collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

* The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine



Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

Recent Posts

Re: Other Games - 2017/18 by Chris Jameson
[Today at 07:21:50 AM]


Re: QPR v Aston Villa Post Match Thread by Matt Collins
[Today at 07:12:14 AM]


Re: Bruce out? by Clampy
[Today at 07:02:54 AM]


Re: Bruce out? by Tugby Villain
[Today at 06:56:04 AM]


Re: Bruce out? by Toronto Villa
[Today at 06:38:45 AM]

Author Topic: Bruce out?  (Read 320274 times)

Offline Ads

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20633
  • Location: The upside down
  • GM : 13.02.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3300 on: August 06, 2017, 04:06:10 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

Offline Sexual Ealing

  • international
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
  • Location: West Ealing
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3301 on: August 06, 2017, 04:14:12 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

He's not done a lot to change those minds.

Online Clampy

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20133
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3302 on: August 06, 2017, 04:24:13 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

He's not done a lot to change those minds.

For some, the minds were made up when he walked through the door.

Offline PeterWithesShin

  • Moderator
  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 45891
  • Location: B16
  • GM : 17.03.2015
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3303 on: August 06, 2017, 04:32:42 PM »
Bree - what was the point

He's 19, similar age to Delph when we signed him. Some signings are made for future potential rather than going straight into the first team.

Offline ChicagoLion

  • international
  • *
  • Posts: 4430
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3304 on: August 06, 2017, 04:37:14 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

He's not done a lot to change those minds.

For some, the minds were made up when he walked through the door.
Feared the worst based on his tactical past and hoped for the best based in his previous success getting out of this division.
Wanted him to succeed but his selections, player acquisitions and game management are showing up how limited a manager he is despite the resources that he has been provided.

Offline paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14782
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3305 on: August 06, 2017, 04:37:58 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

There are, but you're making at least as many as anyone else.

I've offered meaningful analysis of where the game slipped away and I've said what I'd have done differently and why but you've ignored those bits.

I'll repeat (and add to) them though because it's easier than hunting through other thrads. We were getting forward by pinging the ball to Gabby and Elmo to hold up on the wings and then getting Lansbury and to a lesser extent Bacuna up the pitch to offer some support to Hogan.  However after about 40minutes Gabby looked knackered and stopped working so hard and they started closing Elmo faster and he couldn't get into the game.  That stopped us from having the time to get midfielders up the pitch.  With Lansbury also going down a gear or 2 as well it meant Hogan looked isolated as much as he was last season and their more energetic options in the middle then had chance to get hold of the game.

We eventually, after they'd equalised, realised what we were doing wrong and added Green to give us a new option to force their defence back and get us higher up the pitch and then Onomah to give us some legs in midfield.  Unfortunately we took off Hogan and left Gabby on when we did that which meant Onomah didn't have anyone making the smart runs in behind that he wanted but did have Green chasing stuff so those 2 combined well.  Samba at the end was a roll the dice sub that I can both understand but that also sums Bruce up because it was clearly a 'get it in the mixer' move.

What I'd have done differently is I'd have taken Lansbury or Bacuna off for Onomah and Gabby off for Green and I'd have made both changes on about 55 minutes when it was clear that they were on top.  Not only would the double change break up play a little but it would also have given us some more energy to be able to match them in midfield.  I'd then have been looking at giving Hourihane a run for whichever of the 2 midfielders I'd left on with his remit being to help us retain the ball a bit higher up the pitch.

In the end a draw was the fair result, they had more shots than us and had a couple that they'll be upset to have not taken themselves.  I thought I knew what we we were getting with Bruce and I've seen nothing to change my mind so why should I? I'm not calling for him to be sacked, I'm just pointing out that things aren't improving and we shouldn't let things slide if that continues to be the case.

Offline SoccerHQ

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 30798
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 19.05.2016
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3306 on: August 06, 2017, 04:40:07 PM »
Newcastle won 10 games by a single goal and only 5 of those were 1-0. The bottom line is you have to score goals to get promoted, there's very few exceptions.



How many did Boro score the year they went up under Karanka? I'd imagine that's the template we're aiming for given now negative they were in the prem.

People at the club are aware of it...Keith Wyness in the Villa View interview says we need to score 80 goals this season!


Offline paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14782
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3307 on: August 06, 2017, 04:56:25 PM »
Boro got 63.  I think that's pretty much the bottom end if you want promotion.

Still means we need to add 16 to what we got last year though.

We probably need to add about half again.

Offline ChicagoLion

  • international
  • *
  • Posts: 4430
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3308 on: August 06, 2017, 04:58:26 PM »
Wyness came over very well.
My biggest take away though was the comment about Bruce not sleeping for a fear of losing, this really does explain his management style.
I would much prefer it if he was consumed and focused on  winning.

Offline Ads

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20633
  • Location: The upside down
  • GM : 13.02.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3309 on: August 06, 2017, 05:03:23 PM »
I wasn't suggesting you were talking cliches.

