Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[Clampy]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

And that's exactly the sort of reaction I expected from you, you're so determined to be offended by me (I take that as a compliment) that you can't understand that I was actually not criticising you at all, I was agreeing with you and adding to it and criticising the entire argument (which is summed up by the line from Drummond a little further down of rather winning 1-0 than losing 4-3 as if there's anyone on the site who'd prefer the latter).  Both sides seem determined to create a strawman at every opportunity and then only see it when the other side does it, which is what your post shows.

I'm going to ignore the bit about an ignore function.

[paul_e]

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.

How do you split playing crap from having no discernible style of play?  Playing crap as an anomaly in a normally effective style (I'm not going to bother using the word good because people seem to misunderstand it too easily) is very different to regularly playing crap.  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.

[Legion]

We introduced an ignore option once but nobody paid any attention to it.

[Clampy]

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.

[Drummond]

In what way is that obnoxiously offensive?

It takes all sorts Leeg

[Ad@m]

We would win more in Division 1.  Perhaps that is the cunning plan.

We said that about the Championship...

[paul_e]

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.

[Hookeysmith]

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.

One striker up front home and away (Barnsley apart) 3 at the back or more likely 5 at the back. Slammed into reverse once we go a goal up until the opposition invevitibly score. Conceding huge amounts of possession. Bringing on Right backs (Hutton) when we need to chase games. Samba up top when we didn't

I think you do not criticise the style of play as there clearly isn't a defined one

[Clampy]

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.

Because we've played poor in a partucular match too many times.  I can't make it any more clearer than that i'm afraid.

[Villa75]

Could someone explain this "style of play" to me please? It seems to be passing me by.

[paul_e]

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.

Because we've played poor in a partucular match. I can't make it any more clearer than that i'm afraid.

Ok how many times (at a guess) have you felt we've played poorly in a one off match since Bruce arrived?  and how many times have we played well?  Do you blame the players for the poor performances seeing as you don't think there's a problem with the style Bruce is setting? Do you blame tactical changes? Do you think that other teams are just better than we are?  Again, I'm not trying to be a dick here, that's really not my point, I'm just trying to work out how you separated performances from style/plan so neatly because I see them as intertwined and don't really see how you can do it.

[Drummond]

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....

[PeterWithesShin]

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.

Probably because we still don't have one 

[Clampy]

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.

Because we've played poor in a partucular match. I can't make it any more clearer than that i'm afraid.

Ok how many times (at a guess) have you felt we've played poorly in a one off match since Bruce arrived?  and how many times have we played well?  Do you blame the players for the poor performances seeing as you don't think there's a problem with the style Bruce is setting? Do you blame tactical changes? Do you think that other teams are just better than we are?  Again, I'm not trying to be a dick here, that's really not my point, I'm just trying to work out how you separated performances from style/plan so neatly because I see them as intertwined and don't really see how you can do it.

Paul, I'm not going to get into this because I haven't got time or the patience but i'll try one more time.

I think some of the performances under Bruce have been poor. I don't have a problem with how we play the game under Bruce.