Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[john e]

no matter what happens at the club whether we go into admin or not whether we get taken over or not whether we find the money to buy players or not, sell players or not

whoever the manager is will still be the single most important person at the club

the reason we are here is because of a string of useless managers over many years,
 to get out of this shit however bad it ends up being we need to break that cycle

it’s the most important decision we wil ever make

[Rigadon]

What you get with Bruce now is stability at a time when the club needs it.  If you think he is useless, who are you comparing him to?  You mention a string of useless managers.  How does he compare to his predecessors?

Seems to me that Bruce is the first manager since MON who has united the club.  Ultimately failed to get us promoted, which is disappointing and has had ramifications.  But 'useless'?  Not for me. 

Actually, I think you're right: who the manager is, is really important next season.  Which is why, despite some misgivings, I think Bruce staying would be better for Aston Villa.  We will not get a serious up-and-coming manager while we're in the shit financially.  We might get lucky with an unknown, but might equally be lumbered with a rabbit in the headlights (Garde) or a chancer (Sherwood). 
 

 

[Clampy]

What you get with Bruce now is stability at a time when the club needs it.  If you think he is useless, who are you comparing him to?  You mention a string of useless managers.  How does he compare to his predecessors?

Seems to me that Bruce is the first manager since MON who has united the club.  Ultimately failed to get us promoted, which is disappointing and has had ramifications.  But 'useless'?  Not for me. 

Actually, I think you're right: who the manager is, is really important next season.  Which is why, despite some misgivings, I think Bruce staying would be better for Aston Villa.  We will not get a serious up-and-coming manager while we're in the shit financially.  We might get lucky with an unknown, but might equally be lumbered with a rabbit in the headlights (Garde) or a chancer (Sherwood). 
 

 

Just about sums it up for me.

[john e]

What you get with Bruce now is stability at a time when the club needs it.  If you think he is useless, who are you comparing him to?  You mention a string of useless managers.  How does he compare to his predecessors?

Seems to me that Bruce is the first manager since MON who has united the club.  Ultimately failed to get us promoted, which is disappointing and has had ramifications.  But 'useless'?  Not for me. 

Actually, I think you're right: who the manager is, is really important next season.  Which is why, despite some misgivings, I think Bruce staying would be better for Aston Villa.  We will not get a serious up-and-coming manager while we're in the shit financially.  We might get lucky with an unknown, but might equally be lumbered with a rabbit in the headlights (Garde) or a chancer (Sherwood). 
 

 

that’s fair enough if that’s what you believe

but there’s people saying they don’t care who’s the manager is at the moment as we have more important things going on

there is nothing more important than who the manager is
this has always been the case for any football club

[SoccerHQ]

Even when Eric Black was in charge?

We were basically throwing premier league games with his team selections end of that season but no one really cared as the club was in turmoil off the pitch.

If we'd sorted that out earlier we could've appointed a manager in March-April 2016 who could've put down early groundwork for the championship and we'd have been much better prepared than we were under RDM.

[robbo1874]

I think we have to stick with Bruce. What we need is a bit of cash and a dynamic manager to get the best out of the kids and bring some fresh faces and new ideas to the club.

The problem is that we seemingly don’t have the bit of cash. It would be daft to punt Bruce now, I reckon. He provides much needed stability. It’s not glamorous, but it is what we need at the minute.

[PeterWithesShin]

Comparing Bruce to his predecessors is a waste of time imo as they weren't managing us in the second division. They'd all have done a lot better if it was games against Brentford, Burton, Rotherham etc instead of Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on. Well apart from RDM who seemed to lose interest and the plot pretty quick. And even if you do try and compare them then it would be hard for them to do any worse than failing to win promotion twice.

The big plus point with Bruce was the unity we seemed to have last season, sadly that may not count for much if a lot of them are gone when we kick off the new season. And from what's been said a lot of the good spirit was down to players like Appleyard and Snodgrass who have already gone.

[paul_e]

Comparing Bruce to his predecessors is a waste of time imo as they weren't managing us in the second division. They'd all have done a lot better if it was games against Brentford, Burton, Rotherham etc instead of Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on. Well apart from RDM who seemed to lose interest and the plot pretty quick. And even if you do try and compare them then it would be hard for them to do any worse than failing to win promotion twice.

The big plus point with Bruce was the unity we seemed to have last season, sadly that may not count for much if a lot of them are gone when we kick off the new season. And from what's been said a lot of the good spirit was down to players like Appleyard and Snodgrass who have already gone.

