Steve Bruce

[terrytini]

53 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

This might seriously be his biggest matchday weakness, I genuinely feel his lacklustre subbing has potentially cost us points. 

There are times when a player has obviously needed to come off, or we needed an injection of some sort, and he has waited until the other teams scored to even begin making movement.

For instance, bringing on Green for Bacuna 15 minutes earlier may have changed the dynamic of the game. (Just an example)

It's deeper than that for me.

The real question is why Bacuna ahead of Green at all ? Not for the first time.

He brought Green on when he knew we needed a goal.......so why not start him ? We need to score double the goals we scored last year.

Im afraid his overall average 'style' of cautious football is bad enough ( and capable of being reproduced by any Manager) but his selections just make it worse.

Ipswich at home and Wigan away stand out for me, but there were plenty other examples where the more attacking option was only used once it was too late. By too late, it's not whether it's 60th or 70th minute, but the starting line ups and accompanying philosophy of defence first.

[terrytini]

9 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

The irony of course being that if Green has scored the open goal we'd have all been lauding Bruce for making the right subs.

Fine margins.

Please don't speak for 'all' !!

I wouldn't. I'd have been asking the same question I asked at the start, why didn't Green start ? 

Except, like all around me, we all know/ knew the answer. He views Bacuna as a bit more defensively sound.

Spoke to a Reading fan up with his family after the game.

"Why did he play Bacuna as well as Whelan, with Gabby playing as well it meant you only really had creativity from Lansbury and Elmohamady ?"

I just shrugged my shoulders. Why indeed ? Because whilst winning matters, it's vital not to lose. That's the philosophy and it's not good enough.

[bobzy]

16 minutes ago, terrytini said:

It's deeper than that for me.

The real question is why Bacuna ahead of Green at all ? Not for the first time.

He brought Green on when he knew we needed a goal.......so why not start him ? We need to score double the goals we scored last year.

I mean, we were winning 1-0 and should have been winning maybe 3 or 4-0 at half time. It wasn't like the starting lineup was an issue for this game. 

After Hull equalised, he soon changed it up. Andre Green missed an absolute sitter.

I dunno. Odd sticks to be used there, for me. 

[terrytini]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I mean, we were winning 1-0 and should have been winning maybe 3 or 4-0 at half time. It wasn't like the starting lineup was an issue for this game. 

After Hull equalised, he soon changed it up. Andre Green missed an absolute sitter.

I dunno. Odd sticks to be used there, for me. 

If you thought the starting line up fine, that's fine.

I didn't and don't.

I don't think starting with just 2 creative players is fine. I don't think it's enough. I think it means we won't score enough goals. We didn't score enough goals.

Every team will miss loads of chances, "should've been xyz" is meaningless for me.

As he said himself, it's a recurrent theme. Yes it is !!!

Yes we created chances first half. And Hull were poor. How many more chances might we have created had we had more creativity on the pitch ?

In game after game - IMO - he picks one too many defensive players and in game after game limits us to too little forward commitment.

 

[Grasshopper]

4 hours ago, jim said:

Just a hunch, but I think he will be gone if we don't get results against Cardiff and Norwich.

I don't think the good Dr was too impressed with the result on Saturday.

yes

Dr T, Wyness & Round now know that 10/11 games in (depending on how low we are in the table) we only climbed 6 places (19->13 if IIRC)

that could mean 8th (equal) could be a cut-off point

Or MAYBE the Dr thinks 2pts per game from the off or 2nd (joint 2nd) at worst after Bristol is a must.

if not

bang -> Gone -> p45

[Grasshopper]

3 hours ago, mattjpa said:

I dont think there is any chance of the manager getting sacked - non whatsoever. Keith Wyness clearly stated a couple of days ago that stability is the key to getting us back, they are big enough to not listen to the FIFA generation of fans who think sacking a manager will cure everything. Our squad and team are too good to go on a long losing spree bad enough to get him the bullet.

Im not a massive Bruce fan but we have to be brave enough to keep faith now - too much has bee n invested in him already which we couldnt afford to do in the next guy that would come along. I just wish he would make a **** substitution or change of formation between 45-70 mins when things are turning against us....

What the Bosses say in public is one thing.

What they say to Bruce (->expectancy) is not for public consumption (not even fans)

[kurtsimonw]

18 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I mean, we were winning 1-0 and should have been winning maybe 3 or 4-0 at half time. It wasn't like the starting lineup was an issue for this game. 

After Hull equalised, he soon changed it up. Andre Green missed an absolute sitter.

