Steve Bruce

[Kiwivillan]

^My thoughts exactly. My opinion of Bruce hasn't changed a bit

[Stevo985]

I just don't agree with that at all.

We've gotten to that stage where if we play badly it's the manager's fault, and if we play well it's lucky.

You can't have it both ways.

 

I understand the opinion of Bruce not changing. That's fine. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

But to dismiss Saturday as luck is just agenda driven, imo. It's refusing to acknowledge that the manager can ever do anything right.

He'd not doing anywhere near ENOUGH right lately. But the guy isn't a moron. He is capable of getting performances out of teams and Saturday was one of those.

[Demitri_C]

Luck?? You dont score four goals and its luck 

[Lerner's Driver]

13 hours ago, Jareth said:

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush

You been twitching again, Jareth?

[DCJonah]

16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I just don't agree with that at all.

We've gotten to that stage where if we play badly it's the manager's fault, and if we play well it's lucky.

You can't have it both ways.

 

I understand the opinion of Bruce not changing. That's fine. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

But to dismiss Saturday as luck is just agenda driven, imo. It's refusing to acknowledge that the manager can ever do anything right.

He'd not doing anywhere near ENOUGH right lately. But the guy isn't a moron. He is capable of getting performances out of teams and Saturday was one of those.

He is capable but in 40 games here he hasn't managed a performance like that, in fact nothing has come close and this performance just so happens to come when he has to play Davis, who had a massive impact on the game. That's too much of a coincidence for me. 

I'm reluctant to call it luck, he's had to use his squad and his decision was to play Davis. But the fact it was forced and Bruce openly admits this takes a lot of the shine of the managerial decision. 

 

[Stevo985]

21 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

He is capable but in 40 games here he hasn't managed a performance like that, in fact nothing has come close and this performance just so happens to come when he has to play Davis, who had a massive impact on the game. That's too much of a coincidence for me. 

I'm reluctant to call it luck, he's had to use his squad and his decision was to play Davis. But the fact it was forced and Bruce openly admits this takes a lot of the shine of the managerial decision. 

 

I mean it's not true that he hasn't come close. Brighton on the last day of last season was close, imo, even though we were let down by poor finishing that day. But the signs were there.

Even the Hull game was as good as Saturday, it was just that we completely stopped playing after 45 minutes.

 

Davis undoubtedly helped, and yes he was probably "lucky" that he was forced to play him.

But the addition of Davis wasn't the reason we won that game. He didn't single handedly turn the Reading performance into the Norwich performance. We played well from Johnstone to Davis on Saturday and the suggestion that simply swapping Hogan/Gabby for Davis was the sole reason for that change is ludicrous to be honest.

The logic behind that is that if Davis had started vs Reading, we'd have played like we did on Saturday. Are we honestly suggesting that's the case?

[AshVilla]

54 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Luck?? You dont score four goals and its luck 

Norwich being extremely shit had a lot to do with it.

I really won't be reading much into this result i want to see sustained away wins over a period of 10 - 15 games plus.

That's where promotion will be decided or not.

Edited August 21, 2017 by AshVilla

[Demitri_C]

4 minutes ago, AshVilla said:

Norwich being extremely shit had a lot to do with it.

I really won't be reading much into this result i want to see sustained away wins over a period of 10 - 15 games plus.

That's where promotion will be decided or not.

Norwich are not a bad footballing side at all. They will challenging for the play off spots I feel. They also got a point away at Fulham  (deemed one of the bets sides in the league)

i would like to think we made them look shit with our quality 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Demitri_C

[Bunnski]

We certainly didn't play well all over the pitch as it could easily of went 3-3 only for bad finishing by Norwich, fact is we let them back into the game when we should of controlled the game better at 2-0 and again at 3-1. Time will tell if Bruce has all of a sudden turned things around.

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Bunnski said:

We certainly didn't play well all over the pitch as it could easily of went 3-3 only for bad finishing by Norwich, fact is we let them back into the game when we should of controlled the game better at 2-0 and again at 3-1. Time will tell if Bruce has all of a sudden turned things around.

