Steve Bruce

[Keyblade]

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I agree regarding him getting sacked, but I also think there's an expectation amongst our fan base.  If you go back 6 (?) games, there'll be plenty of people questioning Smith, saying he's out of his depth etc. etc.  Now, everything looks rosy and people believe we'll get promoted.  The extremes are probably more evident at Villa than many other clubs.  I think fans would have taken 38 1-0's, but not, say, 20 of them.

We got 83 points in the league last season and lost the playoff final.  At that point, people were calling for Bruce to be sacked.  This season, we cannot reach 83 points in the league.  If we lose in the playoff final again, I doubt there will be many people calling for Smith to be sacked.  The situations aren't the same, of course, and Bruce had much longer than Smith.  However, the type of football we're seeing (potentially along with Smith being a Villa fan) will give Smith more time than Bruce could ever have been afforded.

As a disclaimer, because if you type anything even remotely positive regarding Bruce automatically makes you think he's one of the World's top managers, it was completely correct that he got sacked when he did.  However, I think the fan base generally had lost touch with him far before that point.

I agree that his style of football will grate harder on is when we're not winning and for more progressive styles sometimes even if you're losing there seems to be some kind of 'greater purpose' behind it.

But for all of that, I thought Villa fans were quite patient with him. We finished 13th in his first season and at 1 point we lost 7 out of 8 games or something like that. Most fans were happy to give him a full crack at it.

When he did, it started to become apparent that there were fatal flaws that meant we wouldn't get promoted under him. Chief among them was that we didn't have the consistency for autos which was the aim that season and secondly we almost invariably played on the back foot against the top teams which obviously wasn't very conducive to a playoff run, and so it proved.

I think the thinking at the time re:sacking him before the playoffs was to get in an attacking manager to give us a chance lol. That would have been incredibly harsh on Bruce but I can see the desperation behind such a notion. It really was promotion or bust (and we almost did bust if it wasn't for frankly a minor miracle).

Bruce had the somewhat unique position of being judged solely on 1 particular criteria. Black or white. He got 2 years before the plug was pulled and the fans turned on him, which I think is surprisingly patient especially for such a rigid remit.

[TRO]

12 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I agree that his style of football will grate harder on is when we're not winning and for more progressive styles sometimes even if you're losing there seems to be some kind of 'greater purpose' behind it.

But for all of that, I thought Villa fans were quite patient with him. We finished 13th in his first season and at 1 point we lost 7 out of 8 games or something like that. Most fans were happy to give him a full crack at it.

When he did, it started to become apparent that there were fatal flaws that meant we wouldn't get promoted under him. Chief among them was that we didn't have the consistency for autos which was the aim that season and secondly we almost invariably played on the back foot against the top teams which obviously wasn't very conducive to a playoff run, and so it proved.

I think the thinking at the time re:sacking him before the playoffs was to get in an attacking manager to give us a chance lol. That would have been incredibly harsh on Bruce but I can see the desperation behind such a notion. It really was promotion or bust (and we almost did bust if it wasn't for frankly a minor miracle).

Bruce had the somewhat unique position of being judged solely on 1 particular criteria. Black or white. He got 2 years before the plug was pulled and the fans turned on him, which I think is surprisingly patient especially for such a rigid remit.

A run of defeats will test any fan bases patience.

His dour, cautious football was his overall undoing, we all got simply fed up with it, because it lacked hope, it just spelt survival.

some managers lack courage and play a style that just keeps them in a job, i guess not many will admit that, but i think that is the plan, such is the lucrative rewards of the job.

I will remember him for stopping the rot, which at the time, i couldn't see ending....and the win against Wolves, which was a special day.

I now want to spend my time and energy on Dean Smith.

[rodders0223]

25 minutes ago, TRO said:

A run of defeats will test any fan bases patience.

His dour, cautious football was his overall undoing, we all got simply fed up with it, because it lacked hope, it just spelt survival.

some managers lack courage and play a style that just keeps them in a job, i guess not many will admit that, but i think that is the plan, such is the lucrative rewards of the job.

