weedman

Seeing Bunn start tonight made me think of this guy. Honestly how crap must you be to be behind both Nyland and Bunn in the pecking order?! 

15 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I think it’s starting to reflect on the board now, in my eyes it’s almost negligence to surrender a season after 10 games by persisting with this bloke.

Even if they aren't "persisting" with him, rather waiting until they have the right replacement lined up and/or backroom staff in place? 

What's the point in sacking SB, paying off all his staff etc if they can't currently recruit anyone capable of pushing us on? 15th or 7th (or even 3rd if we lose the playoffs again) doesn't make a jot of difference to them, to what's the point in sacking him if they can't find anyone they trust to get us promoted?

From an owners point of view there's promotion, relegation, and the in between. We won't get relegated with Bruce, so unless they can find a manager or team who they are confident will get us promoted why would they bother rushing into a decision which would cost them millions and offer no more than a cosmetic improvement? Surely the decision to wait until the manager and/or team that CAN get us promoted is in place or at least available before getting rid of Bruce makes sense? 

58 minutes ago, flashingqwerty said:

dont think we will ever see the best of Jack with SB in charge.

Just on this, literally the best we've ever seen of Jack has been with SB in charge. There are many, many things to knock SB for, not getting the best out of Jack Grealish is not one of them. 

On topic, good news he's signed, means that even if we do have to sell him at least we're not completely over a barrel, depending on the release clause of course.

I'm sure there was an article at the end of the transfer window about how heartbroken he was about not getting his Spurs move and how he would refuse to sign any contract...

We looked much better when we went to 451 with Kodjia left and Jack in the middle. I hate 442 it doesn't suit us at all but so many people clamour for it before every game I can't figure it out, it's like some people think 2 strikers = attacking, 1 striker = defensive which is just not the case but IF we're going to play 442 I don't see where Jack fits into the team 

39 minutes ago, privateer said:

And on the point of there being a sequential process of appointments - new CEO, scouts out, maybe incoming DOF/Sporting Director, Bruce out, incoming Head Coach and coaching and scouting team - I'm not convinced it will be quite so sequential.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen more or less simultaneously with the DOF and new coach being announced together. I would like to think that is what is happening behind the scenes. A team being formed as a unit that can be exchanged for the one in situ.

Could be, but the team still needs to be lined up and ready to step in before we sack him, otherwise our options are completely limited and a recipe for failure, its either scrap the plan and go for it with another man which would be more of the same really, or hire an interim manager in the meantime but it's unlikely we'd get an interim manager better than Bruce if we're honest. That's why I don't believe either wins or losses will have any impact on Bruce's future with us, so I simply can't get on board with the praying for losses like some on here 

18 hours ago, Killeen30 said:

I guess Messi and Ronaldo have the acceleration to get away from a man once beating them and avoid being kicked, most of the time. I think some of the time he is happy to go down for a free kick. Now I’m not calling him a diver because as you say he is fouled many many times in any one game. Sometimes going down and getting the free is the easier option.

Most of his game, especially this season, seems to be getting into a decent position and buying a free kick. He very rarely gets kicked from pillar to post like some claim, he knows exactly what he's doing when he's "fouled" 90% of the time. It's like his default fall back position, can't see a pass, get a free kick and move on. It's lazy and better players will stick with the old fashioned pass and move until that killer pass is actually on 

He needs to do more, he's at his best when he's actually beating players snd picking out passes, constantly going down and punching the ground in agony before jumping up 20 seconds later is only going to get him a reputation that you really don't want in this division, because refs will start assuming you're faking it every time you go down. 

I like Jack, but he's not the finished article yet, he needs to be building on last seasons form and improving, he's not doing that at the minute 

1 hour ago, pacbuddies said:

I'm afraid you are too much of a visionary for a lot of fans. They only see the next game as a 'must win' and would rather win it even if it means keeping Bruce in a job than lose it and put another nail in his coffin. Some fans can see that we are going nowhere with this muppet in charge and for me if losing 2 games on the spin ends his reign then so be it because every point we fluke with him in charge just stretches out his tenure and guarantees the inevitable (another season in the fizzy pop league).

My suspicion is they are keeping him until all the background staff are in place before getting rid and bringing in a coach.

Losing matches won't bring those staff in any quicker. Winning matches won't prevent a plan being implemented, therefore I want Aston Villa to win every game until all the crap in the background is sorted out (the sooner the better, but I suspect it will take longer than most hope) and Bruce is replaced. 

If you genuinely believe that the owners are making their decisions (potentially worth hundreds of millions) on a game by game basis then you must also genuinely believe they have no plan for our future. I may be wrong, but I'm an optimist, I will believe the owners have a plan and will implement it when all the pieces are in place until the evidence suggests otherwise 

If it all goes tits up and the owners turn out no better than Randy or Tone, I'll try being a "visionary" and praying for defeats like you guys in the hope we'll stumble from manager to manager and strategy to strategy until it just suddenly works one day. I mean, it hasn't worked so far, but can't hurt to keep trying can it? 

