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


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.
Best post on him since he left.


Spot on . The way some are
Going on is ridiculous ,
Like we have sacked the best manager we will ever have . Some of his in game decision making was non existent .
 
The bit about loans as well, I'd say two of the bigger loan signings we've had in recent times were Amad and Simms. Simms came in when Alex Neil was here, and iirc Amad did come in under Mowbray but he arrived the day after Mowbray was appointed. Given loan deals likely take more than a day to agree it's pretty fair to suggest they'd have let him come regardless of the manager. The suggestion that we might now struggle to get people in doesn't stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny
 
She’s a Sunderland supporter isn’t she?
For the last few years she’s almost exclusively written about the Mags and is a fixture at SJP. To be fair to her she has said she felt uncomfortable about the takeover back then but seems to be able to live with it.

I’d imagine if we came back up she’d cover us again. Not sure if she supports anyone.

Imo, anyone on here could have written that article. In fact all her talking points have already been brought up on here, all the Mowbray-positive ones. She’s just summarised a load of feelings - no actual News reporting
 
For the last few years she’s almost exclusively written about the Mags and is a fixture at SJP. To be fair to her she has said she felt uncomfortable about the takeover back then but seems to be able to live with it.

I’d imagine if we came back up she’d cover us again. Not sure if she supports anyone.

Imo, anyone on here could have written that article. In fact all her talking points have already been brought up on here, all the Mowbray-positive ones. She’s just summarised a load of feelings - no actual News reporting
This for me.
It’s a pro Mowbray blog post where one wasn’t needed.
 
The bit about loans as well, I'd say two of the bigger loan signings we've had in recent times were Amad and Simms. Simms came in when Alex Neil was here, and iirc Amad did come in under Mowbray but he arrived the day after Mowbray was appointed. Given loan deals likely take more than a day to agree it's pretty fair to suggest they'd have let him come regardless of the manager. The suggestion that we might now struggle to get people in doesn't stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny
Amad had been linked for weeks at the point he eventually arrived.

Maybe Mowbray might have a good reputation for coaching young players, but that's gonna be a priority for every coach we hire anyway.

You're spot on about the article, it feels like Mowbray having his say without putting his name to it.
 
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
I'm not reading it, but I like this post.

This idea Mowbray was the reason behind our loans is hilarious. Obviously he's had a good role in Diallo's development, but we are always gonna be after good loan signings whilst at this level, the deals come from our willingness to give younger players a chance.

From now on, our loans need to be elite. Gelhardt and Burstow both came with promise and Diallo delivered on that promise.
 
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.
Absolutely this!
 
For the last few years she’s almost exclusively written about the Mags and is a fixture at SJP. To be fair to her she has said she felt uncomfortable about the takeover back then but seems to be able to live with it.

I’d imagine if we came back up she’d cover us again. Not sure if she supports anyone.

Imo, anyone on here could have written that article. In fact all her talking points have already been brought up on here, all the Mowbray-positive ones. She’s just summarised a load of feelings - no actual News reporting
I’ve looked her up since and her father was a Sunderland supporter and they used to travel up from down south to games she mentions specifically the Bolton Wanderers game when we got promotion in front of 52,000 at Roker Park.
 
It is a great article for sure, but one that has a few holes in it say in a catch 22 type way. For example it states that Chelsea for example gave us the nod with Burstow knowing that Mowbray was key to it etc, yet in Mowbray last interview he clearly stated that lads weren’t ready and inexperienced etc. My point is this, If we have a model of playing the includes a style of play and the emphasis on young players on loan or bought with a high resale value then surely everyone within the club is on board with this. Don’t get me wrong I’m gutted Mowbray has gone as he was one of those rare decent honest folk you don’t seem to get these days, however he must have also been included with this model, therefore I’m u sure what his last statement was aimed at.
It was just a generalised article devoid of factual evidence as to why he was sacked and despite making him sound like an elite development manager there was no mention of a managerial career record that can hardly even be described as average and one that has lasted for some time. Additionally Mowbray was spotted at the SOL prior to Neill defecting to Stoke for money and not for any real argument over the much hyped 'model'. Both TM and Neil knew the ground rules when they accepted the job.