They managed 3 shots on target. Two of which were their goals which admittedly were poor mistakes from us.

But one of those was terry and I'd still say he played well, he just had a slip up.

I'd say Hutton was the only player who you could say didn't play well on Saturday.

 

Compare that to Reading where I don't think you could say a single player played well.

The addition of Davis isn't the sole reason for that, which seems to be what is being suggested by some.

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, Bunnski said:

We certainly didn't play well all over the pitch as it could easily of went 3-3 only for bad finishing by Norwich, fact is we let them back into the game when we should of controlled the game better at 2-0 and again at 3-1. Time will tell if Bruce has all of a sudden turned things around.

You could have easily said we could have been 3 or 4 up at one point. We missed loads of chances. The fact is thankfully when they scored we didn't do our usual crumble and fold, we came back and kept scoring. i a hoping this will be the turning corner. If we address this terrible away form we will go up as that is the only thing holding us back 

[DCJonah]

22 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I mean it's not true that he hasn't come close. Brighton on the last day of last season was close, imo, even though we were let down by poor finishing that day. But the signs were there.

Even the Hull game was as good as Saturday, it was just that we completely stopped playing after 45 minutes.

 

Davis undoubtedly helped, and yes he was probably "lucky" that he was forced to play him.

But the addition of Davis wasn't the reason we won that game. He didn't single handedly turn the Reading performance into the Norwich performance. We played well from Johnstone to Davis on Saturday and the suggestion that simply swapping Hogan/Gabby for Davis was the sole reason for that change is ludicrous to be honest.

The logic behind that is that if Davis had started vs Reading, we'd have played like we did on Saturday. Are we honestly suggesting that's the case?

I agree that Davis wasn't the difference between the reading performance and the Norwich performance. But I do think he had a major impact. I don't think it can be understated how much it helps the team having a forward who can pass the ball and keep the ball. It helps take pressure off the defence, it builds attacks and in the first 20/30 minutes he'd caused endless problems. Compared to Hogan at reading it had a massive impact on us. Like I say, I'm not using the phrase lucky, it's his squad but likewise the fact it was forced upon him doesn't mean much for faith in future decisions regarding these types of performances. 

[lapal_fan]

I sort of see what Stevo means re. Gabby.  

Norwich played such a high line against us that it's probable that Gabby would have taken advantage of it at some point in the game - historically he's played well against Norwich/high lines - so it's not a huge leap of logic to apply that to Saturday's game.  But as with anything - it's purely hypothetical. 

That said, Davis did play extremely well.  His link up play really is something which has been a major problem.  He got other players into the game by giving them a few seconds to get up the pitch to him.  From what I've seen lately we've severely lacked that attribute when Hogan has been the focal point of our attack - so a huge well done to Davis for that.  

I agree with others who have suggested playing with 2 strikers, Davis +1 could potentially bring out the best in Hogan.  He needs a partner to do the dirty work essentially.  A bit like Angel/Vassell - Vassell hit the channels whilst Angel applied the finishing touches.  

Bruce?  I don't think he could have foreseen such a good debut, but he was the guy who put the name on the team sheet, knowing Davis's attributes, so you have to give him credit there.  He could have also told the players to sit back and absorb after we conceded - which he has done before to my annoyance, but seemingly that didn't happen either - so credit there too. 

We won, and won well - so by default you have to give Bruce some sort of praise.  

And I think people need to stop saying "the past 40 games have been poor" - because they haven't really.  The last 2 months of last season and in January were poor, but when we won a few on the bounce without conceding, when previously we'd been haemorrhaging goals, I think Bruce did the right thing in addressing the defence and keeping it tight.  We just got found out after a while - and for that you can slate him, on top of him not getting the best out of the players when we knew we couldn't get to the play offs.  

But he now has to take advantage and get points on the board.  A draw arguably buts us back to square 1, never mind a loss.  Obviously we could do with a win.. but in the wider context - boy, does he need to get a win on Friday. 

Fingers crossed!

