Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[Ad@m]

I'm staggered that people think that Bruce doesn't send his teams out to win. Every manager does. It's absolute nonsense, in my opinion of course.

Wynesss said that Bruce is scared of losing.
You do not have to be a Personal Development Guru to work out that focusing on what you don’t want rarely gets you what you do want.

No manager wants to lose but they all want to win. You don't need to be anything special to understand that. As for rarely getting what it wants, four promotions suggests otherwise.

I have no doubt he wants to win, but his method of achieving that is to try to not lose first.

[paul_e]

In my view Bruce is a limited, negative and defensive manager who tactically is clueless. He's certainly not helped by calderwood (another defender) and Clemence (I'm not sure what he brings to the club other than his name). Agnew may make a difference, particularly if he is creative and forward thinking, but I must admit, I don't know very much about him. I can't remember who Bruce had as part of his backroom team(s), when he was successful at getting promotion in the past. I think he tried to bring some coaches he had previously worked with to Villa Park, but they were already in employment, if memory serves me correctly. As a manager he needs people to counter his limitations. Agnew might be Bruce's way of finally admitting this, but for me it's too little too late re auto promotion.

I'm curious to know how Bruce is not helped by Clemence and Calderwood by the way? I take it you spend a lot of time at BH watching training?

because he's naturally very defensive and so are they, so they're not bringing anything different.  We look organised in defence, no one questions that, but we look like a team coached by people who don't know how to build attacks, so all our attacking play is either set pieces or individual moments of quality.  A coach who understands the attacking side of the game better might bring some of that to the club and maybe Agnew is that but 14 months to realise that you need a coach for such a significant part of the game and can't rely on winging it is a great tagline for why I don't think Bruce was the right appointment.

After the past six seasons of having a shambolic defence, we definitely needed a solid foundation to start with. Apart from Wolves this season I can't think of many if any teams that have got promoted from the Championship playing flowing attacking football. The Championship is a season of battle after battle to grind out wins. The football isn't pretty and it was never going to be under Bruce but for years the shambles of a team needed a start point in improving the defence and it isn't going to be completed overnight.

And what does any of that have to do with people thinking we could do with a coach focused on the attacking side of the game?  Is it impossible to train the strikers, attacking midfielders and wingers on creating chances at the same time as coaching the defence?

You also seem to make the same mistake as lots of other people whenever this conversation comes up which is that I (and others who agree) want style over substance.  It's not true, I want us to play effective football that we can build on, I want us to create more and better chances for the strikers because we'll score more goals if we do, I want our players to be able to pass to gaps where they know someone will be running and to make runs that they know will be spotted, you don't get that if you're not working on it in training.  I agree that a strong defence is necessary but I think you can have it without lining up 2 banks of 4 with not much space between them and leaving the 1-2 players who are further forward completely isolated.

As an extreme example, Barcelona have conceded 7 in 16 this season despite being one of the most attacking teams ever created and they've done it because their attack is built around the way they press the opposition and don't let them have an easy way out of their own half.

I get that 46 games is a hard slog and that being able to dig out results is going to be required but it can't be the only way you win games.  Pretty much every team that's got automatic promotion in the last 10 years and has stayed up has had the ability to play through teams and force the tempo of games when needed and we just don't do that.

[ChicagoLion]

To be fair to Bruce (God it hurts to write that), this is a problem we have had for many years, our pedestrian approach to games, mind you, take that being fair to Bruce back, as he has done naff all about it.

And he won’t.

Besides, we really shouldn't have gone back to play Small Heath with an ex-blues manager, isn't that right?

To try to make out that my problem with Bruce has anything to do with the fact he managed them is childish in the extreme.

It was you who originally said it, not me so unless you were implying something else, I took it to mean like it sounded.

Regardless of who he managed before, he's our manager now and i've chosen to get behind him until a time I no longer think he deserves it.

I have explained to you exactly what I meant, hopefully you have got it now.
You certainly have chosen to get behind him.

[paul_e]

I'm staggered that people think that Bruce doesn't send his teams out to win. Every manager does. It's absolute nonsense, in my opinion of course.

Wynesss said that Bruce is scared of losing.
You do not have to be a Personal Development Guru to work out that focusing on what you don’t want rarely gets you what you do want.