Last season we won 7 out of 23 home games and got to the play offs by the faults of other sides as much as our own efforts, which were commendable for a newly promoted side without a recognised forward for long periods. This season we have already lost 8 league games against mainly average opposition and Southampton are the only team of note we have beaten. Of late the standard of football has deteriorated and one point from nine against three struggling sides in Plymouth, Huddersfield and Millwall is a pathetic return. Worryingly too Mowbray's recent media outpourings had become increasingly negative and morose, he criticised individuals and was clearly popping at recruitment in the public arena which helped no one. Add in bizarre team selections [the back four v Huddersfield with an unproven centre back at right back, a right back at left back and a utility player who is not a specialist in that position alongside Ballard, the only specialist in the position in which he played], scattergun substitutions and playing the hokey cokey with Burstow, Hemir, Meyenda and Rusyn and you can surely start and see why he went?

Journalists like Louise Taylor should take off the rose tinted glasses and add some perspective to her work.
 
Amad will be in touch with the players here also.
If the new coach is popular they’ll tell him.
He’ll be hoping to have a long and fruitful career, he’s not going to pack in football unless Mowbray’s managing him!
 
It was just a generalised article devoid of factual evidence as to why he was sacked and despite making him sound like an elite development manager there was no mention of a managerial career record that can hardly even be described as average and one that has lasted for some time. Additionally Mowbray was spotted at the SOL prior to Neill defecting to Stoke for money and not for any real argument over the much hyped 'model'. Both TM and Neil knew the ground rules when they accepted the job.

Last season we won 7 out of 23 home games and got to the play offs by the faults of other sides as much as our own efforts, which were commendable for a newly promoted side without a recognised forward for long periods. This season we have already lost 8 league games against mainly average opposition and Southampton are the only team of note we have beaten. Of late the standard of football has deteriorated and one point from nine against three struggling sides in Plymouth, Huddersfield and Millwall is a pathetic return. Worryingly too Mowbray's recent media outpourings had become increasingly negative and morose, he criticised individuals and was clearly popping at recruitment in the public arena which helped no one. Add in bizarre team selections [the back four v Huddersfield with an unproven centre back at right back, a right back at left back and a utility player who is not a specialist in that position alongside Ballard, the only specialist in the position in which he played], scattergun substitutions and playing the hokey cokey with Burstow, Hemir, Meyenda and Rusyn and you can surely start and see why he went?

Journalists like Louise Taylor should take off the rose tinted glasses and add some perspective to her work.
Superb post that mind .

👏

Spot on.
 
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
I was surprised I had to get to the end of the first page until someone started talking some sense. People seem obsessed with trying to make Mowbray the reason for all our success where in reality he has played a much, much smaller part than KLD or Speakman.
 
It is a great article for sure, but one that has a few holes in it say in a catch 22 type way. For example it states that Chelsea for example gave us the nod with Burstow knowing that Mowbray was key to it etc, yet in Mowbray last interview he clearly stated that lads weren’t ready and inexperienced etc. My point is this, If we have a model of playing the includes a style of play and the emphasis on young players on loan or bought with a high resale value then surely everyone within the club is on board with this. Don’t get me wrong I’m gutted Mowbray has gone as he was one of those rare decent honest folk you don’t seem to get these days, however he must have also been included with this model, therefore I’m u sure what his last statement was aimed at.
Mowbray obviously has a good rep for working with young players. So Chelsea would be pleased he’s looking after one of their young uns. If he thought he wasn’t ready/good enough, is a different argument altogether.
 
Good Article and correct in the assumption that teams above us with talented yet raw youngsters will now consider Sunderland AFC a riskier place to develop them, most especially if we now install an unproven young foreign Manager which seems likely given the 'moneyball' philosophy of our current owners.

(Unfortunately as the saying goes with our current young Strikers, Uncle Tony found it difficult to polish a Turd)

Ha'way the Lads and Up the Pools!! :cool:
How on earth do you know that assumption is correct?
 
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
Aye, don't see how it's 'superb' mind
 

Back
Top