I dunno. Odd sticks to be used there, for me. 

Yep, the amount of chances we created show the lineup was fine. The subs changing the game show the subs were fine.

McGregor pulling off two outstanding saves is something you can't really control as a manager.

[Grasshopper]

3 hours ago, ViewFromT2 said:

We'll get beat at Cardiff....its almost guaranteed. Warnock will definitely get the better of Bruce. The Reading game could be a struggle too....meaning Norwich at home is huge. I really don't think Steve Bruce will be in charge beyond October. 

Even more baffling for me is that the Board are prepared to wait for this to happen before making a decision when its been clear at various points in time since January that Bruce WONT change his ways and his ways HAVE NOT worked whilst he's been here.

[terrytini]

Great it was all fine we just need the opposition keeper not to make saves !!

It was too defensive. It always is. We scored once. We have a dreadful scoring record. In 6 hours against Shrewsbury, Walsall, Watford and Hull we've scored 1 goal from open play. It's really not fine. IMO .

[TrentVilla]

 

So moving on from Saturday, 3 away games on the spin now for Bruce. 

With our away record these last couple of years he has his work cut out but we need some positive results.

[romavillan]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Great it was all fine we just need the opposition keeper not to make saves !!

It was too defensive. It always is. We scored once. We have a dreadful scoring record. In 6 hours against Shrewsbury, Walsall, Watford and Hull we've scored 1 goal from open play. It's really not fine. IMO .

Indeed. There are no signs we will score enough goals for automatic promotion.

[terrytini]

5 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

So moving on from Saturday, 3 away games on the spin now for Bruce. 

With our away record these last couple of years he has his work cut out but we need some positive results.

Yes a big test. 

He has recently said our Away Form "sent me into a downward spiral" ( bit worrying ? and maybe explains defensive approach ? Dunno) and that he wants us to not get bullied. 

Sounds like he has prioritised fixing it, and it does lend itself a little more to a cautious approach ( not that I'd favour that myself).

As such I would say the next three games - yes including the Cup regardless of who he selects - will be the real test. Can he show that, whatever other shortcomings we may have, we are indeed far more resilient, less bulliable,tougher etc. And come away with at least 3 points and a Cup tie, or at least 4 points.

[Eastie]

8 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Yes a big test. 

He has recently said our Away Form "sent me into a downward spiral" ( bit worrying ? and maybe explains defensive approach ? Dunno) and that he wants us to not get bullied. 

Sounds like he has prioritised fixing it, and it does lend itself a little more to a cautious approach ( not that I'd favour that myself).

As such I would say the next three games - yes including the Cup regardless of who he selects - will be the real test. Can he show that, whatever other shortcomings we may have, we are indeed far more resilient, less bulliable,tougher etc. And come away with at least 3 points and a Cup tie, or at least 4 points.

Not too bothered about the cup game but I think we need to be looking for at least 4 points from the Cardiff and reading trips - to be honest I think warnock will be licking his lips and can see Cardiff turning us over , the pressure will really crank up on Bruce should we still be winless after the Norwich game - im hopeful of some wins but not too confident - at half time on Saturday I felt we really had something but yet again we saw the game change totally after the break and we cannot afford to do that .

[bannedfromHandV]

58 minutes ago, terrytini said:

If you thought the starting line up fine, that's fine.

I didn't and don't.

I don't think starting with just 2 creative players is fine. I don't think it's enough. I think it means we won't score enough goals. We didn't score enough goals.

Every team will miss loads of chances, "should've been xyz" is meaningless for me.

As he said himself, it's a recurrent theme. Yes it is !!!

Yes we created chances first half. And Hull were poor. How many more chances might we have created had we had more creativity on the pitch ?

In game after game - IMO - he picks one too many defensive players and in game after game limits us to too little forward commitment.

 

So creating enough chances to win 2 or 3 games in the first half wasn't satisfactory?

Allow me to recap, to the best of my memory:

Lansbury had 2 chances, one kind of one-on-one albeit from an angle, the other he scuffed his kick from the centre of the goal / edge of the box

Gabby scored one, also missed a one-on-one

Hogan had what, 4 chances? Mazy run ending in a one-on-one, at least one decent headed chance, a miskick from a corner and one other I can't recall

Bacuna had a chance, blazed it over and wide

I'm sure I'm missing some too but given this all happened in the first 30 minutes of the game I'd suggest that the starting lineup was not the issue in us not winning the game, of course you'd have to step back from the anti-Bruce pedestal for a moment to appreciate that.

