Agree with this. Three games, a win, a draw and a loss and the Bruce out brigade are out already. No wonder the rest of the country think Hull folk are thick as pigshit.
Most of the time, I would say, but I stand up for my right to be a knob and defend my knobbish opinions.
Fair enough, we really, really shouldn't have lost against Donny, but we've always struggled in Cups no matter what Manager we have. To start calling for Bruce's head already is just moronic. We seem to forget that Hull City as a Club hasn't been used to the amount of success it's had in recent years and it's gone to people heads as everyone now seems to expect us to be an amazing side. We're a working progress and we need to give it time. I for one like Bruce's style of play, and if you went to Charlton, you should agree with me, that we played brilliant and them last 15/20 mins of the game, that's probably the best I've ever seen us play. If we're still no closer to promotion this time next Season, then it makes sense to call for a new manager. But not now. We're always surrounded by negativity and we need to have a positive attitude towards the players and Manager, get behind them and spur them on. Not turn against them.
IF Hull City beat Bolton on saturday then the Doncaster blip will be just that....A meaningless blip. What the Donny game did do was give Dawson and Oli 90mins game time and also Faye who gets stronger/match fitter with each game. Far to much hissy fitting by sum (lol) going on for my liking at the moment. Swanny and Bunsy need to go to specSavers IF they think that tackle was fair ? It was reckless and dangerous. FACT. Alex Bruce came on as Faye was running on empty. With extra time looming it was the right call at that time. Just about spot on. Donny wanted the game more in the 2nd half sadly. It was a good performance in the 1st half. Agreed ^^^^ this. Nigel Pearson was manager when we lost in round one last season 0-2 @ home to the now Non-League Macclesfield Town. Nick Barmby was manager when we Lost @ home to League 2 side Crawley Town 0-1. So already Steve Bruce has improved our Cup showing with a round 2 exit this season. We await the draw for the FA Cup though in due course. FACT. Yes it has. We made the 2nd round of the league cup and are one league point better off after 3 games than we were last season. Thats an improvement by the way. FACT. Well said John. So will i. Onwards and upwards. 3 cb's is good. It worked well at Blackburn and Charlton and for most of last night. Once Jack Hobbs is back fit then qwe shall be even better with that system. Rosie and Dudgeon are perfect wing backs and do protect the back 3. 4-4-2 is old hat and dated. May i suggest he is just a WUM. Steve Bruce is moving us forwards bit by bit. WELL SAID. 100% agreed.
I don't see how anyone can say 3-5-2 is a good formation. Does it make us stronger at the back? No. Does it make us more likely to score? No. So what is the positives of it. The 'dated' 4-4-2 got us promoted in '08 and was adopted by the 2 most successful teams in the league last season (Reading and Southampton), if that is dated, I'll happily see us play a dated formation.
We already had a great defence, sticking another man in it is just a waste of a man, it's a crap formation as we don't have the players to suit it.
I would also like Bruce to try a 3 - 4 - 3 formation at some point. Maybe in the FA Cup. If you cannot see why 3-5-2 is better than 4-4-2 then there is no point trying to explain it to you. But it will be even better when Jack Hobbs is fit to partner Faye and Chester. At the end of the day its down to Steve Bruce and his team. I support the team whatever tactics and formations are used by the way,
That feels a lot like you are saying, 'I want to like Bruce so much, but I too do not see the advantage of playing 3-5-2. Despite this, I shall never say anything bad about Hull City or anything to do with it.' I can't see how it is better. It makes us no stronger at the back. If anything it makes us weaker. Chester and Faye/Hobbs are perfectly strong CB's to play on their own with relative ease at this level. Dudgeon and Rosenior are both strong full-backs who look very confortable playing in the left and right-back roles respectively. Our goal against Brighton showed that 4-4-2 does not prevent full-backs from getting forward and helping the rest of the team. So the 3-5-2 doesn't help full/wing-backs attack. Yet, the fact that Dudge and Rosey feel forced to play not in their natural position but further up the pitch, makes us more vulnerable at the back, as there is space behing the wing-backs which wingers can easily run into giving them a great advantage on both flanks (as we saw at Blackburn). The formation sees us retain 2 holding midfielders but add a centre-back, so it is more defensive than Barmby's 4-2-3-1. As I've said, it makes us weaker at the back and less likely to score. The 2 criteria that are required for winning games of football. It actually looks like Bruce is so desperate to play his son he's had to find the only formation that justifies him starting. But clearly you know some reason why it is the superior formation but won't tell anyone who doesn't already see it. So I guess we'll all have to keep guessing.
