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 Damo70
[Today at 07:07:09 AM]


Re: Other Games - 2017/18 by Ian J
[Today at 06:50:27 AM]


Re: The Cricket Thread 2017 by taylorsworkrate
[Today at 06:45:38 AM]


Re: The Cricket Thread 2017 by PaulWinch again
[Today at 06:44:07 AM]


Re: Short term - back up to Davis by Villafirst
[Today at 06:20:01 AM]

Author Topic: Bruce out?  (Read 326355 times)

Offline paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14814
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6555 on: September 19, 2017, 01:44:56 PM »
It's your opinion and I just wanted to try to understand it but you determined to see my questions as leading to something else so I agree I haven't got the time for it either.

To repeat though, for me we've been awful 7-8 times, poor about 30 times and have played acceptably or well in about 7-8 games (but not for 90 minutes in most of them) since he arrived I don't see how that can be anything other than a reflection on how he's setting us up to play because the squad is capable of much better.

Offline tomd2103

  • coach
  • *
  • Posts: 8827
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6556 on: September 19, 2017, 01:52:39 PM »
I've said this before I'm sure but I've walked away from games tutting that we've played crap. I don't think I've walked away from a game under Bruce upset with the style of play.

 As I've said before I Bruce has said "that's the worst we've played since I've been here" about 7-8 times in about 45 games so roughly 1 in 5/6 is a performance so bad that he has felt the need to use that phrase.  That doesn't suggest playing crap is all that unusual.

I think I said that in my previous post. We've played crap under Bruce but I don't think the style of play is crap.

Then why do you think playing crap has been so common?  I'm not suggesting or insinuating anything here, I'm just trying to work out how you're getting that.

To have a go at that, I think it is because for a lot of his time here he hasn't really been able to marry up a style of play with the personnel at his disposal.  He started with one up front and it got some results, but I think deep down he wanted to play with two up front (hence signing Hogan in January).  The problem with that was it left us weak in other areas so he had to go back to one up front.  Neither Kodjia or Hogan are particularly suited to playing up front on their own though meaning we couldn't get a foothold in games and were constantly on the back foot.  He didn't really address the problem over the summer, but lucked out a bit with Davis bursting on to the scene. 

I think he has got two clear options now in terms of style of play going forward.  He's got the 4-4-2 we saw on Saturday or the 4-1-4-1 we saw against Norwich with Kodjia starting out on the left.  Those styles are pretty interchangeable, requiring only one real change required (extra midfielder for one of the two strikers). 

Offline Risso

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 45260
  • Location: Northants
  • GM : 07.02.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6557 on: September 19, 2017, 01:54:01 PM »
It doesn't make any more sense the more times you repeat it, to be honest.

Offline paul_e

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 14814
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Back from the frozen North
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6558 on: September 19, 2017, 02:10:59 PM »
To have a go at that, I think it is because for a lot of his time here he hasn't really been able to marry up a style of play with the personnel at his disposal.  He started with one up front and it got some results, but I think deep down he wanted to play with two up front (hence signing Hogan in January).  The problem with that was it left us weak in other areas so he had to go back to one up front.  Neither Kodjia or Hogan are particularly suited to playing up front on their own though meaning we couldn't get a foothold in games and were constantly on the back foot.  He didn't really address the problem over the summer, but lucked out a bit with Davis bursting on to the scene. 

I think he has got two clear options now in terms of style of play going forward.  He's got the 4-4-2 we saw on Saturday or the 4-1-4-1 we saw against Norwich with Kodjia starting out on the left.  Those styles are pretty interchangeable, requiring only one real change required (extra midfielder for one of the two strikers). 

I agree with you on where the problem comes from, I just find it strange that with 2 windows he still hasn't completely addressed the problem in central midfield.

For the 2nd bit I'd actually prefer 4231 let the 2 more defensive midfielders sit in largely and be there move the ball quickly to the front 4 and then give those 4 licence to attack and wander out of position a little as well.  between them they'd need to keep an eye on the fullbacks and, if a team like Brentford is controlling from the base of midfield then they swarm him but otherwise their main job defensively is to be ready to counter attack, particularly the forward and the central one of the 3.  All this is basically the Bielsa model.

Offline tomd2103

  • coach
  • *
  • Posts: 8827
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6559 on: September 19, 2017, 02:30:19 PM »
To have a go at that, I think it is because for a lot of his time here he hasn't really been able to marry up a style of play with the personnel at his disposal.  He started with one up front and it got some results, but I think deep down he wanted to play with two up front (hence signing Hogan in January).  The problem with that was it left us weak in other areas so he had to go back to one up front.  Neither Kodjia or Hogan are particularly suited to playing up front on their own though meaning we couldn't get a foothold in games and were constantly on the back foot.  He didn't really address the problem over the summer, but lucked out a bit with Davis bursting on to the scene. 

I think he has got two clear options now in terms of style of play going forward.  He's got the 4-4-2 we saw on Saturday or the 4-1-4-1 we saw against Norwich with Kodjia starting out on the left.  Those styles are pretty interchangeable, requiring only one real change required (extra midfielder for one of the two strikers). 

I agree with you on where the problem comes from, I just find it strange that with 2 windows he still hasn't completely addressed the problem in central midfield.

For the 2nd bit I'd actually prefer 4231 let the 2 more defensive midfielders sit in largely and be there move the ball quickly to the front 4 and then give those 4 licence to attack and wander out of position a little as well.  between them they'd need to keep an eye on the fullbacks and, if a team like Brentford is controlling from the base of midfield then they swarm him but otherwise their main job defensively is to be ready to counter attack, particularly the forward and the central one of the 3.  All this is basically the Bielsa model.

Agree Paul and that's where I don't really follow his logic.  He has said on a number of occasions that he wants to play two up top and I still think that his preferred way of doing that would usually be to play 3-5-2.  That formation just hasn't worked on the occasions he has tried it though, so he has looked at 4-4-2.  If we are going to play 4-4-2 in this division and we want our wide players to get forward, then I think we really need two mobile, combative central midfielders who can cover the ground in there.  Onomah could well be that type of player, but Whelan and Jedinak are more suited to holding in a three and are not mobile enough to play in a two, whereas Lansbury and Hourihane are better employed in more advanced roles in a three. 

I still think a three suits our midfield options the best, but it means in likelihood having to sacrifice a striker and I want to see how Davis and Kodjia develop as a pairing.  I think that is what he has been wrestling with.     
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 02:43:37 PM by tomd2103 »

Offline Ads

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20647
  • Location: The upside down
  • GM : 13.02.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6560 on: September 19, 2017, 06:16:25 PM »
When we win,we appear to be bladdering sides and play good stuff. How freshingly professional was the 2nd half? Third goal was always key and we got it early, probably should have had more and then strangled the life out of the game, knocking it around nicely and defending solidly and calmly. One lucky ricochet apart, they never went close.

Confidence is a big factor but it appears we have capacity to be a good side, we've just seldom set up that way.

If we are to be promoted then no doubt there will be scrappy one nils and results we sneak, but there will be plenty of Norwich and Barnsley style cigars out as well.

It's a bit of irrelevant point to make to suggest people want dire football. Who has suggested that? People want winning football, promotion and that will deliver a mix bag of performances but hopefully more Barnsley type efforts are to come.

The bold bit highlights how stupidly black and white people are trying to make this.  No one is asking for Brazil 1970 performances every game either but any of us who have been critical of the way we play under Bruce have this nonsense argument thrown at us that we would be happy to lose every week so long as we were passing the ball.  We all want to see a team that wins more often and the difference is how we think that's more likely to be achieved.

I personally think that setting up the way Bruce has for the last 11 months will always lead to runs of poor form because there will be plenty of games where we struggle to score goals and every team will concede silly goals here and there and those 2 combined, along with the fact that Bruce seems to struggle to pick the team back up after a defeat, will get in the way of us making a charge for the top 2.  I said 5th-8th in the summer if he stays and I'm sticking with that, we're better than where we are but we're not good enough to be where we should be and I don't think Bruce will be able to fully bridge that gap because he doesn't seem to see that our best performances come when we put the poor defenders in this league under pressure to make snap decisions.

In your haste to be as obnoxiously offensive as you can be without calling anybody a c***, you have missed the point. I am saying its anything other than black and white, that nobody wants poor football or considers that there is a one style of turgid football that leads to promotion, as was being discussed.

I like this site, shame there's not an ignore function.

I agree, the ability to screen out offensive material or posters would make it far more enjoyable. If at times awkward to read.

'Northern Racists' Is that obnoxious? Offensive? Discriminatory? It's certainly got a bit of 'Black or White' about it....

Ah the Warden of the North is here.

Offline cheltenhamlion

  • player manager
  • *
  • Posts: 16883
  • Location: Pedmore, Stourbridge
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6561 on: September 19, 2017, 06:42:13 PM »
Finished knobbing his aunt now?

Offline KevinGage

  • player manager
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Front row at the infamous Utah Saints unplugged gig
  • GM : 30.08.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6562 on: September 19, 2017, 06:58:52 PM »
It doesn't make any more sense the more times you repeat it, to be honest.

I admit, I'm struggling with that one.

We've played rubbish countless times under Bruce (as the man has said himself).

To the extent that a good performance is the exception, rather than the rule.

But the style of play is grand? Reeet.

Online Clampy

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20160
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6563 on: September 19, 2017, 07:00:04 PM »
It doesn't make any more sense the more times you repeat it, to be honest.

I admit, I'm struggling with that one.

We've played rubbish countless times under Bruce (as the man has said himself).

To the extent that a good performance is the exception, rather than the rule.

But the style of play is grand? Reeet.

Did I say anywhere that the style of play is grand? No, I don't think I did.

Offline KevinGage

  • player manager
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Front row at the infamous Utah Saints unplugged gig
  • GM : 30.08.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6564 on: September 19, 2017, 07:02:13 PM »
Grand/ OK/ fit for purpose.

I don't think any of those descriptions apply.


Online Clampy

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20160
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6565 on: September 19, 2017, 07:05:14 PM »
Grand/ OK/ fit for purpose.

I don't think any of those descriptions apply.



So I didn't say grand then, no I thought not. 

Offline KevinGage

  • player manager
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Front row at the infamous Utah Saints unplugged gig
  • GM : 30.08.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6566 on: September 19, 2017, 07:09:10 PM »
The usual "I don't see the problem, really" type-offering would suggest you're OK with the style, no?

Online Clampy

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20160
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6567 on: September 19, 2017, 07:16:04 PM »
The usual "I don't see the problem, really" type-offering would suggest you're OK with the style, no?

Yes, I don't have a problem with it.

Offline Risso

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 45260
  • Location: Northants
  • GM : 07.02.2017
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6568 on: September 19, 2017, 07:20:35 PM »
I was always taught that when in a hole, it's usually best to stop digging.

Online Clampy

  • prolific poster
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 20160
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Bruce out?
« Reply #6569 on: September 19, 2017, 07:25:43 PM »
I was always taught that when in a hole, it's usually best to stop digging.

There's no hole for me to dig myself out of. You can't tell me what I should or shouldn't have a problem with. You think the style of play is shit, I don't. It's really that simple. Different opinions on football forums, who'd have thought it?