[MarkLillis]

18 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

We certainly didn't play well all over the pitch as it could easily of went 3-3 only for bad finishing by Norwich, fact is we let them back into the game when we should of controlled the game better at 2-0 and again at 3-1. Time will tell if Bruce has all of a sudden turned things around.

Until this happens we cant say that Bruce has achieved what he needs to get us at the top end of the table.

Good teams can control the game even when they aren't on the front foot. We on the other hand look on the verge of collapse if the other side has the momentum.

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by MarkLillis

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, MarkLillis said:

Until this happens we cant say that Bruce has achieved what he needs to get us at the top end of the table.

Good teams can control the game even when they aren't on the front foot. We on the other hand look on the verge of collapse if the other side has the momentum.

 

Jedinak will help with that

[Stevo985]

15 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I agree that Davis wasn't the difference between the reading performance and the Norwich performance. But I do think he had a major impact. I don't think it can be understated how much it helps the team having a forward who can pass the ball and keep the ball. It helps take pressure off the defence, it builds attacks and in the first 20/30 minutes he'd caused endless problems. Compared to Hogan at reading it had a massive impact on us. Like I say, I'm not using the phrase lucky, it's his squad but likewise the fact it was forced upon him doesn't mean much for faith in future decisions regarding these types of performances. 

I think we're basically on the same page. 

yes Davis had an impact. And yes that selection was forced on Bruce to an extent.

But the original suggestion I was arguing was that we only won the game because Davis played in stead of Gabby.

To me that's just not true, and it's doing the rest of the team a disservice. Especially when the outstanding performer was Hourihane.

[Grasshopper]

So after conflicting considerations within myself, I come up with 2 conclusions one being positive and one being negative towards the Bruce-can-do.

Chance nr 1 - I was behind the appointment and during his good start (results-wise) I was hoping for some kind of developement of play/style. v Leeds away was my 1st doubt, coming up against a former PL manager doing a good job (at the time). Alarm bells went off away to Cardiff and I wanted him out. Brentford confirmed it for me.

Chance nr 2 - during the winning run I got back onside, not because of the belief in what he was doing, but purely on results. Burton killed it for me.

I still want him out, no doubt about it as I dont believe he will get us promoted this season.

BUT!

Regardless of how he did it, we won a game 4-2 - that is quite frankly unbelievable. One cant ignore that (I've tried)

so its

Chance nr 3 - from me

BUT!

He simply MUST keep winning now till we are top 2 and can "afford" a draw/defeat that doesnt knock us out the top 2. We have the squad, so no excuses for not letting them "play" for enough of a game to secure the win.

NO EXCUSES from now on in. I WANT to be convinced - so do it Bruce! Convince me.

However - the realism inside me says

All was lost, his hand was forced by his own shortcomings and the following "happened"

All the stars aligned

Tony told him -"win or bust"

Injuries to Kodjia Hogan & Gaby forced him to play Davis.

Bacuna leaving forced him to play Hourihane (he played O'hare in the U23s)

Green returning from injury.

Norwich were shit - but still scored 2 goals.

My opinion of the game (trying to be balanced) was

SJ looked unsure sometimes (the furst time this season - may I add)

Hutton is plain Shyte

Defending not "En Mass" leaves us vunerable at times.

The 2 goals conceeded could have and should have been avoided - not a glowing recommendation for when we play a good team.

I still fail to see us dominating the MF - yes we were hard to get through sometimes but against a "non-bullying" Norwich we should have had more of the ball.

Attack - we hoofed and it stuck allowing support to arrive, Hourihane took to this. Davis was immense and without him we WOULD NOT have been as effective going forward. We would have hoofed and the MF would have stayed back behind the Norwich MF line isolating whoever would have been our lone-striker AND we would have lost.

I'm both delighted and amazed that Hourihane got a hattrick.

BUT!

Breaking it down

Goal 1 - excellent from Davis a perfect cross/pass which had the defender got to it, it could have been an o.g. or a corner.

Goal nr 2 - a deflection - could have gone either way - a goal or a corner/GK saves it

Goal nr 3 - more of a pass into the net than a screamer - bad goalkeeping/positioning? or a Messi-esque piece of precision shooting?

