Steve Bruce

[briny_ear]

45 minutes ago, villakram said:

Southampton just fired Puel. A premier league club. 

Meanwhile, Aston Villa keep hold ever so tightly of their ever so successful manager, because de stabilteeeee!

So is that a sort of syllogism that goes:

Southampton have fired their manager 

Therefore all football clubs should fire their managers 

Aston Villa are a football club 

Therefore they should fire their manager 

?????????

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

46 minutes ago, villakram said:

Southampton just fired Puel. A premier league club. 

Meanwhile, Aston Villa keep hold ever so tightly of their ever so successful manager, because de stabilteeeee!

Not sure how them being a Premier League Club aids your basis in relation to us.

All that means is they have alot more pressure, expectation, budget etc as well as being able to attract better managers. :/

[briny_ear]

Also Southampton have a business model that allows them to swap  managers reasonably frequently without affecting team performance too badly.

It may he argued that Villa should have a similar business model but at the moment we patently do not. Regular sacking of managers has done Villa grievous damage over the past 3 years and it is puzzling to me that the noisy squad on this thread should be quite so keen to inflict another blow just as we have the makings of a decent squad and a manager with some good experience of managing at this level.

Edited June 14, 2017 by briny_ear

[villakram]

It's not a direct comparison, just a retort to those who argued for retention due to stability, because that is required for success or some such nonsense.

[villakram]

7 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

Also Southampton have a business model that allows them to swap  managers reasonably frequently without affecting team performance too badly.

It may he argued that Villa should have a similar business model but at the moment we patently do not. Regular sacking of managers has done Villa grievous damage over the past 3 years and it is puzzling to me that the noisy squad on this thread should be quite so keen to inflict another blow just as we have the makings of a decent squad and a manager with some good experience of managing at this level.

Paul did ok managing the sinking ship.

Tim was a rubbish appointment that worked, but was allowed to overstay his welcome.

Remi was a decent appointment who got shafted and quit.

**shudder, remembering this fool**

RDM was ok ish, though it's not at all clear why he was hired or by whom.

Bruce has been pretty bang average to poor thus far.

Had RDM stayed on, it's likely he would have finished close to where we ended up with Bruce, and I certainly would have liked him fired were that so. I don't really see much trigger happiness in the above sequence. Why is replacing a manager seen as always a blow? This is quite clearly not always the case. Absent a successful manager leaving or being fired.

Ad-hominems are unhelpful.

[DaveAV1]

6 hours ago, briny_ear said:

Also Southampton have a business model that allows them to swap  managers reasonably frequently without affecting team performance too badly.

It may he argued that Villa should have a similar business model but at the moment we patently do not. Regular sacking of managers has done Villa grievous damage over the past 3 years and it is puzzling to me that the noisy squad on this thread should be quite so keen to inflict another blow just as we have the makings of a decent squad and a manager with some good experience of managing at this level.

It's regularly appointing bad managers that has done the damage. I don't recall many complaints when any of the recent managers have left. It's the lack of a proper structure, such as that at Southampton where the problem lies.

Although I'm not a fan of Steve Bruce, I am very much against sacking him, if there is no proper structure to back up a vision of where the board wants us to be. And I don't just mean, the simplistic idea of being in the Premiership and winning it in 5 years time. It needs to be a proper plan that will survive the inevitable set backs and steer a steady course to a well defined, achievable goal. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by DaveAV1

[briny_ear]

2 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

It's regularly appointing bad managers that has done the damage. I don't recall many complaints when any of the recent managers have left. It's the lack of a proper structure, such as that at Southampton where the problem lies.

Although I'm not a fan of Steve Bruce, I am very much against sacking him, if there is no proper structure to back up a vision of where the board wants us to be. And I don't just mean, the simplistic idea of being in the Premiership and winning it in 5 years time. It needs to be a proper plan that will survive the inevitable set backs and steer a steady course to a well defined, achievable goal. 

I don't disagree we have had a string of managers who failed but I don't think it's the whole explanation that they were just bad managers.

Was part of the problem also that they couldn't cope with the size and scale of the task at Villa, given the lack of structure and professionalism in key parts of the club, such as scouting? Also, as you say, lack of a strategy from the board.

One consequence of the way we have been appointing managers (ever since MON left in reality) is that a new manager tends to come in with their own idea of how the team should play - often radically different from the previous manager - and buys a new batch players to match their approach. The fact that all managers apart from Lambo have left after a relatively short period has led to a mishmash of an unbalanced squad with no developed playing style.

We need a manager who is strong and experienced enough to make something coherent out of this mess and start us moving forward. While Steve Bruce would not have been my first choice of this type of manager, he definitely is a choice and, now that we have him, we need to give him some time to do the job. Bringing in a new manager now, with a new vision and wanting further changes to the squad, would only set us back further in my view.

