Steve Bruce, Rafa Benitez, and the Failure of British Football Punditry
Rafa Benitez left Newcastle last summer after failing to agree terms on a new contract. He was, at the time, one of the Premier League’s longest-serving managers, having been with the club since the end of the 2015–16 season when Newcastle were relegated. While widely expected to depart the club in the aftermath, Benitez stuck with Newcastle, securing a return to the top flight at the first attempt, and then two strong finishes well clear of the relegation zone. But Benitez’s later years were fraught with tension between himself and owner Mike Ashley over a perceived lack of investment in the team, particularly for a centre-forward. It was not a huge surprise when Benitez left, but it was still heartbreaking for Newcastle fans who had seen what he could do with limited resources and were disappointed a compromise could not be found.
In his place came Steve Bruce, former Manchester United player, boyhood Newcastle fan and perennial Premier League / Championship manager. (Coincidentally, Bruce had been linked with Newcastle many years ago, while Birmingham manager). While not a bad manager by any means, coming off Benitez’s surprise appointment and popularity, Bruce was a huge step down — he had not managed in the Premier League for over 5 years, and he has never won a trophy in his managerial career. While I do not begrudge Bruce for taking up the role — nobody would turn down the chance to manage in the Premier League again, least of all for their favourite club — it betrayed a lack of ambition, an acceptance that Newcastle will be midtable and nothing more. (Editor’s note: Steve Bruce is also the lowest-paid manager in the Premier League — make of that what you will)
Naturally, the immediate aftermath of Bruce’s appointment was met with questions about whether he would live up to Benitez, particularly among fans. Which is a fair enough comparison to make. And it was fair enough when Bruce likewise asked for time to prove himself in the role. The first rumblings of discontent came around the end of September, when Newcastle had been knocked out of the EFL Cup on penalties, and had only one league win to their name — admittedly a good one, away at Tottenham- but one which came after dropping points to relegation candidates Norwich, Brighton, and Watford. Bruce had been given time — but seemed, initially, to be out of his depth.
The reaction of the fans was one of frustration — they knew that this situation was avoidable, that Ashley had had a manager who wanted to stay at the club and had discarded him like so much bad rubbish. The reaction of the British pundit class, however, was to protect Bruce, to accuse the fans of having unreasonable expectations. While Newcastle’s performances improved after September, to the point they were briefly in the top 10, the reaction was the same — the pundits always on the defensive for Bruce, praising him for succeeding despite the dislike of the fans.
Let’s not mince words: Newcastle had a bad season in 2019–20. The only reason they were not relegated is because several teams — most notably Watford — had worse ones. The run to the quarter-finals of the FA Cup was exciting but realistically they had no hope of beating Manchester City, and the 0–2 scoreline in that game was highly generous; Newcastle never looked like scoring and barely looked like defending. They took wins off big sides but then dropped easy games, most notably in an abject performance against Watford broadcast on Amazon Prime, where Newcastle threw away a half-time lead by conceding two second-half penalties.
Bruce has made two key changes to Newcastle’s style of play. (He may also have changed their training schedule but I can’t comment on that). The first is a defensive one: where Newcastle played a 3-man defence with wing-backs under Benitez, as Liverpool and the English national team have done very successfully, Bruce reverted to a flat back four, moving Matt Ritchie from wing-back to winger. The second is an offensive one: Newcastle’s default “chasing a game” substitution is now to bring on Andy Carroll and move to a 4–4–2, essentially playing the much-derided “hoofball” strategy.
How have these worked? In the league in 2019–20, Newcastle conceded 58 goals, 10 more goals than in the previous season under Benitez, with much the same squad. It could have been more, but player of the season Martin Dubravka (GK) made the second-highest saves in the league. The only Premier League player to make more saves was ex-Geordie Tim Krul. He plays for Norwich, who conceded 75 goals and were relegated. It is hard not to see the connection between the change in defensive system, the need for Dubravka to get involved in play more, and the poorer statistics for Newcastle’s defence. (Infuriatingly, Bruce started out continuing with Benitez’s system, before changing it early in his reign — presumably to “put his stamp” on the side.)