No manager wants to lose but they all want to win. You don't need to be anything special to understand that. As for rarely getting what it wants, four promotions suggests otherwise.

His approach to winning, in the main, is to keep it tight at the back and hope he can sneak one from a set piece or that one of his attacking players can create a goal from nothing.  That's how he's played at every club he's been at.  So yes he wants to win, of course he does, but his first priority is the clean sheet so he doesn't lose.

[Clampy]

To be fair to Bruce (God it hurts to write that), this is a problem we have had for many years, our pedestrian approach to games, mind you, take that being fair to Bruce back, as he has done naff all about it.

And he won’t.

Besides, we really shouldn't have gone back to play Small Heath with an ex-blues manager, isn't that right?

To try to make out that my problem with Bruce has anything to do with the fact he managed them is childish in the extreme.

It was you who originally said it, not me so unless you were implying something else, I took it to mean like it sounded.

Regardless of who he managed before, he's our manager now and i've chosen to get behind him until a time I no longer think he deserves it.

I have explained to you exactly what I meant, hopefully you have got it now.
You certainly have chosen to get behind him.

I'll take your word for it.

[manic-road]

In my view Bruce is a limited, negative and defensive manager who tactically is clueless. He's certainly not helped by calderwood (another defender) and Clemence (I'm not sure what he brings to the club other than his name). Agnew may make a difference, particularly if he is creative and forward thinking, but I must admit, I don't know very much about him. I can't remember who Bruce had as part of his backroom team(s), when he was successful at getting promotion in the past. I think he tried to bring some coaches he had previously worked with to Villa Park, but they were already in employment, if memory serves me correctly. As a manager he needs people to counter his limitations. Agnew might be Bruce's way of finally admitting this, but for me it's too little too late re auto promotion.

I'm curious to know how Bruce is not helped by Clemence and Calderwood by the way? I take it you spend a lot of time at BH watching training?

because he's naturally very defensive and so are they, so they're not bringing anything different.  We look organised in defence, no one questions that, but we look like a team coached by people who don't know how to build attacks, so all our attacking play is either set pieces or individual moments of quality.  A coach who understands the attacking side of the game better might bring some of that to the club and maybe Agnew is that but 14 months to realise that you need a coach for such a significant part of the game and can't rely on winging it is a great tagline for why I don't think Bruce was the right appointment.

After the past six seasons of having a shambolic defence, we definitely needed a solid foundation to start with. Apart from Wolves this season I can't think of many if any teams that have got promoted from the Championship playing flowing attacking football. The Championship is a season of battle after battle to grind out wins. The football isn't pretty and it was never going to be under Bruce but for years the shambles of a team needed a start point in improving the defence and it isn't going to be completed overnight.

And what does any of that have to do with people thinking we could do with a coach focused on the attacking side of the game?  Is it impossible to train the strikers, attacking midfielders and wingers on creating chances at the same time as coaching the defence?

You think we don't coach attacking football?

You also seem to make the same mistake as lots of other people whenever this conversation comes up which is that I (and others who agree) want style over substance. 
I don't see where I have mentioned style over substance..

It's not true, I want us to play effective football that we can build on, I want us to create more and better chances for the strikers because we'll score more goals if we do, I want our players to be able to pass to gaps where they know someone will be running and to make runs that they know will be spotted, you don't get that if you're not working on it in training.  I agree that a strong defence is necessary but I think you can have it without lining up 2 banks of 4 with not much space between them and leaving the 1-2 players who are further forward completely isolated.

As an extreme example, Barcelona have conceded 7 in 16 this season despite being one of the most attacking teams ever created and they've done it because their attack is built around the way they press the opposition and don't let them have an easy way out of their own half.

I get that 46 games is a hard slog and that being able to dig out results is going to be required but it can't be the only way you win games.  Pretty much every team that's got automatic promotion in the last 10 years and has stayed up has had the ability to play through teams and force the tempo of games when needed and we just don't do that.

[ChicagoLion]

To be fair to Bruce (God it hurts to write that), this is a problem we have had for many years, our pedestrian approach to games, mind you, take that being fair to Bruce back, as he has done naff all about it.

And he won’t.