I will remember him for stopping the rot, which at the time, i couldn't see ending....and the win against Wolves, which was a special day.

I now want to spend my time and energy on Dean Smith.

We've had that for 10 years pretty much, and when we were winning 2-1 consistently I am the kind of guy that will swallow crap people if the results are right.

For me, it was his personality and his attitude. The constant waffling in post match and pre match repeating the same old nonsense cliches and bullshit. The constant digs. The guy is just a rocket polisher.

[lapal_fan]

I'm a bit uncomfortable talking about style of football.. Is it really that much better under Smith?  We've hardly blown anyone out of the water, apart from Middlesborough, who have been on an awful run. 

There's a lot of grey in the Bruce term.  I enjoyed last season because we won a load of games and had some good moments.  Then we lost the playoff final and Xia ran out of money, when we had a squad rebuild going on because of all the loans and Terry retiring.. It was short-termism, which is essentially a gamble which failed.  Then we went half way through the summer with administration on the door-step when we were "saved", then we went an did what business we could, some of which was good, the defence side of which was **** awful.  

Won our first couple of games this season, then it all went pear shaped and he lost interest I think.

There's no doubt that he loved managing a team like Villa, he said multiple times that it was his best job, but the lop-sided squad he left wasn't good.  It's probably why he's bitter about it, which he shouldn't be - he had enough time and I think we cut him off at just the right time.  It's a shame it didn't all work out, but the black and white nature of peoples posts irk me.  We were 90 minutes away, and one poorly positioned Hutton (Fulham's playoff goal) away from going up.. that's pretty close in my opinion.  

As ever with football, it's decided on fine margins, and I'm sure in 3 years we'll be having the same conversations about Smith! 

Such is life. 

[Stevo985]

Just now, lapal_fan said:

I'm a bit uncomfortable talking about style of football.. Is it really that much better under Smith?  We've hardly blown anyone out of the water, apart from Middlesborough, who have been on an awful run. 

There's a lot of grey in the Bruce term.  I enjoyed last season because we won a load of games and had some good moments.  Then we lost the playoff final and Xia ran out of money, when we had a squad rebuild going on because of all the loans and Terry retiring.. It was short-termism, which is essentially a gamble which failed.  Then we went half way through the summer with administration on the door-step when we were "saved", then we went an did what business we could, some of which was good, the defence side of which was **** awful.  

Won our first couple of games this season, then it all went pear shaped and he lost interest I think.

There's no doubt that he loved managing a team like Villa, he said multiple times that it was his best job, but the lop-sided squad he left wasn't good.  It's probably why he's bitter about it, which he shouldn't be - he had enough time and I think we cut him off at just the right time.  It's a shame it didn't all work out, but the black and white nature of peoples posts irk me.  We were 90 minutes away, and one poorly positioned Hutton (Fulham's playoff goal) away from going up.. that's pretty close in my opinion.  

As ever with football, it's decided on fine margins, and I'm sure in 3 years we'll be having the same conversations about Smith! 

Such is life. 

I think Smith's football is better.

But I've always said Bruce's "dour football" is greatly exaggerated on here.

 

I'd choose winning games under Smith over winning games under Bruce any day, but I don't think the gap is as huge as people make it out to be.

[lapal_fan]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think Smith's football is better.

But I've always said Bruce's "dour football" is greatly exaggerated on here.

 

I'd choose winning games under Smith over winning games under Bruce any day, but I don't think the gap is as huge as people make it out to be.

I agree. 

Smith's game seems a bit more "trained and planned" rather than Bruces "go and show me what you can do" approach, which leads to individuals playing less as a team - I hope that makes sense.  

I just don't understand everyone saying "well now we're playing great football" (or words to that effect), when really, we struggled past Blackburn, had the penalty gone in, we probably would have lost against Wednesday and we beat blues 1-0 in a really tight game.. 

