Next Aston Villa Manager

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

3 minutes ago, Dante_Lockhart said:

Garde! Garde! Garde!

His response when Aston Villa come calling:

[Eastie]

6 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Would rather stam. Idpf we were going to look at someone like clolet I'd rather look at Sheffield uniteds manager. He is doing fantastically well there. Think he could be next big thing

 

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Would rather stam. Idpf we were going to look at someone like clolet I'd rather look at Sheffield uniteds manager. He is doing fantastically well there. Think he could be next big thing

Both decent suggestions . 

[cyrusr]

I 

13 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

TRO I'm not talking about his career I'm talking about his time here. You must have noticed that he rarely reacts to tactical changes that the opposition makes, which is, in my opinion, why we often start on the back foot in the second half. The opposition come out with fresh ideas and tweaks to the way they're approaching the game and we do nothing about it. 

I think your argument is weakened when you try to defend him come what may and suggest that those of us who don't support him are making things up. The fact is we are often very poor in the second half after starting the game relatively well. I agree there is an element of trying to find fault in everything he does or says, but most of the fair criticism of him is more than justified. 

I agree with @TRO. 

It's clear from Xia's tweet that he feels that Bruce has been given the money, the players and the time to get promotion. He is expecting to pull back up the table by the end of September and with the games we have got that is not unreasonable at all. 

Whilst it has been a poor start, I still think that Bruce will grind his way to promotion but it won't be a breeze... 

The problem with Bruce is that what he has shown over the last 11 months is that if he does get us promoted, I have no confidence that he will push us any further. That's where Clotet may fit in. Xia ain't daft, I am sure he is seeing that Bruce has his limitations and will need replacing. He maybe simply keeping an eye on him to see how he does/interacts/watch for the next or so. Depending how he does with Oxford, he really could be a real promise for the future.

There are massive assumptions in there and it could lead to nothing. What is clear that Bruce will need to be replaced if we want to be at the right end of the premier league.

[DaveAV1]

8 hours ago, cyrusr said:

What is clear that Bruce will need to be replaced if we want to be at the right end of the premier league.

I agree, however I believe Bruce will need to replaced in order to get us into the PL. 

[TRO]

23 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

TRO I'm not talking about his career I'm talking about his time here. You must have noticed that he rarely reacts to tactical changes that the opposition makes, which is, in my opinion, why we often start on the back foot in the second half. The opposition come out with fresh ideas and tweaks to the way they're approaching the game and we do nothing about it. 

I think your argument is weakened when you try to defend him come what may and suggest that those of us who don't support him are making things up. The fact is we are often very poor in the second half after starting the game relatively well. I agree there is an element of trying to find fault in everything he does or says, but most of the fair criticism of him is more than justified. 

Was Martin O'Neill so quick to change things and he got 6-6-6

I reiterate he has a 41.9 % win ratio with us so something does not stack up, its not all as gloomy as you and others paint.

look Dave....I understand what you see, but i am not sure i agree with it.....in the sense its all down to him.....is it his fault for the way Richards conducts himself.....is it his fault the way McCormack conducts himself.....has he not worked the Oracle with Agbonlahor, even to get a spark.

I am more inclined to blame the players for not applying themselves as opposed to the manager not setting them up properly.

its an opinion

however, i do accept ultimately it is down to him to get them to do what he wants them to do.....that may take a bit longer.

I will not defend Steve Bruce unconditionally.....only when i think the criticism is dubious.

 

[Zatman]

nearly 10 years ago MON achieved that. Football has changed and MON like Bruce is a dinosaur. His "tactics" last night were Bruce inspired 

SOme Ireland and Villa fans seem to be using the same excuse, it cant be both sets of players that arent able to play for these dinosaurs tactics

[Eastie]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

Was Martin O'Neill so quick to change things and he got 6-6-6

I reiterate he has a 41.9 % win ratio with us so something does not stack up, its not all as gloomy as you and others paint.

look Dave....I understand what you see, but i am not sure i agree with it.....in the sense its all down to him.....is it his fault for the way Richards conducts himself.....is it his fault the way McCormack conducts himself.....has he not worked the Oracle with Agbonlahor, even to get a spark.