Offline KevinGage

  • player manager
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10099
  • Location: Front row at the infamous Utah Saints unplugged gig
  • GM : 30.08.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3310 on: August 06, 2017, 05:06:58 PM »
Wyness came over very well.
My biggest take away though was the comment about Bruce not sleeping for a fear of losing, this really does explain his management style.
I would much prefer it if he was consumed and focused on  winning.

Aye.  But at most of his previous clubs, it has been enough to keep it tight and hope to nick something from a set piece or mistake. 

Two of his promotions were gained via the play-offs and -not to denigrate that success at all- it is possible to sneak the play-offs with a record of only winning marginally more than you lose. Though in fairness, his Hull side did win 24 games in 15/16.

Online Clampy

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20133
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3311 on: August 06, 2017, 05:25:57 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

There are, but you're making at least as many as anyone else.

I've offered meaningful analysis of where the game slipped away and I've said what I'd have done differently and why but you've ignored those bits.

I'll repeat (and add to) them though because it's easier than hunting through other thrads. We were getting forward by pinging the ball to Gabby and Elmo to hold up on the wings and then getting Lansbury and to a lesser extent Bacuna up the pitch to offer some support to Hogan.  However after about 40minutes Gabby looked knackered and stopped working so hard and they started closing Elmo faster and he couldn't get into the game.  That stopped us from having the time to get midfielders up the pitch.  With Lansbury also going down a gear or 2 as well it meant Hogan looked isolated as much as he was last season and their more energetic options in the middle then had chance to get hold of the game.

We eventually, after they'd equalised, realised what we were doing wrong and added Green to give us a new option to force their defence back and get us higher up the pitch and then Onomah to give us some legs in midfield.  Unfortunately we took off Hogan and left Gabby on when we did that which meant Onomah didn't have anyone making the smart runs in behind that he wanted but did have Green chasing stuff so those 2 combined well.  Samba at the end was a roll the dice sub that I can both understand but that also sums Bruce up because it was clearly a 'get it in the mixer' move.

What I'd have done differently is I'd have taken Lansbury or Bacuna off for Onomah and Gabby off for Green and I'd have made both changes on about 55 minutes when it was clear that they were on top.  Not only would the double change break up play a little but it would also have given us some more energy to be able to match them in midfield.  I'd then have been looking at giving Hourihane a run for whichever of the 2 midfielders I'd left on with his remit being to help us retain the ball a bit higher up the pitch.

In the end a draw was the fair result, they had more shots than us and had a couple that they'll be upset to have not taken themselves.  I thought I knew what we we were getting with Bruce and I've seen nothing to change my mind so why should I? I'm not calling for him to be sacked, I'm just pointing out that things aren't improving and we shouldn't let things slide if that continues to be the case.

Well, I've read the first chapter, i'll read the rest in the morning.

Offline paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14782
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3312 on: August 06, 2017, 05:30:52 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

There are, but you're making at least as many as anyone else.

I've offered meaningful analysis of where the game slipped away and I've said what I'd have done differently and why but you've ignored those bits.

I'll repeat (and add to) them though because it's easier than hunting through other thrads. We were getting forward by pinging the ball to Gabby and Elmo to hold up on the wings and then getting Lansbury and to a lesser extent Bacuna up the pitch to offer some support to Hogan.  However after about 40minutes Gabby looked knackered and stopped working so hard and they started closing Elmo faster and he couldn't get into the game.  That stopped us from having the time to get midfielders up the pitch.  With Lansbury also going down a gear or 2 as well it meant Hogan looked isolated as much as he was last season and their more energetic options in the middle then had chance to get hold of the game.

We eventually, after they'd equalised, realised what we were doing wrong and added Green to give us a new option to force their defence back and get us higher up the pitch and then Onomah to give us some legs in midfield.  Unfortunately we took off Hogan and left Gabby on when we did that which meant Onomah didn't have anyone making the smart runs in behind that he wanted but did have Green chasing stuff so those 2 combined well.  Samba at the end was a roll the dice sub that I can both understand but that also sums Bruce up because it was clearly a 'get it in the mixer' move.

What I'd have done differently is I'd have taken Lansbury or Bacuna off for Onomah and Gabby off for Green and I'd have made both changes on about 55 minutes when it was clear that they were on top.  Not only would the double change break up play a little but it would also have given us some more energy to be able to match them in midfield.  I'd then have been looking at giving Hourihane a run for whichever of the 2 midfielders I'd left on with his remit being to help us retain the ball a bit higher up the pitch.

In the end a draw was the fair result, they had more shots than us and had a couple that they'll be upset to have not taken themselves.  I thought I knew what we we were getting with Bruce and I've seen nothing to change my mind so why should I? I'm not calling for him to be sacked, I'm just pointing out that things aren't improving and we shouldn't let things slide if that continues to be the case.

Well, I've read the first chapter, i'll read the rest in the morning.

He asked about meaningful analysis, I offered some and both you and Ads (as 2 of the more por-bruce posters) have replied without addressing any of it, I guess because you know it's all true and haven't had time to work out why it's not his fault yet.

