Steve Bruce

[Pimlico_Villa]

29 minutes ago, villarocker said:

I have no worries about Bruce staying just as long as he gets that defensive philosophy out of his head and allows us to play with the freedom to attack teams. However, to do this he has to change our slow players as they are the Achilles heel of the team.

Would agree with that

[villabromsgrove]

17 hours ago, villabromsgrove said:

Bruce said last season that if you buy enough experienced players you don't have to tell them how to play because they already know. In his opinion it was his job to wrap them up in cotton wool during daily training with some gentle five a sides, in order to make sure that they were fit and rested for the next match. "You don't expect older players to do a lot of running during the week, then you send them out on match day and let them sort it out on the pitch".

I'm not making this up, this was SB's philosophy and it obviously avoided the need to coach a system. Expect the senior players to sort it out on the pitch .... not in 2018! .... We really do need a good head coach with modern ideas. Each player needs to know their job and shape, their movement and positional play needs to be replicated over and over again until it is totally instinctive. We can succeed next season if we can provide a proper framework for some good young players. 

Bruce has to go!

I'm quoting myself to save having to re type it. 

At about three o'clock this morning I lay in bed thinking about Villa (as you do) .... I've puzzled over Bruce's post match comments on a number of occasions, when he sounded like a supporter rather than a manager. Comments like "I was disappointed with how deep we played in the first half", "I felt we sat back too much" etc etc. My reaction was "you're the manager, they're doing what you told them to do"!

What if this was not the case? What if he was being open and honest when he said "you don't need to tell experienced players what to do, you send them out onto the pitch and let them sort it out for themselves."

Did players such as Terry, Jedinak, Whelan, Chester etc discuss their lack of pace and possible vulnerability, and decide to play really deep to nullify a pacy attack? Did they decide that a long ball over the top would increase our corner kick percentage and allow the defenders a chance to get forward and perhaps score from a set piece? 

Were we being run by a bunch of senior players on the pitch playing within their limitations, and was Bruce just the guy who kept them safe and happy during the week with light training and an arm around the shoulder?

The only time we really saw Bruce's input was when we threw on extra strikers in the middle of the second half if we had gone behind. Or when we took off attackers if we were a goal up coming into the last twenty minutes. It was a regular pattern that didn't seem to have a great deal of design behind it.

Whatever was going on nearly worked, because despite our limited football we got close to promotion.

I may be wildly wrong and off the mark, but it would explain a number of SB's rather odd post match comments. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by villabromsgrove

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

I'm quoting myself to save having to re type it. 

At about three o"clock this morning I lay in bed thinking about Villa (as you do) .... I've puzzled over Bruce's post match comments on a number of occasions, when he sounded like a supporter rather than a manager. Comments like "I was disappointed with how deep we played in the first half", "I felt we sat back too much" etc etc. My reaction was "you're the manager, they're doing what you told them to do"!

What if this was not the case? What if he was being open and honest when he said "you don't need to tell experienced players what to do, you send them out onto the pitch and let them sort it out for themselves."

Did players such as Terry, Jedinak, Whelan, Chester etc discuss their lack of pace and possible vulnerability, and decide to play really deep to nullify a pacy attack? Did they decide that a long ball over the top would increase our corner kick percentage and allow the defenders a chance to get forward and perhaps score from a set piece? 

Were we being run by a bunch of senior players on the pitch playing within their limitations, and was Bruce just the guy who kept them safe and happy during the week with light training and an arm around the shoulder?

The only time we really saw Bruce's input was when we threw on extra strikers in the middle of the second half if we had gone behind. Or when we took off attackers if we were a goal up coming into the last twenty minutes. It was a regular pattern that didn't seem to have a great deal of design behind it.

Whatever was going on nearly worked, because despite out limited football we got close to promotion.

I may be wildly wrong and off the mark, but it would explain a number of SB's rather odd post match comments. 

I think your comments have some sensible overtones.....and whether i agree with that situation, is something else.

but I often wonder just how much input some of these manages have ....and whether we, think they are more in control than they really are. and as you a say their comments at times suggest not.

....EG I heard an interview once with Gary Neville been asked " What does SAF say to you before a game" He replied with a sheepish grin and said " Nothing really" "He trusts us, we have done all the work on the training ground, We know what to do"

I think you are picking up on something that has real validity.

ps and I think your reference to pace is spot on.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

I would take Allardyce over Bruce in a heartbeat.

er yeah. I would not be too disappointed with that.