(Oh, and we desperately do also need that coherent plan at the top of the club. For all the excitement over Xia, I've yet to see anything approaching one.)

[Grasshopper]

2 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I don't disagree we have had a string of managers who failed but I don't think it's the whole explanation that they were just bad managers.  

you are right.

A manager must be a good fit at that particular time. Starting at MoN (for example) he was a good fit.

Houlier, although a polar opposite could have worked with time and investment (time - cut short. Investment - we know what happened there)

Mclose was no fit at all

Lambert - again could have been but in hindsight we can see he was shafted over a drawn out period of time and lost himself and should have gone earlier.

Garde - shafted 100%

Tim - I have to admit was a perfect fit for the end of that season, but from Soton on he wasnt.

RDM - was not a good fit

Now Bruce - he WAS a perfect short term fit that didnt work out. But as a good fit as from Jan/Feb he was not and imo is not as of now

So of all those I (imho) think only McL, TS & RDM are bad managers, the rest at fitting club can be good managers.

 

 

Quote

One consequence of the way we have been appointing managers (ever since MON left in reality) is that a new manager tends to come in with their own idea of how the team should play - often radically different from the previous manager - and buys a new batch players to match their approach. The fact that all managers apart from Lambo have left after a relatively short period has led to a mishmash of an unbalanced squad with no developed playing style.  

This is the Nr1 reason why I believe that we should forget the past, rid ourselves of all those remnants and start afresh with a 1 way vision.

I want out of CH asap, but if that is not going to happen I really would prefer a clear philosophy, even if it meant a slow progression, but a progression that meant us growing through Ch->promotion->PL stable position->progression to EFLcup/FAcup/EL before we become serious PL contenders

Quote

We need a manager who is strong and experienced enough to make something coherent out of this mess and start us moving forward.

Progressive and adaptable, I'd add to that list.

Quote

While Steve Bruce would not have been my first choice of this type of manager, he definitely is a choice and, now that we have him, we need to give him some time to do the job.

And this is where I believe Bruce will fail us, he had his chance.

Quote

Bringing in a new manager now, with a new vision and wanting further changes to the squad, would only set us back further in my view.  

So the squad we have is so "unvisioned" of a possible playing style that a new manager would be overhauling ?

How about someone within the club looking at what we have and picking someone who can deal with the hand we have?

Quote

(Oh, and we desperately do also need that coherent plan at the top of the club. For all the excitement over Xia, I've yet to see anything approaching one.)

I must say that I've only seen/felt that DrT is the only one who's commitment seems to be along the right lines.

Wyness, Round, Bruce and the coaching staff have not proven anything other than

Heavy investment and player turnover = 13th in CH

Unless a change comes with a clear direction for the club I have no confidence in our board, manager & staff.

[DaveAV1]

2 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I don't disagree we have had a string of managers who failed but I don't think it's the whole explanation that they were just bad managers.

Was part of the problem also that they couldn't cope with the size and scale of the task at Villa, given the lack of structure and professionalism in key parts of the club, such as scouting? Also, as you say, lack of a strategy from the board.

One consequence of the way we have been appointing managers (ever since MON left in reality) is that a new manager tends to come in with their own idea of how the team should play - often radically different from the previous manager - and buys a new batch players to match their approach. The fact that all managers apart from Lambo have left after a relatively short period has led to a mishmash of an unbalanced squad with no developed playing style.

We need a manager who is strong and experienced enough to make something coherent out of this mess and start us moving forward. While Steve Bruce would not have been my first choice of this type of manager, he definitely is a choice and, now that we have him, we need to give him some time to do the job. Bringing in a new manager now, with a new vision and wanting further changes to the squad, would only set us back further in my view.

(Oh, and we desperately do also need that coherent plan at the top of the club. For all the excitement over Xia, I've yet to see anything approaching one.)

I largely agree with the above. It's fair to say that the club has been utterly shambolic up to the arrival of Xia. It does appear that key areas, such as appointing an experienced football CEO, have been addressed, but there is plenty still to do. Steve Round's appointment with a remitt to develope an "Aston Villa" culture that was to run throughout the club and become recognisable as a style is yet come to fruition. That's not a dig as that could take years and as such we need patience. 

I don't believe Steve Bruce's appointment was part of a long term strategy and I certainly hope that his, let's be kind, cautious, pragmatic approach, isn't anyone's, from board level down, idea of the new "Aston Villa way". Hopefully his promotion nack doesn't go missing and he gives us the spring board to develop a bright and exciting future. I have to admit though that my optimism is a little fragile, which is out of character for me.

[striker]

12 hours ago, briny_ear said:

Regular sacking of managers has done Villa grievous damage over the past 3 years and it is puzzling to me that the noisy squad on this thread should be quite so keen to inflict another blow just as we have the makings of a decent squad.