I know I've used games to strengthen my argument, but apart from Derby/Middlesborough & forest Away, it's not been as comfortable as people are making out.  

I'll always take winning ugly over not winning though!  

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

 

I'll always take winning ugly over not winning though!  

Like I always say, good football is winning football.

I hope that Smith's improved style leads to us winning more, hence we're all happier. But if we were getting results like we did before Grealish came back we wouldn't be happy about it.

[VILLAMARV]

Well, we finally got an answer. 2395 pages until we got a fairly reasonable one

[Mark Albrighton]

14 hours ago, sne said:

Exactly.

But when Bruce comes out and complains he "didn't have millions to spend" while the club actually was spending £73m or whatever the exact figure might have been on wages it rings a bit false.

Add to his nice manipulation of facts in a recent interview here -

Quote

“They hadn’t won at home for 18 months, had to get money in, and there’s only Burton, Millwall and Ipswich who spent less than we did in 2018 but we got into the play-offs.

Link

Clever there Steve, “look we were only competing financially with those three relegation candidates! Ignore wages and any transfers from the previous year. They don’t count.” I’ve seen elsewhere him go on about bringing in money for players. It’s like he can take the credit for selling Veretout or Amavi for £X amount but it’s the board’s fault for pissing millions away on Hogan. If he doesn’t get the blame for the money spent, he can’t take the credit for money brought in (IMO).

And I know the previous 18 months had been terrible, but the “hadn’t won at home for 18 months” stat, yes of course Steve. 

It was the away record and it was 14 months without a win. Does it matter? Not really, it was still a terrible record, but at least it’s a correct and not some inaccurate bollocks he’s said to defend himself.

I know there are positives to say about his tenure but when he comes out with some of this crap, what positive thoughts I have diminish slightly.

[sne]

Conveniently not mentioning we had 7 times the wage budget that Burton had.

Not spent any money...

[Keyblade]

2 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

I'm a bit uncomfortable talking about style of football.. Is it really that much better under Smith?  We've hardly blown anyone out of the water, apart from Middlesborough, who have been on an awful run. 

Boro twice, aggregate 6-0. Derby twice, aggregate 7-0. We played WBA off their own park and should have won.

The football is so much better. Players moving into space, players moving after passing. But most of all, playing to win and never just to contain the opposition and hope our expensive players pull a rabbit out of the hat.

[lapal_fan]

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

Boro twice, aggregate 6-0. Derby twice, aggregate 7-0. We played WBA off their own park and should have won.

The football is so much better. Players moving into space, players moving after passing. But most of all, playing to win and never just to contain the opposition and hope our expensive players pull a rabbit out of the hat.

We always beat Boro   We're their bogey team, and have been since Southgate went to them. 

Derby, we regularly beat too. 

WBA, fair enough, we usually draw, like we did just. 

I'm not saying it isn't better, but it's hardly like we didn't have games where we battered teams, like say, Wolves 4-1 last year or beating Sunderland 3-0. or Sheff Wednesday 4-2 away, Ipswich 4-0 or Reading 3-0 (thanks Google). 

I think your second sentence is the nail on the head really.  Bruce was often too wary of other teams and what they could potentially do.  Whereas Smith you feel, believes we have better quality players than all the other teams, so he does set up to get chances made. 

I agree with you, Smith's football is better to watch, but I don't think it's as vast a difference as what others are saying it is.  

[osmark86]

3 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

We always beat Boro   We're their bogey team, and have been since Southgate went to them. 

Derby, we regularly beat too. 

WBA, fair enough, we usually draw, like we did just. 

I'm not saying it isn't better, but it's hardly like we didn't have games where we battered teams, like say, Wolves 4-1 last year or beating Sunderland 3-0. or Sheff Wednesday 4-2 away, Ipswich 4-0 or Reading 3-0 (thanks Google). 

