We only attacked after going one down. But I totally agree the midfield were a disgrace that day but it was up to Bruce to make sure that didn't happen. The one midfielder who knows how to give total commitment was Myler and he didn't start in spite of Livermore being poor for awhile.
While I am 100% in favour of SB remaining as our manager, I am willing to listen to the opposing view as the one that opened this thread. To counter the argument that opened this thread, I would put forward the following: As a long term Hull City supporter I can point to many occasions when the club has sacked a manager too hastily and without a) having a clue as to who his replacement should be or b) appointing someone in haste and regretting it later. (John Kaye, Brian Horton, Brian Little, and the Brown / Dowie debacle to name but a few). Therefore if anyone wants SB out, then perhaps they should have a clear idea of who they want to replace him and be sure that incoming manager will be able to implement a system of play with our current squad - or with affordable recruits - that will get us promoted at the first attempt. (After all, the claim is that SB can't / won't get us straight back up, so his suggested replacement has to do a better job). Talking of past mistakes - as I mentioned above - please let's not go on about "up and coming" managers. Last time we went for one of those Phil Parkinson almost took us down to league 1. We've come too far in the last 15 years to allow ourselves to risk going any further backwards. No - if SB is to be replaced it must surely be with someone who has a proven track record in getting championship teams promoted. Seems to me such people are in short supply - oh, except for the current incumbent of course! If - and it seems he does - SB believes 3-5-2 is the system he wants to play and the system the players are most comfortable with, then let him live or die by that system, but at least he has (IMO) earned the right to have at 1 season at trying to get us back up using that or any other system he may choose. One of SB's main problems during his time with us is bringing in the right strikers. Buying NP, missing out on Charlie Austin - whose goals would quite probably have made all the difference for us last season - and not getting either Rhodes or Gestede from Blackburn (both of whom would have been preferable to Hernandez) being prime examples and this more than anything could prove his achilles heel again. However, if he can get that right, none of us will be having this debate as we create plenty of chances, but don't put enough away. No room for sentiment in football? Then why are so many of us getting hot under the collar about releasing Rosie and McShane? I would have kept them both, but what if Mcguire proves a capable replacement for McShane and what if we bring in another RB? Some fans may feel SB has let us down. I feel far more that he has been let down by the inept Mcgregor, the petulant Davies, the shockingly under-performing Huddlestone and the high as a kite Livermore - all of whom he has shown far more loyalty to than he should have done. Injuries are not the full story, but they have played a significant part this season. Who knows how we would have done with a fully fit Snodgrass and in particular Jelavic for the whole season? The manager didn't buy crocked players - unlike a previous administration. The season has only just ended. It has been hugely disappointing for us all - SB included and I think he will be ultra determined to put it right next time around. That might mean unpopular decisions are made. It might mean he needs to rid the dressing room of any disruptive influences. But there can only be one boss. We need to let that boss do his transfer wheeling and dealing over the summer, come back refreshed in August, and see where the new season takes us. For me, if we are in or around the top 6 by Christmas, SB should stay. Only if we are struggling badly should we them make a change.
I can't work out if there was a lack of effort/motivation or if it was just negative tactics this season. When we were two nil down against Chelsea and gave it a go we looked World beaters, if we'd played like that every week we'd have had no problems staying up. N'Doye, Hernandez and Robertson were cracking off the top of my head. Unfortunately the next game, I forget who it was against we looked lethargic and the players didn't look bothered. I think it took us to be trailing Man City to get going too earlier in the season. I don't agree with a previous post that stated Bruce should have changed winning teams. Unless somebody underperformed or the opposition have a vastly different style then it doesn't motivate the players and gives a lack of incentive to 'play for the shirt'. Steve Bruce lacked a Plan B. If we don't start the game well then more often than not he doesn't have the ability to change the situation. I realise that the strength of the squad was one issue but surely changes of formation could have been made, i.e. to 4-4-2 with out and out wingers and full backs supporting. Throwing on more attackers rarely worked as nobody knew what their role was and they got into each others way.
I find this both alarming and amusing. There is an element of denial that other football managers might have a brain and some tactical acumen; when at the same time laying open the wound that it is not the manager but the players that manage the teams. I personally think that if a manager does not get his players to play as he wishes, then it is his problem; especially if he brought those players in. Steve Bruce is responsible for us and our position, no one else; he praises the owners and the fans and he brought in most of the players or did do elsewhere. Before coming to us he had a long lay-off to work out his next approach, this time he has not enough time to work out his next ****e. Keep him and reap the benefits; a good man, well used. Farewell, please.
If Bruce can't get us in the vicinity of the play-offs then he has to go, pure and simple. Tigerrev has it right in his post above, changing managers without a real need is mostly a disaster for us, the real need to change will be if Bruce can't get us going again.