So you would advocate holding onto those previous managers even though their records at Villa were dire? What have those previous managers achieved since leaving Villa?

Would it not be fair to suggest that it was the choice of manager in the first place that cause 'grievous damage' rather than sacking them plus Randy Lerner pulling the plug on investment at exactly the wrong time?

Edited June 15, 2017 by striker

[terrytini]

14 hours ago, briny_ear said:

Also Southampton have a business model that allows them to swap  managers reasonably frequently without affecting team performance too badly.

It may he argued that Villa should have a similar business model but at the moment we patently do not. Regular sacking of managers has done Villa grievous damage over the past 3 years and it is puzzling to me that the noisy squad on this thread should be quite so keen to inflict another blow just as we have the makings of a decent squad and a manager with some good experience of managing at this level.

Agree mostly but not that 'sacking manages has done us grevious harm' - there isn't one of them that made a case out for being retained. 

It was their performances that caused the harm, not their dismissals IMO. 

And the same will/ should apply with Bruce. Perform as needed = stay. Don't = Go.

And if he goes on that basis again it won't be his going that will be the problem but the fact that the performances warranted it.

Agree though he must be given the chance as there is no doubt in an ideal world we'd keep someone for more than five minutes !!

[AshVilla]

Being stable isn't enough to get you promoted i'm afraid.

It will soon be time for the talking to stop, we should go up automatically with this squad.

"He just needs a preseason"

Edited June 15, 2017 by AshVilla

[mykeyb]

As has been said there werent too many decenters when Lambert, Sherwood, Garde & RDM were axed as to be honest they werent doing a very good job, I would suggest that those who think that Bruce should be given more time has more to do with the fact that he has this now mythical 4 promotions next to his name and involves pretty much disregarding the evidence we have seen over the last 35 games that Bruce has not implemented the basics in his time so far. When you consider that Rednapp had how many training sessions when he took over at them lot down the road and managed to instill a pattern andstructure to their play when the played us just highlights to me the fatc that Bruce is not the man. He will be given more time, he will continue to serve up the same rubbish we saw last season winning a few and losing a few and will eventually be sacked and we will have wasted the parachute dosh and then will struggle massively.

[Grasshopper]

this 100% ^^^^^^^^

[Grasshopper]

3 hours ago, mykeyb said:

As has been said there werent too many decenters when Lambert, Sherwood, Garde & RDM were axed as to be honest they werent doing a very good job, I would suggest that those who think that Bruce should be given more time has more to do with the fact that he has this now mythical 4 promotions next to his name and involves pretty much disregarding the evidence we have seen over the last 35 games that Bruce has not implemented the basics in his time so far. When you consider that Rednapp had how many training sessions when he took over at them lot down the road and managed to instill a pattern andstructure to their play when the played us just highlights to me the fatc that Bruce is not the man. He will be given more time, he will continue to serve up the same rubbish we saw last season winning a few and losing a few and will eventually be sacked and we will have wasted the parachute dosh and then will struggle massively.

my greatest concern

[dn1982]

53 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

my greatest concern

Bruce stopped us conceding straight away and got us winning. He actually got worse as the games went on especially after Xmas. Redknapp kept Blues up by beating Huddersfield reserves. He wasn't that good. They played well in their Cup Final it's no game to judge anything. 

[TRO]

5 hours ago, AshVilla said:

Being stable isn't enough to get you promoted i'm afraid.

It will soon be time for the talking to stop, we should go up automatically with this squad.

"He just needs a preseason"

Those that are calling for stability are not claiming that, that alone will achieve anything.

irrespective what anyones views are on any manager....a whole host of factors are necessary to acheive success.

but all those factors necessary to achieve that success, require time to impliment and hone.

[Dave J]

21 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Not sure how them being a Premier League Club aids your basis in relation to us.

All that means is they have alot more pressure, expectation, budget etc as well as being able to attract better managers. :/

JV - are you sure about this? More expectation- bigger budget more pressure  - better managers ? We're still ASTON VILLA  you know 

[Dave J]

9 hours ago, striker said:

So you would advocate holding onto those previous managers even though their records at Villa were dire? What have those previous managers achieved since leaving Villa?

Would it not be fair to suggest that it was the choice of manager in the first place that cause 'grievous damage' rather than sacking them plus Randy Lerner pulling the plug on investment at exactly the wrong time?

In all fairness I thought Lambert was a truly great appointment based on what I saw of his Norwich team that won double promotion - I'm still puzzled as to why he rocked up at VP and put on the hand brake ??

[villakram]

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

Those that are calling for stability are not claiming that, that alone will achieve anything.

irrespective what anyones views are on any manager....a whole host of factors are necessary to acheive success.

but all those factors necessary to achieve that success, require time to impliment and hone.

Success in football for all it's issues is very easy to measure. W/L/D and the league table. Time being correlated with success as measured by this metric is the exception not the rule.