The Myth of Steve Bruce at Hull City

Paully D

Before someone says it, I'll address the point. No, this thread is not the first opportunity for a dig at him because things didn't work out for Bruce at Sunderland. Looking back, I think he actually did a decent job overall at Sunderland. We had some excellent moments under him, some awful ones, he appeared to almost figure things out at one point and then played a big part in dismantling a pretty decent first 11 in the space of a transfer window. Ultimately, I feel it was the right time to move on when he was given the bullet.

Anyway, over the last couple of years I have heard almost nothing but universal praise for Steve Bruce and the job he has done at Hull from journalists, commentators, pundits and (many) fans of other clubs.

The reality is he has spent £66.25m in his two Premier League seasons at Hull with a combined record of 18 wins, 18 draws and 40 defeats, which was good enough for 16th position last year and relegation this year. That's a win percentage of 23.6% over the period. His transfer policy has been similar to throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick, that a few of the players will give them a short term boost with no real plan on how to utilise them.

So why does he constantly seem to avoid criticism for the job he has done at Hull? Getting to an FA Cup final beating powerhouses such as Sheffield United, Sunderland, Brighton, Southend and Middlesborough en route can't be worthy of conveniently ignoring his league record? I guess being friendly with the media is worth a lot.

citytillidie

Paully D wrote: »

Before someone says it, I'll address the point. No, this thread is not the first opportunity for a dig at him because things didn't work out for Bruce at Sunderland. Looking back, I think he actually did a decent job overall at Sunderland. We had some excellent moments under him, some awful ones, he appeared to almost figure things out at one point and then played a big part in dismantling a pretty decent first 11 in the space of a transfer window. Ultimately, I feel it was the right time to move on when he was given the bullet.

Anyway, over the last couple of years I have heard almost nothing but universal praise for Steve Bruce and the job he has done at Hull from journalists, commentators, pundits and (many) fans of other clubs.

The reality is he has spent £66.25m in his two Premier League seasons at Hull with a combined record of 18 wins, 18 draws and 40 defeats, which was good enough for 16th position last year and relegation this year. That's a win percentage of 23.6% over the period. His transfer policy has been similar to throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick, that a few of the players will give them a short term boost with no real plan on how to utilise them.

So why does he constantly seem to avoid criticism for the job he has done at Hull? Getting to an FA Cup final beating powerhouses such as Sheffield United, Sunderland, Brighton, Southend and Middlesborough en route can't be worthy of conveniently ignoring his league record? I guess being friendly with the media is worth a lot.

Because he played for Man Utd

Caovyn Lineah

He's English. English managers very rarely get criticised at club level.

Can't see him getting too many offers after this season tbh.

He's quite a poor manager at the top league level.

Probably more suited to the Championship

Oat23

Paully D wrote: »

The reality is he has spent £66.25m in his two Premier League seasons at Hull with a combined record of 18 wins, 18 draws and 40 defeats, which was good enough for 16th position last year and relegation this year. That's a win percentage of 23.6% over the period. His transfer policy has been similar to throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick, that a few of the players will give them a short term boost with no real plan on how to utilise them.

This is unbelievable.

Does he make all the transfer decisions himself? If the next team that hires him gives him free reign over transfer decisions, they deserve whatever they get.

Paully D

Oat23 wrote: »

This is unbelievable.

Does he make all the transfer decisions himself? If the next team that hires him gives him free reign over transfer decisions, they deserve whatever they get.

As far as I'm aware there aren't any restrictions on him. His transfer business makes frightening reading if you're a Hull fan:

tastyt

Think selling Shane long was a huge mistake . Starting up front for a full season he would have got the goals to keep hull up

Montroseee

He really is not good enough for the PL, that Hull squad should be nowhere near relegation.

happyoutscan

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Lol

The bitterness is strong here

#welldonemanutd

Don't think it's bitterness. He's an English man who served Utd very well so that's probably why he gets it easy from the press.

J. Marston

citytillidie wrote: »

Because he played for Man Utd

Surely he would be more open to criticism then with all the former Liverpool players in the media?

65m over 2 seasons probably isn't much these days.

keeponhurling

AdamD wrote: »

65m over 2 seasons probably isn't much these days.

That's what I was thinking.

Anybody at all who is anyways proven in the PL costs at least 10million pounds

I guess Hernandez and Livermore stand out as wastes, the rest were either pretty cheap or were decent value for money

Corholio

keeponhurling wrote: »

That's what I was thinking.

