Well put the boot on the other foot, would you have been disappointed if City had been the home team and lost 2-0 tonight? It's expected that teams away from home are going to have less possession, it's why the odds usually favour away teams. You're right in this instance, we were pinned for the better part of an hour and we really could've done with an outlet, but it was one of them where no matter how we tried to break out, they got the ball back and launched it forward. I remember Fabio being a bit **** at Man U, but he looked really comfortable tonight and he looks like he's matured from his time in Wales.
Sorry, I'm agreeing with you. Not expecting 70% possession and 20 shots, but the way we sat back and invited pressure in that middle stretch was a bit concerning.
Stats: V Brighton http://www.skysports.com/football/brighton-vs-hull-city/stats/339593 V Cardiff http://www.skysports.com/football/cardiff-vs-hull-city/stats/339607
For all those that get wound up by whinging on here, read some of the comments on the Jack Wilshire story! http://www.skysports.com/football/n...ndergo-surgery-after-suffering-injury-setback
How dare Steve Bruce and Hull City win 2-0 @ Cardiff City last night. It is simply not good enough to stop the social media morons, hissy fitters and bed wetters having a go at our manager. Enough now Steve. We want and demand more losses. Thanks.
He finally listened to the social media morons, hissy fitters and bed wetters and switched to a 3-5-2, let's hope he listens to the social media morons, hissy fitters and bed wetters rather more often. Thanks.
What - by going back to a system he first in introduced a few years ago when he got us promoted from the Championship - when all the social media morons, hissy fitters and bed wetters were saying it was rubbish and would never work? Thank goodness Steve Bruce doesn't listen to them at all!!
When we had actual full backs, in Rosenior and Brady, we didn't play with full-backs, when we didn't have decent full-backs, we did. Bruce seems to have a problem seeing things that are very obvious to many of the fans, that applies to both formations and selections.
I remember getting pelters for daring to suggest that I'd rather see us lose by going for it than win in a dull way. I reckon quite a few will be the same extremists calling for gungho that will scream caution if we attack.
The one thing I never agreed with during the silly-season on here before the games started up again were the comments about 3-5-2, it's about whatever system works so if that's 3-5-2 then all well and good. I'm still wondering about Bruce though, seems like Elmo is his latest target for criticism (head turned by agents). Coming out in public about things like this gets the players backs up, like when he came out with the 'Big Time Charlies' stuff
Seems like you can't have a sensible discussion about the suitability of a manager without someone trying to make it personal. Do you think people who are frustrated with Bruce don't want him to succeed? Do you think if we lose the next game those people will be happy? I would love it if Bruce could start getting the team playing in a positive way, but I won't come on here insulting everyone who supports him if we lose the next game.
Unfortunately Craig, there ARE people who are frustrated with Bruce and do NOT want him to succeed, and yes, if we lost they'd be happy because they'd then be justified in their opinions. Sadly, there ARE people who regardless of how we do will want him to go. We could get promoted after not losing another game all season and they'd be calling for him to go before we started again in the PL. They are on this very forum, so not sure why anyone would try to deny that.
I can only think of one person that would apply to. The rest (even long term Bruce haters) would back him if he got the team clicking.
What do you mean by "clicking"? There are some who are more bothered about the performance rather than the result. There are others who are more bothered about promotion than how we get there. There are some who think we can do both.