The last bit is the key for me. Most of the positives were linked to a handful of players and of them only Adomah and Hourihane aren't either gone or heavily linked with a move.

That's why the stability argument makes no sense, Bruce doesn't give stability, Bruce regularly adds a large number of players to his squad, He averages out at something like 6-7 per summer window and 3-4 each January, and then results suffer whilst he tries to work out how to use them. This season he'll have to do it again because of the way he used the last 2 windows.  He offers more of the same but that's not the same as stability if more of the same means more short-term signings and squad churn.

[tomd2103]

Comparing Bruce to his predecessors is a waste of time imo as they weren't managing us in the second division. They'd all have done a lot better if it was games against Brentford, Burton, Rotherham etc instead of Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on. Well apart from RDM who seemed to lose interest and the plot pretty quick. And even if you do try and compare them then it would be hard for them to do any worse than failing to win promotion twice.

The big plus point with Bruce was the unity we seemed to have last season, sadly that may not count for much if a lot of them are gone when we kick off the new season. And from what's been said a lot of the good spirit was down to players like Appleyard and Snodgrass who have already gone.

The last bit is the key for me. Most of the positives were linked to a handful of players and of them only Adomah and Hourihane aren't either gone or heavily linked with a move.

That's why the stability argument makes no sense, Bruce doesn't give stability, Bruce regularly adds a large number of players to his squad, He averages out at something like 6-7 per summer window and 3-4 each January, and then results suffer whilst he tries to work out how to use them. This season he'll have to do it again because of the way he used the last 2 windows.  He offers more of the same but that's not the same as stability if more of the same means more short-term signings and squad churn.

Whereas I wouldn't be devastated if Bruce stayed, I still don't think he is the right man to work in the kind of parameters which are being talked about.  I think it is pretty safe to say that the promotion of young players is going to be a key element next season and probably beyond that.  From his time at the club, I haven't really seen any evidence of Bruce and his coaching staff show a willingness to give young players a chance and have only really used them as a last resort. 

It smacks again of there being no joined up thinking between the overall structure of the club and how the team is actually managed. 

[mr underhill]

is today back to work day for Bruce?

[paul_e]

Comparing Bruce to his predecessors is a waste of time imo as they weren't managing us in the second division. They'd all have done a lot better if it was games against Brentford, Burton, Rotherham etc instead of Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on. Well apart from RDM who seemed to lose interest and the plot pretty quick. And even if you do try and compare them then it would be hard for them to do any worse than failing to win promotion twice.

The big plus point with Bruce was the unity we seemed to have last season, sadly that may not count for much if a lot of them are gone when we kick off the new season. And from what's been said a lot of the good spirit was down to players like Appleyard and Snodgrass who have already gone.

The last bit is the key for me. Most of the positives were linked to a handful of players and of them only Adomah and Hourihane aren't either gone or heavily linked with a move.

That's why the stability argument makes no sense, Bruce doesn't give stability, Bruce regularly adds a large number of players to his squad, He averages out at something like 6-7 per summer window and 3-4 each January, and then results suffer whilst he tries to work out how to use them. This season he'll have to do it again because of the way he used the last 2 windows.  He offers more of the same but that's not the same as stability if more of the same means more short-term signings and squad churn.

Whereas I wouldn't be devastated if Bruce stayed, I still don't think he is the right man to work in the kind of parameters which are being talked about.  I think it is pretty safe to say that the promotion of young players is going to be a key element next season and probably beyond that.  From his time at the club, I haven't really seen any evidence of Bruce and his coaching staff show a willingness to give young players a chance and have only really used them as a last resort. 

It smacks again of there being no joined up thinking between the overall structure of the club and how the team is actually managed. 

My issue isn't his use of the as such, it's that I don't think the structure we currently have with him and his coaches will improve them in ways that benefit the club in the long term. How many poor players has he turned around for us? How many players are genuinely better players now than when he arrived?

Grealish is one, as is Hutton, and possibly Adomah who added goals but who had a drop off in his crossing after that it's either players resuming their form from previous clubs or maintaining form for us. I can't think of anyone else, who will be here next season, who has improved as a player since Bruce arrived (and if, like Bruce, I ignore the majority of the reserves and academy).

His record in this isn't terrible, but it's also not the record of someone who is capable of coaching a bunch of largely untried youngsters to form a new team, and I'm fairly certain that he won't even try if he stays. Instead we'll be picking up people like Bonatini and Huth and repeating the shit-or-bust approach that just failed but with much lower expectations.