Greens goal was pure class Kodjia would have been proud of that one.

So we could have dominated more and won 4-0 or even more

Then again had the 1st goal not gone  in, and the dreaded 1-0 HT team talk from Bruce, we may have ended up 2-2 or more than likely have lost once we sat back whilst Norwich smelt blood.

Either way, I'll need a hell of a lot more to be convinced.

Tony has more than likely made things clear to Bruce.

Bruce is stacking up the excuses and having a go at fans whilst critisizing the players.

It doesnt bode well for a Wigan loss and a return to type v Bristol.

We live in hope rather than belief.

UTV

VTID

and

Bruce Out

 

[GingerCollins29]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

 

He'd not doing anywhere near ENOUGH right lately.

I think you should join me at my next round of English lessons Alan.

 

[Rob182]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I just don't agree with that at all.

We've gotten to that stage where if we play badly it's the manager's fault, and if we play well it's lucky.

You can't have it both ways.

 

I understand the opinion of Bruce not changing. That's fine. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

But to dismiss Saturday as luck is just agenda driven, imo. It's refusing to acknowledge that the manager can ever do anything right.

He'd not doing anywhere near ENOUGH right lately. But the guy isn't a moron. He is capable of getting performances out of teams and Saturday was one of those.

I've given Bruce credit, so your second sentence is a load of bollocks if that was aimed at my post. I haven't dismissed the whole result as luck. I've said that he gets credit for setting us up with a more attacking mentality. Our wingers played much further forward than in previous games, and to my amazement, after going 2-0 up we still looked to add another goal, instead of the usual sit-back-and-collapse.

 

The tactic was still, very much, hoof it up to the target man and build attacks from there. It worked well with Davis, whereas previously we've attempted this with Hogan up top, who wins very few headers, because this isn't his game. When Hogan went off injured (against Reading?) and Gabby came on, we continued to play a long-ball game, and Gabby's hold-up play is, and has been, massively inferior to what we saw from Davis on Saturday.

 

I'm not saying, and haven't said, that we definitely wouldn't have won if Davis hadn't played, but I'm saying I'm no-where near as confident as others who seem to think that we would have. I think that if Davis hadn't played, that anything could have happened. Win, Lose or Draw. He had a hand in so much against Norwich, that I don't think we can make assumptions as to how we would have played if he was swapped for a different striker.

 

Going on what I've seen previously, I'm inclined to say that we would have been no-where near as good, if you swapped all of his contributions to what we would expect to see from Hogan or Gabby in a similar line-up and tactic. 

 

Bruce gets credit for picking Davis, of course, but I think it's pretty unfair on Davis to say that it was Bruce's man-motivating that lead to him putting in a 10/10 performance.

 

How many other times has a youngster put in such a good performance on his full league debut? The fact that it's so out-of-the-ordinary is why I'm saying Bruce got lucky with the complete performance he got from Davis. The most common thing we see from youngsters making full league debuts is that they're full of workrate, a will to impress, but then fall short of the final quality, make a few mistakes, and often get bullied by the fully grown men they're playing against. There was no sign of that by Davis, he was stronger than the Norwich players and I don't remember him making a single mistake. I can't think of a better debut performance from a kid.

[sne]

There were a lot of lessons to be learned from the Naarwich game. Most of them you'd have hoped had already been learned, but better late than never.

Hutton is a liability, we all know this, but that hopefully was the final straw.

We can get results without Jedinak (and even Kodija) if we try to play football.

Hourihane, if used properly is ace in this division.

We are better off, both short and long term to have Green's talent and potential on the left rather than when we have Gabby's experience and newfound hustle.

The youth's when given a chance  and faith can play a real part. O'Hare, Green and now Davis have all had stand out performances already this season.

Enough with buying squad players on high wages, give youth a chance. 

That last thing is not a dig a Bruce in particular because it's been like that for a while. Somehow it's never been the right time to give youth a chance. Too important season, wrong game, not ready...

Every other club seem to be able to do it, would be delighted if Bruce continued to let them try their wings. And no, I don't agree that most fans would turn on then after the first poor game.