Mantis Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 10 hours ago, TRO said: hindsight is an exact science. No, even at the time they looked like incredibly dumb things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 35 minutes ago, Mantis said: No, even at the time they looked like incredibly dumb things to do. I appreciate the point.....but "incredibly dumb" is not how I would describe it, that seems a tad harsh to me.....misjudged I would say, without knowing the full details of the financial implications and the pressures he MAY have been under from his superiors. wasn't we close to signing Harold Makoudi,? maybe he thought it was done and was instructed to free up wages who knows, Goalkeepers were coming in too and Jed Steer was no where near flavour of the month at that time. We don't know what pressures he was under to balance the books financially and judging by past events ( Hindsight) it wasn't very pleasant. Unless we both know the full facts why these decisions were made is difficult to make a measured comment. but to make out that Elphick and Steer ( at the time) was the answer to our ills is fanciful IMO......I concede they both come back better equipped to help us, but that was then.....IIRC Elphick made a few rickets just before he left us for Hull. I have never set out to defend SB unconditionally and of course he has made errors.....Dean will too.......Its the inability by his detractors to mention anything good he has done that prompts folk like me, to remind them. I still think on the road back to recovery, he has played a part.....Thankfully, Dean has picked up the baton and looks like he is poised to make a much bigger impact. Ps To use things like that against him, when its not clear the motives is an indication of folk who just didn't like him.....but he's gone now so its all hot air. Lets watch the rebuild and wallow in that. PPS to all those fans that wanted Steve Out and Dean in, were spot on.....congrats to them for their foresight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Michelsen said: Countless historians would strongly disagree with that statement I would put it, that they would agree.....else history is "fake news" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 4 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said: This doesn't accurately represent how we sign players these days. Smith is just one part of that process. I really don't think Kalanic is a 'Smith signing', he may have OK'd it but I seriously doubt Kalanic was a player he knew a lot about and pushed for us to sign. I don’t think it accurately represents how we signed players under Bruce either. Unless we think Bruce went out and personally selected Nyland and Moreira? but again Bruce seems to get the blame for his bad signings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 5 hours ago, Michelsen said: But when the outcome was an absolute mess of a gk (not to mention cb) situation at the club, it’s hardly unfair to criticise the man in charge of the situation? Of course. I’m not saying it was a good decision but my my point is every other manager we’ve had doesn’t seem to have realised Steer is decent either. So why is it suddenly Bruce’s fault? And everyone else who did the same thing is forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: I don’t think it accurately represents how we signed players under Bruce either. Unless we think Bruce went out and personally selected Nyland and Moreira? but again Bruce seems to get the blame for his bad signings I have it on good authority Bruce wanted Moreira on a permanent deal in a straight swap for Grealish. He was absolutely furious we only got him on loan and as a result refused to play him out of protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 I think I'm right in saying that Nyland was actually originally going to small heath but they couldn't do the deal because of their transfer ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 59 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Of course. I’m not saying it was a good decision but my my point is every other manager we’ve had doesn’t seem to have realised Steer is decent either. So why is it suddenly Bruce’s fault? And everyone else who did the same thing is forgotten. For me, it’s more about the situation those loans (Steer and Elphick) left us in. I can’t recall any other manager leaving us with such a glaring lack of reliable options in such key positions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 2 hours ago, TRO said: I would put it, that they would agree.....else history is "fake news" I would put it that you are entirely wrong, but I suppose a discussion about the philosophy of history isn’t relevant to this thread* *just pre-empting obvious jokes about the prehistoric qualities of Bruce’s managerial abilites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, Michelsen said: For me, it’s more about the situation those loans (Steer and Elphick) left us in. I can’t recall any other manager leaving us with such a glaring lack of reliable options in such key positions. I totally agree about Elphick. But that’s totally different. We literally didn’t have any centrebacks apart from a half fit James Chester. But we had three other senior goalkeepers. Steer was effectively fourth choice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: I totally agree about Elphick. But that’s totally different. We literally didn’t have any centrebacks apart from a half fit James Chester. But we had three other senior goalkeepers. Steer was effectively fourth choice. We had Axel of course, but Steve felt he was better deployed elsewhere...(that’s another discussion which has been had, I’m sure it will be had again). Why do you think he started Steer ahead of Bunn in the first game of the season? I don’t disagree that Bruce saw Jed as (ultimately) fourth choice, but I don’t get why he’d start him ahead of Bunn (who by the end of his tenure he appeared to be favouring). These inconsistent, sometimes downright illogical selections which peppered his time here were one of the reasons he lost a lot of support I feel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 53 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said: We had Axel of course, but Steve felt he was better deployed elsewhere...