The Ultimate Super Ayr Thread

[Thereisalight..]

Surely even with 6 or 7 players out we could still play? Obviously it's far from ideal but I reckon we must have a squad of about 22. Bring youngsters from the academy in to fill bench spaces if needed 

[No_Problemo]

11 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Surely even with 6 or 7 players out we could still play? Obviously it's far from ideal but I reckon we must have a squad of about 22. Bring youngsters from the academy in to fill bench spaces if needed 

Most of our players are shite as well, as long as most of Tomi, Muirhead, Murdoch,  Moffat, Fjortoft, Maxwell and Reading are there then the rest can be filled out with whatever we have. 

Oh, we will also need a keeper! Depending on when McAdams tested positive he may be back? 

[HMIP]

6 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Surely even with 6 or 7 players out we could still play? Obviously it's far from ideal but I reckon we must have a squad of about 22. Bring youngsters from the academy in to fill bench spaces if needed 

Must be more than that.  Suggestion is that there are 6 confirmed positives, so doubtless others will be told to self isolate if they aren’t fully vaccinated.  Plus it takes more than just players to play a match - if the non playing staff have been told to stay away until at least Monday, how do we operate turnstiles etc?  Kind of wonder where the paying customer fits into all this.  People are paying good money to watch a likely farce of a game.  We played Inverness last week with players missing, as have other teams.  But there surely must be a common sense point where you accept a team can’t put 11 players on the park (and no,  throwing a bunch of 16 year old boys from the academy in who aren’t ready for professional football isn’t a solution.  What happens If some kid gets his leg snapped going into a challenge with a full grown man?).  

[Hawk89]

6 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

Most of our players are shite as well, as long as most of Tomi, Muirhead, Murdoch,  Moffat, Fjortoft, Maxwell and Reading are there then the rest can be filled out with whatever we have. 

Oh, we will also need a keeper! Depending on when McAdams tested positive he may be back? 

Have a pair of gloves and a pair WC2010 Puma's. Was planning on being in Ayr anyway between 3-5 and with my waistline can fill a goal, not very mobile but happy to help if required. 

[Thereisalight..]

Surely we're not going to have to wait until tomorrow to find out if the game is on? 

[TheScarf]

41 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Surely even with 6 or 7 players out we could still play? Obviously it's far from ideal but I reckon we must have a squad of about 22. Bring youngsters from the academy in to fill bench spaces if needed 

That was my view too.  If you have 6 out with Covid but still have 13/14 fit players, the game should be played.  The SPFL won't and shouldn't care if you haven't trained for a week.

[1nickydevlin]

19 minutes ago, Hawk89 said:

Have a pair of gloves and a pair WC2010 Puma's. Was planning on being in Ayr anyway between 3-5 and with my waistline can fill a goal, not very mobile but happy to help if required. 

You can go in goals , im shit and football but I don't mind throwing myself into a crunching challenge  .any one else ??

[GaryMc93]

I know the U18's played Ross County on Friday 13th and had positive cases by the Monday so not sure if they've played or trained since then. Also the fact that squad is mostly 16/17 y/o and so some are likely still at school might make our situation worse if we try and integrate them with whatever first team players we have remaining. 

Suppose the game going ahead will depend if our new positive cases were the people previously deemed close contacts and if not do we have anymore ruled out due to being close contacts rather than positive cases.  

[No_Problemo]

10 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

That was my view too.  If you have 6 out with Covid but still have 13/14 fit players, the game should be played.  The SPFL won't and shouldn't care if you haven't trained for a week.

I agree with this, but I think there should be an exception if you have a large group of players who have had Covid - they shouldn’t be thrown straight into a game. That obviously doesn’t seem to be the case here though. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

42 minutes ago, HMIP said:

(and no,  throwing a bunch of 16 year old boys from the academy in who aren’t ready for professional football isn’t a solution.  What happens If some kid gets his leg snapped going into a challenge with a full grown man?).  

There are a number of perfectly reasonable arguments for postponing the game… but that really isn’t one of them.

Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds get opportunities in professional football fairly often, depending on their ability. Morton have already been here this season, having to pitch a number of young guys into competitive games: every one of them did passably well, some more so, and their development will have been accelerated in the process.

And players get injured all the time, regardless of age; in fact, you could argue that the risks are greater the older you are (although I didn’t hear anybody worrying about Willie Gibson’s safety when he was ripping the pish out of us on Saturday).

[Ro Sham Bo]

13 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

I agree with this, but I think there should be an exception if you have a large group of players who have had Covid - they shouldn’t be thrown straight into a game. That obviously doesn’t seem to be the case here though. 

I 'm sure I read Cowdenbeath were forced to play last week despite the isolation period for all of their players ending at midnight on Friday, meaning they hadn't trained at all during the week.

The League appear to be trying to keep the situation as black and white as possible.

[No_Problemo]

6 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

I 'm sure I read Cowdenbeath were forced to play last week despite the isolation period for all of their players ending at midnight on Friday, meaning they hadn't trained at all during the week.

The League appear to be trying to keep the situation as black and white as possible.

I’m not sure about the Cowdenbeath situation. 
 