Besides, we really shouldn't have gone back to play Small Heath with an ex-blues manager, isn't that right?

To try to make out that my problem with Bruce has anything to do with the fact he managed them is childish in the extreme.

It was you who originally said it, not me so unless you were implying something else, I took it to mean like it sounded.

Regardless of who he managed before, he's our manager now and i've chosen to get behind him until a time I no longer think he deserves it.

I have explained to you exactly what I meant, hopefully you have got it now.
You certainly have chosen to get behind him.

I'll take your word for it.

I had no problem with Mcleish either, I just did not think that either are good enough for the Villa.
Check out comments by Bruce about Hogan on the transfer thread, he could be talking about himself.

[Clampy]

To be fair to Bruce (God it hurts to write that), this is a problem we have had for many years, our pedestrian approach to games, mind you, take that being fair to Bruce back, as he has done naff all about it.

And he won’t.

Besides, we really shouldn't have gone back to play Small Heath with an ex-blues manager, isn't that right?

To try to make out that my problem with Bruce has anything to do with the fact he managed them is childish in the extreme.
My problem is that Blues and Hull is his level and our level should be better than Bruce.
Sadly it isn’t and you seem to be happy with that.

Out of interest, are we allowed to go to the Stadium of Light with an ex-Sunderland manager?

[Meanwood Villa]

He will entirely be judged on results. If we are out of the top six after the festive games then his position will need to be reviewed I would say. Having said which I can't see him getting sacked mid-season if we're still within touching distance of the playoffs.

On a personal level I am a bit torn over him. On the one hand I do think he cops quite a bit of unfair stick given that we've had a reasonable season so far but on the other I'm waiting, almost expecting, it to go tits up pretty soon.

[Risso]

God knows where we'd be in the league if Bruce hadn't belatedly realised that Adomah is a far better player than Bjarnason.

[paul_e]

You think we don't coach attacking football?

Quote fail aside I think we don't coach it to a suitable standard and the fact that we're the lowest scorers in the top 8 backs that up.  66 goals in 58 games since Bruce arrived further backs up the idea that we just don't score enough goals.  Now if you think clubs like Bristol City and Ipswich have much better attacking players than we do then you can argue that we're doing ok but otherwise it's fairly obvious that there's a problem there.

[passitsideways]

Unless you have a defensive record akin to Mourinho's first Chelsea team or Capello's Milan, that grinding out wins shit isn't going to get promotion if it amounts to 1.3 goals/game, which is where we're currently at.

[ChicagoLion]

To be fair to Bruce (God it hurts to write that), this is a problem we have had for many years, our pedestrian approach to games, mind you, take that being fair to Bruce back, as he has done naff all about it.

And he won’t.

Besides, we really shouldn't have gone back to play Small Heath with an ex-blues manager, isn't that right?

To try to make out that my problem with Bruce has anything to do with the fact he managed them is childish in the extreme.
My problem is that Blues and Hull is his level and our level should be better than Bruce.
Sadly it isn’t and you seem to be happy with that.

Out of interest, are we allowed to go to the Stadium of Light with an ex-Sunderland manager?

Maybe you can sit on his lap all the way there.

[Mister E]

I was with a Forest fan, a Hull fan and a Leeds fan last night. They all greeted me with "you must be happy with the Villa right now" and were surprised when I gave a highly-qualified answer. All said, in different ways, that the league we're in does not see good football very often.
Well, yes: and, I'd like to see effective football that has the basis in a sustainable style which maximises the team-impact rather than relies on a few old pros to pull the rest through.

[Clampy]

To be fair to Bruce (God it hurts to write that), this is a problem we have had for many years, our pedestrian approach to games, mind you, take that being fair to Bruce back, as he has done naff all about it.

And he won’t.

Besides, we really shouldn't have gone back to play Small Heath with an ex-blues manager, isn't that right?

To try to make out that my problem with Bruce has anything to do with the fact he managed them is childish in the extreme.
My problem is that Blues and Hull is his level and our level should be better than Bruce.
Sadly it isn’t and you seem to be happy with that.

Out of interest, are we allowed to go to the Stadium of Light with an ex-Sunderland manager?

Maybe you can sit on his lap all the way there.

The childish answer you expect from someone who can't answer a reasoanable question. My work is done.