(that’s another discussion which has been had, I’m sure it will be had again). Why do you think he started Steer ahead of Bunn in the first game of the season? I don’t disagree that Bruce saw Jed as (ultimately) fourth choice, but I don’t get why he’d start him ahead of Bunn (who by the end of his tenure he appeared to be favouring). These inconsistent, sometimes downright illogical selections which peppered his time here were one of the reasons he lost a lot of support I feel. I imagine he wanted to loan out a goalkeeper and nobody would have Bunn. Plus it Makes more sense to let steer get game time at another club rather than sit doing nothing as third choice for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: I imagine he wanted to loan out a goalkeeper and nobody would have Bunn. Plus it Makes more sense to let steer get game time at another club rather than sit doing nothing as third choice for us. But if Steer isn’t in his immediate plans, why select him? First game of the season, away at your former club, live on telly. Nyland was signed a day later, Steer loaned out four days later. Why not play Moreira whom had been brought in? Why not play Bunn who would be around the squad for the remainder of the season? I don’t wanna get hung up on that too much, we won the game after all (the last reasonably convincing win under Bruce I would say). But like I say, these little decisions, little inconsistencies, individually they weren’t a big deal, but across his time here they chipped away at the idea he knew what he was doing. For me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 14 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said: But if Steer isn’t in his immediate plans, why select him? First game of the season, away at your former club, live on telly. Nyland was signed a day later, Steer loaned out four days later. Why not play Moreira whom had been brought in? Why not play Bunn who would be around the squad for the remainder of the season? I don’t wanna get hung up on that too much, we won the game after all (the last reasonably convincing win under Bruce I would say). But like I say, these little decisions, little inconsistencies, individually they weren’t a big deal, but across his time here they chipped away at the idea he knew what he was doing. For me anyway. Moreira played in the cup a few days later at Yeovil (and wasn't great) so guess SB just decided throwing him straight into league action wouldn't have been the brightest idea. I certainly have no idea what his thinking was regarding CB issue. He obviously didn't rate Elphick which was fair enough based on his showings but to still loan him out when the deals for the French guy and McKenna fell through was bizarre. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, VillaChris said: Moreira played in the cup a few days later at Yeovil (and wasn't great) so guess SB just decided throwing him straight into league action wouldn't have been the brightest idea. I certainly have no idea what his thinking was regarding CB issue. He obviously didn't rate Elphick which was fair enough based on his showings but to still loan him out when the deals for the French guy and McKenna fell through was bizarre. Yes fair enough. I suppose it perhaps boils down to whether Bruce wanted (or felt he needed) to loan Steer out. We obviously didn’t need to from a financial point of view, we ended the season with four senior keepers on our books. So maybe Jed wanted to go out on loan. Looking back it just seems odd that Bunn was perhaps originally viewed by Bruce as his fourth best keeper (hence why he didn’t start against Hull), but he ended up being the number one for Bruce’s final game. The problems of the back four is a far bigger issue to level against him, I’m really just pondering/nit picking some of the reasoning that went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 6 hours ago, Stevo985 said: I don’t think it accurately represents how we signed players under Bruce either. Unless we think Bruce went out and personally selected Nyland and Moreira? but again Bruce seems to get the blame for his bad signings Didn't he say he chased Nyland for 2 years 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Zatman said: Didn't he say he chased Nyland for 2 years Nahhhhh Zat. You must be mistaken. Nyland is unfairly being labelled as a Bruce signing, while no-one - not one single person ever - has credited Bruce with any good signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zatman said: Didn't he say he chased Nyland for 2 years I dunno, did he? either way I still don’t think the way we signed players under Bruce was all down to the manager, just like it isn’t now. But managers live and die by their signings. Just seems to me that certain posters are more selective about which signings Bruce is responsible for and which he isn’t. It seems to be he often gets blamed 100% for bad ones, but good ones are often credited to the club or some excuse is found as to why bruce doesn’t deserve credit. He should get all the credit for the good signings as well as all the blame for the bad ones, whether they were all down to him or not. The same goes for smith, RDM, lambert, Sherwood etc even though I’m fairly certain the way we do transfers hasn’t changed much in that time. It’s a long time since the manager was the one totally responsible for signings. But the managers still get the credit/blame for which signings work out. Edited June 16, 2019 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Rob182 said: Nahhhhh Zat. You must be mistaken. Nyland is unfairly being labelled as a Bruce signing, while no-one - not one single person ever - has credited Bruce with any good signings. I mean, I’m not sure you could have missed the point more if you tried nice strawman though Edited June 16, 2019 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted June 16, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 16, 2019 I expect all clubs have had some sort of committee when deciding transfers and have done for a while. How that responsibility is divided up is of course anyone’s guess. I would think it varies from club to club, manager to manager. Although I can imagine that someone like Bruce coming with a certain “old school” reputation of championship experience would be given more leeway or have more sway over transfers...than say someone like Sherwood who you’d think wouldn’t be allowed to have his training wheels removed at any point. Just my guess, but that’s how I could see it. And it’s not something I’d disagree with. I know if I was running a football club, particularly a Championship club, I’d like to believe I could trust someone like Bruce’s opinion more than someone like Sherwood’s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts