The European football level St. Mirren FC 2024/25 thread

[smellthepaw]

12 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Agreed. We'd need a couple more years of sustained increased crowds to even consider it.

We'd also not be filling in thst end of the park either, surely. It would be the two sides of the family stand?

I think the demand from away fans of at least the 'usual' top 5 clubs + Dundee would sell out with an additional few hundred seats installed. The issues I see though that side of the stadium is the fact that if you join on to W7 as mentioned above, there would have to be a segregation in place which would then lose some seats for a stewards line. If it was only one side where the scoreboard currently is, would it really be worth it also for the sake of an extra few hundred seats? It would take quite some time to make the money back spent on it being built. 

[djchapsticks]

25 minutes ago, smellthepaw said:

I think the demand from away fans of at least the 'usual' top 5 clubs + Dundee would sell out with an additional few hundred seats installed. The issues I see though that side of the stadium is the fact that if you join on to W7 as mentioned above, there would have to be a segregation in place which would then lose some seats for a stewards line. If it was only one side where the scoreboard currently is, would it really be worth it also for the sake of an extra few hundred seats? It would take quite some time to make the money back spent on it being built. 

Dundee couldn't shift more than about 60% of the allocation for their first away game back in the league two weeks ago. Not sure why they are being quoted as a side who could fill our away end, Motherwell and Killie would shift twice as many away tickets as Dundee would.

[LiviLion]

2 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Aesthetically though and in terms of match quality on these surfaces, I feel it's not as good as games that are played on grass. The ball seems to have bit too much zip, especially when the surface is wet and that invariably leads to a lot of games being played in the air to combat this. Just in my opinion of course.

Agree 100% about aesthetics, but that's as far as it goes. While you say the ball has 'too much zip', some folk moan that plastic pitches are 'too sticky', the truth is that it's all down to how it's watered/maintained etc - exact same as for grass pitches.

[tam the bud]

3 hours ago, KTID26 said:

We will return to a grass pitch sooner than you seem to expect. 

I the meantime you should send an invoice to Billy Bowie for rent as our pitch is currency living in your head rent free. 

Your pitch is certainly not living in my head. Personal choice is that I don't enjoy watching football on them. Not been to Killie or Livy since the plastic went down. I don't even watch my local junior team for the same reason. 

[Eddie Hitler]

Anyone hearing anything at all about any further incomings before the window SLAMS SHUT?

I still feel we are light at the back for the following reasons:

1. We only have one proper RWB. Aware that Bolton is mooted to be able to fill in there and we have used Flynn there (but does anyone want a repeat of the Ginnelly incident that chucked away points v Hearts?). But this isn't proper cover in my honest opinion, as this isn't their primary position.

2. While we now have adequate cover for the left side of central defence, I wouldn't say the same about the central position of the three, or the right hand side of the three because i) I still don't really want Gogic consigned to be a CB all season, it isn't his main role, ii) the only adequate cover for him and Fraser, in any case, seems to be Bolton. But what if either one of those two is hurt or suspended and Strain is at the same time? Bolton can't do both at once. People may say "well, Taylor or Dunne could do it" but that's square pegs in round holes stuff.

We don't need many injuries or suspensions in the wrong places to go from looking decent to the possibility that the defence becomes a bit of a disaster area imho. A bit of foresight will tell any fan we aren't going to get through the season unscathed as far as injuries and suspensions go.

I recognise that it's unlikely we solve all this but I would like to see at least one more CB come in tbh. As a fan, I don't always have to think of this in business terms, and I perceive that having proper players for cover for these positions rather than patchwork stuff where you are putting guys there that can't really do it is what might be the difference between an ok season and a brilliant one.

And I hope Robinson is currently putting a similar case to the board. 

[smellthepaw]

49 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Dundee couldn't shift more than about 60% of the allocation for their first away game back in the league two weeks ago. Not sure why they are being quoted as a side who could fill our away end, Motherwell and Killie would shift twice as many away tickets as Dundee would.

I could be wrong though I had memories of them having a decent travelling support hence referencing them

[smellthepaw]

7 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Anyone hearing anything at all about any further incomings before the window SLAMS SHUT?

I still feel we are light at the back for the following reasons:

1. We only have one proper RWB. Aware that Bolton is mooted to be able to fill in there and we have used Flynn there (but does anyone want a repeat of the Ginnelly incident that chucked away points v Hearts?). But this isn't proper cover in my honest opinion, as this isn't their primary position.

2. While we now have adequate cover for the left side of central defence, I wouldn't say the same about the central position of the three, or the right hand side of the three because i) I still don't really want Gogic consigned to be a CB all season, it isn't his main role, ii) the only adequate cover for him and Fraser, in any case, seems to be Bolton. But what if either one of those two is hurt or suspended and Strain is at the same time? Bolton can't do both at once. People may say "well, Taylor or Dunne could do it" but that's square pegs in round holes stuff.

