Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter
3 hours ago, tom_avfc said:

I actually agree with you but we definitely didn't play a formation like that at all. We played a back 4, Whelan sitting deep with Bacuna and Lansbury slightly ahead of him, Gabby and Emo on the wings and Hogan up front.

We should have had the game won in the first half, he should have brought Green on sooner and even then we still should have won the game if Green had taken the easiest of chances.

The back four was fine

second half

Gabby and Elmo never dominated their positions

Hogan was negated by Dawson & Clark

Lansbury took a knock got a bit roughed up and went missing

Bacuna wasn't with us in the second half & Whelan had too much to do.

It wasn't a line up I would have chosen, but even so, players have to dominate their opponent else we are done for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
2 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

If I was more arty I could get on my high horse about comparing Steve Bruce with Vinnie Van G. Then again SB has been compared to both Vinnie and the great Ron Saunders in the last few hours, perhaps we just don't understand his genius?

I think that is a bit disingenuous Dave.

I was referring to Ron going to the Blues and it not working....highlighting the principle not a direct comparison of the 2 characters.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
50 minutes ago, TRO said:

I think that is a bit disingenuous Dave.

I was referring to Ron going to the Blues and it not working....highlighting the principle not a direct comparison of the 2 characters.;)

Yes I know TRO and I did say in an earlier quote I knew you weren't comparing the two :D. In fact I said you would be justified in calling me a rapscallion if I dared do such a thing!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
1 hour ago, DaveAV1 said:

Yes I know TRO and I did say in an earlier quote I knew you weren't comparing the two :D. In fact I said you would be justified in calling me a rapscallion if I dared do such a thing!

had to look that up Dave:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I was in the DE stand and I didn't hear any boos. 

Don't know why a minority of fans who choose to express their opinions are focused on. 

 

 

No boos from the north either

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I was in the DE stand and I didn't hear any boos. 

Don't know why a minority of fans who choose to express their opinions are focused on. 

 

 

Because apparently we should all constantly be positive and conform to the notion that "Bruce knows what he's doing", etc., irrespective of results and lack of progress.

Edited by vreitti
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Because apparently we should all constantly be positive and conform to the notion that "Bruce knows what he's doing", etc., irrespective of results and lack of progress.

This was a draw v a relegated team in which we should've been out of sight but hit a wall and let them back in. We wasn't out played for 90 min. We never lost. It was the first game of the season. We were all disappointed at the result but booing already is a joke. You seem to suggest we should still be unhappy from last year so booing is appropriate after a bad spell after half time? Now that's baffling. If results and performances are bad after 6/8 games I'm sure there will be a lot louder negative reactions but you don't get a prize for being the first to boo. What you can do is poison an atmosphere and affect the players future performances therefore proving your point. How gives no Bruce enough time to mess up properly first? I'm no where near a Bruce fan but I know if he fails we are in trouble and no matter how frustrated I was I won't boo after 1 game. I want us to succeed which I assume you do so criticise him all you want on here or in the pub etc but leave the negativity at the gate at least for a bit. Anyway off to Colchester hoping it's not a Luton! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
22 minutes ago, vreitti said:

Because apparently we should all constantly be positive and conform to the notion that "Bruce knows what he's doing", etc., irrespective of results and lack of progress.

Yeah. This is exactly what people mean when they disapprove of booing after a draw in the first game of the season vs a team just relegated from the Premier League

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fans were well within their right to boo in my opinion. Players played for the first 25mins and last 10mins. Bruce was anonymous on the sideline. He should have made changes a lot earlier when it was obvious Hull were well on top needed fresh legs in the middle of the park, he could have even made a change to stunt Hulls momentum but he failed to do so. Then when we needed a goal, he took off our striker for a midfielder. Football was poor, majority of ball was hoofed. Team selection was in my opinion incorrect.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dn1982 said:

This was a draw v a relegated team in which we should've been out of sight but hit a wall and let them back in. We wasn't out played for 90 min. We never lost. It was the first game of the season. We were all disappointed at the result but booing already is a joke. You seem to suggest we should still be unhappy from last year so booing is appropriate after a bad spell after half time? Now that's baffling. If results and performances are bad after 6/8 games I'm sure there will be a lot louder negative reactions but you don't get a prize for being the first to boo. What you can do is poison an atmosphere and affect the players future performances therefore proving your point. How gives no Bruce enough time to mess up properly first? I'm no where near a Bruce fan but I know if he fails we are in trouble and no matter how frustrated I was I won't boo after 1 game. I want us to succeed which I assume you do so criticise him all you want on here or in the pub etc but leave the negativity at the gate at least for a bit. Anyway off to Colchester hoping it's not a Luton! 

When did I ever suggest we should boo our own? I'm merely disappointed we don't seem to be making any progress under Bruce. And yes I am aware we've only played one game thus far. I just don't think it will get better with more time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah. This is exactly what people mean when they disapprove of booing after a draw in the first game of the season vs a team just relegated from the Premier League

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Try adding a few more emojis, perhaps your point comes across better!

Fwiw I also disapprove booing.

Edited by vreitti
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

Interesting analysis of the first game by Dan Hayes, that might put some new thoughts in the heads of some.......seems like he had some second thoughts on Steve Bruce.

My intention with this is to look at how Steve Bruce’s Aston Villa play from an aesthetic and functional point of view.

https://7500toholte.sbnation.com/2017/8/8/16111776/talking-tactics-lies-damned-lies

......thoughts?

Edited by TRO
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a scary read from back in 2011 after his  reign as Sunderland came to an end.

It's just one journos opinion, but so much of it is similar at what we're (I'm) seeing at Villa now.

Quote

Steve Bruce was a manager who refused to move with the times

 
Louise Taylor
The former Sunderland No1 paid little attention to modern coaching methods, technology or tactics – and now he looks like man whose era has passed
 
Shortly after taking charge at Sunderland Steve Bruce was asked if he had considered experimenting with a Christmas Tree formation. "I'm not really into tactics," he replied. At the time that response was easy to interpret as a deliberately flippant or, perhaps, a self-deprecating means of avoiding answering the question. As the seasons passed, though, the suspicion grew that the former Manchester United captain had simply been honest.

Arguably one of the principal reasons Bruce is no longer in charge at the Stadium of Light concerns his apparent inability to tweak formations or tactics during matches. Whenever a rival manager re-configured his system mid-game, Bruce invariably failed to come up with a countermeasure.

In recent months Alan Pardew, Mark Hughes, Roy Hodgson and, most recently, Roberto Martínez have all seemingly out-thought him as Sunderland dropped points against supposedly weaker sidesthey really should have beaten.

If he failed to cut it as a tactician, the 50-year-old did not seem much of a strategist either. Including loans, 30 players were signed – several of whom have subsequently been moved on – during Bruce's two-and-a-half years on Wearside. That represents an unsettling "churn" factor and hardly proved conducive to developing either a clear playing philosophy or strong team spirit.

Always rather amorphous, if not downright scrappy, Sunderland's high-tempo style lacked creativity, not to mention control, in central midfield. Unable to dictate play, the team frequently failed to press home early advantages.

In many ways Bruce's decision to make the hot-headed, yellow card-prone Lee Cattermole his captain proved emblematic of a rather gung-ho reign during which players such as David Meyler were rushed back from serious injuries only to suffer further complications, the idea of hiring a sports psychologist was dismissed and the manager boasted about his inability to send an email. While Bruce – who did finally learn how to log on last summer when the club issued him with an iPad – may well argue this lack of computer literacy was hardly relevant, many of his peers spend countless hours checking out the latest sports science innovations, researching transfer targets and analysing Prozone statistics on their increasingly indispensable laptops.

Unashamedly old school, Bruce believed that motivation was the key to management but the influx of overseas coaches has raised the Premier League's technical bar and despite his relative youth, he has begun to look suspiciously like a man whose era has passed.

