My problem with Bruce is that, even if we have a huge spike in enjoyment for one season and go up, we'll flatline again the next with boring, pointless, drawing football in the lower half of the Premier League.
Then we sack him and get someone else, that's how it works. I'll eat my own shit if whoever comes in as our new manager lasts more than 2 years. How many current Premier League mangers have held their post for more than 2 years? I'll take Bruce to get us out of the division and worry about our Champions League prospects when we're in the right division. And there'd certainly more chance of us getting some of the big-name managers that have been mentioned on here.
But hiring the right manager is a big part of establishing a lasting club infrastructure, something we have the chance to do now. It's not about our 'Champions League' prospects or other such snark - it's about trying to avoid the short-termism and footballing cavemanism that's got us into this shit already.
The right manager is the one who gets us promoted this season. Then the next right manager is whoever keeps us up next season. I reckon we're kidding ourselves if we think any different.
I think we're having two different conversations here.
Chris Jameson, try page 171 Woofles the Wonder Dog's 8222nd post.
I'm mellowing. If it's Bruce, it's Bruce.
I'll give him a chance. If he can get off to a good start, and beat those c***s from Bordesley while he's at it, he'll go a long way to winning over us doubters.
Why is Bruce worse than Warnock for you?
I see them as similar, get promoted - Sheffield Utd/QPR for Warnock - Blues/Hull for Bruce, and struggle in the PL - Warnock relegated Sheff Utd and got sacked from QPR - Bruce relegated Hull and eventually Blues after keeping them up for 4-5 years.
They're similar. But I saw Warnock as more willing to come in and accept a deal to the end of the season.
Plus he seems more mental, and mental seems fun.
Chris Jameson, try page 171 Woofles the Wonder Dog's 8222nd post.
Yes me. Wasn't aimed at specific individuals, but at the endless moaning about something none of us has the slightest influence over. Debate is debate, but repetition isn't.
I remember a 5live reporter speaking to Steve Bruce, I forget who he was managing at the time, I think it wor Sunderland. Steve had just said he took losing very badly and would binge himself in cream cakes each time his team lost to which the 5Live chap had said "Well Steve, you must have lost a lot of games" and then apologised immediately, but Steve laughed it off quite well.
The really crucial mistake we made was in appointing McLeish.
The Houllier year was bad in patches but we didn't stop trying to play football and towards the end we looked like we'd turned a corner.
His health problems were a massive blow, but at that point, had we appointed someone with a degree of continuity in terms of how we were trying to play, I am convinced we'd had stayed within touch of the top six the next year.
We looked like we wanted to by talking to Martinez.
Only to turn around and throw all the pain of the Houllier year, and any progress made, away and appoint McLeish, who favoured a totally different type of football.
That was the pivotal fucking awful decision which saw us as bottom feeders for five seasons.
It was like going to a restaurant, asking for the Waldorf Salad only to be told it wasn't available ("We're out of Waldorfs") and then saying "OK, then, I'll have the banana fritter".
Absolutely no continuity of thought whatsoever.
The really crucial mistake we made was in appointing McLeish.
The Houllier year was bad in patches but we didn't stop trying to play football and towards the end we looked like we'd turned a corner.
His health problems were a massive blow, but at that point, had we appointed someone with a degree of continuity in terms of how we were trying to play, I am convinced we'd had stayed within touch of the top six the next year.
We looked like we wanted to by talking to Martinez.
Only to turn around and throw all the pain of the Houllier year, and any progress made, away and appoint McLeish, who favoured a totally different type of football.
That was the pivotal fucking awful decision which saw us as bottom feeders for five seasons.
It was like going to a restaurant, asking for the Waldorf Salad only to be told it wasn't available ("We're out of Waldorfs") and then saying "OK, then, I'll have the banana fritter".
Absolutely no continuity of thought whatsoever.
Plus we sold Young and Downing, who were pivotal to the way we played.
Even Nigel Adkins would be better. He did really well at Southampton and was important in helping the club get restructured, instilling an identity in their playing style etc.
We already have an identity. We've invested hundreds of millions developing it over the last decade. Do you think it was a co-incidence we were always last on MOTD? Now if you said we need a 'new' identity..
It's an interesting point about Rowett's style of play.
How many here have actually watched his B-lose side, and are advocating with confidence he would be a better fit than Bruce?
Aside from looking the part -a young, trendy v-neck type- compared to Bruce (who looks like a parachute jump gone wrong) I'm not sure the aesthetic would be so compelling, progressive and all those buzz words. Rowett at our place could be outed as another spoofer; another Lamberk, Sherwood or even Di Matteo. The latter two talked a good game (Lambert just talked bobbins) but nothing in their fledgling managerial careers prepared them for the size of the job at B6.
Bruce has managed clubs of various sizes and has a track record at getting a response at most of them.
Even at Sunderland- which is written off as one of the main blemishes of his career- he had them looking like top 6 contenders in the first half of the 2010/11 campaign, with a front three of Wellbeck, Gyan and Bent firing and Henderson breaking through in midfield. They went to Chelsea in December and turned them over 3-0 IIRC -and looked good doing it.
They then flogged Bent to us (against Bruce's wishes apparently), Gyan got itchy feet soon after and the rest is history.
Footballs a pretty simple game, any one of the managers we've employed in the last few years
should have been able to keep us out of a relegation fight. Di matteo should have got us in at least the top half. The reason they didn't and they found the job too much is because of the weight of expectation and the downward drag thats been on our club since we failed to make the champions league under O'Neil.
That's where it becomes more complicated. Di matteo, Houllier, Lambert should have been able to handle it with their cvs but they couldn't. Maybe someone like dean smith could handle it, maybe Bruce won't. Sometimes a manager and a group of players just click and and the same manager doesn't work with another group of players.
But I don't really see how we can judge all of that. It seems to make sense to try and go with experience at the moment but that's no guarantee. I feel like those unknowable elements are as important as playing style and whether they like playing 3 at the back.
I couldn't care less whether Bruce has managed Blues, Albion, Wolves and sung lead vocals for U2. If he's the new manager I'll back him. And fully expect him to fuck up beyond belief and be sacked with us adrift in the relegation places, just because it seems that's where we're headed regardless of who manages us.
If he's sung lead vocals for U2 we're talking immediate appointment with the firing squad.
I always wonder why people keep on saying that football's a simple game when it's quite clearly not? If it were so simple, why are so many so shit at it?
Since Bruce Sunderland have done a very good impression of us for being an absolute turd of a club.