I think your second sentence is the nail on the head really.  Bruce was often too wary of other teams and what they could potentially do.  Whereas Smith you feel, believes we have better quality players than all the other teams, so he does set up to get chances made. 

I agree with you, Smith's football is better to watch, but I don't think it's as vast a difference as what others are saying it is.  

it's more entertaining, way more entertaining in fact. just makes watching the game so much more enjoyable. Plus we're getting results from it. I much prefer DS for that alone.

[lapal_fan]

12 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

it's more entertaining, way more entertaining in fact. just makes watching the game so much more enjoyable. Plus we're getting results from it. I much prefer DS for that alone.

Again, is it way more entertaining?  Hanging on against Blackburn at home doesn't really strike me as entertaining.. I wasn't exactly loving the Wednesday game until the 92nd minute either!  

I think it's better, but it's not loads better. 

That said, we've already scored more goals than last season, we've let more in of course, but I think we look really nicely balanced at the minute, and we seem to be utilizing the squad really well.  

[Stevo985]

It's more entertaining now.

It was as bad if not worse than anything Bruce served up for the first couple of months of 2019.

 

Hopefully once Smith has more time with the squad any periods like that will disappear

[Keyblade]

21 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

We always beat Boro   We're their bogey team, and have been since Southgate went to them. 

Derby, we regularly beat too. 

WBA, fair enough, we usually draw, like we did just. 

I'm not saying it isn't better, but it's hardly like we didn't have games where we battered teams, like say, Wolves 4-1 last year or beating Sunderland 3-0. or Sheff Wednesday 4-2 away, Ipswich 4-0 or Reading 3-0 (thanks Google). 

I think your second sentence is the nail on the head really.  Bruce was often too wary of other teams and what they could potentially do.  Whereas Smith you feel, believes we have better quality players than all the other teams, so he does set up to get chances made. 

I agree with you, Smith's football is better to watch, but I don't think it's as vast a difference as what others are saying it is.  

I don't know dude I felt we absolutely battered Derby at Pride Park. Under Bruce we only beat them once 1-0 in 3 attempts.

Also the first half against Blackburn was the best football I ever saw Villa play, period. For me there's a huge difference. It's night and day. My dad who isn't a Villa fan was telling me yesterday that we're much better than last season, in his words we actually 'play like a team'. 

[Zatman]

6 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

Again, is it way more entertaining?  Hanging on against Blackburn at home doesn't really strike me as entertaining.. I wasn't exactly loving the Wednesday game until the 92nd minute either!  

I think it's better, but it's not loads better. 

That said, we've already scored more goals than last season, we've let more in of course, but I think we look really nicely balanced at the minute, and we seem to be utilizing the squad really well.  

We battered Blackburn though 2-1 really flattered them. Played some brilliant football in the game too

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's more entertaining now.

It was as bad if not worse than anything Bruce served up for the first couple of months of 2019.

Hopefully if grealish stays fit any periods like that will disappear

that's the reality for both smith and bruce, both utterly dependent on jack

[Keyblade]

9 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

that's the reality for both smith and bruce, both utterly dependent on jack

I would say Bruce less so. We were doing fine when he was out last year, hovering in the playoff places and picking up wins.

With Smith I don't think it's a reliance on Jack specifically, but on a ball playing #8/10 who can play his role. We were replacing him with Conor or Bjarnason who just aren't that player and we had horrible luck with Lansbury and Carroll.

[Mark Albrighton]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

that's the reality for both smith and bruce, both utterly dependent on jack

Strangely, Bruce’s record (win percentage) was higher in games without Jack.

I looked that up when the Smith without Grealish stat was first doing the rounds.

I believe Bruce’s win rate with Jack was about 40% (over about 60 league games) without Jack it was over 56% (over league 32 games).

That could mean Bruce’s set up wasn’t really dependent on Jack and as such the team weren’t playing to one of it’s biggest strengths. It could mean Smith’s style is heavily reliant on Jack, maybe too much.

Or it could mean stats while interesting up to a point, don’t always paint the complete picture.