Jump to content

The Ultimate Super Ayr Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ayrunitedfw said:

He wasnt. It’s genuinely a baffling signing and clear evidence that Hopkin shouldn’t of been trusted to build a squad. 

To be fair you can say that about roughly 70% of the SPFL managers currently employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

A back 5 doesn’t have to mean no wingers or attacking mids. Could easily be a 5-2-3 or 5-2-1-2.

That's what Hoppy tended to do when playing with a back five for us. Away from home he'd sometimes go with the 5-3-2, but, for example, when we played Ayr last season under Hoppy (the 3-2 game) we started with a back five, with McPake and Nesbitt off Orsi in attack (it was a disaster, to be fair). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walsh was a strange one as from past experience of watching him against us he undoubtedly had talent and a bit of class. however I'm struggling to remember any decent contribution he made at all for us last season. In the games he actually managed, he maybe touched the ball only about 3 or 4 times and either passed it back to the person he received it from or just kicked in a pretty mediocre to aimless cross, he wasn't a goal threat in any way and i cannot recall him running past anyone and having a strike at goal (actually he did once at starks park I think).

In a nutshell he was completely ineffective although he wasn't alone in this and again perhaps this wasn't all his fault but more our tactics / formation ??

I wasn't a big McDaid fan, however McDaid could at least win a match by drifting past a couple of defenders and striking the ball home, I'm not so sure that Walsh was capable of that from what I saw of him.

What I would say, is that last season hit home how big a loss Alan Forrest was to the team as not only was he a hard worker with a great mentality, he was also extremely talented and could win you a game single handed at our level and even McCowan didn't look capable of doing that last season.

God knows who we'll end up with, but I just hope we have more goalmouth action than that debacle of a season just past.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Is the defence really going to be that shite again that we need a back 5? 😬

If you want a sexier name for it you can call it a back 3. Effectively the same thing, it just depends how the team approaches the game. 

If you sit deep and get penned back it can be awful, if you get on the ball and get the wing backs forward it can be good to watch. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

A back 5 doesn’t have to mean no wingers or attacking mids. Could easily be a 5-2-3 or 5-2-1-2.

Sorry if you play with wingbacks you don't play wingers too. The wingbacks would be trying to occupy the same blade of grass as the wingers. 

Attacking mids maybe behind a big guy up top. However, that asks a lot of the two who are sitting in the midfield. We'd need to strengthen in there for that to be an option imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trogdor said:

Sorry if you play with wingbacks you don't play wingers too. The wingbacks would be trying to occupy the same blade of grass as the wingers. 

Attacking mids maybe behind a big guy up top. However, that asks a lot of the two who are sitting in the midfield. We'd need to strengthen in there for that to be an option imo.

Plenty of teams play a 3-4-3 or some sort of variant. It just means that the “wingers” will cut in more instead of hugging the touch line.

Or if you want to go really continental you have underlapping wingbacks. I don’t think Hoppyball stretches that far right enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

Plenty of teams play a 3-4-3 or some sort of variant. It just means that the “wingers” will cut in more instead of hugging the touch line.

Or if you want to go really continental you have underlapping wingbacks. I don’t think Hoppyball stretches that far right enough.

I know what you mean now. I wouldn't call them wingers though. I have a traditional view of wingers that they should hug the touchline. 

Underlapping wingbacks. Even the thought of that hurts my head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Going by the 2 games I've seen him in this season, McGinty is fucking waaaaaash. He may have been decent in the other 30 odd games Morton played of course.

Of the six goals we conceded against you, I'd say four were directly his fault.

He wasn't decent against anyone, but you could argue his worst performances of the season were against ICT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Sorry if you play with wingbacks you don't play wingers too. The wingbacks would be trying to occupy the same blade of grass as the wingers. 

Attacking mids maybe behind a big guy up top. However, that asks a lot of the two who are sitting in the midfield. We'd need to strengthen in there for that to be an option imo.

Hoppy already did the 'hold my 'beer' on that one for us plenty of times - call it a 5-4-1 or 5-2-3, it was wingers with a back 5. There was nothing much conventional in the way he set up our teams. There were some downright odd approaches in the first season - we sometimes played with a diamond in midfield, but instead of a front two we'd have a winger, so it was like 4-5-1 with no-one on one side of the midfield. 

There's no saying 'you don't' when it comes to Hoppy and formations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Right then lads... Luke McCowan. I'm well aware he's a talented player, but what's his playstyle like and how is he best utilised?

His biggest problem is that he's all left footed, however he's extremely skillful, isn't short of pace and can dribble past two or three players at ease when at his best. His workrate and movement can also be excellent and he's still developing.

In the right setup he could be anything.

On a negative note he takes things very seriously and can lose the plot / drop the head at times but I'd say he's definitely worth taking a punt on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WATTOO said:

His biggest problem is that he's all left footed, however he's extremely skillful, isn't short of pace and can dribble past two or three players at ease when at his best. His workrate and movement can also be excellent and he's still developing.

In the right setup he could be anything.

On a negative note he takes things very seriously and can lose the plot / drop the head at times but I'd say he's definitely worth taking a punt on.

This..... Additionally at Ayr we always played him on the right ,I always felt that he'd make a cracking no 10 . Given little time he'll act instinctively and can put them away . On the wing he tended to get too much time and with no right peg he was always checking inside . High tempo team will suit him .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...