Steve Bruce

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Just now, jim said:

They probably didn't even look. Most likely just looked at the stats and said we'll have them. 

Absolute nonsense. That's not 'most likely' at all is it, considering you just made it up. 

[bannedfromHandV]

23 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

Actually, I would say that 19 million in the championship in January probably IS a lot of money.  When you state that it's not, you're claiming an opinion as a fact.

Secondly, your point that even after he spent all that. he "simply brought us up to a level of equality with what you might expect in the championship"  doesn't really help your argument.  In fact, it seems to support Grasshopper, tbf.

(No need to explain what you meant, I understand what you meant... I just think you're wrong.)

 

I get that you don't want/need me to substantiate the point any further but nevertheless........£19m is not a small amount of money, granted - particularly at this level right?

 

However, considering this was spread over 5 players (less than £4m per head) I maintain that it's not a lot of money in the wider sense.

 

Looking at our overall spend for the season - that's a lot of money but then we can hardly hold Bruce accountable for the shambles that was our transfer dealings in the summer.

[romavillan]

2 hours ago, BOF said:

I think the comments about being 'busy' in the summer were as much in relation to the work needed on the training ground as to any squad overhaul.  They certainly related to outgoings which is no bad thing, but they were also made directly after him criticising style and ball retention.  Bring in a few but make them quality, whilst evacuating the club's bowels of some of the other stuff.  Then get it all to GEL.

So, busy in one way and quiet in another.  Seemples!

He did specifically use the term "clear out" though. So I'd expect it to be a fairly busy window, can't remember if he said it was a massive clear out, but I think it was something like that, a massive clear out job to complete in the summer is how I took it anyway. If he sees it like that then he's clearly planning to back up his post match comments about our quality with giving some fo them their marching orders.

[sheepyvillian]

2 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

The players who have had the most impact this season, in my opinion of course, are Kodjia, Jedi, Baker, Chester and Hutton, with an honourable mention for Taylor. I was, like many, very excited by the January signings, but Taylor who was probably the least exciting, is the only one who has shown any sort of consistency. 

This concerns me greatly because Hourihane, Lansbury and Hogan were probably the best players at their clubs and had all been having great seasons. I know people will say they need time and there is some truth in that, but they haven't just struggled they've been rubbish. The main reason for this I believe is that we don't play in a way that suits their style of play and so every ga,e they loose a bit more confidence and a bit more form. They all looked pretty decent for the first game or two but they've all gone backwards since then.

I'm concerned that we will never get the best out of them because we will never play a style that suits them. Steve Bruce keeps complaining about performances but continues to set us up negatively what ever formation he picks. The definition of madness is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Equally worrying with another transfer window on the near horizon, does Steve Bruce have a plan regarding the type of players we need to suit the style he intends to play?

Ask TRO to ask him  .

[mykeyb]

Is Johnstone better than Gollini, Hourihane better than Gill, Lansbury better than Vertout, Jedinak better than Sanchez, Hogan better than McCormack? I grant you that some of those players didn't want to stay but the replacements have not in the majority been an improvement. Bruce is not responsible for many of the above but both he, our scouts and club cannot continue to spend money as we have. Two or three signings with a tighter budget might benefit the team and certainly getting rid of God knows how many millions of pounds worth of talent (sic) who are currently on loan.

[Tommo_b]

20 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

Is Johnstone better than Gollini, Hourihane better than Gill, Lansbury better than Vertout, Jedinak better than Sanchez, Hogan better than McCormack? I grant you that some of those players didn't want to stay but the replacements have not in the majority been an improvement. Bruce is not responsible for many of the above but both he, our scouts and club cannot continue to spend money as we have. Two or three signings with a tighter budget might benefit the team and certainly getting rid of God knows how many millions of pounds worth of talent (sic) who are currently on loan.

I might need educating on this as I honestly do no know the implications etc, but, why can't we keep spending money as we have? The good Dr I'm sure knows ways or has a legal team that will find ways and loop holes around FFP, and I'm sensing monies not really an issue for him in the slightest, obviously do correct me if I am wrong as I do not know how it all works on the financial side of it.

