Steve Bruce

[MikeMcKenna]

11 minutes ago, TRO said:

He wasn't forced to play Davis.....He could have played RHM as I understand.

Davis played very well and was instrumental/ aided  other players to play very well in the process.

I read the interpretations of events as clobber Bruce at every opportunity and deny him credit when it is reasonable to grant it.

I am not saying that I am adamant that steve bruce gets praise for keinan davis's performance, but what i am saying is , then you cannot clobber him for some poor ones.

i am looking for a balanced view and sorry, in some posts i don't see it.

some say they want Bruce to do well, because Villa will be doing well, well i see the correlation, but i don't always see the sentiment.

 

A "balanced view" is acquired over multiple games. On balance I think he is a poor manager. 

[TRO]

steve Bruce had always been quite forthright and honest in his declarations

quoting on occasion that i don't really do tactics.....

would it not be alien for him to say i took the shackles off in relation to the last 2 games, such is his honesty.

i haven't heard he has said that.

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

13 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I don't see anything saying clobber Bruce anywhere !!

The vast majority of people who were or aren't happy with him have simply said " good, he's stopped being negative, keep it that way".

I really don't se much other than that.

Come on Terry, just a term.

I just don't accept like you do that he has such a direct influence on the negative/ positive play argument that is put forward.

i see it more that players take control and impose themselves and their form dictates they play well or not.

its just a different view.

i just don't think steve bruce has as much influence on a game one way or another as you and others allude to.....thats not saying no influence, just saying the influence is exaggerated imv.

[TRO]

13 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said:

A "balanced view" is acquired over multiple games. On balance I think he is a poor manager. 

It is over multiple games.

i seem to remember Ron Atkinson having 18 good months and 18 poor months or thereabouts.....so was he a bad manager?

Graham Taylor mk1 or mk 2......not different people.....one good spell one not so good....depends which one he is valued on.

look, mike.....you make your call as everyone does, but the fact remains he wins games, he's our manager, like it or lump it.

 

[terrytini]

I'm astonished you think so - pretty much every team I can think of plays how their Manager wants them to play.

Doesnt mean they always play it well, that's where the players come into it, but overall ?...

And if they don't, then that's no Manager.

I give Bruce full credit for getting teams to play how he wants. If he had wanted gung ho he'd have got it. If he'd wanted Wimbledon he would've got it. If he'd wanted possession, or pressing, he'd have got it.

He wanted and got caution.

I feel his reasons were understandable but he overdid it, just my view.

Now - at least right now - he's changed it, and again, got it.

[terrytini]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

It is over multiple games.

i seem to remember Ron Atkinson having 18 good months and 18 poor months or thereabouts.....so was he a bad manager?

Graham Taylor mk1 or mk 2......not different people.....one good spell one not so good....depends which one he is valued on.

 

 

This, I completely agree with.

Ive never doubted Bruce is a decent Manager.

Equally though, as you actually show here, you can be a good Manager yet still be utterly wrong for a particular time or place whether because your approach doesn't fit the players, the owner, the Club, or whatever.

Edited August 23, 2017 by terrytini

[villianusa]

15 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

He has been in the job almost a year, this 3 games argument really is a nonsense.

I understand what you are saying about his year, but he has said from the start that this is a rebuilding project. Around 50% of the team who finished the game against Brighton was not playing in the first game of this season. He has finally got, what I would say is his squad and results should start to show. He is also in the process of changing the formation from a 433, to a 4411 (or something along those lines). From my own personal experience of working with and chatting to professional players and coaches up to international level over the years, the feedback I have received is they are in agreement that it takes 2-3 months to learn a new system. With the new signings in the summer, this could take into the early season for it to settle in.

A number of players who were signed in January are finally settling in, while injuries have also affected the continuity of the team.

We should have won against Hull, but the games against Cardiff and Reading were unacceptable from the manager and the players. I was with the majority and after we lost to Reading, I wouldn't have cared if he got fired. I'm hoping the improvement of the last two games is the way we can continue, we may not always win, but hopefully, try to.

