Jump to content

Sons v Ton


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Mr.Blue said:

We didn't win a game in the last quarter of the season, lost daft goals and we were generally defensively weaker without Gunning. This still needs addressed imo. 

I think the winless run was because the goals dried up, not because of the defense. We only scored 5 goals in our last 9 games. We really struggled to create chances once Forbes went off the boil. 

As for the Gunning point, he left on 31st Dec. The 9 games after that, we won 6 of them and only lost once, conceding less than a goal a game so even after he left, we still looked very strong until the last quarter.

I generally don't think our defense will be a problem once we have Lamie, O'ware and Kilday back although if the shape of the team continues to be 433, it will potentially put them under more pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I disagree.

To me Gunning's presence/game intelligence/experience raised the game of our back four & after he'd been gone for a few weeks you started to see them backsliding.

They are decent whole hearted players but I feel that someone with a bit of nous has to step up to really become the leader / organizer of the defence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ton in Shawlands said:

I disagree.

To me Gunning's presence/game intelligence/experience raised the game of our back four & after he'd been gone for a few weeks you started to see them backsliding.

They are decent whole hearted players but I feel that someone with a bit of nous has to step up to really become the leader / organizer of the defence. 

It was a full 12 weeks from Gunning leaving to the last quarter in which time we were just as strong and dominant as when he was here. We conceded 9 goals in Gunning's 10 league games. We then conceded 8 goals in the next 9 league games before the last quarter. Pretty much the same defensive record with or without him!

So you think they players coped fine for 12 weeks, then started to miss Gunning and suddenly went downhill?

Not for me!

BTW- i feckin loved the big guy and would have been delighted if he signed up again, its not about that. It was the point that OP made about defensive issues not addressed from last season when i don't think that was our issue last season. 3rd best defense and 8th best attack tells its own story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Necessity.
Thats the only reason that explains any price charged by any team.
We don't have the luxury of charging what fans want. We charge what the business needs.


It is not necessary for a club with probably the second smallest budget in the division - by a considerable margin - to charge the highest tier of prices in the division. If Queen of the South can charge £16 and sustain a full-time squad at this level then you could run a squad on the same terms.

The correct reason that you were looking for to explain the pricing structure is 'greed', nothing more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ton in Shawlands said:

I disagree.

To me Gunning's presence/game intelligence/experience raised the game of our back four & after he'd been gone for a few weeks you started to see them backsliding.

They are decent whole hearted players but I feel that someone with a bit of nous has to step up to really become the leader / organizer of the defence. 

Agreed. The cracks in the defence began to appear when he left. We looked shaky and were lucky not lose more goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



It is not necessary for a club with probably the second smallest budget in the division - by a considerable margin - to charge the highest tier of prices in the division. If Queen of the South can charge £16 and sustain a full-time squad at this level then you could run a squad on the same terms.

The correct reason that you were looking for to explain the pricing structure is 'greed', nothing more.


Unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with this.

Our chairman has yet to justify the price spikes and it's difficult to see a reason for them.

Yes the game is changing. Yes we're competing with full-time teams on full-time budgets yet again. Yes we'll have the second smallest budget in the league. But is chasing what is essentially a quick buck and alienating loyal fans in the process worth it just to stay in this division? For me absolutely not, but unfortunately it seems to be the path we're headed for.

Anyway, back on topic, we'll win this 5-0.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



It is not necessary for a club with probably the second smallest budget in the division - by a considerable margin - to charge the highest tier of prices in the division. If Queen of the South can charge £16 and sustain a full-time squad at this level then you could run a squad on the same terms.

The correct reason that you were looking for to explain the pricing structure is 'greed', nothing more.

I'm not happy with the pricing structure, but am not sure greed is the reason, as presumably the money raised goes to the team /club rather than the chairman

I would assume it is more likely that with a smaller fanbase, we are simply trying to level the playing field a bit and compete with the likes of QotS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think its time we stopped mentioning gunning. He clearly does not want to play for us again but we have fans still creaming thenselves about him. He is only interested in who pays the most and that is not us. Time to move on and support the players we have that do want to play for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunning's signed for Port Vale anyway, so I doubt there were fans seriously suggesting he would be returning. If you'd like to not sign a centre-half for the weekend then that'd be great. We'll help out by not signing another striker and we'll settle for a 0-0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, madton said:

How will the Sons line up on Sat?

