratios......to get in the top half and improve your win ratio.....that is the very challenge.

You can't expect to be in the lower half and have an impressive win ratio.....but its the managers job to deal with that.....as a manager you can't say my win ratio is unfair, because i have poor players....its your job to fix it, that why you are being rated.

If you are in a higher league it follows that in theory you should be able to attract the better quality players to compete in that league....that is what creates the balance.

Given time to make the transition and get his better players in....Nuno's win ratio will be fairly compared with what he achieved last season.

I accept that when you get to the very pinnacle, its harder to get the best players, the air gets thinner so to speak......but as a benchmark through 4/5 divisions I think its a fair measurement.

Edited September 27, 2018 by TRO

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

If I was offered a defeat tomorrow and a new top manager ( or one that would realistically turn us around).....I would take that.

Ha !

I aired this view last season before Norwich at Home - after 2 dismal away performances - and was universally pilloried.

How times have changed.

Its a hypothetical isn’t it ? 

The point is if defeat GUARANTEED him gone, it’d be worth it ( if one takes the view we are better without him).

Of course in the real world there is no such guarantee, therefore one does not wish for, or celebrate, defeat.

[briny_ear]

Ah yes, here we go again.

People wanting us to lose so Steve Bruce can get sacked.

This really is obsession.

So great is the obsession with sacking Steve Bruce that people are prepared to see tie team the team they support lose. 

That represents a serious loss of perspective.

[Keyblade]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

We've been round this before.

You're right, you can't compare them exactly and say Bruce is better than Manager X because his win percentage is 5% higher.

But you CAN use win percentage to give a general idea that a manager has done well. 

You can't argue, for example, that Garde was a better Villa manager than Bruce given garde's win % was 13% and Bruce's is whatever it is, 44%?

It's an indicator, but certainly not an exact measure.

 

I don't agree, for example, that you can label Bruce one of our worst managers ever when he has a win percentage of 44% over 100 games.
I completely agree that he hasn't been good ENOUGH. 100%

But as usual I think VT is exaggerating a Manager's deficiencies because he's out of favour.

I think managers should be judged relative to expectations, win percentages on their own count for very little. That 44% looks good compared to our other managers, without any context but I think it's pretty poor considering where we've been aspiring to be (I'm actually surprised it's that low, thought it would have been much higher).

Sherwood for example was the worst in my opinion as he was given a 50M budget (which was pretty substantial in 2015) and tasked to kick on into the top half and managed to lose 8 out of 10 games and dooming us to relegation.

Paul Lambert for another example was given a Championship budget and tasked to keep us in the PL. He managed to achieve that in 2 out of 3 seasons and was rightly sacked when it looked like he would relegate us. I would put him near the bottom of our worst managers list.

Alex McLeish was middling as he kept us up while having to replace our 2 best players Young and Downing with 10M Charles N'Zogbia. But he also played the most mind-numbing negative football. But there's not much to choose from between Lambert, McLeish and Garde imo as the expectations were so low and none of them really failed.

In contrast, Bruce was given the largest budget of the Championship for 3 seasons running and was tasked with promotion. 100 games later and that goal looks no likelier to be achieved.

Even if we were to look at win ratios as a barometer, it would still fall considerably short of expectations. I would say in relative terms we are most comparable to Manchester United in the PL, who have been underachieving since Fergie left. David Moyes and Louis Van Gaal, who are considered disasters by most United fans. But even they both had 52% win ratios.

If we wanted to use promotion from the Championship as a barometer, Nuno Espirito Santo had a cool 65% win ratio and is currently sitting on 60% as Wolves manager after 6 games of PL football.

An even better comparison would be Neil Warnock who took over Cardiff a week after Bruce came in for us. Over 2 seasons he had a 53% win ratio with a vastly (!) inferior squad. 

Saying that he's not been "good enough" I think understates how poor of a job Bruce has done relative to expectations and implies that he's not that far off of being a success. Boasting the most expensive Championship squad ever assembled, with talent and experience all over the pitch, we were comfortably 4th best in the league last season and played off the park in the play-off final. That is a pretty big discrepancy between expectations and results.

He deserves credit for 'steadying the ship', but when examined in context his tenure has been very poor imo.