Steve Bruce

[DCJonah]

4 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Let's run it point by point.

Nyland hasn't worked out, sure. But last season he got us the very solid Johnstone who many fans wanted to stay. If the takeover happened sooner, I guess we would have signed him full time. 

Loan players got us the promotion. Abraham, ElGhazi and Axel were the foundation of that team. Not that I would, but couldn't you use the same argument on Mings should we have not gone up? So should we blame Smith if for some reason we don't sign Mings? I think we should be thanking him for bringing him in for 6 months, but maybe I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

Ageing players? Sure. But Whelan was a very smart player for us. Elmo was very solid. When talking about ageing players we should also mention Terry, who Bruce got on board. Like it or not, Bruce was behind getting John Terry to Aston Villa.

I think these are solid foundations. 

Don't get me wrong, I am happy he went. But he wasn't a disaster. I don't think he was particularly good either. He was a good move at the time and went at the right time too. 

 

Actually don't disagree with a lot of that. A lot of truth. My main thing is none of it shows solid foundations were left. 

We were very fortunate that Smith performed a miracle and got us up. 

[TRO]

On 28/06/2019 at 07:28, DCJonah said:

What a lovely way of saying he was a failure. I prefer the honest assessment than this Randy Lerner inspired version.

Depends on the context, but it follows you would read it that way.

If you mean a failure to get us promotion, you would be right, If you mean a failure as a whole, like everything he did with us, you would be wrong IMO

Edited June 29, 2019 by TRO

[TRO]

5 hours ago, Designer1 said:

Is it ok if I acknowledge that he did some good things, but still think he's a bit of a classless nob? 

How can an opinion be wrong?....its your opinion and that's how you see it.....bravo

[Keyblade]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

Depends on the context, but it follows you would read it that way.

If you mean a failure to get us promotion, you would be right, If you mean a failure as a whole, like everything he did with us, you would be wrong.

What else was he supposed to do? His job was to get us promoted. He said that in his first press conference.

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

What else was he supposed to do? His job was to get us promoted. He said that in his first press conference.

Sure....but we are defending him against derisory comments aimed at all his work.....that is a bit different.....Graham Taylor MK1, Ron Atkinson, Brian Little and John Gregory all missed out on the Title was all their work in vain.

So drawing parallels,you think Vic Crowe did nothing to to aid Ron Saunders, by Handing over some great kids when he went, because he won nothing......Because Ron won the prizes, Vic did nothing to lay good foundations for Ron and his coaches to be aided by.?.....That's a bit narrow minded if you don't mind me saying.

Equally Steve did nothing to reverse the trend of shipping goals or reverse the character of the dressing room by recruiting solid experienced players, who were best placed to address the issues of the day....is that what you are saying?...Sure it all ended a bit salty with cabbagegate, but he was there for nearly 3 years.....no positives at all, is that it?

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by TRO

[sharkyvilla]

I don't really have any animosity to him, it's just the difference in class between his and Smith's methods is stark and I'm so thankful for that cabbage.

[HanoiVillan]

This thread hasn't got any less nuts then. 

[TRO]

1 minute ago, sharkyvilla said:

I don't really have any animosity to him, it's just the difference in class between his and Smith's methods is stark and I'm so thankful for that cabbage.

I think that is fair comment.....I would be surprised with any fan who thinks different with your observations.

 

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This thread hasn't got any less nuts then. 

there's no signings.....we're bored.

[Keyblade]

17 minutes ago, TRO said:

So drawing parallels,you think Vic Crowe did nothing to to aid Ron Saunders, by Handing over some great kids when he went, because he won nothing......Because Ron won the prizes, Vic did nothing to lay good foundations for Ron and his coaches to be aided by.?.....That's a bit narrow minded if you don't mind me saying.

Equally Steve did nothing to reverse the trend of shipping goals or reverse the character of the dressing room by recruiting solid experienced players, who were best placed to address the issues of the day....is that what you are saying?...Sure it all ended a bit salty with cabbagegate, but he was there for nearly 3 years.....no positives at all, is that it.

 

Of course there were positives and individual positive achievements during his reign but they don't change the fact that he was a failure overall. When you fail to achieve your main objective, what's the point of talking about your smaller victories when they didn't lead you to achieve the desired outcome anyway?

There were positives to Tim Sherwood's reign too for example. He had us winning games and playing exciting football. He also got us to an FA Cup final. But it soon became apparent that he was a gobshite charlatan and he ended up playing a major role in our disgraceful relegation. All of his so called positives became irrelevant in hindsight. They didn't lead up to anything significant other than ultimately abject failure.

And yet you very rarely hear people reiterating "yeah but he did some good". I think that's mostly because he's seen as a cockney know-nothing whereas Steve Bruce is a Nice Guy© and so his positives have to be constantly highlighted to defend him. Yet Sherwood has been nothing but respectful of our fans even after his sacking and still speaks of our club in glowing terms whereas Bruce has called us unintelligent and hysterical on multiple occasions. If I'm being frank, **** his positives.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Keyblade

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

 

There were positives to Tim Sherwood's reign too for example. He had us winning games and playing exciting football. He also got us to an FA Cup final. But it soon became apparent that he was a gobshite charlatan and he ended up playing a major role in our disgraceful relegation. All of his so called positives became irrelevant in hindsight. They didn't lead up to anything significant other than ultimately abject failure.

And yet you very rarely hear people reiterating "yeah but he did some good". I think that's mostly because he's seen as a cockney know-nothing whereas Steve Bruce is a Nice Guy© and so his positives have to be constantly highlighted to defend him. Yet Sherwood has been nothing but respectful of our fans even after his sacking and still speaks of our club in glowing terms whereas Bruce has called us unintelligent and hysterical on multiple occasions. If I'm being frank, **** his positives.

