Steve Bruce

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Still can’t believe he left the squad with 2 centre halves and one left back. 

Why would he do that?

And 546 right backs

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, TheStagMan said:

Well, they look like they are enjoying themselves!

They're watching cricket to be fair. They'd have more fun watching the grass grow.

[TheStagMan]

Never understood the appeal of cricket and that picture just confirms it for me.

[Dave J]

On 24/01/2019 at 08:28, Stevo985 said:

I mean, call me crazy, but I imagine he sorted the holiday after he'd been sacked.

Mental suggestion, I know  

 I mean call me crazy - but the guy has enough money to pay for travel cancellations - you would think?

[villalad21]

Wouldn't surprise me if he got Shef Wednesday promoted next season.

Bruce usually do very well with clubs with little expectations.

[TRO]

11 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Still can’t believe he left the squad with 2 centre halves and one left back. 

Why would he do that?

because the club was broken....He himself never knew if he had a job....we couldn't pay basic bills, never mind replace players.

come on.....what have you missed.

you don't have to be a Bruce fan, to at least understand what he was up against.

Edited January 25, 2019 by TRO

[Zatman]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

because the club was broken....He himself never knew if he had a job....we couldn't pay basic bills, never mind replace players.

come on.....what have you missed.

you don't have to be a Bruce fan, to at least understand what he was up against.

yet he signed 70k a week Yannick Bolasie

[TrentVilla]

16 minutes ago, TRO said:

because the club was broken....He himself never knew if he had a job....we couldn't pay basic bills, never mind replace players.

come on.....what have you missed.

you don't have to be a Bruce fan, to at least understand what he was up against.

Sorry mate but frankly that’s bollocks. It’s not the reason we were left with 2 CB’s and a LB.

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, Zatman said:

yet he signed 70k a week Yannick Bolasie

Panic, signing....just tried to correct a campaign against him for playing defensive football.....He deployed too many to defence because individually they were not good enough, John Terry just masked the problem....When he went and Johnstone....we were totally exposed and Axel's injury  just added to it.

I am not defending him, just trying to explain the situation.....its been poo for so long.

We have too many players who are not good enough defensively or Offensively.....Dean needs time to put it right and the support to go with it.

[Zatman]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

Panic, signing....just tried to correct a campaign against him for playing defensive football.....He deployed too many to defence because individually they were not good enough, John Terry just masked the problem....When he went and Johnstone....we were totally exposed and Axel's injury  just added to it.

I am not defending him, just trying to explain the situation.....its been poo for so long.

We have too many players who are not good enough defensively or Offensively.....Dean needs time to put it right and the support to go with it.

I am sorry but thats not what happened. He needed defenders badly and he signed Bolasie in a position we had 3 or 4 options already in Green, Adomah, El Ghazi even Kodj or Bjarnason can play there if needed

He could have used the 70k on at least 2 defenders maybe even 3 

[TRO]

23 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Sorry mate but frankly that’s bollocks. It’s not the reason we were left with 2 CB’s and a LB.

yes it was.....The club was not in a position to do otherwise, when it mattered....it was remedied too late.

I am not defending him carte blanche, but some of the stuff written is frankly Bollocks.

He may have taken longer than we all wanted, but the team was never fully balanced when he was there....I cannot comment on his ability to sign who he wanted, but it seems some thought he had a free reign....He signed John Terry to try to put some quality in to our defence, when in truth the others were not good enough...We are now seeing that.

We relied on too many loan signings from Premier clubs, in order to gain promotion, it back fired, when it could have worked....Hindsight is an exact science.

Some of the stuff written about him is frankly embarrassing, he failed, that's all he did....I get it that some folk don't like him, but to justify that stance they try to validate their view by making outlandish claims about his ability.

I am totally behind Dean Smith, but so far the jury is out, until I see his own players brought in.

It doesn't matter, what I think of him or you Trent, he's gone.....but we can't keep blaming him for the grass not being green enough.

We had all this with Martin O'Neill being blamed after he had gone.....there comes a time, when the new manager has to take responsibility.

I feel for Dean Smith, but many on here were saying the squad is good enough.....so which is it....if the squad is good enough, then so far the manager isn't.

My view is.... under Steve Bruce and Dean Smith we have players not good enough.

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by TRO

[TRO]

17 minutes ago, Zatman said:

I am sorry but thats not what happened. He needed defenders badly and he signed Bolasie in a position we had 3 or 4 options already in Green, Adomah, El Ghazi even Kodj or Bjarnason can play there if needed

He could have used the 70k on at least 2 defenders maybe even 3 

We never went up, through not scoring enough goals....our defensive record was ok, at the time....(even though there is another debate there IMO)

Those you mention were not making a mark.....its not just about filling a slot or ticking a box......its about making a mark.

I am just saying what may have influenced him.

Edited January 25, 2019 by TRO

[TRO]

25 minutes ago, Zatman said:

I am sorry but thats not what happened. He needed defenders badly and he signed Bolasie in a position we had 3 or 4 options already in Green, Adomah, El Ghazi even Kodj or Bjarnason can play there if needed

He could have used the 70k on at least 2 defenders maybe even 3 

I would hazard a guess he thought Jedinak and Chester would form a sold partnership....I don't/didn't agree, but that seems like his thinking.

He let Elphick go, i can only assume for creating individual errors in the first few games.

I am not arguing he got things wrong....but show me the man that don't.

I still don't think Elphick and Chester is the answer either.

[Zatman]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

I would hazard a guess he thought Jedinak and Chester would form a sold partnership....I don't/didn't agree, but that seems like his thinking.

He let Elphick go, i can only assume for creating individual errors in the first few games.

I am not arguing he got things wrong....but show me the man that don't.

I still don't think Elphick and Chester is the answer either.

Well was criminal what he did and **** up our season due to his stupidity. Jedinak while also an untested centre back was also not exactly the fittest player and missed a good few games in his 2 seasons here and was negligence what he did

Elphick while not the answer was our player and should not have been loaned out in a defensive crisis. God more I think about it the more I actually hate Steve Bruce before was just a dislike

[kiltorken]

To be fair wasn't a promising French centre back flown in to sign and later changed his mind, then he tried to sing that Scottish lad Mckenna but was rejected as it was too close to deadline day for motherwell (I think) to find a replacement, obviously should have kept Elphick on but to be honest he was shite any time he played pretty much. 

I think peoples views are too clouded by hatred of the man to give a balanced view of the overall situation. 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

yes it was.....The club was not in a position to do otherwise, when it mattered....it was remedied too late.

I am not defending him carte blanche, but some of the stuff written is frankly Bollocks.

He may have taken longer than we all wanted, but the team was never fully balanced when he was there....I cannot comment on his ability to sign who he wanted, but it seems some thought he had a free reign....He signed John Terry to try to put some quality in to our defence, when in truth the others were not good enough...We are now seeing that.

We relied on too many loan signings from Premier clubs, in order to gain promotion, it back fired, when it could have worked....Hindsight is an exact science.

Some of the stuff written about him is frankly embarrassing, he failed, that's all he did....I get it that some folk don't like him, but to justify that stance they try to validate their view by making outlandish claims about his ability.

I am totally behind Dean Smith, but so far the jury is out, until I see his own players brought in.

It doesn't matter, what I think of him or you Trent, he's gone.....but we can't keep blaming him for the grass not being green enough.

We had all this with Martin O'Neill being blamed after he had gone.....there comes a time, when the new manager has to take responsibility.

I feel for Dean Smith, but many on here were saying the squad is good enough.....so which is it....if the squad is good enough, then so far the manager isn't.

My view is.... under Steve Bruce and Dean Smith we have players not good enough.

No. No I'm sorry, I'm not buying that.

Yes the club was unstable and financially on its knees in the summer but don't try and tell me that was the reason we entered the season with 2 CB's and 1 LB because that doesn't even stand up to the most basic scrutiny. 

You say the financial difficulties were remedied too late. Well that is just not true.

The investment by the new owners happened around the 20th July, the transfer window closed on the 9th August and the loan market remained open until 31st August. That given the seeming financial clout of the new owners was ample opportunity to do something about the imbalance in our squad.

Bruce managed to sign Nyland, McGinn, Yuanzebe, El Ghazi, Abraham, Bolasie and Moreira. 

So yes, without a shadow of a doubt his ability to sign players or even attempt to sign players was hampered by the financial issues at the club, even the most ardent of Bruce critic would be hard pushed to dispute that and I'd say I'd be in the running for that title. But to to try and claim that the issues of the summer resulted in us only having 2 CB's and 1 LB is just wrong, plain wrong.

You can't claim that is the case when he signed 7 players. He had ample opportunity to sign players for those positions. That is before you even get to the ludicrous decision to loan out Tommy Elphick when he hadn't secured another CB and please don't try and justify that mistake by pointing at his early season form or claim people supported it at the time because they didn't.