1 hour ago, One For The Road said:

I thought we did far better than I expected. And still didn't go up. I said we wouldn't go up and we didn't. Although I do concede that we did better than I thought.

As for "challenging for it until a few games before", we were always playing catch up. We never looked like finishing 2nd. As I expected.

 

Had you said "I don't think we'll go up" you'd have been right 100%, but you didn't say that, you said we had "no chance", which was wrong 

On 16/09/2018 at 12:45, One For The Road said:

I said we had no chance of top 2. I was right. How many days did we spend in the top 2 again?

Now I am saying we won't make the top 6. I will be right again.

You were not right, we clearly had a chance for top 2 given that we were challenging for it up until the last few games. We didn't make it, but our chances, especially at the start of the season, were considerably more than zero

5 hours ago, leemond2008 said:

Does that mean that Samba was up to standard when we signed him after giving him a trial

If he's replacing Samba I don't understand the point, we've got plenty of strikers 

He seems to play like there's only 2 people on the pitch, him and whatever defender is closest to him. Quite a few times last night he tried a turn or a bit of skill to beat his man but turned directly into the other player that was there and lost the ball.

Looks decent but definitely needs to work on his awereness and learn when to try and beat his man and when not to

44 minutes ago, Hoof hearted said:

Sauce?

The articles that state we've just sacked off a load of staff as we are restructuring the backroom team? 

Unless I misunderstood, in which case ketchup, maybe bbq for special occasions 

Just now, Hoof hearted said:

Myself, and I'm assuming a fair few others, are absolutely happy for us to take that risk.

Tbf it's probably less of a risk to "you and a few others" than it is to the people with a few hundred million on the line, it makes perfect sense to stick until everything's in place to reduce the risk as much as possible, you don't consistently win in poker by going all in every time you get slightly short stacked, you win by playing a longer game and only going all in when you either have no choice or have pretty good idea you'll win.

The owners are doing what they can to stack the odds in their favour by sorting out the backroom staff then I'm pretty sure they'll twist on Bruce after, no point sacking him now, paying him off, replacing him with another manager just to need to replace them a few months later once everything else is sorted 

28 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

Looks like the club are setting up a structure to sit above a head coach. 

Days could well be numbered for Bruce, unless our results and style of play radically change

 

Even if they do, if we're going to go down the "head coach" route, it'll be without Bruce, he could win every remaining game this season and he'd still be gone as he's not a head coach (unless he is forced to give the coaching thing a go and he turns out to be an absolute bloody natural, which I think most will agree is unlikely) 

This is like a training game at the moment, both teams seem happy with the 1-0

If they didn't sack him during the 2 week break, they aren't going to sack him for drawing the first game after the 2 week break. A protest is not only small time but completely pointless in this instance 

1 hour ago, Dave J said:

But you have not weedman - all you have done is repeated yourself - you have not answered the question all you said was striker A got fit - but  Striker B was never unfit. You have not answered  my points 

look let's be fair - we won't agree on this - I'm no huge fan of Striker B despite believing he is a good footballer  and clearly he  needs to look in the mirror - all I have ever said is that it puzzles me that Bruce offers one but not the other ?

 

Oh my god

THEY BOTH GOT GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY. 

Gabby worked hard but ultimately wasn't good enough to feature regularly, Ross probably had the talent to play regularly, but didn't take the chance THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM by not working hard, not putting in the training, not showing the right attitude and on at least 1 occasion not showing up at all. Only then was he shipped out, he has since continued not showing anything, not putting in any effort and not upping his game, so he continues to not feature. 

There is literally no other way for me to say it, so that's it, I'm completely done with this conversation now, and your response to this, which will of course be to demand to know why he hasn't been given a chance, will not be replied to again. I've said my bit and I'm out 

20 minutes ago, Dave J said:

Ok - as you ask 

Striker A = local boy so called Villa fan - renders himself unfit to play during his  clubs hour of need  Most professionals somehow manage to keep themselves fit to play football unless injured. striker A was allegedly  seen partying in London as his team mates relegation was confirmed 

Following season new head coach arrived and clearly shows he is not interested in striker A and tried to send him on loan 

New coach has difficult start to season and is removed from office - further new coach arrives and offers olive branch to striker A ( no problem with this) although as expected Striker A does nothing to improve team during struggling January period.

 

Striker B = arrives on big money move - most fans surprised seems to be carrying a bit of timber - but does manage to show glimpses of quality - 

coach who signed striker B removed from office and replaced by new coach - new coach has issues with striker B  - striker B bombed out of squad   - but remains available for selection - striker B then goes across the other side of the world to play in a league which offers nothing more than a hiding to nothing but went regardless and scored a few goals  and regained some fitness levels - then returns to parent club  and promptly sent on gardening leave for two weeks - despite still being fit enough to be available for selection 

Striker B remains isolated from squad amid rumours surrounding personal circumstances - no sign of olive branch to striker B - despite still being available for selection.