To say the 3 games is nonsense would certainly hold true if it was the same players, same formation, and with no improvement, but with all the additional changes through the summer, I don't think so. There has been a lot of change over the last year within the club and I hope this season we will see positive results and stability and a little bit of luck. We now have one of the strongest squads (if not the strongest) in the league and should now start to perform like one.

[TRO]

25 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I'm astonished you think so - pretty much every team I can think of plays how their Manager wants them to play.

Doesnt mean they always play it well, that's where the players come into it, but overall ?...

And if they don't, then that's no Manager.

I give Bruce full credit for getting teams to play how he wants. If he had wanted gung ho he'd have got it. If he'd wanted Wimbledon he would've got it. If he'd wanted possession, or pressing, he'd have got it.

He wanted and got caution.

I feel his reasons were understandable but he overdid it, just my view.

Now - at least right now - he's changed it, and again, got it.

I think terry we are a tad at cross purposes and in an effort to try to clarify .....i see managers nearly every game in every league with veins bulging from there necks in frustration at players not doing as they are told.....its an old chesnut, they don't do as they are told much of the time.

players have a huge influence themselves on how a game pans out, their form and how they impose themselves play a huge part.

if you are a player and your opponent is beating you, it is natural to retreat, i am not arguing with your point, just offering alternative views....i just don't believe Bruce or any manager has as much direct influence in a game as some of us allude to.....they have an influence all week, but on matchday its very much reliant on the player.....otherwise if they did everything the manager asked we would win every match.

did he actually say he took the shackles off.....thats just fan speculation.

maybe the players just clicked after time together, maybe they wasn't fit enough and now they are.

I just don't know for sure why, we have been so prolific in the last 2 games and yes its great long may it continue.

I just think it is fanciful to credit or discredit Bruce for every event in a game.

Edited August 23, 2017 by TRO

[srsmithusa]

42 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I don't see anything saying clobber Bruce anywhere !!

The vast majority of people who were or aren't happy with him have simply said " good, he's stopped being negative, keep it that way".

I really don't se much other than that.

That's how I feel, although I will grant that I find some of the Bruce bashing over the top

honestly, overall, I'm pretty baffled that a team with months of poor performances can look like world beaters and I never even saw the turn signal.  

I think Bruce changed something because the other option is 22 simultaneous miracles.  But I don't know what it was. Taking off the shackles is the only thing I can see that makes sense.   But if that's it, it makes me even more Bruce out, because that means he's been holding us back for some time!

 

 

 

[TRO]

18 minutes ago, terrytini said:

This, I completely agree with.

Ive never doubted Bruce is a decent Manager.

Equally though, as you actually show here, you can be a good Manager yet still be utterly wrong for a particular time or place whether because your approach doesn't fit the players, the owner, the Club, or whatever.

I think there are many factors that make managers do well or not.I think managers in the main, set the scene at a football club and create the overall platform.

however, i am unsure how much direct influence they have on every game....on a game by game basis

Edited August 23, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

6 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

That's how I feel, although I will grant that I find some of the Bruce bashing over the top

honestly, overall, I'm pretty baffled that a team with months of poor performances can look like world beaters and I never even saw the turn signal.  

I think Bruce changed something because the other option is 22 simultaneous miracles.  But I don't know what it was. Taking off the shackles is the only thing I can see that makes sense.   But if that's it, it makes me even more Bruce out, because that means he's been holding us back for some time!

 

 

 

I would love to laud Steve Bruce and join in with the praise.....something did happen, maybe they just clicked, maybe many players on form at the same time.

Maybe the synergy of certain players paid off.

there are many factors.

However i'm sure Steve will take the praise.

[Vive_La_Villa]

I'm not buying all this Bruce taking off the shackles nonsense. He has tried to play the way against Norwich for weeks but when the ball doesn't get held up by the striker it doesn't work. It's his fault for not playing somebody who can do that role but no way has he told the team to sit back and be shit game after game. Hold the ball up front and relieve some pressure off the rest of the team and let them get forward and not be constantly under pressure. Football can be so simple at times.

[srsmithusa]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I'm not buying all this Bruce taking off the shackles nonsense. He has tried to play the way against Norwich for weeks but when the ball doesn't get held up by the striker it doesn't work. It's his fault for not playing somebody who can do that role but no way has he told the team to sit back and be shit game after game. Hold the ball up front and relieve some pressure off the rest of the team and let them get forward and not be constantly under pressure. Football can be so simple at times.