[Grasshopper]

4 hours ago, BOF said:

I think the comments about being 'busy' in the summer were as much in relation to the work needed on the training ground as to any squad overhaul.  They certainly related to outgoings which is no bad thing, but they were also made directly after him criticising style and ball retention.  Bring in a few but make them quality, whilst evacuating the club's bowels of some of the other stuff.  Then get it all to GEL.

So, busy in one way and quiet in another.  Seemples!

The only GEL we'll get to see anytime soon from this lot under Bruce is the Gel on Grealish's head.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Grasshopper

[markavfc40]

4 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

The players who have had the most impact this season, in my opinion of course, are Kodjia, Jedi, Baker, Chester and Hutton, with an honourable mention for Taylor. I was, like many, very excited by the January signings, but Taylor who was probably the least exciting, is the only one who has shown any sort of consistency. 

This concerns me greatly because Hourihane, Lansbury and Hogan were probably the best players at their clubs and had all been having great seasons.

You raise an interesting issue here around who have been our best performers.

Chester and Baker have been the preferred centre back pairing for most of the season and have built up a good understanding. Hutton has been here a long time and for me is doing what he has always done in giving his all the major difference being that he looks much better as we have dropped down a level. Taylor has slotted in nicely. Jedi has been a rock just by keeping things simple in front of the back four. All the players mentioned so far are defensive players and the only ones that have had to build up an understanding with those around them are Chester and Baker and they have hit it off.

The other player to have consistently shone this season is Kodjia. A more head down single minded forward you would struggle to find and for this reason he hasn't relied on having to link up with others and form a partnership.

That leads to the reason why I think others haven't produced for us yet. The likes of Hourihane, Hogan, Lansbury and McCormack games are reliant on those around them. They do rely on linking up with others, reading each others runs, playing off another player etc. Unfortunately building up those kind of relationships on the pitch takes time and it is for me the main reason why we have frequently looked disjointed. If we consider that Taylor, Lansbury, Hourihane, Hogan will be part of our best 10 outfield players at the moment then they have been here 3 months all trying to fit into a team amongst a handful of others who have been here for under a season. 

I fully expect after a full pre season together 4 or 5 players who have yet to find their feet to hit the ground running next season and us to look a much more cohesive unit. When you make the amount of changes we have over the last 9 months, something like 35 ins/outs, throw into the mix having two managers and numerous coaching staff, then as much as none of us want it to be the case it is little surprise that it is going to take time for it to come together.

[DaveAV1]

55 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

You raise an interesting issue here around who have been our best performers.

Chester and Baker have been the preferred centre back pairing for most of the season and have built up a good understanding. Hutton has been here a long time and for me is doing what he has always done in giving his all the major difference being that he looks much better as we have dropped down a level. Taylor has slotted in nicely. Jedi has been a rock just by keeping things simple in front of the back four. All the players mentioned so far are defensive players and the only ones that have had to build up an understanding with those around them are Chester and Baker and they have hit it off.

The other player to have consistently shone this season is Kodjia. A more head down single minded forward you would struggle to find and for this reason he hasn't relied on having to link up with others and form a partnership.

That leads to the reason why I think others haven't produced for us yet. The likes of Hourihane, Hogan, Lansbury and McCormack games are reliant on those around them. They do rely on linking up with others, reading each others runs, playing off another player etc. Unfortunately building up those kind of relationships on the pitch takes time and it is for me the main reason why we have frequently looked disjointed. If we consider that Taylor, Lansbury, Hourihane, Hogan will be part of our best 10 outfield players at the moment then they have been here 3 months all trying to fit into a team amongst a handful of others who have been here for under a season. 

I fully expect after a full pre season together 4 or 5 players who have yet to find their feet to hit the ground running next season and us to look a much more cohesive unit. When you make the amount of changes we have over the last 9 months, something like 35 ins/outs, throw into the mix having two managers and numerous coaching staff, then as much as none of us want it to be the case it is little surprise that it is going to take time for it to come together.

I hope you're right Mark. There's a lot of faith being put in this summer's preseason. Steve Bruce has a huge turn round to make. At the moment he's being cut some slack as he's seen as sorting out someone else's mess and in a relatively short period of time. Pretty soon if improvements aren't made then the blame will be placed on his shoulders. It's a big summer for Steve and for AVFC, No pressure Brucie lad!

