On all the sports reports on Blunderside today Steve Bruce has been saying how sorry he feels for Fathi, as we didn't know that we were going to get Elmo back and this has consequently seen him effectively frozen out of the team, and that he's not a natural defensive midfielder and that is the reason he hasn't been selected to play in that position. So, my question is this, does this effectively mean that Steve Bruce thinks Alex Bruce IS a 'natural defensive midfielder'? If so I would suggest that he should remove his 'Alex Bruce shade' glasses because he CERTAINLY isn't!
FFS, Alex Bruce wont be playing in midfield again this season. The whole subject is getting boring now. Steve Bruce sees them each day we dont. SB has not done that bad a job so far has he ?
Fathi aint all thati I think is the answer to this. He would have featured if good enough. The argument for him playing based on his international caps is flawed too as I pointed out on another thread, Theo got 100+ for Jamaica and never played at our standard domestically. Somebody else mentioned the pitches in Africa being a bit different too. The difference between Gedo and him is that a natural goalscorer can score anywhere in the world but other players might not adapt very well, Bruce has seen him in training and knows enough about football for me to trust his judgement.
Bruce said after Gedo's debut, that he didn't know where that performance had come from, as he'd seen no sign of it on the training ground and he only played because he had few other options. Maybe the same is true of Fathi, he doesn't like training, but he's good in games. And Theo Whitmore was a bad example, I thought he was bloody brilliant.
Tickler, don't take this personally, well you can if you wish, fcuk right off with your defending of Alex Bruce playing as a defensive midfielder! Whether or not he will play in that position again this season is totally irrelevant with regard to what I am saying. Had Alex, who is CERTAINLY NOT a natural defensive midfielder, NOT played as a defensive midfielder on Tuesday the link between defence & midfield would have been better, or have even EXISTED, and consequently we would have stood a greater chance of getting something out of that game!
I dont and i dont careless about the issue anymore. Its over with and you need to move on. Hope that helps.
Maybe he thinks Alex is not as bad a defensive midfielder as Fathi is - the lesser of two evils as it were?
I suppose the best thing to do is to pose this question to one of our Egyptian fans. I'm pretty sure when Fathi signed he was listed as a DM on his long resume of positions. I'd always rather have Quinn and Meyler in the side over him, but as has been said before, I think that when he plays and inevitably looks good, we will be kicking ourselves that we didn't play him sooner. I'd rather play him once and find out if he's crap than hold onto him, not play him and find out he was quality all along.
Could be that I suppose, I guess we're never going to hear him say 'oh and Alex isn't a natural defensive midfielder either by the way but I felt like playing him there anyway', but, for me anyway, it still begs the question, if we never had a natural defensive midfielder available - at all - then why choose to play Alex as one in the game on tuesday night? As others have said I can understand it away to sides like Wendies and 'udders, but surely not at home against a side renowned for playing quick counter attacking football. For me it seems a very thin line between perceived nepotism based on seemingly cramming Alex into the team somewhere, anywhere, and poor old Fathi who can't get a game at all, which, in turn, could affect Gedo's form, if it hasn't already.
I think Corry Evans is the only specialised defensive midfielder City have, but he's still a bit lightweight. Meyler can do a good job but he likes to get forward a lot. Both are more cultivated players than Bruce, but for all of his faults Bruce is willing to get his hands dirty. He handicaps the passing fluency of our midfield, but on the other hand he knackers the oppositions too. Sometimes you need players who can buy the team time to get a foothold in the game and help to neutralise dangerous opposing players. Alex Bruce makes us play uglier football and that's why SB usually subs him for more attacking options later on when we often either have a lead or are level. The priority when games are running out is to try to find a way of getting 3 points against teams that are fighting to stay up or desperate to get in the play-offs. Attractive football is the first casualty, but none of us would be happy if the team was playing great football but couldn't buy a win. Watford were just the better team on Tuesday. They have players that should be playing above this level and sometimes you have to just accept the better team won rather than searching for scapegoats.
You really are going to be disliked on this forum if you keep speaking common sense Craig. The mongs are building up a head of steam where they will be booing his every touch.
My opinion on the defensive midfield is that Evans should play that role ahead of Bruce if fit, I'm undecided on the nepotism issue to be honest as Bruce does play that role up to the best of his ability, which admittedly isn't that much. Bruce is more experienced than Evans so maybe that is what the manager is looking for in that role, and Fathi might have vast international experience but none at all of our league or conditions
I just listen to SB pre-Boro interview with Burnsey on Tiger player, and he asked him that fans had asked him to ask Burnsey why Fathi wasn't getting a chance to play. SB said he is a defensive full back or wing back, and he has just been unfortunate that at the time they took him on they didn't know whether Elmo would come back or not, but as it turned out both Elmo and Brady have been outstanding, so he has just been unlucky not to get into the starting line up. Furthermore Burnsey interviewed Quinny and he really came across well, said that the players were not down, and that this run of win one lose one was always going to be likely as the bottom teams are fighting for their lives and the top team fighting for the promised land of the EPL, so teams were going to lose from time to time, and it is better points wise to win one lose one than draw a lot of games.
If people try to be unbiased and compare the skill factor of Watford's players to ours I think they win. In that situation it's not a good idea to try to beat them with pure football, so what are the other options? That would have been the problem SB had before the game on Tuesday and he obviously decided our best chance was to **** them up... Enter Alex Bruce. The other thing to remember is that when the pitch turned to **** again SB said we would have to change our game to compensate for it. Maybe he's come to the conclusion that playing negative football is the only way to get points on such a bad surface.
We have a squad and formation that suit passing football, when we start punting it long we generally come unstuck. And if the quite reasonable scenario you suggest is the reasoning behind setting up the way we did, then Evans was still the better option.
SB just said on Tiger player that even though the pitch is ****e we still have to try and pass the ball, so he obviously isn't giving the idea that we revert to the long ball.
