Steve Bruce

[TRO]

25 minutes ago, av1 said:

Thats the thing mate. I respect everyones opinion, and if your opinion is that Bruce will succeed i respect that aswell. What i don't understand (and this isn't aimed at you mate, just a general observation) is the notion that time will make things better.

We all realised after about 5 mins that RDM wasn't the right man, and and if i was made manager tomorrow I'd probably be sussed as a fraud after about 6 minutes. I understand that stability is massive for this club after the last few years, but you also have to believe in the bloke you are charging that with. 

I'm not totally anti Bruce just yet, but I'm having more doubts week on week, and i just cant see him being here in 3 years. Because if we don't get out of this division next season he will be sacked. If we do get out of this division next season, imo his style of football won't work in the PL (see karanka at Middlesbrough) and he will be sacked. Because lets not forget, for all the talk of 'he knows how to get a team promoted' every season in the PL has invariably been a relegation battle.

So i don't see Bruce as a man to give us the stability we crave

That is the misnomer......that many folk misconstrue.

"Time" in isolation of anything else.....will solve nothing.....its abstract.

Time is referenced to the actions that need time to mature......you buy players some come off, some never do, some take time, some hit the ground running, there is no exact science.

Some folk want hard and fast answers, jam today......We all know the football is shit, so does the manager, if he said it was ok, now i would be worried.

He needs time to do his job and of all the factors he has to deal with, some can be done quick, some take a lot longer.

There is no doubt that the managers of yesteryear took much longer and was granted the time......Now is geared/compared to the very top where they buy the very best players, and it is much easier to get quicker results, due to the market they are operating in.

I am not trying to make excuses for a manager that has turned things around in terms of results, but not in terms of performances......The team so far has become slightly more resillient, but still not balanced and the players individually are inconsistent.

He will be building again in the summer and many will be moved on......you cannot do this by clicking your fingers.

Time is a loosely used word to explain away all the tasks and factors that need to be fixed

Edited May 11, 2017 by TRO

[srsmithusa]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

 

Time is a loosely used word to explain away all the tasks and factors that need to be fixed

And have not been.  Of note is that Bruce has already had more time than RDM, Black, Garde, or Tim Sherwood, his 4 immediate predecessors.  I understand that some will say the multiple turnovers IS the problem that keeping him will solve.... but I still contend that by that standard, all 4 of them should still be here.   I don't remember the repeated arguments to keep Garde (or any of the others) for the sake of stability.  

It seems to me that the excuses and rationalizations stick better on Bruce than the others and I don't understand why.

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

And have not been.  Of note is that Bruce has already had more time than RDM, Black, Garde, or Tim Sherwood, his 4 immediate predecessors.  I understand that some will say the multiple turnovers IS the problem that keeping him will solve.... but I still contend that by that standard, all 4 of them should still be here.   I don't remember the repeated arguments to keep Garde (or any of the others) for the sake of stability.  

It seems to me that the excuses and rationalizations stick better on Bruce than the others and I don't understand why.

The reason the others were not given time , was the results were not good enough.

The results under Bruce have been better......The performances need work granted.

but surely you can see why Bruce is been given time.....If not the debate is dead mate

[mykeyb]

26 minutes ago, TRO said:

That is the misnomer......that many folk misconstrue.

"Time" in isolation of anything else.....will solve nothing.....its abstract.

I have a vision of you looking like Stephen Hawking which I cannot shift........

As a Bruce believer do you have in your mind a target you feel is a minimum return after a set number games or will it be a more about style etc?

[srsmithusa]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

The reason the others were not given time , was the results were not good enough.

The results under Bruce have been better......The performances need work granted.

but surely you can see why Bruce is been given time.....If not the debate is dead mate

But, if rationalizations are accepted.....

then let's look at Remi for example.  He had absolutely zero backing.  His team was crap and it stayed crap.  They actually showed moments of playing much better than they had, but he had zero backing.  So, surely you can see why he should have been given time.

I'm really not into rehashing the past.  Wish I hadn't started this rabbit trail.  To me, the point is that we cannot continue to consider mediocrity or less "good enough considering __________ (fill in the blank)."  In my view that is what has killed us and destroyed anything resembling a winning culture.  And it's what I hear in too many of the posts arguing in favor of Bruce.   I'm not really, at the core, for or against anyone in particular, I'm just not in favor of accepting poor results and poor performances and rationalizing them away. 

I really don't think you are either.   You just have a confidence that it's going to be better in a few months.  I don't.