[Wainy316]

55 minutes ago, bobzy said:

We started with 2 strikers against Wolves away from home didn’t we? It meant we sacrificed midfield though and were completely overrun. 

In the return fixture, we played with a 3 man centre mid and 1 up top and it was much more effective. Probably not more attacking, though?

It's more than just the actual formation.  Away we seemed scared of them from off and just let them have the ball.  We barely got out of our half, more or less exactly the same as the first half on Saturday.  Whereas at home we were in their faces and looking to get hold of and use the ball.  Again with regards to the Fulham game, we proved in the second half we could go toe to toe with them if wanted.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

Ideal scenario would be Bruce staying, and evolving his philosophy and approach.

At 57, that is barely going to happen.

If i'm honest I wouldn't mind him staying in some capacity at the club, but I genuinely struggle to see the light long term with him continuing to be essentially our "Head of Football".

He is obviously well liked, and a "mans man".

[Tomaszk]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Rob, I accept your view and yes they are just my opinions.

You could be right....He has to go and it could even be better, but as one poster accused me of if's but's and maybe's thats also the case of a new guy ifs, buts and maybe's.

For my sins...I watch the game and I am acutely aware of the role the manager plays, But in my opinion, I think at times some folk think they can effect things more than they really can.....just remember, all these players are capable of coaching lower level teams, they know the score.

Personally, for various reasons I think the inconsistency surrounding our No9 position in the traditional sense has cost us....in terms of the shape of the team that is where, i think we have been weak and weak enough to just deny us promotion.....other players have been more than good enough to have got us up.....I also think that same position has had a knock on effect to have seen the wingers who we have relied on some much run out of fuel....they have had to work too hard for too long.

I welcome other views.....I think VR made some good points with his theories.

I think to keep saying crap manager, no idea of tactics is cheap.....I don't think John Terry with his options would have associated himself with a duffer, I really don't.

In conclusion....I think overall the team was good enough....I think we lacked ONE player in a crucial role that left us short.

We was like our teams without Peter Withe or without Andy Gray.....It has such a knock on effect.

If that was the managers fault for not getting such a player then I blame him for that.

If we signed Mitrovic in January we would have fallen short all the same.

And you'd have found a different thing that we were lacking.

The manager this season has cost us.

He's done. And worryingly, could even be staying for next year.

[villa89]

1 hour ago, villarocker said:

I have no worries about Bruce staying just as long as he gets that defensive philosophy out of his head and allows us to play with the freedom to attack teams. However, to do this he has to change our slow players as they are the Achilles heel of the team.

No do that he would have to change the way he manages a team which after being in management for 20 years he obviously is not going to do. Bruce has played defensive football with no emphasis on attack or ball retention at every team he has managed. That's why a lot of people did not think he was the right man for the job in the first place. If he stays then it'll be the same brand of turgid football next season. It's all he knows how to do. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by villa89

[VillanousOne]

2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Fat Sam has met his objective wherever he has gone. 

except England lolz.

but yeah he might actually be a good shout, I always presumed he was similar in tactics and style to Bruce, but not sure that is the case.

[Eastie]

5 minutes ago, VillanousOne said:

except England lolz.

but yeah he might actually be a good shout, I always presumed he was similar in tactics and style to Bruce, but not sure that is the case.

He’s more attack minded but it’s often route one football - it can of course work although I’d hope there are better options than Sam being considered .

Also he took some persuading to take the Everton job so I don’t think he’d be that keen on villa with no money and cuts to be made .

Yes we are a big club but the current finances of the club would deter many from taking it on i imagine .

maybe time to take a punt on a manager working his way up the leagues than one who has done the rounds and been sacked more than once 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Eastie

[Junxs]

If he was going he'd be gone by now. Here's to another year of negative football getting us there or thereabouts

 

[Eastie]

2 minutes ago, Junxs said:

If he was going he'd be gone by now. Here's to another year of negative football getting us there or thereabouts

 

Probably still being discussed - I’d guess wyness wouldn’t be around yesterday - wouldn’t assume anything  at this stage until a statement is made one way or the other .

The lack of anyone saying he will be here next season when they’ve been asked  must be worrying for Bruce 

[hippo]

1 hour ago, villabromsgrove said:

I'm quoting myself to save having to re type it. 

At about three o'clock this morning I lay in bed thinking about Villa (as you do) .... I've puzzled over Bruce's post match comments on a number of occasions, when he sounded like a supporter rather than a manager. Comments like "I was disappointed with how deep we played in the first half", "I felt we sat back too much" etc etc. My reaction was "you're the manager, they're doing what you told them to do"!