Christ, at this rate Bruce will have to win every game 4-0 to stand a chance of winning some people over.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

58 minutes ago, terrytini said:

If you thought the starting line up fine, that's fine.

I didn't and don't.

I don't think starting with just 2 creative players is fine. I don't think it's enough. I think it means we won't score enough goals. We didn't score enough goals.

Every team will miss loads of chances, "should've been xyz" is meaningless for me.

As he said himself, it's a recurrent theme. Yes it is !!!

Yes we created chances first half. And Hull were poor. How many more chances might we have created had we had more creativity on the pitch ?

In game after game - IMO - he picks one too many defensive players and in game after game limits us to too little forward commitment.

 

So creating enough chances to win 2 or 3 games in the first half wasn't satisfactory?

Allow me to recap, to the best of my memory:

Lansbury had 2 chances, one kind of one-on-one albeit from an angle, the other he scuffed his kick from the centre of the goal / edge of the box

Gabby scored one, also missed a one-on-one

Hogan had what, 4 chances? Mazy run ending in a one-on-one, at least one decent headed chance, a miskick from a corner and one other I can't recall

Bacuna had a chance, blazed it over and wide

I'm sure I'm missing some too but given this all happened in the first 30 minutes of the game I'd suggest that the starting lineup was not the issue in us not winning the game, of course you'd have to step back from the anti-Bruce pedestal for a moment to appreciate that.

Christ, at this rate Bruce will have to win every game 4-0 to stand a chance of winning some people over.

 

[wazzap24]

So Bruce thinks we should have put Samba on earlier?!

Sounds like it won't  be the last we see of that 'tactic'

"it's something for us to consider and work on" 

I'd rather you didn't Steve! 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

The irony of course being that if Green has scored the open goal we'd have all been lauding Bruce for making the right subs.

Fine margins.

Or we would have said green should have been starting 

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Or we would have said green should have been starting 

And maybe he has a stinker and gets taken off having contributed nothing, what you're talking about are hypothetical situations that we'll never know an answer to as none of us, to my knowledge at least, can bend space and time.

What is a fact, is that Bruce brought him on when he did and he missed an open goal from 3 yards out that honestly, my Mum would have scored, and she's less mobile than Heskey on a hot day.

[terrytini]

25 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

So creating enough chances to win 2 or 3 games in the first half wasn't satisfactory?

Allow me to recap, to the best of my memory:

Lansbury had 2 chances, one kind of one-on-one albeit from an angle, the other he scuffed his kick from the centre of the goal / edge of the box

Gabby scored one, also missed a one-on-one

Hogan had what, 4 chances? Mazy run ending in a one-on-one, at least one decent headed chance, a miskick from a corner and one other I can't recall

Bacuna had a chance, blazed it over and wide

I'm sure I'm missing some too but given this all happened in the first 30 minutes of the game I'd suggest that the starting lineup was not the issue in us not winning the game, of course you'd have to step back from the anti-Bruce pedestal for a moment to appreciate that.

Christ, at this rate Bruce will have to win every game 4-0 to stand a chance of winning some people over.

 

He doesn't need to win me over.

And it's a good job, because we aren't scoring 4 goals very often.

1. Nearly didn't bother replying ... " anti Bruce pedestal" - childish and inaccurate. I'm on record a million times saying I want him to stay but he is too negative. That's not 'anti Bruce' it's a view that he's negative.

2. If you want to look at chances missed in one game and from that deduce things were satisfactory you can. I don't . And I don't because " we didn't take our chances" is the last hiding place when teams aren't winning when they should.

You make it sound like a one off scoring problem.

In 36 League games under Bruce we've only scored more than 1 goal ten times. In the nine where we've scored twice, the second goal has been a penalty 3 times and an own goal once. 

Thats 5 games where we've 'put away our chances' more than once - six when you add 3-1 Cardiff ( one a penalty).

Nearly all those 'extra goals' were scored by Kodja.

In the last 7 League games we've scored 6 goals. 

We don't score enough goals. We didn't score enough goals on Saturday. 

You can be fine with it, or view each individual game in its own right if you like, you can say selection is fine. You can blame luck, or the players. You can blame a Donald Trump if you want.

But for me, the issue is an inadequately positive approach which is evident in selection, tactics, and game management.

And I'm not really bothered if that makes you think "ohhh he's anti Bruce"........... all I care about is our results and I will feel free to comment on what I see as the cause.

 

 

[KHV]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

 

So moving on from Saturday, 3 away games on the spin now for Bruce. 

With our away record these last couple of years he has his work cut out but we need some positive results.

The beginning of the end