We don't need many injuries or suspensions in the wrong places to go from looking decent to the possibility that the defence becomes a bit of a disaster area imho. A bit of foresight will tell any fan we aren't going to get through the season unscathed as far as injuries and suspensions go.

I recognise that it's unlikely we solve all this but I would like to see at least one more CB come in tbh. As a fan, I don't always have to think of this in business terms, and I perceive that having proper players for cover for these positions rather than patchwork stuff where you are putting guys there that can't really do it is what might be the difference between an ok season and a brilliant one.

And I hope Robinson is currently putting a similar case to the board. 

It's trying to keep players happy too. In my opinion we have decent enough cover at the back.

LB: Tanser, Small, Taylor, Fraser. The boy Ethan Sutherland if called upon.
CB: Taylor, Dunne, Fraser, Bolton, Gogic 
RB: Strain, Fraser, Bolton, Flynn

I genuinely think we will be fine with that. Bolton and Dunne at the moment, can't make the starting 11 due to the good form of Fraser Taylor and Gogic when dropped in there. 

[pozbaird]

Gordon Scott or someone may know the answer to this. Say St Mirren had two plans. Plan 1 filled in three corners, leaving one open for emergency access, segregation, whatever. What additional seating would be created, and how much would that cost? Plan 2 is to completely replace the away stand with a new, bigger, two tier job. Double the existing capacity. I know nothing about building, but my gut tells me that would be cheaper, easier, and would pay for itself quicker. Wouldn’t affect the existing floodlights either. Downside of course is that, like the old Caley Stand, would be for away fans. Just a thought, in regard to logistics and reward for investment cost.

[thomas]

2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Gordon Scott or someone may know the answer to this. Say St Mirren had two plans. Plan 1 filled in three corners, leaving one open for emergency access, segregation, whatever. What additional seating would be created, and how much would that cost? Plan 2 is to completely replace the away stand with a new, bigger, two tier job. Double the existing capacity. I know nothing about building, but my gut tells me that would be cheaper, easier, and would pay for itself quicker. Wouldn’t affect the existing floodlights either. Downside of course is that, like the old Caley Stand, would be for away fans. Just a thought, in regard to logistics and reward for investment cost.

Doubling the away stand has always been my preference if we are in any way looking to expand capacity. It gives an option to switch the away and family stands if it's needed for a bumper home crowd and obviously allows bigger away attendances when needed.

[Eddie Hitler]

8 minutes ago, smellthepaw said:

It's trying to keep players happy too. In my opinion we have decent enough cover at the back.

LB: Tanser, Small, Taylor, Fraser. The boy Ethan Sutherland if called upon.
CB: Taylor, Dunne, Fraser, Bolton, Gogic 
RB: Strain, Fraser, Bolton, Flynn

I genuinely think we will be fine with that. Bolton and Dunne at the moment, can't make the starting 11 due to the good form of Fraser Taylor and Gogic when dropped in there. 

Fraser is hopeless at LB. Taylor is a CB, not an LWB. Sutherland won't be playing, this is why Small is here.

We play 3CBs. Of the five you have listed, one needs to be playing in midfield. Two play at LCB. There is not enough (adequate) cover for the other two positions. Taylor and Dunne will look at lot worse if you take them away from their natural side.

Fraser is bad at RB. Flynn is bad at RB. Bolton is a CB, first and foremost. For none of these, is it anywhere near ideal having them at RWB.

We have bodies that can be slotted places, as you no doubt evidence, but the team will be far worse. 

Need adequate cover, people who are *a wee bit worse" than the first choices in particular positions and no more (or we won't be very good at all).

Edited August 30, 2023 by Eddie Hitler

[pozbaird]

Just now, thomas said:

Doubling the away stand has always been my preference if we are in any way looking to expand capacity. It gives an option to switch the away and family stands if it's needed for a bumper home crowd and obviously allows bigger away attendances when needed.

That was my thinking. Purely in hypothetical terms, it could be done at both ends. I cannot see us doing it, but equally, as construction projects go, it wouldn’t frighten a big construction company either I would guess. 

[saintmurn]

6 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Fraser is hopeless at LB. Taylor is a CB, not an LWB. Sutherland won't be playing, this is why Small is here.

We play 3CBs. Of the five you have listed, one needs to be playing in midfield. Two play at LCB. There is not enough (adequate) cover for the other two positions. Taylor and Dunne will look at lot worse if you take them away from their natural side.

Fraser is bad at RB. Flynn is bad at RB. Bolton is a CB, first and foremost. For none of these, is it anywhere near ideal having them at RWB.

We have bodies that can be slotted places, as you no doubt evidence, but the team will be far worse. 

Need adequate cover, people who are *a wee bit worse" than the first choices in particular positions and no more (or we won't be very good at all).