What if this was not the case? What if he was being open and honest when he said "you don't need to tell experienced players what to do, you send them out onto the pitch and let them sort it out for themselves."

Did players such as Terry, Jedinak, Whelan, Chester etc discuss their lack of pace and possible vulnerability, and decide to play really deep to nullify a pacy attack? Did they decide that a long ball over the top would increase our corner kick percentage and allow the defenders a chance to get forward and perhaps score from a set piece? 

Were we being run by a bunch of senior players on the pitch playing within their limitations, and was Bruce just the guy who kept them safe and happy during the week with light training and an arm around the shoulder?

The only time we really saw Bruce's input was when we threw on extra strikers in the middle of the second half if we had gone behind. Or when we took off attackers if we were a goal up coming into the last twenty minutes. It was a regular pattern that didn't seem to have a great deal of design behind it.

Whatever was going on nearly worked, because despite our limited football we got close to promotion.

I may be wildly wrong and off the mark, but it would explain a number of SB's rather odd post match comments. 

"Tactics don't win football matches" - Who said that ?  .........surprisingly Sir Graham Taylor.  

John Gregory also admitted that a free kick routine was "drawn up on the back of a packet of fags on the coach just before the match"

It might come down to "stay close on player xxxxx" - or "the left back is slow - you can get past him Albert" 

But the idea of the manager finely orchestrating every move from the technical area often amuses me. 

 

[villabromsgrove]

4 minutes ago, hippo said:

"Tactics don't win football matches" - Who said that ?  .........surprisingly Sir Graham Taylor.  

John Gregory also admitted that a free kick routine was "drawn up on the back of a packet of fags on the coach just before the match"

It might come down to "stay close on player xxxxx" - or "the left back is slow - you can get past him Albert" 

But the idea of the manager finely orchestrating every move from the technical area often amuses me. 

 

When I refer to "tactics" maybe I should call it a system. Look at Fulham, their system relies on possession of the football. To do this they have a mobile midfield so that they can keep recycling the ball by playing triangles until they draw the opposition out of position, then they break through gaps with pacy players and with support. Those "triangles" don't happen by accident, they depend on a very well rehearsed understanding of where each player has to go next to offer himself.

Wolves have a similar well coached way of recycling a ball until they're able to create space for their pacy players to exploit. The "micro managing" happens behind closed doors on the training pitch, and the evidence of that technical 'white board' coaching has been demonstrated on the pitch.

Bruce clearly does not do "tactics" in the same way as Nuno or Jokanovic. If (as looks likely) we have to use a number of younger players next season we will need a good head coach rather than a typical manager, because younger players will need to utilise a system which they can learn in detail so as to play it instinctively and make sure that they support each other at all times. You cannot ask young players to go out and "sort it out on the pitch". We have to play as a well coached vibrant team next season, not a bunch of individuals.

 

[flashingqwerty]

17 hours ago, TRO said:

• Undermine Wagner, give me a break.....any team who just come up, does well to stay up , but  really.
• Jokanovic...He set out to  cynically take out our best player and due to piss poor referring got away with it....They made a very good, but predictable move to score the only goal.

Eastie lets put all this in to some perspective.....lets not let our collective disappointment cloud our judgment.

so predictable that SB didnt see it coming... 

[flashingqwerty]

17 hours ago, TRO said:

• Firstly, how do you know he hasn't trained them to cope with that move?.....maybe they just went to sleep.
• I think you are right, he has enabled them to play the way they do.....and I am disappointed our club didn't sign someone the same or similar......I just happen to think if we had, we would be where they are now.

and whose job is it to ensure we have the players to perform to plan?

Yes, the manager.  So even in your defence of him youre pointing out his failure.

[hippo]

49 minutes ago, Junxs said:

If he was going he'd be gone by now. Here's to another year of negative football getting us there or thereabouts

 

He wouldn't necessarily be gone - but I think we would have fairly solid reports that he was going or that his future was in doubt. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

I actually think keeping Grealish is more important than replacing Bruce. 

Edit: on the other hand maybe we have no choice but to sell him and use the big funds he will bring in. 

So much depends on our finances. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Vive_La_Villa

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I actually think keeping Grealish is more important than replacing Bruce. 

That isn't going to happen if these reports anout needing 40m are true

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

That isn't going to happen if these reports anout needing 40m are true

Needing 40m to reinvest on a squad or to help balance the books and avoid FFP punishment? 

Is the club in that much of a mess?