[vreitti]

Can someone please explain to me what actually happens during this magical pre season period? I've honestly never really understood the fuss about it all. I can't remember us ever coming off a pre season all guns blazing, playing teams of the park. To me it feels more like another excuse to give underperforming managers further, unwarranted time.

The players are all off on holiday, most likely getting pissed on Ibiza, right? They return early/mid July, overweight and out of shape, right? They have about a month or so to 'gel', before the season starts. 

Apart from the usual wheeling & dealing, what does the manager actually do during the summer? Are we to believe that all managers need the off season to figure out a formation and implement a style of play? Seems absurd that this cannot be done gradually when ever. Sure results might suffer at first, but if a manager knows what he's doing, the turnaround usually occurs. Chelsea this season is the perfect example. Whatever Conte did pre season, didn't pay dividends, so he made the necessary changes early on, and now they're most likely winning the league.

I get it that we've been a downright mess for ages, and that the task at hand probably was far greater than anyone could have ever imagined. Still the more I think about it, I feel like Bruce should have done a lot better. Granted he's made us hard to beat, but for me it just isn't enough, when considering what we've spent and what he's got at his disposal. I wonder what the likes of Hourihane, Hogan, Lansbury, Grealish, et.al. are thinking. 

[DaveAV1]

5 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

If this ^ is a question. You've answered yourself.

If you have "Football men" making the decisions to buy and sell players and appoint the staff (manager, scouts, coaches.....etc) then surely you

1) look at the player pool you have

2) target players to compliment or replace players.

3) Appoint a manager

Now with those factors in mind, a club (run correctly) would have an idea or blue print of what should crystalise on the pitch.

Obviously, who ever is overall responsible for this, is getting it all wrong. The manager is unable to get the players to play how he wants and the players are not able to respond to the managers system of play.

So the powers that be have either got 1) the wrong players in or 2) The wrong manager for the players we have/bought.

Either way, something is wrong.

My bet is, the Board appointed Bruce in hope rather than design, buying players with design who have no hope with Bruce.

Time to corrrct the F****up before its too late

I agree, the appointment of Steve Round was supposed to enable us to develop an "Aston Villa way" and provide continuity whoever the manager is. Please tell me what we've watched for the last 30 odd games isn't the Aston Villa way. 

[DaveAV1]

5 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Who says they haven't? They did a ton of work in January to correct even Di Matteo's mistakes. 

The question is a simple one for me - do we act like a proper football club and give an experienced manager with a proven track record a pre season and a full summer window to bring it all together, or do we go all half arsed and chuck the baby out with the bathwater? Again. 

I'm sick of the revolving door. Bruce hasn't done a great job, merely an average one. However there is a decent defensive foundation to build on and we've stopped sinking. It's a start. 

Perhaps I should have said, "IF those who make the decisions etc". Listen I'm not saying sack him, and have said he will be our manager in August but I am concerned that he may not take us forward next season. Only time will tell and I hope that his experience will see us through a good preseason and all our worries are put to bed. 

[vreitti]

10 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

I agree, the appointment of Steve Round was supposed to enable us to develop an "Aston Villa way" and provide continuity whoever the manager is. Please tell me what we've watched for the last 30 odd games isn't the Aston Villa way. 

This is another thing the I cannot understand. How on earth does a director, CEO or what not 'suit' implement an "Aston Villa way" of playing? Surely this has to come from the manager to begin with?

[Grasshopper]

11 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Can someone please explain to me what actually happens during this magical pre season period? I've honestly never really understood the fuss about it all. I can't remember us ever coming off a pre season all guns blazing, playing teams of the park. To me it feels more like another excuse to give underperforming managers further, unwarranted time.

The players are all off on holiday, most likely getting pissed on Ibiza, right? They return early/mid July, overweight and out of shape, right? They have about a month or so to 'gel', before the season starts. 

Apart from the usual wheeling & dealing, what does the manager actually do during the summer? Are we to believe that all managers need the off season to figure out a formation and implement a style of play? Seems absurd that this cannot be done gradually when ever. Sure results might suffer at first, but if a manager knows what he's doing, the turnaround usually occurs. Chelsea this season is the perfect example. Whatever Conte did pre season, didn't pay dividends, so he made the necessary changes early on, and now they're most likely winning the league.