Unlike many modern managers he did not coach the team himself, delegating that job to his assistant, Eric Black. While Bruce's undoubtedly engaging, humour-suffused, personality had a broad appeal, he fell out with quite a few players, most notably Kenwyne Jones, now at Stoke, and Anton Ferdinand, now at QPR and who had by common consensus finally emerged as Sunderland's outstanding defender when he was sold in August.

Shortly afterwards Sunderland's manager was badly let down by Titus Bramble, who faces a crown court trial on sexual assault charges in January. Other bad buys included Matthew Kilgallon, Christian Riveros, Marcos Angeleri and Paulo Da Silva. Meanwhile Craig Gardner, bought from Birmingham for £6m, has barely figured in the first team.

There were some good purchases along the way, too, such as Lorik Cana, Asamoah Gyan and, above all, Darren Bent . Unfortunately Bent had become desperate to leave Sunderland six months before his eventual move to Aston Villa in January. Cana headed to Turkey after just a year while Gyan has newly gone to United Arab Emirates on loan. Money evidently played a big part in all these deals, but it does not represent the entire behind-the-scenes story.

Something was clearly wrong because, as last season's promising beginning subsided into a post-new year collapse, managerial excuses increasingly became a recurring, if self-destructive, theme.

It certainly did not play well with Sunderland fans when the crowd were blamed for harbouring overly "great expectations" or that Bruce constantly bemoaned the difficulty of attracting players to the north-east. More recently, his loudest lament has been that locals would not accept him purely because he had been born north of the Tyne and grew up supporting Newcastle United.

Granted, a minority shamefully hurled chants of "You fat Geordie bastard – get out of our club" after Saturday's defeat to Wigan, but the overwhelming majority of supporters did not care about his roots. Moreover their "expectations" were mostly pretty modest.

Two home wins since New Year's Day have tried Wearsiders' patience but, contrary to Bruce's theories, many would have taken the odd defeat to Newcastle in their stride had there been signs of progress or a discernible playing pattern emerging. Maybe the core problem was that Bruce never accepted that, sometimes, the devil really is in the detail. Soon after Ahmed Elmohamady arrived from Egypt, Sunderland's manager was asked if the winger would be observing Ramadan and if so, how the daylight fasting might affect his game.

The question was met with a blank look. "Is Elmohamady a Coptic Christian rather than a Muslim then?" the questioner persisted. It was an important distinction and the answer should have tripped off Bruce's tongue, but he clearly did not have a clue.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

It's a few years back and I'm sure Bruce has learned a lot since then, and he went on to have success at Hull despite these potential flaws.

But it's a harrowing read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
18 minutes ago, sne said:

This is a scary read from back in 2011 after his  reign as Sunderland came to an end.

It's just one journos opinion, but so much of it is similar at what we're (I'm) seeing at Villa now.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/30/steve-bruce-sunderland-sacked

It's a few years back and I'm sure Bruce has learned a lot since then, and he went on to have success at Hull despite these potential flaws.

But it's a harrowing read.

Its like you say opinions.....and I am not dismissing any of them, but answer me this

what exactly has Sunderland achieved or created with ALL their other managers inc Martin O'Neill?

It can be a cop out to just keep blaming managers.

There are equally managers with all those technical attributes you allude to but with questionable attributes that Steve Bruce has......and have no success.

Those that have both like Mourinho/Pepe are amongst the best in world football.

Edited by TRO
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
53 minutes ago, TRO said:

Interesting analysis of the first game by Dan Hayes, that might put some new thoughts in the heads of some.......seems like he had some second thoughts on Steve Bruce.

https://7500toholte.sbnation.com/2017/8/8/16111776/talking-tactics-lies-damned-lies

......thoughts?

Well it's exactly how I saw the game - without using charts ! :)

The 3 key things are - Bacuna was a mistake, we didn't change tactics when theyvsuseed Elmo ( wouldn't have needed to had it not been used so often) and when they pressed we 'went long'.

All of which were relevant all last season too !

Too negative and poor game management. Rinse and repeat !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • blandy locked this topic
  • blandy unlocked this topic
  • blandy locked and unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â