Anybody at all who is anyways proven in the PL costs at least 10million pounds

I guess Hernandez and Livermore stand out as wastes, the rest were either pretty cheap or were decent value for money

Livermore as a player certainly wasn't a waste.

Dozen Wicked Words

Corholio wrote: »

Livermore as a player certainly wasn't a waste.

He was a bit stupid getting caught taking drugs which didn't do Bruce any favours, now here's some puns.

You could say he was a bit of a Charlie, he just didn't know where to draw the line and has a nose for trouble.

Giggsy11

citytillidie wrote: »

Because he played for Man Utd

Yeah, media with full of Ex Liverpool players don't blame a manager because he played for ManUtd. Makes sense.

aodea

AdamD wrote: »

65m over 2 seasons probably isn't much these days.

Plus it does not factor in any sales. Long and boyd must have been 14-15 million.

even then its 50 mil over two seasons and at 25mil a season i dont think that's madness for a premier league outfit on any level.

The players picked may have been oor, but they are players who look like they should improve that squad on paper at least, Huddleston, Livemore, Jelevic, Dawson etc

Im inclined to look at his failings as a coach rather than his transfer policy.

Palace have spent 40million plus in thier last two seasons but pullis first then pardew have been able to motivate them, and we saw when warnock was thier the players were dreadful so the money factor is not the be all and end all.

L'prof

Paully D wrote: »

So why does he constantly seem to avoid criticism for the job he has done at Hull? Getting to an FA Cup final beating powerhouses such as Sheffield United, Sunderland, Brighton, Southend and Middlesborough en route can't be worthy of conveniently ignoring his league record? I guess being friendly with the media is worth a lot.

Because he's one of the nice guys in football? As an Arsenal fan, there are very few ex United players that I'd have time for but Bruce is definitely one of them. I kind of feel sorry for him if I'm honest.

homerjay2005

Paully D wrote: »

As far as I'm aware there aren't any restrictions on him. His transfer business makes frightening reading if you're a Hull fan:

in fairness, for a club like Hull running on tighter budgets if you are focusing on spending you should also mention the outgoings.

for example, you include Shane Long at £7m, but forget to mention they sold him for £12m - thats a huge swing - that £12million covered the cost of signing 4 players this season.

22 players in but 26 players left, overall spend of £25m last season and £25m this season so its clear they had a set budget each season.

West ham and Palace outlay was £52m in that timeframe, Leceisters was over £20m this season alone.

death1234567

He's a poor manager and this has been proven at various clubs in the premier league.

galwaylad14

death1234567 wrote: »

He's a poor manager and this has been proven at various clubs in the premier league.

Not sure I'd agree with that. He's always managed teams that would be expected to finish bottom half at best and only been relegated once before this season and he got Birmingham straight back up the following season.

As has been shown in this thread he hasn't actually spent outrageously although I do think he had a better squad at Hull this season than last so they are right to be very disappointed about going down.

I think they should stick with him though, he has consistently shown himself to be a fairly solid manager at the lower end of the Premiership/upper end of the Championship.

Kirby

Bruce has repeatedly said their problem has been scoring goals. He isnt saying that just to fill interview time. It's the truth. I think he's pissed off at the sale of Long to be honest.

Long and Jelavic made a partnership that Hull have lacked. Abel Hernandez doesnt link up with anyone. I cant say I'd want to play alongside him.

Bruce said at the time that the offer was "too good for the club to turn down", but I'd bet if you asked him privately he'd tell you it was a massive error. They ended up losing a lot more than 12 million by getting relegated.

Will I Amnt

Bruce comes across as a really nice and humble guy. If he was a prick with an ego he'd probably be getting it from all angles. Being genuinely nice can still go a long way, the fact that he hasn't managed any really high profile club helps too.

GLaDOS

Wage budgets generally give a good indication as to where a club will finish. Large deviations above or below this indicate something particularly good/bad going on behind the scenes.

Source isn't the best, would welcome better if anyone has it, but this indicates Hull had the 17th highest wage budget and they finished 18th. Round about expected so.

Moneymaker

I don't think that list of signings is too bad to be honest. Hernandez is the only major dud, he was unlucky with Snodgrass.

Long being allowed to go was definitely a big mistake. Even 8-10 goals might have been enough to keep them up.

