Heard a caller on Radio Newcastle's TotalSport phone-in last night talking about our goalkeeping coach, Adrian Tucker. Not surprising most people haven't heard of him; he had a rather uneventful and far from glittering career ended prematurely by a shoulder injury. Tucker has previous experience coaching at Wales Women 07-10 and Swansea 09-14. but the question remains: what exactly qualifies this guy to be at Sunderland, aside from the prerequisite coaching badges? a (supposedly) former association with our DoF Lee Congerton? would a former goalkeeper who played at or close to the highest level not be more suited to a top-flight club? This got me thinking about the rest of our staff so I've had a quick look (I am meant to be working after all) Steven Houston: Head of Scouting - previously worked with Congerton and Frank Arnesen at Hamburg and nearly buggered them royally, embroiling them in their first ever relegation fight since the Bundesliga started, thanks to a statistics based recruitment model. Robbie Stockdale: Senior Pro Development Coach/Acting Head Coach - decent if not uninspiring professional career but has top level experience with 'boro. Not much in the way of coaching experience having only previously been at Grimsby before becoming our youth team coach. Ged McNamee: Academy Manager - not much to be found profile-wise but did find this rather damning insight on the RTG boards. Elliott Dickman: Head of Coaching - former Sunderland youth 'prospect' who, like Adrian Tucker, had his career cut short by injury. Closely associated to Ged McNamee if the above comments on RTG are to be believed. So, my point being, maybe it's not just the owners questionable decision making, the boardroom with it's lack of footballing people or underperforming first-team players who are at fault for our ongoing struggles.
Stockdale has taken our development squad to the next level. I think he's doing a great job. He's the only one i'd object to leaving. He's got those kids playing proper football and playing it well. Everyone else... Meh.
When you look at the difference between our start and the rest, it makes you wonder who is responsible for our lack of fitness, even allowing for the new lads needing games, the old faithfuls looked a bit jaded to say the least and are still struggling to last the distance.
True that. iirc in Keanes day we salvaged a lot of points in the last 5-10 minutes. Doubt it would happen now.
You're right. Bobby Charlton tried his hand managing Preston and was a disaster. Jackie Milburn managed Ipswich without much impression, and was replaced by Alf Ramsey. Jackie then went on to manage Linfield. Stanley Matthews wasn't outstanding at Port Vale either. On the other hand, coaches doesn't mean players at all! So why they, office staff, Board members and tea ladies get the flak for poor results, I haven't a clue. I've never seen one of them losing a game yet.
About Hamburg and statistics, there is a Danish club that employs the money ball method too. What are peoples thoughts? I haven't a Scooby doo.
Perhaps he can see there's a multitude of problems at the club and wants to explore what they are. It's his right to of course. For what it's worth I disagree the reason most of these staff haven't excelled is because of their lack footballing background, but I can see why he thinks the job they're doing isn't up to scratch.
Of course he has the right, funky. But has he any evidence that those problems "he can see" exist? Perhaps you can start by telling me what part of the clubs finances a billionaire is getting wrong? And then please tell me what evidence you have that the office administration is being administered incorrectly. Then tell me where the legal department is getting the law wrong. Etc. Or is this all just another witch hunt to deflect from our bone idle idols on the field?
I'm sorry I thought this was a place where people could share opinions. Hadn't relalised you've imposed a fact only law on the board. You know I don't have facts, neither have our last 4 managers but they all knew the club wasn't right, squad's involved since then, i gave you the turn over figures the other day but you conveniently ignored me. In summery people can speculate all they want whether you like it or not. Including BB-8 who hasn't posted much but should encouraged to do so, not having people telling him to shift the direction of a thread he clearly put some thought into because it doesn't confirm to their views. Right I'm off because to be honest, I'm pissed off.
As I see it we are still in transition with our style change and playing two unfit players through a lack of game time but they have been used regardless. For reasons yet unknown DA chose them over fitter players and used his subsitutions to try and carry on the system rather than adjust. Cattermole and Larson suffered particularly when brought on. The problem will always be on the pitch but using the squad to the best advantage is always the manager's call.
I know this isn`t addressed to me but can I just say this. The administration is bad because the club is running at a loss. £15m down in the last accounts. The legal department is getting it wrong because we have been fined twice for contract irregularities, warned as to our future conduct and in a contract legal battle over Alvarez. This is not a witch hunt. This is in addition to the useless knackers on the pitch. That`s the difference.
