Steven Fletcher

[shaygriff]

Don't know if it's been posted but looks like Fletcher isn't too popular in Sunderland at the moment either:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/432145/Steven-Fletcher-fans-backlash-posing-with-expensive-Lamborghini-Aventador

 

[Tony Towner]

Doesn't seem to have done a lot wrong . Footballers earn shit loads of money, loads of money buys you nice things. The people that moan are the same ones who pay their Sky subscriptions and cannot see the irony

 

[Alan]

Sunderland striker in underperforming shocker.

 

[Hamlet]

as far as Im concerned what footballers spend their money on (unless its something that will affect their performance *cough*rogerjohnson*cough*) and their footballing on the field are two completely separate things. Whether you feel he has earnt it or not Fletcher has money to spend so why not?

 

[big mean bunny]

Making it as a pro: training 3 nights a week from the age of sometimes 8 years old, up to 16, during that timem they will play on Sunday's throughout the county and nationally as they get older. If you are taken on then full time youth development training, sign pro at 17/19 depending on ability and begin professional training schedule.

Average pro career is about 5 years on average, which means most of those that sign a pro contract are no longer on a pro contract within 5 years. You have a potential 92 employers in this country, you have a constant resupply of talent trying to take your job.

Not saying they represent value, but the idea that that "they just kick a ball about for a living", is criminally narrow minded.

The people commenting on that will be the same "Soldiers and Nurses should get 90k a week, not these bloody footballer lot" brigade.

 

[Sid]

a photo with a penis substitute
how apt

 

[t3ch]

"either"?

do we hate fletch?

 

[NoodleWolf]

I think there are plenty of people he pissed off with his #headsgone shenanigans, but hard to say really. I'd guess that the majority are pretty indifferent.

 

[t3ch]

ages ago, couldn't care less about it

he's getting paid, good for him.

 

[prerecordedlive]

Nope, I still like Fletch. He wasn't wrong to want off of a sinking ship. I don't think he would've made the difference for us in the Championship either because most of our lot proved they didn't give two shits about being here and they would've found a way to drag him down with them.
I just don't agree with the momentary lack of professionalism he showed. We've seen much worse, but he ironically picked another sinking ship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alan]

Honestly, I think we would have stayed up rather comfortably that year if Fletcher had stayed. We didn't create great chances through the middle but we never lacked for crosses. SEB/Doyle/Sigurdarson simply aren't aerial threats. Fletcher's forehead, on the other hand...

Anyway it's moot now. Why are we still talking about him?

 

[Freddeno]

Because he is a good player? Clearly as you say his biggest asset is his aerial threat but he is also good as a target, building up play and can also finish with his feet...he should work more on the last point though

 

[Law's Bus]

Honestly, I think we would have stayed up rather comfortably that year if Fletcher had stayed.

We'd have stayed up rather comfortably if Steve Morgan hadn't have listed to his golfing buddies and appointed someone with the brains of a blancmange as manager.

We were MILES clear when he was appointed.

 

[Alan]

Fairly certain we were only 7 points clear, weren't we? IIRC we were 7 off both playoffs and relegation.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Fairly certain we were only 7 points clear, weren't we? IIRC we were 7 off both playoffs and relegation.

I.e mid table. And that was after a bad run of form which got Stale the sack, certainly not representative of our season.

Without looking, I doubt there has been many, if any, teams getting comfortably relegated from 12th at the new year unless they were in financial meltdown.

 

[Alan]

Well, we weren't "comfortably" relegated. IIRC we weren't officially down until the final day. And anyway I don't think we'd have done much better had Ståle not gone.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Well, we weren't "comfortably" relegated. IIRC we weren't officially down until the final day. And anyway I don't think we'd have done much better had Ståle not gone.

We were though, a win on the final day couldn't even keep us up. That's pretty comfortably relegated IMO. From midtable to 5 points from safety in 4 months is impressively bad.

We will never know what will have happened with Stale, but It was almost an impossible task to get us relegated so can only assume he would have done better.

 

[DejaVuWolf]

I think Solbakken was taking us down.

 

[Lord Knows]

I think Solbakken was taking us down.

Subsequent events very much show that group of players could play the Mick way, high energy and confident or fail hopelessly when replaced with low confidence which resulted in low energy.
Yet the club required a clear out post Mick but waited over a year before implementing that strategy.

 

[YoungWolf]

Yet the club required a clear out post Mick but waited over a year before implementing that strategy.

Agree with this.

We were all pleased at the time that Doyle wanted to stay, that Henry had signed a new contract, Johnson was kept when we could have easily decided to part ways IMO... but we should have made big changes that summer it seems clear now.

Stale needed time for what he was doing, but what he was doing could have got us relegated. That said, if we had kept him Morgan would have had to back him in that January window with much needed signings. Which we didn't get either way.