Offline four fornicholl

  • international
  • *
  • Posts: 3284
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3313 on: August 06, 2017, 05:31:35 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

There are, but you're making at least as many as anyone else.

I've offered meaningful analysis of where the game slipped away and I've said what I'd have done differently and why but you've ignored those bits.

I'll repeat (and add to) them though because it's easier than hunting through other thrads. We were getting forward by pinging the ball to Gabby and Elmo to hold up on the wings and then getting Lansbury and to a lesser extent Bacuna up the pitch to offer some support to Hogan.  However after about 40minutes Gabby looked knackered and stopped working so hard and they started closing Elmo faster and he couldn't get into the game.  That stopped us from having the time to get midfielders up the pitch.  With Lansbury also going down a gear or 2 as well it meant Hogan looked isolated as much as he was last season and their more energetic options in the middle then had chance to get hold of the game.

We eventually, after they'd equalised, realised what we were doing wrong and added Green to give us a new option to force their defence back and get us higher up the pitch and then Onomah to give us some legs in midfield.  Unfortunately we took off Hogan and left Gabby on when we did that which meant Onomah didn't have anyone making the smart runs in behind that he wanted but did have Green chasing stuff so those 2 combined well.  Samba at the end was a roll the dice sub that I can both understand but that also sums Bruce up because it was clearly a 'get it in the mixer' move.

What I'd have done differently is I'd have taken Lansbury or Bacuna off for Onomah and Gabby off for Green and I'd have made both changes on about 55 minutes when it was clear that they were on top.  Not only would the double change break up play a little but it would also have given us some more energy to be able to match them in midfield.  I'd then have been looking at giving Hourihane a run for whichever of the 2 midfielders I'd left on with his remit being to help us retain the ball a bit higher up the pitch.

In the end a draw was the fair result, they had more shots than us and had a couple that they'll be upset to have not taken themselves.  I thought I knew what we we were getting with Bruce and I've seen nothing to change my mind so why should I? I'm not calling for him to be sacked, I'm just pointing out that things aren't improving and we shouldn't let things slide if that continues to be the case.

Well, I've read the first chapter, i'll read the rest in the morning.
You should read it all, its right on the money.

Online simboy

  • youth team
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • GM : 04.03.2016
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #3314 on: August 06, 2017, 05:32:47 PM »
I don't think yesterday was anything like Wolves. It was a continuation from Brighton where we dominated for large spells, created plenty but ended up dropping two points.

There's a lot of critical comments being made that are essentially cliches rather than any sort of meaningful analysis of what happened in the game. People made their mind up about Bruce and that's that.

There are, but you're making at least as many as anyone else.

I've offered meaningful analysis of where the game slipped away and I've said what I'd have done differently and why but you've ignored those bits.

I'll repeat (and add to) them though because it's easier than hunting through other thrads. We were getting forward by pinging the ball to Gabby and Elmo to hold up on the wings and then getting Lansbury and to a lesser extent Bacuna up the pitch to offer some support to Hogan.  However after about 40minutes Gabby looked knackered and stopped working so hard and they started closing Elmo faster and he couldn't get into the game.  That stopped us from having the time to get midfielders up the pitch.  With Lansbury also going down a gear or 2 as well it meant Hogan looked isolated as much as he was last season and their more energetic options in the middle then had chance to get hold of the game.

We eventually, after they'd equalised, realised what we were doing wrong and added Green to give us a new option to force their defence back and get us higher up the pitch and then Onomah to give us some legs in midfield.  Unfortunately we took off Hogan and left Gabby on when we did that which meant Onomah didn't have anyone making the smart runs in behind that he wanted but did have Green chasing stuff so those 2 combined well.  Samba at the end was a roll the dice sub that I can both understand but that also sums Bruce up because it was clearly a 'get it in the mixer' move.

What I'd have done differently is I'd have taken Lansbury or Bacuna off for Onomah and Gabby off for Green and I'd have made both changes on about 55 minutes when it was clear that they were on top.  Not only would the double change break up play a little but it would also have given us some more energy to be able to match them in midfield.  I'd then have been looking at giving Hourihane a run for whichever of the 2 midfielders I'd left on with his remit being to help us retain the ball a bit higher up the pitch.

In the end a draw was the fair result, they had more shots than us and had a couple that they'll be upset to have not taken themselves.  I thought I knew what we we were getting with Bruce and I've seen nothing to change my mind so why should I? I'm not calling for him to be sacked, I'm just pointing out that things aren't improving and we shouldn't let things slide if that continues to be the case.



Good analysis I think.

What's frustrating is that I saw virtually the same things going on, the dropping in involvement of Gabby, Elmo becoming a lesser influence and Lansbury not getting up and around Hogan , consequently we lost our hold in the game. I suspect a lot of others saw it too.

Unfortunately not our manager.

The (too late) injection of the pace of Green, the removal of Gabby and not Hogan were tactical decisions that seemed more obvious than the ones actually made. This is what worries me about SB more than most.