I am more inclined to blame the players for not applying themselves as opposed to the manager not setting them up properly.

its an opinion

however, i do accept ultimately it is down to him to get them to do what he wants them to do.....that may take a bit longer.

I will not defend Steve Bruce unconditionally.....only when i think the criticism is dubious.

 

As always tro you put your point across in a well written and polite way , however whilst taking on note your comments I must add the likes of Hutton , bacuna and gabby to the equation as I cannot see how Bruce can justify any of those 3 starting this season ahead of his own signings - whatever faults some players may have I see no reason for some of the team selections made by Bruce .

The other huge concern for me recently was having gained some momentum with 2 good wins and a few goals why oh why change it all and start with 3 at the back next game - some times he just does not help himself .

[TRO]

9 hours ago, cyrusr said:

I 

I agree with @TRO. 

It's clear from Xia's tweet that he feels that Bruce has been given the money, the players and the time to get promotion. He is expecting to pull back up the table by the end of September and with the games we have got that is not unreasonable at all. 

Whilst it has been a poor start, I still think that Bruce will grind his way to promotion but it won't be a breeze... 

The problem with Bruce is that what he has shown over the last 11 months is that if he does get us promoted, I have no confidence that he will push us any further. That's where Clotet may fit in. Xia ain't daft, I am sure he is seeing that Bruce has his limitations and will need replacing. He maybe simply keeping an eye on him to see how he does/interacts/watch for the next or so. Depending how he does with Oxford, he really could be a real promise for the future.

There are massive assumptions in there and it could lead to nothing. What is clear that Bruce will need to be replaced if we want to be at the right end of the premier league.

I think that is fair.

i think it always was a fact that Xia would monitor it all carefully.

[TRO]

18 minutes ago, Zatman said:

nearly 10 years ago MON achieved that. Football has changed and MON like Bruce is a dinosaur. His "tactics" last night were Bruce inspired 

SOme Ireland and Villa fans seem to be using the same excuse, it cant be both sets of players that arent able to play for these dinosaurs tactics

What is Dinasaur tactics or Dinasaur managers or Dinasaur anything?

is it just tactics or managers you Don't agree with or is the time they have been in the game?

is Gian Ventura a Dinasaur too?.....he is 69

This argument that young managers v old managers has any mileage is popycock for me.

football is over a hundred years old its a mature business.....not much is new....only the amounts of money.

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by TRO

[Zatman]

Just now, TRO said:

What is Dinasaur tactics or Dinasaur managers or Dinasaur anything?

is it just tactics or managers you Don't agree with or is the time they have been in the game?

is Gian Ventura a Dinasaur too?.....he is 69

This argument that young managers v old managers has any mileage is popycock for me.

football is over a hundred years old its a mature business.....not much is new.

 

they are outdated and dont belong in the game and too stubborn to try new things. Ferguson wasnt a dinosaur because he always evolved and was willing to try new trends, didnt always work but he saw fresh approach could work

managers I mentioned plus few others will play the same shitty system and offer nothing fresh when Plan A fails with the Bruce and MON is happening a lot these days

[maqroll]

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, Eastie said:

As always tro you put your point across in a well written and polite way , however whilst taking on note your comments I must add the likes of Hutton , bacuna and gabby to the equation as I cannot see how Bruce can justify any of those 3 starting this season ahead of his own signings - whatever faults some players may have I see no reason for some of the team selections made by Bruce .

The other huge concern for me recently was having gained some momentum with 2 good wins and a few goals why oh why change it all and start with 3 at the back next game - some times he just does not help himself .

Thanks for that

firstly.....i would not have played any of those players and this is me now disagreeing with SB....but i would counteract by saying he is the manager its his call and he has to defend it, when it goes wrong.

in answer to the Bristol Game I reiterate.....We faced a buoyant Bristol team at home.They deserved respect, but not for us to be afraid.

