Ratings & Reactions: Leeds v Villa

[Paddywhack]

Can you imagine the stick Bruce would have got if he'd have started the game with a non striker playing up top?

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

 

Who are all these youth strikers who are so ready for the first team we should be playing them?

 

I'd like to know this. I think Bruce is a right coward for not playing....y'know, whatsisname...that young lad..

[flashingqwerty]

35 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

No I don't think he looked particularly tired. I think it was one of those games where he got outmuscled. It's happened before (Sunderland game comes to mind)

So no I don't think tiredness had much to do with it.

 

You're contradicting yourself here. You're  calling Bruce a coward for not having a youngster on the bench because of our injuries, but acknowledging he uses Davis even though that may have been "forced" upon him originally because of injuries. So which is it? Surely the two scenarios are the same.

Who are all these youth strikers who are so ready for the first team we should be playing them?

There is no contradiction. He has only used senior players out of position for short periods not for entire games.  Davies got a chance because we had no senior striker fit to start.  Two bery different things starting a youngster when you have no senior option than having a youngster on the bench to blood them so that the next time he is forced to use a youngster it wont be their first appearance.

I also never said our young strikers were ready for the first team, but if they never get to appear on the bench then they never will be. Even Chelsea with their multi million pound squad rotate youth into the side to give them experience.  Its something all clubs should be doing to encourage youth development.  Bruce however is reluctant to do this and the only reason that is logical over such a long period is fear.

 

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, flashingqwerty said:

There is no contradiction. He has only used senior players out of position for short periods not for entire games.  Davies got a chance because we had no senior striker fit to start.  Two bery different things starting a youngster when you have no senior option than having a youngster on the bench to blood them so that the next time he is forced to use a youngster it wont be their first appearance.

 

So originally we had no fit senior strikers to start so Bruce had the balls to go with a youth striker.

Now, according to you because Davis was too tired, we have no fit senior strikers so Bruce doesn't have any balls because he didn't go with a youth striker (who that would be we've still not established)

Which is it? Surely both scenarios are the same? If it would have shown balls for Bruce to go with a youth striker on Friday, then don't you have to give him credit for going with a youth striker when Davis was used? 

22 minutes ago, flashingqwerty said:

I also never said our young strikers were ready for the first team, but if they never get to appear on the bench then they never will be. Even Chelsea with their multi million pound squad rotate youth into the side to give them experience.  Its something all clubs should be doing to encourage youth development.  Bruce however is reluctant to do this and the only reason that is logical over such a long period is fear.

 

So you're admitting that we don't have youth strikers ready for the first team, but criticising Bruce for not using them anyway. Don't you see how that's a bit... odd?

And as for putting young players on the bench, well Bruce has used plenty of young players in the squads. Davis, O'Hare, Bree, RHM for example. I'm sure there are others especially if you include cup games. Again, I'd ask which youth strikers you had in mind that could have been on the bench on Friday? And if they're not ready for the first team, then what's the point? They're just using up a place for a sub who could contribute.

[BOF]

One important point to make about the team this season is its resilience.  Only once this season have we lost points from winning positions.  We've been ahead 11 times and only against Hull City on the opening day did we fail to win the game.  That's 10 wins from 11 and 2pts dropped.  On the flip side, in 7 games where we were in a losing position, we managed to pick up points in 3 of those games.  5pts in total (Bristol City, QPR & Leeds).

Just to put that into context.  Last season we were in winning positions 27 times.  We dropped points in 11 of them.  24pts in total.  And in 21 instances where we were losing, we picked up points in only 5 of those games. 7pts in total.

* I say instances instead of games, because it's possible to be both winning and losing within the same game.

[TRO]

20 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

So you admit we were awful but refuse to place ANY of the blame at the feet of the manager?

Sorry but it seems more like you who has been at the smethwicks as opposed to me.

Half the players that started the last match were clearly either carrying an injury or exhausted.  Last time i checked the manaher picks the team so in picking players that wetent fit to play he put us on the back foot from the start.

But then i suspect you already knew this and you are arguing for the sake of it.  I cant believe a guy who talks so much sense about many things truely believes those 11 players should have started.

• I have never insinuated the manager is at no fault, because he has the overall responsibility, but I am asking myself what would I have done with arguably my best 3 players out and no window to deal.
• They may be all those things, in which case I would be right, its down to them( not a criticism and observation)......but the alternative is, playing  inexperienced players,who don't yet possess the muscle or the guile to affect play ,for the rigours of this league, which could have turned out worse......we got a point, playing it his way at a difficult place to go.
• I don't argue for the sake of it.....I might be a few things, but desperate for company, is not one of them, I have a very full social calendar thanks.....thanks for the commendation, but I am not sure I would have lined up any different......However, I am itching to see Callum have some game time, but conversely nervous he might get bullied at times and he goes out of the game.

Of all our competitors we have 5 strikers in our squad as opposed to their 6/7.....so we clearly have limitations in that area and IMO its posing a problem for him.....He has already said he played Keiran for 20 minutes longer than he wanted against Leeds......Its a balancing act at present and a point under such circumstance was more than I thought we would get.

PS its not a case of blindly defending the manager, its a case of presenting the issues we have in a mitigating manner.However I have always maintained a manager is only as good as his players and yes its his responsibilty to find them or find men that can find them.....but when they cross that white line his influence is limited, particularly in his eyes he has no better to put on.

pps not being pedantic, but.........Smethwick is a district of Birmingham.....Smithwicks is a brewer of Ale in Dublin ( or was when I was last there)

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by TRO