"Tony Mowbray pays the price for overachieving with young'uns."


Well, it says nowt wrong, but Diallo wasn’t here because if Mowbray, but they did have a good relationship it seems.

& the philosophy isn’t going to change because Mowbray has gone, we’ll still have a young squad who will get a chance to play football.

Am undoubted strength was Mowbray cake across as a caring father figure to players who seemed to enjoy playing under him. It appears he created a good environment for them. There’s no reason the next person can’t do that, especially given that that will be the design brief laid out before appointing him.

What the article doesn’t state is that he appeared to run out of ideas. We dominated possession with creating chances. Plan B was throwing 3/4 subs on after an hour. What isn't going to change is the players he has in the squad he has & it’s 10 (league) matches until the next transfer window shuts. If he can’t get them to play with what we’ve got, & we know we’re capable of more, that’s where it gets worrying. Huddersfield especially looked like a talented team devoid of ideas. & the manager made 4 subs all at once.

That article only concentrated on one real positive from Mowbray, not the things that were going obviously wrong.
 
I don't think he was ever against the model - he loved working with an improving young players. But he was pointing out the (obvious) pitfalls of the model, because we've hit one of them, and he wanted to defend himself. He seems to think that we've got the balance a bit wrong. But that's very different from him not being on board with the principles of the model as a whole.

Good article. The effect of not having TM as head coach may indeed make it harder for us to be trusted by premiership sides with loans. But I think Louise goes a bit OTT with this. After all, we loaned Amad before TM was appointed.
I agree with most of this, I think the recruitment in the summer has brought in too many untested inexperienced players from abroad and expected them all to be ready in a very short space of time. A difficult balance of winning games whilst pressure from above to play the new signings. The recruitment have unearthed some real gems from this country, the overseas signings have been more miss than hit. Time will tell if whoever replaces Mowbray will have the ability to integrate these young players whilst achieving positive results, I hope they can.
 
Last edited:
For someone who's been promoted once from this division the way some people talk about him is baffling. You'd think he was some sort of footballing genius.

It's mad. He's a nice enough bloke, but people don't half let their hearts rule their heads with him. He's made a career out of being a middle of the road, second tier manager. If you have any expectations or hopes of pushing beyond that point, he's proven for years and years that he isn't going to be your man.

He took a squad that was good enough to reach the playoffs, and qualified for them. Great, job done. Now he's built that level of expectation, he's been found tactically wanting time and time again, blaming anyone and everything but his own tactics and decisions.

He hit his glass ceiling.
 
I think its a shite article. Our aim of developing new talent hasn't changed, the new coach will have to sign into this same mantra. Talking about his integrity, like in public stating none of the 4 signings were ready, Ekwah needs a slap, Hemir is last to turn up for training then first to leave. It must have delighted Chelsea to here that as it was Mowbray that allegedly was the reason Burstow was loaned here. She fails to mention our form, his lack of ability to react and change formation and his scatterbook substitutions. Picking Seelt playing out of position then dropping him from the squad the following day. His unwillingness not to move O'Nien out of the CB role as we are leaking easily preventable goals and he is involved in most of them.

Apart from that its a canny read
If Rafa told me I was class at my job I’d quit .
 
I think its a shite article. Our aim of developing new talent hasn't changed, the new coach will have to sign into this same mantra. Talking about his integrity, like in public stating none of the 4 signings were ready, Ekwah needs a slap, Hemir is last to turn up for training then first to leave. It must have delighted Chelsea to here that as it was Mowbray that allegedly was the reason Burstow was loaned here. She fails to mention our form, his lack of ability to react and change formation and his scatterbook substitutions. Picking Seelt playing out of position then dropping him from the squad the following day. His unwillingness not to move O'Nien out of the CB role as we are leaking easily preventable goals and he is involved in most of them.

Apart from that its a canny read
Reads very much like an article written by a mate of Mowbray's.

I like the bloke and will remember him fondly for last season, but have found a lot of the reaction to his departure to be more than a bit bizarre.
 
He was key in recruiting Mason Burstow? Crikey, how will we cope?
Sackable offence on its own
For someone who's been promoted once from this division the way some people talk about him is baffling. You'd think he was some sort of football genius.
Id agree with this. Lovely fella and done a more than decent job however you'd think we'd lost a manager of a far higher standing
 
Last edited:
Can't say I agree about the article being good mind. It's very one sided and almost like the kind of thing Steve Bruce would have written about him due to his friends in the media.

Firstly, it mentions the unwarranted slap in the face of looking at the Nice manager. The bloke has them 2nd in the Ligue 1 table at the minute, which I think is enough to prove he was probably worth looking at. No one criticises if a club has a striker and looks at bringing in one that might be better, so I'm not sure why they think it's so bad when it happens to a coach.

It mentions how he's got clubs really keen to loan their players to him. Firstly it mentions Burstow without referring to the fact that we've then got nothing out of him. Equally I doubt the loans are all because of Tony Mowbray. Clubs will want to send their talented kids to Sunderland because they know they'll get time on the pitch due to our commitment to developing young players. They also probably like the fact they'll play in front of big crowds with a bit of pressure (helps prepare them for their PL career). Mowbray might be seen as a positive but I seriously doubt they send them here just because of him and now we'll suddenly get nowt.