Yeah you do. In the Tim Sherwood thread.

The difference is in the Sherwood thread those slating Sherwood acknowledge the positives and then explain why they're irrelevant.

In here a lot of the positives seem to magically disappear.

[Keyblade]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah you do. In the Tim Sherwood thread.

The difference is in the Sherwood thread those slating Sherwood acknowledge the positives and then explain why they're irrelevant.

In here a lot of the positives seem to magically disappear.

It's rare like I said. It's like 1 guy per page that ends up getting piled on  

Edit: But yeah I know what you mean when people downplay his good signings and exaggerate his bad ones for example.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Keyblade

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

It's rare like I said. It's like 1 guy per page that ends up getting piled on  

And rightly so. What Sherwood did to us was far far worse than what Bruce did.

[Keyblade]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

And rightly so. What Sherwood did to us was far far worse than what Bruce did.

I think it's the fact that he had a go at the fans that sullied everything he's done. Like if he left on an amiable note, I'm sure people would have been much more forgiving of his failings but he's been nothing but patronizing in his last year or so and tried to absolve himself of responsibility, constantly moaning about lack of funds when that couldn't have been further from the truth.

Contrast that with say, Alex McLeish, who did way worse than Bruce but he took on 100% of the burden, even from Randy Lerner and was nothing but respectful and praisworthy towards the fans even when they were bringing out the scribbled bedsheets for him. You can see why people have a lot more time for him than Bruce.

[Mark Albrighton]

In reality I don’t think people are as far apart in their views on Bruce as they appear.

I think most agree he did some good here, pretty much everyone agrees he got a fair bit wrong. The nuances of it all are where there’s an issue.

The signings under his tenure were hit and miss (putting it simply I make it about 12 “good” ones and 10 “bad” ones....there is some wiggle room for either side). 

If a few of the bad/seemingly unnecessary signings didn’t cost so much and Bruce hadn’t pleaded poverty at every available opportunity, people wouldn’t be as quick to criticise him.

As for results, it’s not that surprising to see his time here divides opinion, the form we had under him was very Jekyll and Hyde. You can look at the results in order and see, first 12 games in charge brought in 24 points, the following 9 brought 2 points. The 8 games after that we won 7 and lost once, followed by a stuttering end to the season after that promising run. That was just the first 6 or so months. The following season had similar all or nothing patches of form. Unfortunately the start of the season just gone, Mr Hyde was very much in charge.

I have the impression he’s well thought of at Hull and Small heath - probably a bit less so now at sha. He’s not well thought of at Villa & Sunderland. The other clubs he’s managed, I don’t know, probably not there long enough to have a good idea. It’ll be interesting to see where on the appreciation spectrum he ends up for Wednesday.

[Keyblade]

19 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

In reality I don’t think people are as far apart in their views on Bruce as they appear.

I think most agree he did some good here, pretty much everyone agrees he got a fair bit wrong. The nuances of it all are where there’s an issue.

The signings under his tenure were hit and miss (putting it simply I make it about 12 “good” ones and 10 “bad” ones....there is some wiggle room for either side). 

If a few of the bad/seemingly unnecessary signings didn’t cost so much and Bruce hadn’t pleaded poverty at every available opportunity, people wouldn’t be as quick to criticise him.

As for results, it’s not that surprising to see his time here divides opinion, the form we had under him was very Jekyll and Hyde. You can look at the results in order and see, first 12 games in charge brought in 24 points, the following 9 brought 2 points. The 8 games after that we won 7 and lost once, followed by a stuttering end to the season after that promising run. That was just the first 6 or so months. The following season had similar all or nothing patches of form. Unfortunately the start of the season just gone, Mr Hyde was very much in charge.

I have the impression he’s well thought of at Hull and Small heath - probably a bit less so now at sha. He’s not well thought of at Villa & Sunderland. The other clubs he’s managed, I don’t know, probably not there long enough to have a good idea. It’ll be interesting to see where on the appreciation spectrum he ends up for Wednesday.

It depends on how much he's backed financially and what their expectations are. Like someone said earlier, he does well with smaller budgets and when the expectation is to stabilize first and foremost. Like you said he did just that in his first couple of months in charge here, which is why he often gets credited for "steadying the ship". Give him a blank cheque and a clear objective and he'll fall short due to his lack of a clear plan and haphazard transfer policy. 

[rodders0223]

The new Gabby thread.

[DCJonah]

14 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

And rightly so. What Sherwood did to us was far far worse than what Bruce did.

Only because smith got us promoted. 

[Tomaszk]

59 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Only because smith got us promoted. 

Correct.

[Tomaszk]

20 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

Smith has done a great job (obviously), but I think us going up is such an incredible quantity of things going in our favor, that his control of that quantity is so small that I just can't give all the credit to him... If you read that sentence, it sounds incredibly harsh, which I promise is not the case (we're lucky have him!).

Big old list of things followed that you think are sometimes sliding towards fortunate rather than being just Smith. 

Bruce wouldn't have ever have had those things go for him as he never had any plan to control matches. It was defend first and see what happens. We had one of the best teams in the league, certainly it felt like the best squad starting the season. Smith would have won the league, yes ahead of Wolves. Smith would have won the league this season if he'd been given the whole season. As I said many times when Bruce was here, many managers would have done better than him here. Wrong man for the wrong club.

And once again, I think many of them would have done it without having a go at fans every time they had a set back.