 

[AJ]

Steve Bruce is our manager next year, so we need to make peace with that.

The transfer market aside, I am hoping he is very busy in the pre season focusing on turning this rabble of footballers into a team.

[It's Your Round]

None of the other managers listed above, aside from Timmy for a few games, were able to stop the rot. RDM may have been able to get us playing better with time as he had arguably the hardest part of the rebuild. But, his team looked clueless, yes worse than Bruce's. We collapesed in the last ten minutes so many times it was easier to predict than a Liverpool fan saying it's their year next year! 

Bruce has steadied the ship, we no longer seem to be dropping. There's a basis to progress from now. He's been on some bad runs, but also been on some good runs. We've won away games, and consecutive games. That hasn't happeened for such a long time. 

He's got more work to do, as he knows and admits. But I think he's earnt the chance to give it a go, with a preseason and his own players. If he **** it up, he'll be gone. 

 

[andym]

Bruce started at the exact same time as Neil Warnock started at Cardiff. At that point Cardiff were in the relegation zone, 2 points below us and with a -11 goal difference compared to our -2.

They have both managed the same number of games in the league (35). Both have 15 wins, but Cardiff have 2 more draws and 2 less losses, so in those 35 games Warnock has 54 points to Bruce's 52. Cardiff let in 42 compared to our 35, but scored 52 to our 37, thereby finishing ahead of us on goals scored.

So despite inheriting one of the more expensively assembled squads, and despite adding 20 to 30 million of players of his own choosing in January, with 18 games of the season left after the window shut, Bruce has been outperformed by Neil Warnock and Cardiff City.

There's no two ways about it imo, Bruce has done a shit job. He needs to hit the ground running next season, and there will be no excuses for the woeful, turgid football that has been served up under his watch up to now. 

[Grasshopper]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

That is the misnomer......that many folk misconstrue.

"Time" in isolation of anything else.....will solve nothing.....its abstract.

Time is referenced to the actions that need time to mature......you buy players some come off, some never do, some take time, some hit the ground running, there is no exact science.

Some folk want hard and fast answers, jam today......We all know the football is shit, so does the manager, if he said it was ok, now i would be worried.

He needs time to do his job and of all the factors he has to deal with, some can be done quick, some take a lot longer.

There is no doubt that the managers of yesteryear took much longer and was granted the time......Now is geared/compared to the very top where they buy the very best players, and it is much easier to get quicker results, due to the market they are operating in.

I am not trying to make excuses for a manager that has turned things around in terms of results, but not in terms of performances......The team so far has become slightly more resillient, but still not balanced and the players individually are inconsistent.

He will be building again in the summer and many will be moved on......you cannot do this by clicking your fingers.

Time is a loosely used word to explain away all the tasks and factors that need to be fixed

If I may say so, I think you are mistaking an interpretation of what is exactly being said by Bruce.

He says aftermatch

1) We didnt keep the ball well (ref: possesion play)

2) We didnt pass it well (ref: passing play)

So you automatically assume players are playing/possesioning not as he wants them to.

Immediately attention and at fault is shifted from him to the players who are "not playing as I want them to". This is deliberate attention deflection of the blame away from him to the players.

Now if you take in what our players do/did/are good at, before playing under his "instructions" (whatever that style could be labelled as), then compare the situations they are "instructed" into now dictating how they play/react/position themselves, I'm sure you would come to the conclusion that exactly what he's asking of them is exactly that what they are either 1) not good at 2) doesnt suit them 3) causes them to feel uncomfortable thus resulting in a "fish out of water" resolvement of playing.

Now you can suggest that a pro footballer is a pro footballer who is a pro footballer and should be able to adapt/play accordingly.

BUT as you do often suggest in your Orchestra analogies,

Take all the string players and give them trumpets, whilst asking the wind instrumentalists to take up the Violins & Cellos. Then expect them to play Beethovens 5th Symphony.

How do expect them to sound?

Shit?

or

great?

As competent a musician as you have to be, to be an orchestra member, how many can actually swap instruments at the drop of a hat and perform at the same level as their main/1st instrument?

very few.

So who's fault is it when the conductor demands such a change around of instruments and it all sound shit?

The orchestra members for being shit at a "2nd/alternative" instrument?

or

The conductor for not using the orchestral members at their prefered instruments?

Give them time you say

Buy people who can shine on a second instrument

or

just bin the good musicians from their second instrument performances for to buy new people to play their prefered instrument anyway because the "ones we have now arent good at the alternative instrument"

How illogical can your logic be?