Yeah sorry, been to the theatre tonight otherwise I would have responded sooner. Thanks for fighting the good fight in my stead, Funky. it is but is that the beginning and end of it? people have been talking about ES making the wrong decisions (on his own or with bad advice), managerial appointments and sackings, no football people on the board, the Dof model, now add in questionable appointments in backroom staff in the form of giving jobs to your mates. Just thinking this is all adding up and, ultimately, not helping performances. Agreed. But the point was more about the way people are appointed to their respective positions and whether or not they really are the best people for the job. Ferguson and Wenger proved their worth. Was it mates at the club that got them that job? Did they promote our employ others who were their mates first and appropriate appointments second?
I reckon, like most of us, I thought there was a certain amount of nepotism, particularly on the youth side of things but nothing like this level. ffs It`s almost an epidemic. I doubt if Short has the faintest idea of the scale of it. The question is, who let this happen?
I'm sorry too - I thought I was one of the people who could also share my opinion. I hadn't realized you've imposed a law whereby only those who agree with you are allowed to do that. I've already said BB-8 has the right to speculate all he wants - apparently more right than you'd give me to disagree. You're off now? - you're not "conveniently ignoring me", are you? (Well, if you can assume I did, why shouldn't I assume you're doing it? What special privileges do you think you have here exactly, funky?) As it happens, I haven't a clue which thread you're talking about, but that happens sometimes - people need to go out, the doorbell rings, they decide to close down and tidy the place up, etc. That's life, live with it.
Relic, with every respect mate I think we`ve gone a bit off topic. The OT was about nepotism, jobs for family & friends etc. The sort of thing the council was renowned for. The "not what you know, who you know" kind of thing. While it may not impinge directly on the performance and results of the first team the "clique effect" must filter through at least to some extent even if it`s only a "what`s the point" kind of attitude. I think the OP is absolutely right to point this out and, speaking personally, I think it`s wrong that it should have been allowed to progress this far. I don`t for one moment believe that Short has the faintest idea of the situation but someone has allowed it to happen and that, imo is an oversight which needs to be corrected. It`s not just about the first team. If it goes right down through the ranks then it needs to be sorted. It can`t help but be detrimental. For what it`s worth, that`s my take on it.
Nobody can claim your problems are specifically on the pitch, that's a massive load of ****. Any club which consistently posts yearly losses, scraps with relegation every single season and flips managers like McDonald's quarter pounders has all the tell-tale signs that it's riddled with problems from top to bottom. Your owner is rapidly gaining a really bad reputation, he's proving himself to be a trigger happy ****wit (when it comes to football) who wins the fans over by fist pumping the air on 90 mins, on the dot, game 37, every season, then claims to be one of the lads because he wears a Sunderland badge pin. He begged Advocaat to come back for one more season and chucked him scraps like he was some sort of miracle worker who could work with nothing in the most competitive league on the planet. Him vetoing the two signings in the summer could end up costing him £100m if Sam doesn't take this job, even if he does it's still a mammoth task. Big Sam won't stand for that ****, he'll have your owner tied up in more knots than you'd find at a BDSM gang bang.
Fair enough point, pops. I still don't believe it's at all relevant mind - the Development squad are doing well, the Ladies are doing well, etc. If that's the effect of nepotism, let's have some in the first team ranks. I still think the first team is the only part of this club that isn't working adequately/well, and I surely to god have the right to express my view like everyone else. Anyway, new day, sod it.
of course you have the right. be it opposing views that descend into heated argument or threads that get derailed by talk of the most appropriate sauce for fried pig samiches, everyone has the right to an opinion. I think what got Funky going last night, certainly the way i read your first post, was that my thread had no merit and didn't deserve discussion. You poopoo'd my ponderings right out the gate with your only argument being they don't kick the ball therefore its got nothing to do with them. I wasn't fussed or offended, mind. i didn't expect everyone to agree. in fact it would have been a **** thread if everyone had. I've learned over the years on here to read and think and read a bit more. too often stuff gets posted and a thread descends into a farce of insults and misinterpretations. I just wanted to see if anyone else had heard it and if people had looked into it like i had, albeit briefly. to be honest i didn't go into it looking to find fault. it would make sense to have people around you who you work well with (that's how i got my current job) but things aren't working well for us - at least on the pitch - and thought this could be a contributing factor. some people agree, others disagree, but i'm always open to having my stance swayed through education. we don't get anywhere being closed books and refusing to listen to others opinions.