It was a different landscape and a bit of caution was not amiss imo.....but players have to fight their way in to the game. i seen in the early part of the match, the Bristol lads were doubling up on ours in closing us down.....when they had the ball, we stood off them and allowed them tp play.....thats lacking in workrate and desire....not formation, set up or manager in a direct sense.

We have the talent.....we need to apply ourselves.

 

[DaveAV1]

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

Was Martin O'Neill so quick to change things and he got 6-6-6

I reiterate he has a 41.9 % win ratio with us so something does not stack up, its not all as gloomy as you and others paint.

look Dave....I understand what you see, but i am not sure i agree with it.....in the sense its all down to him.....is it his fault for the way Richards conducts himself.....is it his fault the way McCormack conducts himself.....has he not worked the Oracle with Agbonlahor, even to get a spark.

I am more inclined to blame the players for not applying themselves as opposed to the manager not setting them up properly.

its an opinion

however, i do accept ultimately it is down to him to get them to do what he wants them to do.....that may take a bit longer.

I will not defend Steve Bruce unconditionally.....only when i think the criticism is dubious.

 

The players you use as examples there TRO are definitely not his fault. None of them were bought by him and in the case of Richards and Gabby (at this point in his career) I don't believe any manager could do anything with them. As for RMC I'm not sure he managed him, or the situation surrounding him at the time particularly well. The criticism I have with Gate Gate is that it went public and that has made him difficult to shift. However I'm not trying to beat him with that particular stick. 

The main problem I have with SB is that he doesn't seem to know what he wants to do as far as a consistent game plan is concerned and he hasn't managed to get the best out of what most people agree is a strong squad at this level. Good managers always get more out of the sum of the individual parts, but I'm afraid Steve has done just the opposite. Most businesses, and football is no different, work because at the top they have a plan and the staff know what the plan is. Confused messages are detrimental to performance and that in my opinion is a huge problem. 

You mentiomed MON, and I won't get into what I think about him, but his strength was he had a plan. We were a counter attacking team, he knew it, the players knew it, the opposition knew it. It was limited but it worked enough times to get to a decent level. We must have a plan. Without it there will be no promotion. All will be revealed over the next month I'm sure. Then we can move on to another debate .

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, Zatman said:

they are outdated and dont belong in the game and too stubborn to try new things. Ferguson wasnt a dinosaur because he always evolved and was willing to try new trends, didnt always work but he saw fresh approach could work

managers I mentioned plus few others will play the same shitty system and offer nothing fresh when Plan A fails with the Bruce and MON is happening a lot these days

I completely disagree with all of that.

Steve Bruce has played every system conceivable to man.

What new things?

3-5-2

4-4-2

4-4-1-1

4-2-3-1

When a game kicks off you would be hard pressed to see what system is being played due to the dynamics and logistics of the game.....at a corner, you would have no idea.

Players need to be aware, do their job, close down , challenge their opponent, show desire and outwit

.....and bloomin fight for the win.

[TRO]

5 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

The players you use as examples there TRO are definitely not his fault. None of them were bought by him and in the case of Richards and Gabby (at this point in his career) I don't believe any manager could do anything with them. As for RMC I'm not sure he managed him, or the situation surrounding him at the time particularly well. The criticism I have with Gate Gate is that it went public and that has made him difficult to shift. However I'm not trying to beat him with that particular stick. 

The main problem I have with SB is that he doesn't seem to know what he wants to do as far as a consistent game plan is concerned and he hasn't managed to get the best out of what most people agree is a strong squad at this level. Good managers always get more out of the sum of the individual parts, but I'm afraid Steve has done just the opposite. Most businesses, and football is no different, work because at the top they have a plan and the staff know what the plan is. Confused messages are detrimental to performance and that in my opinion is a huge problem. 

You mentiomed MON, and I won't get into what I think about him, but his strength was he had a plan. We were a counter attacking team, he knew it, the players knew it, the opposition knew it. It was limited but it worked enough times to get to a decent level. We must have a plan. Without it there will be no promotion. All will be revealed over the next month I'm sure. Then we can move on to another debate .