He's been around long enough now, mid-low EPL/high Championship is around his level.

pmasterson95

He was dreadfully unlucky with Snodgrass missing the entire season and Diame not missing much less. Both of those would have been great and probably kept him safe.
Thats 10.5 spent on two excellent players who unfortunately only played 13 games. Diame in his 12 games still managed to be their 3rd highest scorer this season. Thats dreadful luck as he had surely planned on both being integral this season.
Only Hernandez stands out as a waste of money really.

aidan24326

The players should be ashamed of themselves for the Burnley defeat. You're in a must-win game and you lose at home to Burnley? They should have been playing as though their lives depended on it. Is that a reflection of the manager though?

Bruce was a warrior in his playing days but that doesn't always show in how his teams play. That day against Burnley there should have been fire and brimstone yet they went down with a sad whimper.

Paully D

AdamD wrote: »

65m over 2 seasons probably isn't much these days.

Looking at the spending of the other similar sides over the last 2 seasons per Transfer League:

Villa - £28.4m
Sunderland - £41.3m
Newcastle - £39.9m
West Brom - £31.85m
West Ham - £54.25m
Crystal Palace - £53.85m
Stoke - £5.4m
Swansea - £44.6m
Everton - £61.5m
Southampton - £106m

Of the promoted clubs - QPR are a mess and are regulary and correctly lambasted for their spending, yet they only spent £6.4m more than Hull in their 2 Premier League seasons combined (2014/2015 and 2012/2013). Leicester spent £20m this season and Burnley spent £9.5m.

Apart from your usual suspects who are always going to outspend others, only Southampton, Everton, West Ham and Palace are the sides who are comparable to Hull in terms of spending really over the last 2 seasons. Southampton finished 8th and 7th, Everton finished 5th and 11th, West Ham finished 12th and 13th and Palace finished 11th and 10th. They all unquestionable did far better than Hull.

£65m is still a very decent chunk of money for a lower level side and Bruce cannot say he has spent it wisely.

eagle eye

I've never rated Bruce as a manager but I think he would be an excellent no.2.

miroslavklose

Paully D wrote: »

Before someone says it, I'll address the point. No, this thread is not the first opportunity for a dig at him because things didn't work out for Bruce at Sunderland. Looking back, I think he actually did a decent job overall at Sunderland. We had some excellent moments under him, some awful ones, he appeared to almost figure things out at one point and then played a big part in dismantling a pretty decent first 11 in the space of a transfer window. Ultimately, I feel it was the right time to move on when he was given the bullet.

Anyway, over the last couple of years I have heard almost nothing but universal praise for Steve Bruce and the job he has done at Hull from journalists, commentators, pundits and (many) fans of other clubs.

The reality is he has spent £66.25m in his two Premier League seasons at Hull with a combined record of 18 wins, 18 draws and 40 defeats, which was good enough for 16th position last year and relegation this year. That's a win percentage of 23.6% over the period. His transfer policy has been similar to throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick, that a few of the players will give them a short term boost with no real plan on how to utilise them.

So why does he constantly seem to avoid criticism for the job he has done at Hull? Getting to an FA Cup final beating powerhouses such as Sheffield United, Sunderland, Brighton, Southend and Middlesborough en route can't be worthy of conveniently ignoring his league record? I guess being friendly with the media is worth a lot.

As a Sunderland fan you should know how difficult it is to attract quality players to the north-east of England, and £65m (not accounting for sales) isn't an awful lot for the Premier League. Hernandez was a disaster and Livermore looked way overpriced even at the time, but overall he's done well with a bad deal.

Richard Hillman

I think he was exceptionally unlucky with Snodgrass. He performed very well with Norwich the season before.

Essentially it was the forward position that let Hull down. If they had a semi decent goalscorer throughout the season they would have stayed up.

TheCitizen

How does his transfer outlay compare with other clubs around where Hull have been in recent seasons? Doesn't nearly everyone in the EPL and the English Championship overspend on players? The market is totally inflated.

You've got clubs like Derby paying in excess of 10 million for Championship players and they still can't even make a play off for promotion.

death1234567

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If they had a semi decent goalscorer throughout the season they would have stayed up.

Bruce signed Jelavic and Hernandez, and sold Shane Long. At the end of the day he brought the players he wanted in and they weren't good enough so the blame lies at his door.