Relive this year's glittering awards ceremony
Watch all Sky Sports' Heineken Cup matches online
Sky Sports gets the key details and the opinion of expert pundits in reaction to England's World Cup draw.
Download the Sky Sports Ashes podcast to get closer to the Adelaide action!
Download our podcast as Neil Reynolds and Jeff Reinebold talk about the big NFL issues.
We take an in-depth look at all the groups for next summer's World Cup in Brazil and pick the star men.
Relive ten memorable incidents from the season just gone and vote for your favourite in our poll.
Jamie Redknapp says Steve Bruce was given enough time to succeed as Sunderland boss.Back to story
Totally right Jamie,our home form for the past 12 months not just this season is woeful.SB didn't know how to change it.As for goalscorers leaving the club did you not know that we've scored the same amount of goals this season as we did at this time last season with the forwards mentioned earlier.SB had brought in all of his own players & one thing is for sure, SB was too loyal & far to close to these players.He really needed to have a bit of a nasty streak.Unfortunatly for him he is too nice,it was a bit out of order the abuse he was getting but thats the name of the game.SB was a really good genuine man so its a shame it didn't work out for himm, but it never happened for him at SAFC so the owner was right to let him go.Now lets hope MON can turn things around,he is just about everyone's first choice up here.
Posted 13:14 3rd December 2011
Steve has had time and money to buid his own team, no matter how many people outside of Sunderland see it differently, they we're not the one's going to the games and seeing poor defencive formations, 'at home' and substitutions to change the game with only a few minutes to go!! One man up front, usually a midfielder sometimes an actual forward.. Then bringing another forward on and putting him on the left wing!!! Steve Bruce is a good man and a decent bloke, I wish him all the best for the future, but we needed a change, it's as simple as that. I agree that stability is the key to a decent side, but so is balance, we had neither, we couldn't attack a free lunch under Bruce.
Posted 08:49 3rd December 2011
I too agree with jamie i had a great deal of respect for steve bruce .I just feel he signed too many players and didnt have a clue who his best team was, every week the team would change sunderland fans were left confused as to who would play where. The tactical side of his game was simply none existent when going behind in games very often he was found wanting to sign conner wickam for the future when you havent got a proven striker at the club is in my opinion madness. steve had the time, money, and full support of everyone at the club its just a shame he didnt have the nous to deliver what sunderland fans deserve.I. have heard prem managers saying he needed more time all i can say is they havent seen first hand the totally desperate football for the last three months. As a hardened sunderland fan used to seeing poor teams struggle it would be stupid to ignore bruces short commings he had to be replaced and at least with the january transfer market looming the new manager will have a chance to sort a striker and get the best out of the players
Posted 21:55 2nd December 2011
I disagree with that ! Building a team from scatch takes more than half a season, I even took the great Martin O'Neill 2 year to put Villa back on the map and I beg Sunderland fans to be patience him him because he will turn them into a top 6 team on a regular basis!
Posted 21:19 2nd December 2011
I'm over the whole 'he was a Geordie and that was held against him' crap that other pundits are throwing around. that is complete and utter cods-wallop. Bruce had the supporter's backing, wouldn't wanting him to fail result in Sunderland relegated ?. Infact i think alot of supporters even respected that Bruce being from the North East understood the club and fan base better than most. I'm also over the time factor. 2.5 years isn't enough ? you can't use this current season alone. Bruce's previous transfer dealings led to having to sign 11 players during the summer. If he didn't want to have to deal with that kind of problem then he shouldn't have relied on loan players all last season. I have no bad feelings against him, and it was time for a change to give a new manager time to see what the current squad offers and a chance to make a couple informed changes in January.
Posted 21:16 2nd December 2011
I fear for Sunderland fans now because SB should of had more time. He's suffered serious setbacks with his Strikers departing unexpectedly and he's bought alot of new players who still haven't gelled or performed yet. SB would of turned it around and got Sunderland up there. You sack so many managers then moan at being relegated. Keep hold of one for a while and give the club some stability
Posted 10:53 2nd December 2011
I agree with Jamie, for SB had been at Sunderland for two-and-a-half years, and in that time, was given a fairly substantial transfer budget, with which to shape his own side. That being the case, I thinks its fair to say that the fans had a right to expect a better return for investment so to speak, but unfortunately, things just haven't worked out that way. Indeed, looking at SB's overall record in his time at the SOL, I think its fair to say that he's maybe been out of his depth a little, and this year's home record to date of just three League wins, plus an embarrassing FA Cup exit at the hands of Notts County, is just not really acceptable for a club of Sunderland's stature. A pity, but after all, football is a results-based business, and hopefully a new man at the helm will help Sunderland get back on track.
Posted 21:01 1st December 2011