OLM are you still carping cause your mate Barmby's was sacked, you really must be close to that family not to let it drop. I too wasn't in Donny tonight, but that's because this game was meaningless. What did you think when Barmby let a two goal lead against Burnley slip to a 3-2 loss. You were not so keen then to ask for his head. Give Bruce a fare chance before shouting for him to go.
We've played five games so far this season, we've won two of them, those were the two that didn't involve using three centre backs. Go figure.
I don't see how getting rid of wingers (whose natural ability is aimed at attacking and getting crosses in) and replacing them with full-backs (whose first priority in any game is to defend first, attack second), is better? I'd much rather see 2 full-backs and 2 wingers over-lapping, with a defensive midfielder dropping back to fill a gap when we attack like that.
I thought it was a stupid decision to put Dawson on for Stewart and that it cost us the game, why, what did you think? I said that very clearly on here(considering it was his first home game in charge, nobody was going to be calling for his head). I also said that Nick should change his formation to suit the players that he had available, rather than sticking with the formation he wanted to play, when he didn't have the players he needed to play that system. I never suggested he was perfect and I never had an issue with criticising him when I thought he'd got it wrong. My opinion was honest then, it will remain so now, I will be critical of anyone I think it doing something wrong, be it Barmby, Bruce, or anyone else.
Personally I think this 3-5-2 is bollocks for us, I'd like to see us carry on using the 4-2-3-1 and possession footballing philosophy Barmby adopted as for the most part it worked, I'd just like to see us mix it up and switch into 4-4-2/4-3-1-2 etc when it's not happening for us. This 3 at the back is just trouble and will no doubt cause confusion to a back 4 who each and every one of them have been used to playing back 4 systems throughout their careers, if you want extra protection bring it into midfield where most games are won or lost.
Steve Bruce was hired by the Allam’s to get us into the Premier League. You can talk all you want about giving him time and seeing where we are in 6 months but the Allam’s want success and they want it now. They can spout off all the rubbish about a ‘project’ and giving Bruce time to settle but I bet when they sat down and negotiated the deal the Allam’s would have said ‘here’s a massive salary, here’s a few million to spend, I want promotion’. To that end, Bruce doesn’t have a honeymoon period and he needs to deliver results sharpish. 3 league games, 1 goal, a ****ty defensive formation so he can play his son, and a waste of £2.6m on a headless German chicken isn’t exactly going to enamour him to the fans is it? Well it shouldn’t anyway!! He comes with a reputation of poor tactics, poor team selections, poor training methods and an ability to fritter away the owners money on anyone and everyone. At the end of the day, Barmby made mistakes last season for not having a plan B. But you cant argue that plan A wasn’t far away from being an accomplished system which looked a lot more potent than we have seen the first 5 games of this season.
Firstly, the point about Bruce Senior is irrelevant, as I'm not one of those calling for him to go. Regarding Alex Bruce, I don't feel I need to 'give him time'. He's almost 28, and he's never amounted to anything. He's been poor for us so far, and has cost us two winning goals in his last three games (even worse when you consider that one of those came last night, and he didn't come on until the 87th minute). He was poor at Leeds and Ipswich, and neither of those sides was as good with him playing for them as we were before he joined us. If any other manager had signed him for City, I'd have still been absolutely seething, but that would never have happened. Honesty is the best policy, apparently... Me too. I'm at the end of my tether with City. We were boring to watch under Pearson and Barmby, and now we're even more so under Bruce. Since promotion to the Premier League in 2008, we've played 171 league games. We've won just 14 by more than a single goal. Only Rosenior and Dudgeon have been operating more as out-and-out full-backs and not true wing-backs, so, essentially, it's 5-3-2 with two of the midfield three being defensively minded players. Exactly, though apparently we're in the wrong for daring to slag off a **** player who doesn't fit the system his own father has tried to build around him.
As I've already said, I like Barmby and I don't really like Bruce, I'm not sure how that could not be personal.
