Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[paul_e]

If only we were where Hull are now.

In a relegation battle?  Lose the next couple and we might be.

A league above us and playing the sort of football most seem to want on here. I think you know I meant that though.

Of course I did but if we'd got a better manager than Bruce we could be on our way there rather than seeing people say that they never expected to go up anyway and we had absolutely no chance because of the 11 league games RDM was given so Bruce should just get a free pass for the other 35.

Without the benefit of hindsight I thought Di Matteo was a terrible appointment, he had a pre season and signed a load of players without any idea of how to play to their strengths and some of them weren't very good as it turns out, the decision to get rid of him was a wise one and I don't see his name coming up whenever there are any vacancies. I'm prepared to give Bruce time because he inherited a mess and then brought in a load of players mid season and they were expected to hit the ground running. Just about everybody seemed happy with his signings despite not having seen much of any of the players I guess, I had only ever seen Lansbury and Taylor when he played for Wales.

Just out of interest, who were the 'better' managers who would realistically have come to Villa?

I don't disagree and I've said a few posts further up that I think he was the wrong man for the job (but I do think he was preferable to Pearson who was the main competition).

Bruce signed 3 central midfielders who can't play together as a 3, a striker who needs through balls when he's playing long ball and didn't sign a central defender to add to the 3 we have before going to 3 at the back, I don't see how those things are any less tactically inept than anything RDM did.  Some RDM signings turned out to not be very good I agree and it's a bit early to make judgements on Bruce's signings but Bjarnason and Johnstone have been particularly poor so far.

The whole thing about being happy with signings is that it's because that just happens, if any team makes 3-4 signings close together it creates a little buzz of positivity, it doesn't mean that those signings are all going to be long term successes or that everyone rates those players.  Perosnally I don't rate Taylor and said so, I didn't see the point of Johnstone and said so and I've heard too many bad things about Lansbury to not find that one a little worrying.  I like the look of Bree and I think Hourihane and Hogan were good signings though.  BB I had no idea about, I'd never heard of him before he joined.

Final point i have no idea but I do believe that we went into the search with a criteria of 'knows the championship and has been promoted from it' which limits the numbers massively.  That's the same sort of criteria that Lerner applied repeatedly to ever more damaging effect.  I have said though that I'd look at people who had been reasonably successful at a bigger club in a league like Holland or Portugal and had handled that pressure of being expected to win week in and week out.  Too often we've gone for managers who's previous clubs would accept 3-4 defeats on the bounce.  That difference in expectation causes the panic effect we see in villa managers all too often which is usually best expressed by a switch to a back 5.  I can't name anyone because I don't follow those leagues anything like well enough to do so.

[paul_e]

but we don't have a particularly leaky defence, we've had some poor performances but overall our defensive record is good enough for the top 6.

It's not great and it would probably be a disaster in the premiership, (or whatever it's called these days.

That's absolutely true, but we not going to score anything like enough goals for our defence to be tested in the premier league if we continue to play a very defensive 451 and convert it to a 460 for the last 20 minutes to protect a single goal lead.  For that reason I firmly believe a focus on the attacking side of the game is more important this summer, not necessarily in terms of signings but more coaching and tactics.

[gpbarr]

Indeed it isn't.  The solution is to find a manager who is worth backing and stick with him. Some on here believe Bruce to be just that and it appears the board agree if the comments that Wyness has said he's safe even if we go down are true (if they are then it's a fucking pathetic thing to say at this point in the season).  Some of us, me as one of the more vocal members, just don't believe he is good enough to put blind faith behind with nothing to back it up.  His career wide win rate is about 37% that's not terrible but it's not the amazing success that some people seem to have projected onto him (for context Paul Lambert, even with his shocking runs without a win for us, has a win rate of 39% and Alex McLeish has a win rate of 46.3% but that is skewed by his time with Rangers).

We agree Wyness comments on Bruce are ridiculous and ill placed.

But I want to understand your first comment. I assume you agree that none of our managers since MON has been "worth backing and sticking with" given many of them have been backed but we have continued to decline. What constitutes such a manager, and why do you think it is that despite the best interests, such an individual has not been appointed in over 6 years?

I think Houllier would've been and I think Garde could've been if we'd go him in at a better time and let him have a chance to build his own squad.  McLeish was a shocking appointment, Lambert was a populist 'Flavour of Month' appointment, Sherwood was utterly ridiculous and RDM, whilst made for decent reasons was the wrong man for the job of rebuilding we needed.  Bruce, in my opinion, was the easy quick fix option when we'd have been better served by someone who could've helped to build something.  I don't believe he's ever left a club with a 'legacy' of talent and potential ready for someone else to step in and take them to the next level.