I'm not buying this one player change made all the difference.  Although maybe I would if it was Messi.  But even if Davis is the cure we've needed, it hardly explains Wigan when he wasn't even on the bench, does it?

[Villarocker]

Bruce made a brave call in playing Davis up front and he was rewarded with the lad putting in a great performance. They both deserve a lot of credit for that.

[Jareth]

I think the change has been clear, Bruce played first two away games not to concede and to nick a 0-1. Failed badly, felt the pressure, then in his next 2 home games played a lot higher up and asked his players to attack, and Davis paid off big. What will he do on Fri? Sadly I think he thinks he has bought time and will go defensive again - but if that means Davis again on his own then we should have more threat this time with hourihane and a few others in form. Only issue is Hutton, he always tries to lose it for us.

[AshVilla]

Hutton needs to be dropped on his face.

Why Bruce continues to pick him when we have a surplus of rbs I dont know.

He's a trier and you can't fault the effort he puts on on the training ground but the way he leaves us exposed at times is frightening it's no coincidence that teams always go for us down that flank when he plays

[One For The Road]

46 minutes ago, AshVilla said:

Hutton needs to be dropped on his face.

Lol

[Vive_La_Villa]

6 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I'm not buying this one player change made all the difference.  Although maybe I would if it was Messi.  But even if Davis is the cure we've needed, it hardly explains Wigan when he wasn't even on the bench, does it?

I'm not saying we were a one man show I'm just saying the affect Davis had on the team can't be underestimated. I watched the highlights again and he really did terrorise their defence. They couldn't handle him and gave supporting players a lot more space that they would usually have.

As for Wigan I've only seen the goals so can't comment on the overall performance. It was a second string league one team though. We can't forget that. 

Anyway whatever the reason I'm just happy we are scoring goals. Just hope it continues on Friday. Can't wait.

[DCJonah]

10 hours ago, TRO said:

He wasn't forced to play Davis.....He could have played RHM as I understand.

Davis played very well and was instrumental/ aided  other players to play very well in the process.

I read the interpretations of events as clobber Bruce at every opportunity and deny him credit when it is reasonable to grant it.

I am not saying that I am adamant that steve bruce gets praise for keinan davis's performance, but what i am saying is , then you cannot clobber him for some poor ones.

i am looking for a balanced view and sorry, in some posts i don't see it.

some say they want Bruce to do well, because Villa will be doing well, well i see the correlation, but i don't always see the sentiment.

 

Could he? 

I thought he was injured still. 

[lapal_fan]

Was listening to Talksport on the way in to work this morning.  Brazil had Allardyce on the show talking about Rooney etc.  They called up Steve and was talking about the season, how it's gone so far and if he is happy with the squad etc.  Some points I picked up;

- Obviously wasn't happy with the start.  Said the Hull game we played well first half, but they came at us in the second, that said we still had chances we didn't take

- Cardiff surprised him at just how poorly we played

- He's had a much better week this week, things are starting to come together

- He knows the away form is a concern, said that we've performed ok at VP, but to go up he knows we have to start performing away from home

- Is quite happy with the squad currently at his disposal, Brazil asked him about Snodgrass and Wilshere - he said we're looking into Snodgrass (played with me and played well at Hull) and said "who wouldn't want Jack Wilshere?  Although he said "he's only 25" (implying it might be hard to bring him in).  Said he bought in experience from the PL because they know what it takes to perform week in, week out.  Something he thinks players lack in the Championship.  Is happy with Terry, Samba (didn't mention Whealan). 

- Said the guys he got in January have been surprised at how much pressure there is playing for a club this size, but they seem quite well settled now and are up for the job

- Allardyce asked him about how and if he's still using "your back 3 Steve".  SB said that he hasn't played it much, although it's an option.  He said it's something he got Hull promoted with and is surprised at how common it's being used.  As for us using it, he said that it's something which needs a lot of training to implement, but he has got the players to do it

- Is looking forward to Bristol, but said that they've made a good start to the season and will difficult opponents