[mattjpa]

if we are thinking of chopping the manager, it would possibly be the most Aston Villa way of doing things ever. Waste a whole month of preparation time in the same year that the transfer window is reduced.

For this reason im absolutely certain he will be in charge next year, not even we could be that stupid. If we were going to change him, it should have happened weeks ago, we stick with Bruce for me now.

[ktvillan]

Comparing Bruce to his predecessors is a waste of time imo as they weren't managing us in the second division. They'd all have done a lot better if it was games against Brentford, Burton, Rotherham etc instead of Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on. Well apart from RDM who seemed to lose interest and the plot pretty quick. And even if you do try and compare them then it would be hard for them to do any worse than failing to win promotion twice.

Precisely.  Plus saying he was better than the previous 5 or 6 is hardly a ringing endorsement.  It's what I call the "least smelly turd on the shit heap" argument.

[ktvillan]

I can't escape the fact that the manager situation seems so pointless given the wider problems.

Like worrying about the garden while your house is on fire.

My view also.

In order for a football club to compete on the pitch, it first has to exist. Existence being a prerequisite for most things.

Hence, I currently couldn't give a toss whether we're managed by Steve Bruce, Bruce Banner, or the exhumed corpse of Sir Bruce Forsyth.

*In fact, every time I visit this site, I scratch my head in wonderment at the fact that this topic is attracting more comments than any other.

Surely having a decent manager will inform whether we continue to exist in the future quite significantly?  We can't just stop operating while we wait and see how it all pans out, otherwise we may as well just wind the club up now and have done with it.

[tomd2103]

Comparing Bruce to his predecessors is a waste of time imo as they weren't managing us in the second division. They'd all have done a lot better if it was games against Brentford, Burton, Rotherham etc instead of Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on. Well apart from RDM who seemed to lose interest and the plot pretty quick. And even if you do try and compare them then it would be hard for them to do any worse than failing to win promotion twice.

The big plus point with Bruce was the unity we seemed to have last season, sadly that may not count for much if a lot of them are gone when we kick off the new season. And from what's been said a lot of the good spirit was down to players like Appleyard and Snodgrass who have already gone.

The last bit is the key for me. Most of the positives were linked to a handful of players and of them only Adomah and Hourihane aren't either gone or heavily linked with a move.

That's why the stability argument makes no sense, Bruce doesn't give stability, Bruce regularly adds a large number of players to his squad, He averages out at something like 6-7 per summer window and 3-4 each January, and then results suffer whilst he tries to work out how to use them. This season he'll have to do it again because of the way he used the last 2 windows.  He offers more of the same but that's not the same as stability if more of the same means more short-term signings and squad churn.

Whereas I wouldn't be devastated if Bruce stayed, I still don't think he is the right man to work in the kind of parameters which are being talked about.  I think it is pretty safe to say that the promotion of young players is going to be a key element next season and probably beyond that.  From his time at the club, I haven't really seen any evidence of Bruce and his coaching staff show a willingness to give young players a chance and have only really used them as a last resort. 

It smacks again of there being no joined up thinking between the overall structure of the club and how the team is actually managed. 

My issue isn't his use of the as such, it's that I don't think the structure we currently have with him and his coaches will improve them in ways that benefit the club in the long term. How many poor players has he turned around for us? How many players are genuinely better players now than when he arrived?

Grealish is one, as is Hutton, and possibly Adomah who added goals but who had a drop off in his crossing after that it's either players resuming their form from previous clubs or maintaining form for us. I can't think of anyone else, who will be here next season, who has improved as a player since Bruce arrived (and if, like Bruce, I ignore the majority of the reserves and academy).

His record in this isn't terrible, but it's also not the record of someone who is capable of coaching a bunch of largely untried youngsters to form a new team, and I'm fairly certain that he won't even try if he stays. Instead we'll be picking up people like Bonatini and Huth and repeating the shit-or-bust approach that just failed but with much lower expectations.

Agree with both points Paul and would add that his approach to using young players just seems to be a bit haphazard.  Doyle-Hayes did well against Middlesbrough in the League Cup early on in the season - not seen again.  O'Hare and Green did well in flashes earlier on in the season - not seen again.  Davis did very well in some games earlier in the season - not seen again.  RHM did well in a substitute appearance at the start of the New Year - not seen again.  It's almost as if he doesn't trust them, but then he won't loan them out either. 

It's not just Bruce either - Pulis, Allardyce, Hughes, MON - all those type of managers very rarely give young players a chance and we saw just how costly that was with the latter's treatment of Gary Cahill.