It seems this is a question that particularly divides Villa fans and it has caused some robust debate on here.
Thanks for keeping it mostly very civil, by the way.
No doubt it’s been the same on other sites, but is it true that this debate has caused physical fights amongst us?
If so, that’s ridiculous to my mind, but hey it’s all part of footy, I suppose.
I just wanted to give my take, with as balanced a view as I can, so I can gauge the responses.
Ok, I don’t get to the games very much these days, but I still like to think I have my finger at least partly on the pulse.
It’s a fact that Steve Bruce has the best record of getting teams promoted from the Championship to the Premier league. That is beyond debate.
And to me, it’s a big plus, as he knows how this league works, especially when it boils down to the last few games, where the team that achieves a last-minute good run-in, might do better than otherwise expected.
My money says we’re at least capable of that, as much as it might not seem like it at the moment.
We have the manager who’s seen it more than most, simple.
The counter to that is that Warnock has a good record too and has Cardiff consistently winning games.
So much so, that it’s hard to see them losing any.
The biggest complaint about Bruce seems to be about his football.
While I’d definitely agree that it was dire at times, particularly earlier in the season, is it really fair to say that about the last ten games or so?
I don’t think so and I’d say we’ve aimed to get the win in every game.
The performances at times might not have matched the ambition, but again, that’s footy.
I hasten to add that it seems some fans just detest Bruce because of his links to Blues.
I just won’t entertain that as a reason for disliking him and frankly find it quite pathetic.
Then there’s the tactics.
I’ll happily admit that sometimes, Bruce’s decisions baffle me.
But he’s got the results, mostly and I wouldn’t profess to know better than him.
I guess what I’m asking is would any other manager really have done any better?
I go back to Warnock again, who’s done really well.
Given we have the best squad on paper, would he have made them perform better?
I really don’t know.
Cardiff have a squad performing above their level, whereas we have supposedly “better” players that need motivating in a different way. I can’t call it.
The next question has to be would you stick with Bruce, regardless of if we get promoted or not?
This is the difficult one.
I know some of you will say if we don’t get promoted, he has to go.
But then what?
We join the manager-go-round again?
Is that really the way to go?
I’m not convinced.
My opinion says that even if you don’t like Bruce, he has at least stabilised the club. We aren’t in freefall anymore and are looking upwards.
Of course, you’d be well within your rights to say that given the money spent, we bloody well should be.
To which I’d say we spent proper money during our decline from the Prem.
The point is, money guarantees nothing.
Look, this is not a defence of Steve Bruce.
I find it hard to get past some of the utter rubbish footy I’ve seen under him, with supposedly superior players.
But looking back, I can see the reasons, in that he had to settle the side.
I believe he’s done that to good effect.
And it’s why I’d give him 10 games in the Prem, if we were to be promoted.
And even if we don’t get promoted, I’m wondering who we’d get in, instead?
Whatever you think, please keep your replies civil.
Cheers and UTV!!