The players are not the problem (even Hutton and or Gaby)

The guy demanding the "wrong attributes" from the players IS the problem.

Why buy a multiple of new players increasing the "weekly costs" when you can change manager (also increasing financial costs)?

Who's to say that buying more defenders/midfielder/forwards who are chosen by commitee (more than likely than ONLY players that Bruce chooses) will mean 

1) other defenders hoofing it

2) other midfielders told to play deep

3) other goalscorers bought to be hoofed at when that is not their game

If thats the case then we could have

1) kept Lescott, paired him with Richards and hope that after time given they could adapt their game to hoof it in exactly the way Bruce wants it hoofed

2) kept westwood to keep things ticking over by playing sideways and backwards for others to "hoof it the way..........

and

3) kept Gestede and pair him with Gaby so they could utilise the better quality and finer art of hoofing with headers, knock ons and the occasional busts of a midpaced frontline.

A sure way of getting to the PL

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, andym said:

Bruce started at the exact same time as Neil Warnock started at Cardiff. At that point Cardiff were in the relegation zone, 2 points below us and with a -11 goal difference compared to our -2.

They have both managed the same number of games in the league (35). Both have 15 wins, but Cardiff have 2 more draws and 2 less losses, so in those 35 games Warnock has 54 points to Bruce's 52. Cardiff let in 42 compared to our 35, but scored 52 to our 37, thereby finishing ahead of us on goals scored.

So despite inheriting one of the more expensively assembled squads, and despite adding 20 to 30 million of players of his own choosing in January, with 18 games of the season left after the window shut, Bruce has been outperformed by Neil Warnock and Cardiff City.

There's no two ways about it imo, Bruce has done a shit job. He needs to hit the ground running next season, and there will be no excuses for the woeful, turgid football that has been served up under his watch up to now. 

Bloody hell. That is not good stats for Brucey.  

[terrytini]

Or they've both done a fair job with basket cases of Clubs ?

[DaveAV1]

5 hours ago, terrytini said:

Or they've both done a fair job with basket cases of Clubs ?

Good point but our basket was bought from Harrods and theirs found in a skip.

[DCJonah]

6 hours ago, terrytini said:

Or they've both done a fair job with basket cases of Clubs ?

I think the state of our clubs gets massively overstated when used as a defence for Bruce. 

Garde took over a basket case of a club. Bruce got nothing like that IMO

[pacbuddies]

10 hours ago, andym said:

Bruce started at the exact same time as Neil Warnock started at Cardiff. At that point Cardiff were in the relegation zone, 2 points below us and with a -11 goal difference compared to our -2.

They have both managed the same number of games in the league (35). Both have 15 wins, but Cardiff have 2 more draws and 2 less losses, so in those 35 games Warnock has 54 points to Bruce's 52. Cardiff let in 42 compared to our 35, but scored 52 to our 37, thereby finishing ahead of us on goals scored.

So despite inheriting one of the more expensively assembled squads, and despite adding 20 to 30 million of players of his own choosing in January, with 18 games of the season left after the window shut, Bruce has been outperformed by Neil Warnock and Cardiff City.

There's no two ways about it imo, Bruce has done a shit job. He needs to hit the ground running next season, and there will be no excuses for the woeful, turgid football that has been served up under his watch up to now. 

Yea but don't let little facts like that get in the way of blind faith. He has 4 promotions from this division don't you know!

[briny_ear]

On 11/05/2017 at 07:36, macandally said:

13th is unacceptable for a club this size who invested £77m.  It wouldn't be so painful if you could see the emergence of a footballing philosophy

Like this?

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by briny_ear

[AntrimBlack]

12 hours ago, TRO said:

The reason the others were not given time , was the results were not good enough.

The results under Bruce have been better......The performances need work granted.

but surely you can see why Bruce is been given time.....If not the debate is dead mate

Bruce has been given time solely on the basis of previous promotions.

Nothing he has done with us would be sufficient to give him time.

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

I think the state of our clubs gets massively overstated when used as a defence for Bruce. 

Garde took over a basket case of a club. Bruce got nothing like that IMO

Yes I agree actually. Basket case is overstating it - in fact if games finished in the 85th minute we'd have been pretty much top when Brucie took over.

Tricky stuff this opinions lark !

[terrytini]

10 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

 

BUT as you do often suggest in your Orchestra analogies,

Take all the string players and give them trumpets, whilst asking the wind instrumentalists to take up the Violins & Cellos. Then expect them to play Beethovens 5th Symphony.