I just feel given the potential respiratory affects of the virus that there needs to be some kind of baseline health assessment - not just throwing them into a game the day after being allowed to leave the house. I think both clubs and the league have a responsibility in terms of this. It would obviously take a large number testing positive for this to happen.  Obviously fine if it’s just an isolation period without having the virus - as players can potentially train in the house etc. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by No_Problemo

[HMIP]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

There are a number of perfectly reasonable arguments for postponing the game… but that really isn’t one of them.

Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds get opportunities in professional football fairly often, depending on their ability. Morton have already been here this season, having to pitch a number of young guys into competitive games: every one of them did passably well, some more so, and their development will have been accelerated in the process.

And players get injured all the time, regardless of age; in fact, you could argue that the risks are greater the older you are (although I didn’t hear anybody worrying about Willie Gibson’s safety when he was ripping the pish out of us on Saturday).

Nonsense.  Most academies are full of boys who have as much chance of playing professional football as I do.  If a player has been promoted out the academy then that’s a reasonable indication of their potential, and quality and are therefore players the SPFL might regard as viable first team players, even if they have never actually kicked a ball for the first team.  But the idea you can just chuck in random youngsters is just downright irresponsible.  Yes, injuries happen, but if one happens because a kid goes into a 50/50 with a seasoned professional and comes out the other end in an ambulance, then I’d like to thing most sensible folk would say that’s not how professional football clubs should operate.

[diegomarahenry]

Turn the sprinklers on today and by Saturday morning the pitch should be unplayable

problem solved

Edited August 26, 2021 by diegomarahenry

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

I 'm sure I read Cowdenbeath were forced to play last week despite the isolation period for all of their players ending at midnight on Friday, meaning they hadn't trained at all during the week.

The League appear to be trying to keep the situation as black and white as possible.

As were Falkirk in the first week at Cove. The SPFL issued black and white guidance to clubs on this before the first league game. If you have 13 fit and eligible players over the age of 16, including at least one goalkeeper and at least 10 of them are 18 years old then you have to play. If you don't then the game will be postponed.

Ayr can voluntarily instigate a circuit breaker if they want but staff haven't actually been legally made to isolate. Quite understandable in terms of being the responsible thing to do but not massively relevant in terms of the rules in play. In theory if training protocols are being operated properly and players are not traveling together then there shouldn't be close contacts of positive cases. Of course that's not always possible. Some players don't drive and need to share cars. Some may live together in club accommodation, in Ayr's case they presumably had to use a bus to get to Inverness last week which makes close contacts inevitable for some. Some players may have socialised together outside work outwith the club's control.

Presumably the delay here is finding out who is a close contact and which if any of those have been double vaccinated and tested negative.

[HMIP]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

As were Falkirk in the first week at Cove. The SPFL issued black and white guidance to clubs on this before the first league game. If you have 13 fit and eligible players over the age of 16, including at least one goalkeeper and at least 10 of them are 18 years old then you have to play. If you don't then the game will be postponed.

Ayr can voluntarily instigate a circuit breaker if they want but staff haven't actually been legally made to isolate. Quite understandable in terms of being the responsible thing to do but not massively relevant in terms of the rules in play. In theory if training protocols are being operated properly and players are not traveling together then there shouldn't be close contacts of positive cases. Of course that's not always possible. Some players don't drive and need to share cars. Some may live together in club accommodation, in Ayr's case they presumably had to use a bus to get to Inverness last week which makes close contacts inevitable for some. Some players may have socialised together outside work outwith the club's control.

Presumably the delay here is finding out who is a close contact and which if any of those have been double vaccinated and tested negative.

This is the point for me.  Subtract all the usual tribal guff, whataboutery and false equivalence.  Do Ayr have enough players available under that criteria, or not?  Ayr seem pretty clear they don’t.  Not obvious whats stopping the SPFL making a decision either way.  

[Hursty]

11 minutes ago, HMIP said:

This is the point for me.  Subtract all the usual tribal guff, whataboutery and false equivalence.  Do Ayr have enough players available under that criteria, or not?  Ayr seem pretty clear they don’t.  Not obvious whats stopping the SPFL making a decision either way.  

I can only assume its providing proof (or not) of close contacts - ideally in a way that doesn't leave the club open to a fine for breaching protocols which I assume is still a thing?

Edit:  I didn't know the rule about not having to isolate if double jagged and test negative.  So if that's the case, would the delay be us waiting on test results of close contacts who have had the jags?

Edited August 26, 2021 by Hursty

[Hursty]

Just read that Airdrie v Alloa is off as they can't field a team due to a large number self isolating....maybe the SPFL are only looking at our case now

[Finlay21]

1 hour ago, HMIP said:

Must be more than that.  Suggestion is that there are 6 confirmed positives, so doubtless others will be told to self isolate if they aren’t fully vaccinated.  Plus it takes more than just players to play a match - if the non playing staff have been told to stay away until at least Monday, how do we operate turnstiles etc?  Kind of wonder where the paying customer fits into all this.  People are paying good money to watch a likely farce of a game.  We played Inverness last week with players missing, as have other teams.  But there surely must be a common sense point where you accept a team can’t put 11 players on the park (and no,  throwing a bunch of 16 year old boys from the academy in who aren’t ready for professional football isn’t a solution.  What happens If some kid gets his leg snapped going into a challenge with a full grown man?).  

How many of them could we really take ? Would they class as loan players ? Can they play as trialists ? 

[Thereisalight..]

Definitely think that if the SPFL have allowed the Airdrie v Alloa game to be postponed then ours will follow suit