So you would have backed and stuck with Garde, despite the fact he had the worst record of all our managers in the last 6 years - logic makes no sense - he was the right guy, but those with better records, and greater experience in the game deserve to be fired.

Personally I liked Garde too, and would have stuck with him to see if he could develop a style, a squad, and a culture capable of promotion back to the PL (we were doomed when he took over, and doomed when the owners refused to allow him to change the squad) but thats by the by now.

Getting rid of Bruce is super easy - its a 5 minute conversation - and we do like those at the Villa. Finding someone in whom we can entrust the time, funds, and support to turn this train wreck around is an exercise altogether far harder (and clearly far harder than most here seem to give credence too). We should try to find comparisons to managers who have managed to turn a train wreck around - and see how often they did so in under 20 games (our average manager tenure in the last 6 years).

If they exist, they are the rare exception. 

[Clampy]

Reliance on the fitness of one player leads to disaster, we are reliant on one player who is a week to week proposition of course I'm referring to Jedinak, even though he could hardly run for the last twenty minutes he is fundamental to our results. We must get cover for him above everything else.

We have looked a bit more solid since he's been back but yes I agree, we do need cover for him.

[AVH87]

I think Jedinak is very important to this team. Most of our worst results and performances (Brentford for example) come without him in the team.

[mr underhill]

looking at the headline figures from the accounts it might all be academic

[chrisw1]

Not being snippy, I just think you missed the distinction between me wanting to change your mind and me wanting to know what would change your mind, those 2 are very different things.

Paul

In answer to your question for me to change my mind it would be no discernible improvement between now and the end of the season, both in terms of performance levels and results.  If we just scrape survival while playing badly, then I agree he should go.

However, I do believe given time he will get it right and get us promoted and I expect to see steady improvement before the end of the season.

My major concern is if he can't do it who can?  As has been discussed before we've tried most types of manager and one after the other they have failed.  If an experienced manager like Bruce can't do it who will be next in line to piss their career up the wall on us?

[paul_e]

So you would have backed and stuck with Garde, despite the fact he had the worst record of all our managers in the last 6 years - logic makes no sense - he was the right guy, but those with better records, and greater experience in the game deserve to be fired.

Personally I liked Garde too, and would have stuck with him to see if he could develop a style, a squad, and a culture capable of promotion back to the PL (we were doomed when he took over, and doomed when the owners refused to allow him to change the squad) but thats by the by now.

Getting rid of Bruce is super easy - its a 5 minute conversation - and we do like those at the Villa. Finding someone in whom we can entrust the time, funds, and support to turn this train wreck around is an exercise altogether far harder (and clearly far harder than most here seem to give credence too). We should try to find comparisons to managers who have managed to turn a train wreck around - and see how often they did so in under 20 games (our average manager tenure in the last 6 years).

If they exist, they are the rare exception. 

Ok so a few points.

First line isn't what I said at all.  What I said is that I quite liked him but when we took him on was completely the wrong time.  We were in disarray with a squad that was a mess, on a run of horrific results and as it turns out we had no money to spend to do anything about it.  Given the circumstances I don't think there was anyone who could've got us out of the hole that Fox and Sherwood had dug, on that basis I think he was very unlucky and for that reason even though he had an awful record I won't condemn him outright like the others who all dug their own holes.

Onto the getting rid of Bruce thing, as I've said I think a 5 minute conversation is about the limit of the effort we put into to hiring him, even if they say otherwise it was fairly clear he was their choice all along and any process they followed was slanted heavily to give them him as the result because that's what they wanted.  Has managed in this league - check, has been promoted - check, out of work so easy to get in - check, lives locally - check; he'll do then.  No thought of style, long term plans or suitability to the squad he was taking over.

As for the 20 games thing, why make up shit like that when it's so easily proven wrong?  In your 6 year time frame we've only had 1 manager who was given less than 20 games and that was RDM, which is why I keep coming back to him when people say that you need to give the manager time.  We gave the guy who was hired to turn the ship around after a humiliating relegation 11 league games and now the argument to keep Bruce seems to be that it's impossible to judge him on the 22 league games he's had and he needs to be given a chance.  The actual average manager tenure for the last 6 years is 40 games with one of them getting 50-60 more games than he really should've been allowed.  If you want to use stats at least take a few seconds to check they're even remotely accurate.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

My major concern is if he can't do it who can?  As has been discussed before we've tried most types of manager and one after the other they have failed.

I think we've been pretty consistent with our managers:

MON, McLeish , Lambert and now Bruce. All footballing dinosaurs in one way or another.
370 games and counting

Houllier and Garde both walked in on revolting players and were kicked out.
59 games combined.