Dave, i am not being arkward, i am not sure i understand this plan other than every team has to have one, its not a choice its mandatory and in my eyes when we kick off we have one....whether i agree with it is another debate....then if we take control it has purpose, when we lose control it lacks purpose, cohesion and shape.

for me the players win or lose their individual battles and it affects this plan and we get pulled asunder, to me that is not a lack of plan its more of players losing their battle.

if we do not impose ourselves on them, they will sure as hell impose themselves on us.

i accept we all see these things differently , i am just explaining what i see.

I do accept SB is too cautious .....he needs to revisit that.

[Zatman]

14 minutes ago, TRO said:

I completely disagree with all of that.

Steve Bruce has played every system conceivable to man.

What new things?

3-5-2

4-4-2

4-4-1-1

4-2-3-1

When a game kicks off you would be hard pressed to see what system is being played due to the dynamics and logistics of the game.....at a corner, you would have no idea.

Players need to be aware, do their job, close down , challenge their opponent, show desire and outwit

.....and bloomin fight for the win.

systems are just managerial lingo rubbish. A good on the ball manager would start to encourage his players to look for the ball, pass the ball, look for team mates and move when other have the ball. Can play any system in the world but if your manager doesnt encourage players to do that then its definite going to fail. 

and he has the players to play like this which most frustrating of all

[DaveAV1]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

Players need to be aware, do their job, close down , challenge their opponent, show desire and outwit

.....and bloomin fight for the win.

I absolutely agree with this TRO. So why don't they? They did it at their old clubs I would assume, or why did we buy them? There seems to be little chance that they have all collectively decided not to do that, so why are so many of them not doing the basics. As I've said in a recent post, the only explaination I can come up with is that there is no collective plan in place, which leads to confusion and a drop in performance. The difference between success and failure at this level is measured by small margins. 

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, Zatman said:

systems are just managerial lingo rubbish. A good on the ball manager would start to encourage his players to look for the ball, pass the ball, look for team mates and move when other have the ball. Can play any system in the world but if your manager doesnt encourage players to do that then its definite going to fail. 

and he has the players to play like this which most frustrating of all

But how can we be sure he's not explaining all that, we are not at BMH to challenge it

that to me would be stuff i would expect at any decent run football club.

its what i would call basics.

Its one thing someone training you to do something or that matter encouraging you to do it....but its quite another thing the player doing it.

i see things during a game and i have to ask myself if Steve Bruce is directly responsible for that.....It bodes for thought.

i have trouble accepting that some stuff is directly down to him.

ps after winning over 300 professional games in his career some of the stuff he would know, don't you think.

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by TRO

[DaveAV1]

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

Dave, i am not being arkward, i am not sure i understand this plan other than every team has to have one, its not a choice its mandatory and in my eyes when we kick off we have one....whether i agree with it is another debate....then if we take control it has purpose, when we lose control it lacks purpose, cohesion and shape.

for me the players win or lose their individual battles and it affects this plan and we get pulled asunder, to me that is not a lack of plan its more of players losing their battle.

if we do not impose ourselves on them, they will sure as hell impose themselves on us.

i accept we all see these things differently , i am just explaining what i see.

I do accept SB is too cautious .....he needs to revisit that.

I do agree with the above TRO. The problem is that we don't stick to a plan. The other problem, which you have correctly identified, is that we loose control during games. To me that is because other managers react as the game progresses, making changes where they see fit, but SB doesn't seem to do that, or at least not very quickly. Your last line is probably the biggest problem of all. 

[Zatman]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

But how can we be sure he's not explaining all that, we are not at BMH to challenge it

that to me would be stuff i would expect at any decent run football club.

its what i would call basics.

Its one thing someone training you to do something or that matter encouraging you to do it....but its quite another thing the player doing it.

i see things during a game and i have to ask myself if Steve Bruce is directly responsible for that.....It bodes for thought.

i have trouble accepting that some stuff is directly down to him.

 

after nearly a year in charge if he is telling players to play a way he wants and they arent then he should be sacked on the spot