Yes he tried to sign a CB, who seemingly turned us down because of the football Bruce played, and yes he tried to sign a LB who had a last minute better offer. But where were the back up plans or targets? They may or may not have existed but he didn't land them and that wasn't because of a lack of financial backing or a lack of time.

Then you have to factor in the utter arrogance of the man and his belief in spite of the evidence to the contrary that he could turn Jedniak into a CB.

Besides all of this, the summer was the 4th window Bruce had at the club and he was backed to varying degrees in each of them. The decisions he made in each of those windows contributed to us having 2 CB's and 1 LB, he opted to do things like sell Baker and sign short term sticking plasters like Samba and Terry, who though excellent was a very short term deal.

He had 4 windows to try and build a back four, so you can't possibly try and put our lack of players down to the instability of the summer.

And don't try and say about hindsight being an exact science. You know full well I was outspoken on Bruce and his approach for a very long time, I first stated I thought he should go in pre-season going into his first full season. 

There is nothing outlandish to say he is utterly responsible for the mess of a squad he left behind. And yes O'Neill took stick after he went for the bloated wages on crap players he left behind and again that was justified.

Yes he is gone but no I won't stop blaming him for the mess he made when he was here, especially the 2 CB's and 1 LB. Because he is responsible.

Frankly, that you are in the same breath talking about the new manager in Smith needing to take responsibility is ridiculous when you defended Bruce for as long as you did and still seem to want to absolve him of blame for things that were in his control.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

We never went up, through not scoring enough goals....our defensive record was ok, at the time....(even though there is another debate there IMO)

Those you mention were not making a mark.....its not just about filling a slot or ticking a box......its about making a mark.

I am just saying what may have influenced him.

And that isn't accurate either.

We scored 72 goals, more than Cardiff who finished 2nd and who were below us when he arrived and spent far far less but thats another story.

We didn't fail to go up because we didn't score enough goals, we failed to go up because we didn't win enough games and that was on Bruce. It was on Bruce because of his game management, his tactics, his coaching not that I saw much evidence of any and because all he ever did was depend on individual players.

Bruce approached games with a mentality of get ahead and try and hold on and it fell short far too often.

[markavfc40]

13 hours ago, TRO said:

 

It doesn't matter, what I think of him or you Trent, he's gone.....but we can't keep blaming him for the grass not being green enough.

We had all this with Martin O'Neill being blamed after he had gone.....there comes a time, when the new manager has to take responsibility.

I feel for Dean Smith, but many on here were saying the squad is good enough.....so which is it....if the squad is good enough, then so far the manager isn't.

My view is.... under Steve Bruce and Dean Smith we have players not good enough.

 

I don't really want to get drawn into this thread as I think it pretty pointless but felt the need to comment on this.

I was actually of the opinion that the squad was good enough but I was wrong. It is simply so diabolical defensively that despite being good enough offensively that can't negate our defensive issues. In our last five home games we have scored 5,2,2,2,2 and haven't won any of them. Two goals at home should be winning you the vast majority of games but we simply can't defend and that is 100% on Bruce and his short term thinking.

He left us with one centre back (the other one we owned he loaned out) and one left back after two years at the club and a pretty penny for his level to play with. 

You are right that there comes a time when a new manager has to take responsibility but after 3 months it isn't even close to being Dean Smiths time. What he inherited really hit home to me last week. Six players aged 30+ started the game and another 2 were on loan. He inherited a massive rebuilding job and one that is going to take him 2 or 3 transfer windows. Give him that time and I'd be confident we will have a much more balanced and younger squad than the one Bruce left after 4 windows and two years.

Edited January 26, 2019 by markavfc40

[fightoffyour]

12 hours ago, kiltorken said:

To be fair wasn't a promising French centre back flown in to sign and later changed his mind, then he tried to sing that Scottish lad Mckenna but was rejected as it was too close to deadline day for motherwell (I think) to find a replacement, obviously should have kept Elphick on but to be honest he was shite any time he played pretty much. 

I think peoples views are too clouded by hatred of the man to give a balanced view of the overall situation. 

The French guy didn’t sign because he didn’t want to play Bruceball though!

[kiltorken]

1 minute ago, fightoffyour said:

The French guy didn’t sign because he didn’t want to play Bruceball though!

Yeah I wouldn't blame him to be fair but that's beside the point.