I wouldn't say you 'don't have a scooby' but.... you are just an apologist for over-paid prima donna coke sniffing mercenaries at the end of the day
There's an old saying "if you catch your sheep grazing in another field, who do you sack, the sheep or the shepherd?" The sheep did the wrong thing, but only because the person in charge of them was at fault in the first place.
I think the plan B was the Huddlestone/Livermore axis, more like he didn't have a plan C- i.e. any more players left to change things with
It's about opinions, I respect yours, hopefully you respect mine. The ones who I don't respect are the ones who gob off in lieu of having a discussion, see 'Fez' above
Bruce bought them, Bruce picked them, Bruce planned tactics - he failed on every level - in the recent election, all the leaders who failed, resigned - Bruce failed, he hasn't resigned - says much about his arrogance and to top it all he gives his son a multi-year contract - he really is taking the piss out of City
Sean Dyche hasn't resigned either - nor has Ramsey at QPR. Politics is hardly a good analogy. The Tories changed leaders every 5 minutes in the Blair years and that got them nowhere
Of course, it's just a debate/discussion. Wonder if Phelan will stick around or if he'll get a bigger coaching gig back in the PL?
Sean Dyche didn't spunk £40 million - and Ramsey replaced Arry who did get sacked because he ****ed up - plus both teams played better football than the **** Brucie served up
Absolutely this ^ It concerns me hugely that Bruce stuck, more or less, rigidly to his favoured formation and with players that he obviously thought were the most desirable in the first eleven, seemingly based on their initial cost, and perhaps their wages. As Chazz rightly says Huddlestone should have been nowhere near the starting line up after three months into the season, and if his piss poor form wasn't enough to convince people then the extended Chistmas break that he forced through certainly should have been! Similarly Livermore has done less than **** all this season so why was he undroppable up until the positive drug test? Was it the fact that Bruce deemed fit to spend £8M on him so he felt obliged to play him? McGregor has made glaring errors this season, his confidence looked shot by the time he was eventually dropped, and it was at least half a dozen games too late, half a dozen games in which, in all probably, would have gained the required three points that would have kept us up had Harper been in goal. Why the **** wasn't he dropped earlier? Was it really because he was our most expensive keeper? What other reason could there be? For me McGregor was also the reason that the central defenders at times looked uncomfortable, they probably never knew what the **** he was going to do next! The final part of the spine is the strikers and that needs no explaining, however what I will say is yes, it didn't help that Jela spent so long on the sidelines, but after spending £42M our attack certainly shouldn't have been so reliant on the fitness of one striker. And yeah, Macca was definitely the fall guy after the Burnley debacle. Why? It's been absolutely crystal clear, totally without hindsight, where the problems have laid this season. The spine of the team was obviously ****ed, also, on more occasions than not, so was that dreadful 3-5-2 formation. Both of these things were seemingly crystal clear to everyone other than Steve Bruce.
Facts - Bruce had zero cover for central midfield - the only two we had were Hudd and Jerk -- we had 6 centre halves and 4 or 5 left backs so why no cover in the middle --- the 3 5 2 was to accommodate Junior - Macca was the fall guy because he dared to speak out - Brucie put his ego before the team so Macca stayed out in the cold until he apologised which was over 2 months later - Brucie even played Livermore at right back rather than swallow his pride and pick Macca - putting Macca on the naughty step and Davies on the bench was all designed to give Junior match time and justify giving him an unbelievable 3 year contract
At the end of September last year I posted a topic, “Is it deja vu for Steve Bruce”, in which I gave reasons why I thought he was no longer the right man to lead Hull City. Unfortunately my comments proved to be close to the mark and recent events, releasing two solid Championship quality players, has me thinking he is not about to change his modus operandi. There is going to be a lot of activity over the next two months with players coming and going but it will still be Steve Bruce who will determine the style of football we adopt for the Championship. I’m hopeful at the end of the day that we end up with a solid squad but I just don’t believe he has it in him to allow players to play to their abilities/strength. There were plenty of comments this year about the excessive passing of the ball sideways and backwards by our midfield. To my mind this was brought about because Steve Bruce has a defence minded approach and won’t let the midfield move past the halfway line and be creative. I believe he started the season with a different approach and we began to score goals but because we also conceded goals he reverted to type. This resulted in us going back to the Steve Bruce style of sitting back and hoping we score a goal on the break. If you have creative midfielders who are not allowed to be creative because they have to adopt a defensive role then you are not getting the best out of them. If you have forwards that are constantly running into space but not getting the ball because the midfield has to hump the ball up from the halfway line then you are not going to score goals. I wonder how much of the poor performances by players was down to the fact that Steve had them playing roles not suited to them. We had a talented squad that should have had no trouble staying up. There is no doubt we have a lot to thank Steve Bruce for but I think he has passed his use by date. For the good of his health and Hull City I think he should go and enjoy his retirement with his family.