As for those offensive changes — Andy Carroll, Newcastle’s “super sub”, scored a grand total of 0 goals last season. Newcastle’s four strikers combined scored a total of 8 goals in all competitions. (3 of those came from Dwight Gayle after the restart, when he replaced Joelinton in the starting line-up — the same Gayle who was deemed surplus to requirements and sent on loan to the Championship a season ago). Record signing Joelinton scored only two league goals, frequently looking isolated and dropping deep or out onto the wing. Some of this can be attributed to the loss of Newcastle’s top two scorers from the season before — Ayoze Perez was sold to Leicester, and Solomon Rondon returned to his parent club following his loan — but the actual statistics are shocking, and prove exactly the point Benitez was making about the club: a single £40m transfer cannot make up for a failing philosophy that saw the club give up the 25 goals Perez and Rondon gave the club over a dispute about transfer value.
The British punditry, however, do not see it like that. An article on Sky Sports recently proclaimed that Bruce has succeeded where Benitez failed in convincing Mike Ashley to invest money in the “right players”. (Benitez, according to an article in the Athletic, begged to sign Rondon on a permanent transfer — but was denied on account of Rondon’s age. The subsequent loan-swap saw Dwight Gayle sent to West Brom as a makeweight; a ludicrous scenario for a Premier League club to be involved in). It was certainly interesting when Newcastle — fresh off Benitez’s criticism — announced the signing of Joelinton for £40m, smashing the club’s transfer record. Given how well it has turned out, it is perhaps unfair to pin that signing on Bruce, given the deal was likely in place before he arrived. But in light of Benitez’s problems it almost seems like the signing was greenlit not to improve the squad, but to rebuke a former manager who had criticised the club. Certainly Joelinton represents an appalling lack of return on investment for a club whose recruitment strategy can be accused of many things, but has a good rate of return.
If Bruce has been successful where Benitez failed, that arguably raises questions not about Bruce’s apparent success but what was holding Benitez back. The fact that Ashley repeatedly denied Benitez signings that did not fit the transfer policy yet makes exceptions for Bruce (and for Benitez’s predecessor, Steve Mclaren) speaks volumes for the way he interacts with people and suggests that there is an underlying factor to his quibbles. Racism? We may never know for sure, but it does not seem like a coincidence that Newcastle’s first non-English manager since Ruud Gullit clashed with the owner to the point that Ashley felt compelled to correct the record after he had left — both in the press and with his chequebook — and did both poorly.
And yet as we start the 2020–21 season — after all the disruption — the British pundits still only care about Bruce in so far as he can beat Benitez. Phil McNulty mentions Benitez in his preview of the season, Sky bring it up in transfer dealings and so on. It sounds less like a team of professional pundits and more like a friend trying desperately to convince you they are over their ex, that Rafa was no good for Newcastle anyway.
The reasoning is simple: Bruce is an English manager, not only in the literal sense but also the philosophical one. You can see it in his move to a flat back four, the changes away from zonal marking, the use of 4–4–2 as an impact substitution and the penchant for long ball play. These have been the hallmarks of “English management” for years and it means that these pundits — many of them English ex-players themselves — feel compelled, instinctively, to defend Bruce against what they see as an attack from Newcastle fans. The fact is, though, most Newcastle fans are not criticising Bruce any more, certainly not publicly in the way they have repeatedly attacked Ashley. The defence is against an imaginary charge, and it covers up the real flaws at the club.
You can see from the stats that Newcastle have regressed under Bruce. There are probably more stats available that tell the same story — I couldn’t find how many points Newcastle have lost from winning positions, which it felt like they did a lot last season.. But the British pundit class is not interested in these stats because, to them, the narrative is written: Newcastle fans hate Steve Bruce for not being Rafa, therefore, every success is greeted with “Bruce is proving the unreasonable fans wrong”; every failure is greeted with “Bruce is unfortunate there”. No need for the pundits — the people who are paid to analyse football — to actually investigate what is going on; just the same story, again and again. Rinse, repeat.
Benitez, with minimal investment and a squad consisting mainly of the same players from the Championship season, managed to reach the top 10 followed by a 13th-place finish the following season under the constraints I have described. So, if Bruce is truly to surpass Benitez, there is his actual goal. There is every chance that Newcastle could reach that target this year. But to do so, they will be up against talented continental managers — Carlo Ancelotti at Everton, Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool — who are constantly evolving, for the better, the way that football is played. Newcastle, by contrast, seem to be standing still. And why wouldn’t they, when they are not being challenged to do so. When pundits are saying that the only goal is to beat your predecessor, that they have sympathy for you just because you play “proper English football”, that you don’t need to do better — where is Bruce’s incentive to change in the ways that Newcastle need?