I get it that we've been a downright mess for ages, and that the task at hand probably was far greater than anyone could have ever imagined. Still the more I think about it, I feel like Bruce should have done a lot better. Granted he's made us hard to beat, but for me it just isn't enough, when considering what we've spent and what he's got at his disposal. I wonder what the likes of Hourihane, Hogan, Lansbury, Grealish, et.al. are thinking. 

Top top post.

Bruce has shown his cards. There is nothing new or more to come. We will probably nick a few wins the beginning of next season which will just be a continuation of the papering over the cracks as to buy Bruce more time.

I fear that when the point comes to the last possible moment where we can stick or twist, there will be people on here peddling the same "4 promotions" "he sees what is wrong just like we all do" " this basket case called AVFC needs more time to turn the corner".......... rinse & repeat.

[sheepyvillian]

5 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I get that you don't want/need me to substantiate the point any further but nevertheless........£19m is not a small amount of money, granted - particularly at this level right?

 

However, considering this was spread over 5 players (less than £4m per head) I maintain that it's not a lot of money in the wider sense.

 

Looking at our overall spend for the season - that's a lot of money but then we can hardly hold Bruce accountable for the shambles that was our transfer dealings in the summer.

No , but we can certainly hold him accountable for the inept football ,we have to witness, week in and week out .

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, vreitti said:

Can someone please explain to me what actually happens during this magical pre season period? I've honestly never really understood the fuss about it all. I can't remember us ever coming off a pre season all guns blazing, playing teams of the park. To me it feels more like another excuse to give underperforming managers further, unwarranted time.

The players are all off on holiday, most likely getting pissed on Ibiza, right? They return early/mid July, overweight and out of shape, right? They have about a month or so to 'gel', before the season starts. 

Apart from the usual wheeling & dealing, what does the manager actually do during the summer? Are we to believe that all managers need the off season to figure out a formation and implement a style of play? Seems absurd that this cannot be done gradually when ever. Sure results might suffer at first, but if a manager knows what he's doing, the turnaround usually occurs. Chelsea this season is the perfect example. Whatever Conte did pre season, didn't pay dividends, so he made the necessary changes early on, and now they're most likely winning the league.

I get it that we've been a downright mess for ages, and that the task at hand probably was far greater than anyone could have ever imagined. Still the more I think about it, I feel like Bruce should have done a lot better. Granted he's made us hard to beat, but for me it just isn't enough, when considering what we've spent and what he's got at his disposal. I wonder what the likes of Hourihane, Hogan, Lansbury, Grealish, et.al. are thinking. 

Spoken like someone who's never played a game of football in their life.

[terrytini]

4 hours ago, mykeyb said:

Is Johnstone better than Gollini, Hourihane better than Gill, Lansbury better than Vertout, Jedinak better than Sanchez, Hogan better than McCormack? I grant you that some of those players didn't want to stay but the replacements have not in the majority been an improvement. Bruce is not responsible for many of the above but both he, our scouts and club cannot continue to spend money as we have. Two or three signings with a tighter budget might benefit the team and certainly getting rid of God knows how many millions of pounds worth of talent (sic) who are currently on loan.

Yes IMO the replacements are all better, (I think quite considerably so with maybe the exception of Hogan v McCorprick) and will prove to be so (when he uses them prop...oh sorry I said I wouldn't say it again !!)......

Now, it may turn out I'm wrong.......or maybe you are - but it's certainly not the case that anyone could definitively say one way or the other if even us two have different views......so lets not panic over it yet !!  How about its just as possible that Bruce DID want them but its not working as well as he/we hoped yet ?

[Grasshopper]

2 hours ago, vreitti said:

This is another thing the I cannot understand. How on earth does a director, CEO or what not 'suit' implement an "Aston Villa way" of playing? Surely this has to come from the manager to begin with?

I personally think this is why the "transition" from Manager <-> DoF/Head Coach has difficulty working at "English clubs".

Ideally you want a manager to appoint his choice of DoF (the one who can eventually sack him????) or a longstanding manager to "go upstairs" to DoF having put everything in place for his choice of Head coach and assistants/coaches.

