Steve Bruce - officially confirmed (as Sheffield Wednesday boss)

[The Edge]

Whatever you say Dave.

No, I'm sure you're right. We were desperately unlucky, the better side and it was just fate and circumstance conspiring against us.

Like all those other games.

Wyrd bið ful aræd.

I agree

[Ian.]

9 times out 10 we'd win that game.

Sounds like the Post-Match Thread of Di Matteo's first dozen games.

This has been my point for a week. I just don't get why rdm got shit for late defeats and Bruce gets excuses.

One man's excuse is another man's patience etc. Why are more patient? We've got some results. He's bought with logic. He seems genuine, honest, he's likeable,  we can connect with him, understand him.
That and we can't twist every 2months, we need to give time and patience when it is merited. There were no signs of positive change with his predecessor, and a lack of some of  these other qualities
Of course things need to move in the right direction, but I'm still glad we got him, even after exhausting myself getting to that game at Brentford.

That's exactly how I feel Purpletrousers and very well explained.

[Ads]

Forest was the first late goal we've conceded under Bruce wasn't it? Scored quite a few ourselves in three last 5 or 10 minutes of games under him.

[PeterWithesShin]

Leeds away, and I think Spurs second was with about 10 to go.

[Ads]

We were already 1 down at Leeds and Spurs though.

[supertom]

I don't think we've played anything close to well under Bruce yet. We've managed 6/10 at best, and maybe one half of said game.

Hopefully that changes today. We've been saying it for far, far too long, but it's about time we really todgered someone royally.

[Clampy]

I don't think we've played anything close to well under Bruce yet. We've managed 6/10 at best, and maybe one half of said game.

Hopefully that changes today. We've been saying it for far, far too long, but it's about time we really todgered someone royally.

I thought we played really well down at Brighton and apparently we were very good in the first half against Preston. We've seen spells of good football but overall, it's been ok with utter shite thrown in now and again.

[Clampy]

9 times out 10 we'd win that game.

Sounds like the Post-Match Thread of Di Matteo's first dozen games.

This has been my point for a week. I just don't get why rdm got shit for late defeats and Bruce gets excuses.

One man's excuse is another man's patience etc. Why are more patient? We've got some results. He's bought with logic. He seems genuine, honest, he's likeable,  we can connect with him, understand him.
That and we can't twist every 2months, we need to give time and patience when it is merited. There were no signs of positive change with his predecessor, and a lack of some of  these other qualities
Of course things need to move in the right direction, but I'm still glad we got him, even after exhausting myself getting to that game at Brentford.

That's exactly how I feel Purpletrousers and very well explained.

Seconded.

[Steve67]

I'm optimistic about this side. They have pretty much all the right ingredients, perhaps with a better keeper and another centre back, which can happen in the summer. But we do need a bit of time for them to feel comfortable in their own skin because playing for Villa seems to suck the life out of players at the moment, never mind what it's doing to us fans! Sticking with Bruce is the right thing to do, although I do have a wonder about the coaching at the minute. Play with more freedom, further up the pitch.

[Ads]

It's goes with out saying that we lack consistency from half to half of games.  But you don't need a counsel of perfection and to criticise based on that mythical standard is wrong.

What we need is results. Some times twenty minutes good play is enough, so times 20 seconds.

Wednesday were abysmal last night, their captain echoed my thoughts, yet the did Small Heath 3-0.

[markeeeebeeee2005]

You can win games whilst playing badly for the majority of a game. You can also win games when you only have the ball for a small proportion of the game. This can happen if you take your chances and get lucky.

But the arguaments on here for this are getting a bit much. Generally the team with most of the ball and that plays better wins. There are exceptions like Sheffield Weds at Blues.

Under O'Neill we did well with less possession, but we had some very good players including some rapid attackers.

I don't want Bruce gone, we need to gel. But to start consistently winning we need to hold onto the ball more. We had incredible players under MON, but even with him you could begin to see the cracks appearing towards the end.

It's simplistic but if the opposition don't have the ball then they can't score (unless you have an own goal expert like Richard Dunne).


If the opposition have the ball for most of the game, then your players need to be incredibly fit and deadly in attacking areas. We are neither of these things, so I think we should be building a system where we hold the ball and build chances.

Low possession tactics, don't have sustainability even when they are initially effective. Opposition teams will suss you out and nullify your counter attacking threat. If you build a possession based, attacking side, then they can always switch to direct tactics if needed. But this type of football needs to be trained and practiced. If you build a low possession/ counter attacking team, then there is no way they can switch to a passing/ possession based game as the players won't have built the skills to do it.

The team has many more options and possibilities if training and tactics are built around holding onto the ball along with passing and movement.

[GordonCowansisthegreatest]

You can win games whilst playing badly for the majority of a game. You can also win games when you only have the ball for a small proportion of the game. This can happen if you take your chances and get lucky.

But the arguaments on here for this are getting a bit much. Generally the team with most of the ball and that plays better wins. There are exceptions like Sheffield Weds at Blues.

Under O'Neill we did well with less possession, but we had some very good players including some rapid attackers.

I don't want Bruce gone, we need to gel. But to start consistently winning we need to hold onto the ball more. We had incredible players under MON, but even with him you could begin to see the cracks appearing towards the end.

It's simplistic but if the opposition don't have the ball then they can't score (unless you have an own goal expert like Richard Dunne).


If the opposition have the ball for most of the game, then your players need to be incredibly fit and deadly in attacking areas. We are neither of these things, so I think we should be building a system where we hold the ball and build chances.

Low possession tactics, don't have sustainability even when they are initially effective. Opposition teams will suss you out and nullify your counter attacking threat. If you build a possession based, attacking side, then they can always switch to direct tactics if needed. But this type of football needs to be trained and practiced. If you build a low possession/ counter attacking team, then there is no way they can switch to a passing/ possession based game as the players won't have built the skills to do it.

The team has many more options and possibilities if training and tactics are built around holding onto the ball along with passing and movement.

Sorry, but we don't do common sense much on this thread!

[john e]

if you rely on a counter attacking system you are basically saying we arn't as good as you,
 you have better players than us, we cant compete with you at the game of playing football
so we will just try and catch you out
and sometimes it works

I don't think that Bruce wants us to play this way though
and any team with the money we've spent in the league we're in shouldn't need to,
every team scores goals on the counter attack it doesn't mean its the only plan like it was under MON

[markeeeebeeee2005]

if you rely on a counter attacking system you are basically saying we arn't as good as you,
 you have better players than us, we cant compete with you at the game of playing football
so we will just try and catch you out
and sometimes it works

I don't think that Bruce wants us to play this way though
and any team with the money we've spent in the league we're in shouldn't need to,
every team scores goals on the counter attack it doesn't mean its the only plan like it was under MON

Agree entirely.

[KevinGage]

if you rely on a counter attacking system you are basically saying we arn't as good as you,
 you have better players than us, we cant compete with you at the game of playing football
so we will just try and catch you out
and sometimes it works

I don't think that Bruce wants us to play this way though.

That would be unusual, as all his other teams have been set up to kill them game as a spectacle and nick something on the counter or from a set piece.

He might *want* to change; in the same way that McLeish probably did want to move away from dour, defensive football and play with attacking full-backs. But it was in him to the marrow.