As competent a musician as you have to be, to be an orchestra member, how many can actually swap instruments at the drop of a hat and perform at the same level as their main/1st instrument?

very few.

So who's fault is it when the conductor demands such a change around of instruments and it all sound shit?

The orchestra members for being shit at a "2nd/alternative" instrument?

or

The conductor for not using the orchestral members at their prefered instruments?

just bin the good musicians from their second instrument performances for to buy new people to play their prefered instrument anyway because the "ones we have now arent good at the alternative instrument"

 

Or maybe its the Eric Morecambe defence ?

They are playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order ?, 

[Mjvilla]

17 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Yes I agree actually. Basket case is overstating it - in fact if games finished in the 85th minute we'd have been pretty much top when Brucie took over.

Tricky stuff this opinions lark !

But games go on for 90 minutes! Surely all those late goals along with the points tally we had result in a pretty low confidence level and a soft mentality within the squad. Which will take longer to fix than just a few defeats. We had years of decline, years of poor results, years of poor performances. A lot of bad signings again last summer. 

But no, none of this counts, Bruce should have had this done within weeks and had us winning.

Im not in the 'Bruce in' camp which seems to have been created, but forgetting the years of shit this club has had just to fit it into the 'Bruce out' agenda is pretty narrow-minded.

[TRO]

11 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

If I may say so, I think you are mistaking an interpretation of what is exactly being said by Bruce.

He says aftermatch

1) We didnt keep the ball well (ref: possesion play)

2) We didnt pass it well (ref: passing play)

So you automatically assume players are playing/possesioning not as he wants them to.

Immediately attention and at fault is shifted from him to the players who are "not playing as I want them to". This is deliberate attention deflection of the blame away from him to the players.

Now if you take in what our players do/did/are good at, before playing under his "instructions" (whatever that style could be labelled as), then compare the situations they are "instructed" into now dictating how they play/react/position themselves, I'm sure you would come to the conclusion that exactly what he's asking of them is exactly that what they are either 1) not good at 2) doesnt suit them 3) causes them to feel uncomfortable thus resulting in a "fish out of water" resolvement of playing.

Now you can suggest that a pro footballer is a pro footballer who is a pro footballer and should be able to adapt/play accordingly.

BUT as you do often suggest in your Orchestra analogies,

Take all the string players and give them trumpets, whilst asking the wind instrumentalists to take up the Violins & Cellos. Then expect them to play Beethovens 5th Symphony.

How do expect them to sound?

Shit?

or

great?

As competent a musician as you have to be, to be an orchestra member, how many can actually swap instruments at the drop of a hat and perform at the same level as their main/1st instrument?

very few.

So who's fault is it when the conductor demands such a change around of instruments and it all sound shit?

The orchestra members for being shit at a "2nd/alternative" instrument?

or

The conductor for not using the orchestral members at their prefered instruments?

Give them time you say

Buy people who can shine on a second instrument

or

just bin the good musicians from their second instrument performances for to buy new people to play their prefered instrument anyway because the "ones we have now arent good at the alternative instrument"

How illogical can your logic be?

The players are not the problem (even Hutton and or Gaby)

The guy demanding the "wrong attributes" from the players IS the problem.

Why buy a multiple of new players increasing the "weekly costs" when you can change manager (also increasing financial costs)?

Who's to say that buying more defenders/midfielder/forwards who are chosen by commitee (more than likely than ONLY players that Bruce chooses) will mean 

1) other defenders hoofing it

2) other midfielders told to play deep

3) other goalscorers bought to be hoofed at when that is not their game

If thats the case then we could have

1) kept Lescott, paired him with Richards and hope that after time given they could adapt their game to hoof it in exactly the way Bruce wants it hoofed

2) kept westwood to keep things ticking over by playing sideways and backwards for others to "hoof it the way..........

and

3) kept Gestede and pair him with Gaby so they could utilise the better quality and finer art of hoofing with headers, knock ons and the occasional busts of a midpaced frontline.

A sure way of getting to the PL

sorry GH but your interpretation of my analogy has taken on a whole new dimension.

• who has been played out of position?......back to the analogy.....to warrant swapping instruments
• I was referring to too many players the same or samey.
• your version is not what I was alluding too.

To be fair mate you can argue this until the cows come home.

You think the shit football  is down to Steve Bruces inability.......I think he needs more time to complete his job.....nothing complicated there.....we just disagree.

basically I am not jumping to a conclusion until he has had more time to complete the tasks,that he can clearly see is wrong.

If you or anyone else disagrees with that and claims he should go.....Then in the greatest respect the argument is dead for me.