 

4-4-2, most likely. On the very limited stuff I've seen so far, of the players we have available for Saturday I'd say this is the best 11 we have currently:

Gallacher

Smith -- Barr -- Dowie -- McLaughlin

Walsh -- Hutton -- Handling -- Roy

Stewart -- Nade

David Wilson could easily start ahead of Stewart and moved into midfield with Handling moving forward in a more 4-2-3-1 formation. Stevie Aitken has also said he hopes to get a couple of bodies in this week, so we'll need to wait and see whether they're of standard to go straight into the first 11. I think our midfield might leave our defence a bit exposed, but we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Gallacher
Smith Dowie Hill McLaughlin
Mango Wilson
Johnston Handling Walsh
Nade

Subs: Ewings (GK), C. Gallagher, Stewart, Roy, Prior


Although personally I'd prefer Roy or Stewart to start over Johnston for this one. I feel Stevie is trying to trying to build his confidence by playing him as much as possible, which could be for the best long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigmacDFC said:

. Gallacher
Smith Dowie Hill McLaughlin
Mango Wilson
Johnston Handling Walsh
Nade

Subs: Ewings (GK), C. Gallagher, Stewart, Roy, Prior


Although personally I'd prefer Roy or Stewart to start over Johnston for this one. I feel Stevie is trying to trying to build his confidence by playing him as much as possible, which could be for the best long-term.

Don't particularly disagree with any of that and the starting line up probably gives us a bit more stability in defence. I can see Hutton playing in place of Wilson for much the same reason as Johnston is expected to play though.

Roy needs to start for me, outside of Walsh he's easily been our most positive player and looks to be full of confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't particularly disagree with any of that and the starting line up probably gives us a bit more stability in defence. I can see Hutton playing in place of Wilson for much the same reason as Johnston is expected to play though.
Roy needs to start for me, outside of Walsh he's easily been our most positive player and looks to be full of confidence.


Is Hutton not suspended for our first two games?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

Don't particularly disagree with any of that and the starting line up probably gives us a bit more stability in defence. I can see Hutton playing in place of Wilson for much the same reason as Johnston is expected to play though.

Roy needs to start for me, outside of Walsh he's easily been our most positive player and looks to be full of confidence.

Hutton's suspended for this and the Falkirk game. Roy is great to watch going forward, but he's seriously weak defensively. That's why he didn't start on Saturday I suspect, despite being very lively against Annan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bigmacDFC said:

 


Is Hutton not suspended for our first two games?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Sonsteam of 08 said:

Hutton's suspended for this and the Falkirk game. Roy is great to watch going forward, but he's seriously weak defensively. That's why he didn't start on Saturday I suspect, despite being very lively against Annan.

Fair enough, didn't realise. Crazy Davie Wilson it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not confident in the slightest starting Wilson, nevermind pairing him with another attack minded CM. For all the St Mirren fans like telling us how pish Hutton is, he can tackle and do the simple things well enough, that's what he's there for. Wilson looks nowhere near Championship standard to me.

Barr into midfield, Hill at the back or else we could be looking at opening our season with an absolute shagging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I'm not confident in the slightest starting Wilson, nevermind pairing him with another attack minded CM. For all the St Mirren fans like telling us how pish Hutton is, he can tackle and do the simple things well enough, that's what he's there for. Wilson looks nowhere near Championship standard to me.

Barr into midfield, Hill at the back or else we could be looking at opening our season with an absolute shagging.

Wilson is just utterly bizarre. This sums him up perfectly

Dreadful first touch which should've been pounced on. Then some really nifty footwork and a decent through ball. I agree though that there's no way we can partner him with someone like Handling. I reckon he'd probably be better as a No.10 actually, but that position will be Handling's unless he seriously drops off form wise, or picks up an injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...