I can't think of a single case in English football. It could have worked at Manure with Fergie passing the reigns over to Ryan Giggs or one of his many influencial ex-players, but Imagine (for example) Bruce being Utd's nanager?

It may even be what happens at the Arse, Wenger moving to DoF with someone like say, Remi Garde, taking over.

Seriously, Henry or Bergkamp could be in line, Viera may also be an obvious option but I think he's "well in" at Citehhhhh!! at the moment.

IMHO, if Round is our Emperor and wants to choose the clothes everyone wears, then he needs to kit our manager out with a suit shirt and tie with a bit of Armani style, not the Rag 'n Bone Man attire that is Bruce.

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, vreitti said:

Can someone please explain to me what actually happens during this magical pre season period? I've honestly never really understood the fuss about it all. I can't remember us ever coming off a pre season all guns blazing, playing teams of the park. To me it feels more like another excuse to give underperforming managers further, unwarranted time.

The players are all off on holiday, most likely getting pissed on Ibiza, right? They return early/mid July, overweight and out of shape, right? They have about a month or so to 'gel', before the season starts. 

Apart from the usual wheeling & dealing, what does the manager actually do during the summer? Are we to believe that all managers need the off season to figure out a formation and implement a style of play? Seems absurd that this cannot be done gradually when ever. Sure results might suffer at first, but if a manager knows what he's doing, the turnaround usually occurs. Chelsea this season is the perfect example. Whatever Conte did pre season, didn't pay dividends, so he made the necessary changes early on, and now they're most likely winning the league.

I get it that we've been a downright mess for ages, and that the task at hand probably was far greater than anyone could have ever imagined. Still the more I think about it, I feel like Bruce should have done a lot better. Granted he's made us hard to beat, but for me it just isn't enough, when considering what we've spent and what he's got at his disposal. I wonder what the likes of Hourihane, Hogan, Lansbury, Grealish, et.al. are thinking. 

My philosophical answer would be .........Sometimes I go out without my shoes on, with my belt undone, shirt untucked, hair cranky,  Get out the car on the way for a breath of air, sort it all then.

I never look as smart as I do when I do it all properly in the first place.

As for the bit in bold - that for me is where you are likely to be mistaken, if you don't mind me saying so - he will have learnt a lot pre-season, which may, amongst many other things, have meant that when a change was needed he was able to make the right one.  Just one example.

More generally, wouldn't you agree that whatever the subject matter - especially anything involving relationships between individuals - the longer a Manager has to prepare would, usually, be more likely to produce better results ?

In particular I think Mark makes the point when he says the clever part of the Team, the power and engine of any team, the Midfield, need time to  - I hate to say it - 'gel'.....that simply HAS to be more effectively done as part of preparation rather than 'in the heat of battle' ?

Now I'm not saying that means it WILL all work, or that there are times / managers when things click much faster, for all sorts of reasons, but it is a fair thought.

Also looking at your comment  a different way, if Conte HAD a pre-season and "whatever he did didn't pay dividends then maybe Bruce, who DIDN'T have one, can be excused his 'intra season' coaching not paying dividends ?

[terrytini]

2 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

I personally think this is why the "transition" from Manager <-> DoF/Head Coach has difficulty working at "English clubs".

Ideally you want a manager to appoint his choice of DoF (the one who can eventually sack him????) or a longstanding manager to "go upstairs" to DoF having put everything in place for his choice of Head coach and assistants/coaches.

I can't think of a single case in English football. It could have worked at Manure with Fergie passing the reigns over to Ryan Giggs or one of his many influencial ex-players, but Imagine (for example) Bruce being Utd's nanager?

It may even be what happens at the Arse, Wenger moving to DoF with someone like say, Remi Garde, taking over.

Seriously, Henry or Bergkamp could be in line, Viera may also be an obvious option but I think he's "well in" at Citehhhhh!! at the moment.

IMHO, if Round is our Emperor and wants to choose the clothes everyone wears, then he needs to kit our manager out with a suit shirt and tie with a bit of Armani style, not the Rag 'n Bone Man attire that is Bruce.

I don't think we can shop at Armani yet mate - however big we soon will be I think JJB is our limit for a while