Sherwood and RDM I'd file as a couple of chancers.
40 games combined.

So that's roughly 75-80% of the time with an old school British manager since 2006. I'd say that's very consistent. I'd also say we deserve better.

[gpbarr]

So you would have backed and stuck with Garde, despite the fact he had the worst record of all our managers in the last 6 years - logic makes no sense - he was the right guy, but those with better records, and greater experience in the game deserve to be fired.

Personally I liked Garde too, and would have stuck with him to see if he could develop a style, a squad, and a culture capable of promotion back to the PL (we were doomed when he took over, and doomed when the owners refused to allow him to change the squad) but thats by the by now.

Getting rid of Bruce is super easy - its a 5 minute conversation - and we do like those at the Villa. Finding someone in whom we can entrust the time, funds, and support to turn this train wreck around is an exercise altogether far harder (and clearly far harder than most here seem to give credence too). We should try to find comparisons to managers who have managed to turn a train wreck around - and see how often they did so in under 20 games (our average manager tenure in the last 6 years).

If they exist, they are the rare exception. 

Ok so a few points.

First line isn't what I said at all.  What I said is that I quite liked him but when we took him on was completely the wrong time.  We were in disarray with a squad that was a mess, on a run of horrific results and as it turns out we had no money to spend to do anything about it.  Given the circumstances I don't think there was anyone who could've got us out of the hole that Fox and Sherwood had dug, on that basis I think he was very unlucky and for that reason even though he had an awful record I won't condemn him outright like the others who all dug their own holes.

Onto the getting rid of Bruce thing, as I've said I think a 5 minute conversation is about the limit of the effort we put into to hiring him, even if they say otherwise it was fairly clear he was their choice all along and any process they followed was slanted heavily to give them him as the result because that's what they wanted.  Has managed in this league - check, has been promoted - check, out of work so easy to get in - check, lives locally - check; he'll do then.  No thought of style, long term plans or suitability to the squad he was taking over.

As for the 20 games thing, why make up shit like that when it's so easily proven wrong?  In your 6 year time frame we've only had 1 manager who was given less than 20 games and that was RDM, which is why I keep coming back to him when people say that you need to give the manager time.  We gave the guy who was hired to turn the ship around after a humiliating relegation 11 league games and now the argument to keep Bruce seems to be that it's impossible to judge him on the 22 league games he's had and he needs to be given a chance.  The actual average manager tenure for the last 6 years is 40 games with one of them getting 50-60 more games than he really should've been allowed.  If you want to use stats at least take a few seconds to check they're even remotely accurate.

You are right. Lambert (alone) skews the result - take him out and the tenure is just 19.62 games (which is where the 20 comes from). And I rarely see anyone on here supporting Bruce because of his record, or comparing him to RDM - the point is one of consistent change and its negative consequences. You only need to see where we are to understand why this strategy has failed. 

Additionally, we can disagree without the pithy insults.

[john e]

My major concern is if he can't do it who can?  As has been discussed before we've tried most types of manager and one after the other they have failed.

I think we've been pretty consistent with our managers:

MON, McLeish , Lambert and now Bruce. All footballing dinosaurs in one way or another.
370 games and counting

Houllier and Garde both walked in on revolting players and were kicked out.
59 games combined.

Sherwood and RDM I'd file as a couple of chancers.
40 games combined.

So that's roughly 75-80% of the time with an old school British manager since 2006. I'd say that's very consistent. I'd also say we deserve better.

interesting points, never looked at it that way before
But it just shows why we are where we are

[four fornicholl]

I'm not on my own, and several posters have said it, but I'm in the camp of get safe and get rid.

[BOB MANSFIELD]

I'm not on my own, and several posters have said it, but I'm in the camp of get safe and get rid.

Point is, if we get " safe " the chances are SB will get more money to spend and a pre-season to spend it......and then probably last well on towards Christmas before panic sets in again, and we change manager yet again in time for the January window. Where the new patsy will want to change the entire staff and playing style yet again.
Is that good ?

[AV82EC]

I'm not on my own, and several posters have said it, but I'm in the camp of get safe and get rid.

Point is, if we get " safe " the chances are SB will get more money to spend and a pre-season to spend it......and then probably last well on towards Christmas before panic sets in again, and we change manager yet again in time for the January window. Where the new patsy will want to change the entire staff and playing style yet again.
Is that good ?

If that scenario comes about then probably yes and we won't appoint a dinosaur British manager to replace him.

[The Edge]

I think Jedinak is very important to this team. Most of our worst results and performances (Brentford for example) come without him in the team.

I do like the guy but seriously that is a good indicator of how far we have sunk and how low our expectations have gotten.