Mowbray did a really good job overall, but from that article you'd think we'd just sacked Guardiola. It made no reference to the problems that have been evident over recent months (other than "aye they've lost a lot recently but it's a young side and that happens"). No acknowledgment of the fact we've been really poor against 3 awful sides in a row. No mention of teams seemingly finding out how to nullify us (double up on Clarke and watch us pass it around nicely, but aimlessly). No mention of our incredible inability to defend a f***ing set piece (how many have we conceded from now?). No mention of a lack of a plan B, no thought of getting the wingers to swap wings, very little overlapping from full backs, scattergun substitutions. Our bad run didn't look like a random loss of form from some kids, it looked like teams knew how to stop us and we didn't know how, or didn't want, to change it.

I'm fairly on the fence about him going. He did well, he's a canny bloke, the players did like him, but if the club think they can get better then they've every right to let him go. The article must have been written by his best friend such its bias.
 
The Guardian 😂. What a load of

Louise Taylor, spot on.

As others have said (and I write as someone not keen at all when Mowbray was appointed) Mowbray is being scapegoated.
The world and his wife know you need a mixture of youth and experience in a team

Batth and Amad are sorely missed this season

The so called strikers and CBs brought in the last window are young and inexperienced and atm not very good


Mowbray has been sacked to protect KLDs model and Speakman's poor recruitment.

Essentially that is what this article and several others are say...the bleeding obvious!
 
Can't say I agree about the article being good mind. It's very one sided and almost like the kind of thing Steve Bruce would have written about him due to his friends in the media.

Firstly, it mentions the unwarranted slap in the face of looking at the Nice manager. The bloke has them 2nd in the Ligue 1 table at the minute, which I think is enough to prove he was probably worth looking at. No one criticises if a club has a striker and looks at bringing in one that might be better, so I'm not sure why they think it's so bad when it happens to a coach.

It mentions how he's got clubs really keen to loan their players to him. Firstly it mentions Burstow without referring to the fact that we've then got nothing out of him. Equally I doubt the loans are all because of Tony Mowbray. Clubs will want to send their talented kids to Sunderland because they know they'll get time on the pitch due to our commitment to developing young players. They also probably like the fact they'll play in front of big crowds with a bit of pressure (helps prepare them for their PL career). Mowbray might be seen as a positive but I seriously doubt they send them here just because of him and now we'll suddenly get nowt.

Mowbray did a really good job overall, but from that article you'd think we'd just sacked Guardiola. It made no reference to the problems that have been evident over recent months (other than "aye they've lost a lot recently but it's a young side and that happens"). No acknowledgment of the fact we've been really poor against 3 awful sides in a row. No mention of teams seemingly finding out how to nullify us (double up on Clarke and watch us pass it around nicely, but aimlessly). No mention of our incredible inability to defend a f***ing set piece (how many have we conceded from now?). No mention of a lack of a plan B, no thought of getting the wingers to swap wings, very little overlapping from full backs, scattergun substitutions. Our bad run didn't look like a random loss of form from some kids, it looked like teams knew how to stop us and we didn't know how, or didn't want, to change it.

I'm fairly on the fence about him going. He did well, he's a canny bloke, the players did like him, but if the club think they can get better then they've every right to let him go. The article must have been written by his best friend such its bias.
Absolutely spot on. The posts better than the article
 
Sick of hearing about "No plan B", Tony didn't have the tools for a Plan B, but at least we had a Plan A which we haven't always had.

What he wanted is a bit of flexibility, get a couple more older heads in to help the kids on and off the pitch.

Anyway, he's gone now, most important thing is who's next.
 
Reads very much like an article written by a mate of Mowbray's.

I like the bloke and will remember him fondly for last season, but have found a lot of the reaction to his departure to be more than a bit bizarre.
It's been mental. People properly angry 😂
Can't say I agree about the article being good mind. It's very one sided and almost like the kind of thing Steve Bruce would have written about him due to his friends in the media.

Firstly, it mentions the unwarranted slap in the face of looking at the Nice manager. The bloke has them 2nd in the Ligue 1 table at the minute, which I think is enough to prove he was probably worth looking at. No one criticises if a club has a striker and looks at bringing in one that might be better, so I'm not sure why they think it's so bad when it happens to a coach.

It mentions how he's got clubs really keen to loan their players to him. Firstly it mentions Burstow without referring to the fact that we've then got nothing out of him. Equally I doubt the loans are all because of Tony Mowbray. Clubs will want to send their talented kids to Sunderland because they know they'll get time on the pitch due to our commitment to developing young players. They also probably like the fact they'll play in front of big crowds with a bit of pressure (helps prepare them for their PL career). Mowbray might be seen as a positive but I seriously doubt they send them here just because of him and now we'll suddenly get nowt.

Mowbray did a really good job overall, but from that article you'd think we'd just sacked Guardiola. It made no reference to the problems that have been evident over recent months (other than "aye they've lost a lot recently but it's a young side and that happens"). No acknowledgment of the fact we've been really poor against 3 awful sides in a row. No mention of teams seemingly finding out how to nullify us (double up on Clarke and watch us pass it around nicely, but aimlessly). No mention of our incredible inability to defend a f***ing set piece (how many have we conceded from now?). No mention of a lack of a plan B, no thought of getting the wingers to swap wings, very little overlapping from full backs, scattergun substitutions. Our bad run didn't look like a random loss of form from some kids, it looked like teams knew how to stop us and we didn't know how, or didn't want, to change it.

I'm fairly on the fence about him going. He did well, he's a canny bloke, the players did like him, but if the club think they can get better then they've every right to let him go. The article must have been written by his best friend such its bias.
Great post
 

Back
Top