Simple thought. Managers have always lived and died by results on the pitch. If they are good enough they survive and if not they don't. Its a very simple formula that EVERY single football club stands by. Whether it is Real Madrid or York City. The managerial merry go round has always fascinated me personally as it seems that only a few 'names' keep getting the nod at clubs and a failed manager at one club IE Hodgson at Liverpool becomes another's saviour at WBA. Incredibly, the bigger the failure, the bigger the clamour there seems to be to recruit one that had been sacked. In no other industry would a total failure in a huge organisation be so sought after and so handsomely rewarded (well maybe with the exception of the ****ers known as Bankers). So to our current predicament. Bruce to go or stay? Who would come in. I am as guilty as the next man of touting O Neill but the simple fact of the matter is O Neill is quite remarkable in that, to my knowledge, he has never been sacked as either a player or a manager and that is quite fascinating. He sees jobs out and is fiercely loyal to contracts - I remember while at Whickham Wanderers, he turned down the chance to manage a much higher league club as he had a contract and similarly at Leicester he did likewise. It is for this reason, amongst many others, that I think he would be a superb alternative to Bruce. Is 2 years long enough? Its all conjecture but my theory is that 2 isn't long enough so long as progress is being made. now, whether it is all bad luck with injuries, poor tactics, bizarre team formations and selections or just that the club are no further forward after 2 years but my personal decision has been made and O Neill is my man. I too think O Neill can be a bit of a ****er at times but I don't care about that. I like Bruce as a person but I regretfully no longer believe he can take us forward. I despised Reid but undoubtedly the best football I have ever seen from Sunderland was under his watch. You don't have to like the manager just the football played. Whatever the right amount of time a manager is allowed or asks for, for me, the club are treading water at best now and a change is needed. Look at WBA and Liverpool this year and Fulham under Hodgson 2 years ago. All benefited greatly by changing a stale looking club. O Neill remains our best option. I only hope for the clubs sake, both Quinny and more importantly, Short are on the ball.
I'm still utterly unconvinced that MON is the man. As i stated on an earlier thread, winning the league and finishing top 6 with Villa is expected, and certainly no magnificent achievement, the only stand out work he did in my opinion was at Leicester. He spent close to ã60million as Villa manager, yet complained about a 'lack of financial backing'.
Apparently I'm impressionable. I'm not keen on O'Neill having read that. FFS I feel as confused as Steve Bruce trying to pick the team with Eric Black... "Where's the Darren Bent tag? Can I put Nedum up front? Who's Angeleri and Riveros? I didn't sign them did I... Where did I leave my pork pie?"
never walked, hmm what about villa, pretty sure he walked from there when lerner said he couldnt have anymore cash (or had to sell to buy or whatever it was)
As I said the other day - MON is a rich mans Sam Allardyce, boring counter attacking football. Just ask Villa and Pape fans. As for never being sacked - it could only happen at SAFC. I say, Bruce has been a very unlucky with injuries (even SAF would struggle to get any sort of result with the team we have left) - and should be given another season. Though if its the same again, I am afraid it will be time to go. Lol Bart. PS - if MON was appointed, I would get right behind him, but I don't think he is the messiah that Cest seems to think he is.
the go-to argument for many of bruce's staunchest fans harkens to your point here cest, "look at moyes in his first two years at everton". managers need time to get their squad together, and i am not an advocate of being trigger happy, but the selling of bent and relying on loan signings has brought things to a point perhaps sooner than bruce would like. with moyes, he barely spent a penny. bruce has been backed to the hilt, and because of our striker situation, if he stays he will need heavily backing again in the summer. perhaps this will make short think twice about whether he wants this man spending his money. personally, i think bruce will stay. short will give him the benefit of the doubt thanks to support from quinn, and quinn will support him because he is loyal to a fault (if keane had never walked we'd still have him, regardless of results). my opinion?? bruce has had some bad luck, but a better manager would probably have us higher up the table, and i think the time for sympathy is over. under bruce's tenure our league standing is almost no better than it was under keane's first season, we have had no cup runs to speak of, and under him our derby performances consist of the most embarrassing in a derby in god knows how long, to being rubbish, fortunate and scraping a point. there is no progress there unfortunately, and for that reason you could argue bruce cannot expect any more time.
I am sick of repeating myself but here goes. I also like Bruce and if we sack him who is available? I believe a manager needs 3-5 years to get a team together with the first year being the most difficult, and after that making steady progress. My aim this year was 10th to 15th which is still achievable My only question to Bruce is how come we need to start all over again and rebuild in the summer he needs 8 players, we may need more. We should not have had 5 on loan. A quality RB or LB depending on where Bardsley is going to play. A big CD Samba for me. We all know we need a goal scoring midfielder and 3 CF I wish i could hibernate and wake up in August lol
From the hundreds of comments i have read about this situation, i am yet to be convinced by anyone, that its worthwhile keeping Bruce, the guys for arguments are regulary shot full of holes using thier own criterea. As for MON there is better out there,but unless the board pick a manager to excite the fans, I'm afraid that f1 will be picked, my preference would be a dutch master Hiddink, Van Gaal, In fact most of the dutch managers out there are good. Roll on SHEXY VOETBALL
Question was How long does a manager need, or expect to get in modern football? Answer is For as long as the owner and chairman support him Everything else in hot air, IMHO
I'd trust Bruce's transfers over most others... It's just his tactics and motivational skills with appear to be missing.
Keane did. Keane spent 96 million, recouped 21 million net 75 million and lasted 2 and a half years Bruce spent 66 million, recouped 58 million net 6 million and has lasted 2 years to date no comparison.
GIVE OWER MATE, im a local if i had to go that route its 20, but luckily my wit charm and good looks make that a none entity as my girl is tops.
Roger my man, if you have a fine steak 6 nights in a row, by Sunday you'll be crying out for some chicken
Steve if you are going to quote, be accurate. I said sacked not walked. O Neill had problems with Randy Learner and he was absolutely right if Villa were to become the next top 4 team another large investment was required. Perhaps if he had backed him as he has eventually done Houllier, (ie given ã18 to ã24m for Bent), Villa would be top 4 now and not the relegation strugglers they are without him. As for the other posters suggestions that top 6 with Villa and cups wins at Leicester are not that impressive, I'd think most SAFC fans would have permanent hard ons with with either!!!
It was me that mentioned Leicester marra, and to the contrary, i said this WAS the impressive bit of MON's cv.