 

is it really so difficult to understand why I struggle with this - I blame both striker B and coach for this impasse - but really has striker B behaved any worse than striker A ? 

OK so the question was "why wasn't he handed an olive branch?" which is the same question you've asked 200 times and the question I literally answered in the post you quoted 

I'm out 

3 hours ago, Dave J said:

The season we got relegated ?

"please do tell why the season we got relegated"? I don't get it 

53 minutes ago, romavillan said:

That's massively one eyed. Bruce is the one who's had time to make his own squad, design it if you like, not Bielsa who only came in a few weeks ago. 

How do you explain that it's Bielsa though who has designed his squad to solve injury problems, trained them so there is a marked improvement and noticeable change in style? That it's Bielsa's side who have an identity and look like a well drilled team?

Bruce has CREATED our problems at the back, and his squad still don't look like an organised unit. They did for a while after Christmas, I'll give you that, but that was months ago, Bielsa hasn't had months to get to this point. Bruce has managed to not be able to reproduce that form, managed to make us fall apart and miss automatic promotion, managed to get us into a play off final sure, but then he's managed to decimate our defence and disgruntle the squad. He got some good results at the start of the season but the football was awful and lots of voices on here could see that again, it wasn't sustainable.

Why would you then turn around and ignore everything Bielsa has managed to do, and turn that quote around to imply that people on here would slate Bruce for saying something similar? I think people would love to hear that Bruce saying stuff like that. 

Well it was slightly tongue in cheek, but still VT does have a tenancy to blow fairly minor throwaway comments way out of proportion because of a dislike of the manager or a like of a different manager. I'm not commenting on Beisla, because it's far too early to say what his meticulously crafted system will actually achieve, but if Bruce said in interviews (and he has, I'm fairly sure) something along the lines of "well we've got a few injuries, especially up top, so it's tough, but young Keinan (just an example) came in and did well Tuesday so he'll get another go tomorrow, and hopefully we'll get a few back soon" there would be complete uproar on here about him making excuses even though it's basically the same thing that Beisla said but without the word "system" in it

8 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

 

Spot the difference...

If it was Steve Bruce we'd only focus on the middle paragraph and call it "getting his excuses in early"? 

27 minutes ago, Dave J said:

Please do tell why? Has he really done anything worse than rendering yourself unavailable for selection during the clubs hour of need.

Why what? 

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

I am all for loaning our youngsters out; it is a very good thing. But I think we leave it too late to do it.

But in the case of Clark, when he played he looked better than Taylor or Hutton. A subjective view, I know, only my opinion, but I think shared by others.

He brings in other clubs' young players, but I don't think Onomah is better than, for instance, Doyle-Hayes. Tuanzebe has also been very poor.

In site of their poor performances, both have been afforded long runs in the team which he has not afforded to our own youngsters.

Can't really argue with that, personally I haven't seen a lot of Clark so can't really compare to Taylor or Hutton, from my (pretty uninformed) opinion it seems he's 3rd choice at best and unlikely to play so loaning him out makes perfect sense to me, but I'll be interested to see how he does on loan. I liked the look of Doyle Hayes but I only saw him in friendlies where it's virtually impossible to judge 

I do think Onomah was decent for us, had an ok start, terrible, mistake ridden middle and pretty good finish to the season. Tuanzebe I agree has looked poor, but he seems to have the physical attributes already he may just need a bit of time to get used to proper competitive football, physically he looks a bit ahead of our young defenders who always strike me as a bit lightweight (all well and good being comfortable on the ball, but even ball playing defenders need a bit of physicality about them to deal with the actual defending part) 

6 hours ago, AntrimBlack said:

Not so. Bruce is proving that he has his favourites.

He will just not bring in youngsters.

Youngsters like Tuanzebe, Grealish, RHM, Davis, Green, even Onomah got plenty of games last year, along with SJ. He doesn't care about their age, he plays the best available players. This can be a weakness as it doesn't prepare the club for the future by giving the not quite good enough players the games they need to improve, but loaning them out completely solves this, I really don't see the issue here. He's not good enough for our first team yet, so he's being loaned out to get competitive games and to improve as a player, isn't that a good thing? 

29 minutes ago, thabucks said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45525005

One of those please.....Marco Rose would be an interesting candidate... 

 

A manager like that would be great, but that last line about wanting to take training and not run the club like previous managers means the infrastructure and staff all have to be up and running and in place before we could even consider hiring one...ours isn't, so our options are 1) keep SB while it's all sorted out this season, then replace him once we are "prepared" to give the new coach the best possible chance, 2) sack Bruce now and replace him with another "old school" manager who can basically run the place because we haven't got any other staff to do it yet, or 3) sack SB now, replace him with a head coach despite no structure being in place that a head coach needs to work in, and have it all fail miserably as we tumble down the table

Surely option 1 is the winner there, surely?!