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure Bolton is primarily a right back and has played there for the majority of his career. I'm sure he'd replace Strain (or Small would as alluded to by Robbo) at right wing back. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by saintmurn

[medals]

19 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Anyone hearing anything at all about any further incomings before the window SLAMS SHUT?

I still feel we are light at the back for the following reasons:

1. We only have one proper RWB. Aware that Bolton is mooted to be able to fill in there and we have used Flynn there (but does anyone want a repeat of the Ginnelly incident that chucked away points v Hearts?). But this isn't proper cover in my honest opinion, as this isn't their primary position.

SR said Small can play RWB too.

Bolton is apparently good there also. I just don't think he is fully fit/match fit yet. When he is he may start at CB.

Flynn, great servant that he's been has not got the ability/speed etc needed for where we have risen too.

Like you I'd prefer Goga in midfield, but he's actually doing pretty well and so is the midfield without him and O'Hara. Strength in the squad is way better that previously, though not as deep as top 5 teams I think.

Utd looking for a striker - is it Greive?

[Eddie Hitler]

2 minutes ago, saintmurn said:

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure Bolton is primarily a right back and has played there for the majority of his career. I'm sure he'd replace Strain (or Small would as alluded to by Robbo) at right wing back. 

Fair enough, you are probably right there then. I confess to not having followed his career closely and it isn't totally clear yet how he will be used for us when match fit (unlike most of the other players mentioned, where we have evidence stretching back a season and more how Robbo wants to use them in most cases). This still means we need more CB cover, I would suggest....even just one further CB to ensure an injury doesn't mean we don't have Bolton to be at RWB when needed.

[Eddie Hitler]

2 minutes ago, medals said:

SR said Small can play RWB too.

Bolton is apparently good there also. I just don't think he is fully fit/match fit yet. When he is he may start at CB.

Flynn, great servant that he's been has not got the ability/speed etc needed for where we have risen too.

Like you I'd prefer Goga in midfield, but he's actually doing pretty well and so is the midfield without him and O'Hara. Strength in the squad is way better that previously, though not as deep as top 5 teams I think.

Utd looking for a striker - is it Greive?

I didn't want him to go on loan (or be sold, if that's what you mean in this case) when this was being mooted a while back during pre-season and I like the idea even less now given his start. Would be madness to send him away on loan imho.

[djchapsticks]

2 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I didn't want him to go on loan (or be sold, if that's what you mean in this case) when this was being mooted a while back during pre-season and I like the idea even less now given his start. Would be madness to send him away on loan imho.

This. Greive looked lost starting in pre-season and at that point, I'd have had him as probably 5th or 6th choice but he has this tremendous habit of reminding folk just how good and dangerous he is coming off the bench against tired legs.

[GAD]

4 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Fair enough, you are probably right there then. I confess to not having followed his career closely and it isn't totally clear yet how he will be used for us when match fit (unlike most of the other players mentioned, where we have evidence stretching back a season and more how Robbo wants to use them in most cases). This still means we need more CB cover, I would suggest....even just one further CB to ensure an injury doesn't mean we don't have Bolton to be at RWB when needed.

Yeah, I think, up till now at least, Bolton was always considered a RB/RWB who could cover CB rather than the other way round, but will need to see Robbos plans. I do agree with your wider point though, and it's one I've made myself, I really like a proper Gallagher/Shaughnessy replacement for the middle of the back three.

[Eddie Hitler]

6 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

This. Greive looked lost starting in pre-season and at that point, I'd have had him as probably 5th or 6th choice but he has this tremendous habit of reminding folk just how good and dangerous he is coming off the bench against tired legs.

I think because Olusanya is so quick, it's easy to forget Greive is as well and both have it in them to give defences a torrid time for that reason. Greive is sometimes wasteful in front of goal but his finish the other day was super-composed and I have always liked the way he doesn't hide from the next chance when one hasn't come off for him. It's also very early days in this season but my understanding is that all of his (very few so far, clearly) shots have been on target this league season, and that's almost as much as you can ask for.

[medals]

9 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I didn't want him to go on loan (or be sold, if that's what you mean in this case) when this was being mooted a while back during pre-season and I like the idea even less now given his start. Would be madness to send him away on loan imho.

I agree. Folk on here were too harsh on Greive. His 2 goals have contributed 4 points so far.

Given Jonah is nearly back too, I'm less confident we'll bring in the "great striker" before January, if at all.

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, medals said:

I agree. Folk on here were too harsh on Greive. His 2 goals have contributed 4 points so far.

Given Jonah is nearly back too, I'm less confident we'll bring in the "great striker" before January, if at all.

Well, you can always improve etc etc but I am far less concerned about the front line than other areas of the pitch re additions. Unless we are getting someone in who is going to be the most composed finisher in the whole league, I wouldn't bother. And that's unlikely because I believe it was another target man Robbo was actually after, rather than a finisher necessarily.