The Ultimate Super Ayr Thread

[No_Problemo]

1 hour ago, Shibuya said:

If we have everybody fit, does McGeady get in the starting team? 

I thought he had a very quiet game yesterday in an unfamiliar position and I don't believe he's got the legs to play out wide.

We don’t really have anyone else that can play in that ten style position and take the ball in - unless you moved Murphy in I guess. Our style of play quite clearly doesn’t suit McGeady but in certain games I still think he can be of use. 

It’s something we need to add in January -  McGeady is probably best suited to sub appearances when we need a goal and have plenty of the ball. 

I still think the comments about him being slow on the ball are hugely over stated, he gets on the ball and actually looks to keep it until an option becomes available. He isn’t just fucking about for the sake of it. When he had options (the two passes that sent up Chalmers chances) he played it. 

 

[Richey Edwards]

1 hour ago, itzdrk said:

No, I only have him in if there's an injury crisis 

Ashford far more effective. Should have never let him leave.

[Jazzar]

22 minutes ago, Richey Edwards said:

Ashford far more effective. Should have never let him leave.

Thought Ashford was a headless chicken at times even if he did run about a lot. McGeady has more of a football brain even if the legs are not there now. I know who I prefer and it isn't Ashford.

[Scott-ish]

30 minutes ago, Richey Edwards said:

Ashford far more effective. Should have never let him leave.

[Richey Edwards]

[diegomarahenry]

Bullen is playing guys who could be used as impact subs from the start. McKenzie isn't going to change a game and neither is Rose so when you are struggling to get a foothold in the game and look to the bench, there is f**k all there that makes you think things will change. 

With guys like McGeady and Amartey, there is hope they can do something when they come on. Yesterday, McGeady was very quiet from the start. 

[No_Problemo]

2 hours ago, diegomarahenry said:

Bullen is playing guys who could be used as impact subs from the start. McKenzie isn't going to change a game and neither is Rose so when you are struggling to get a foothold in the game and look to the bench, there is f**k all there that makes you think things will change. 

With guys like McGeady and Amartey, there is hope they can do something when they come on. Yesterday, McGeady was very quiet from the start. 

The opposite would involve starting guys like McKenzie and Rose though..

Amartey offered two or three good runs in flashes, you can see some potential there at least - but he needs to get actual game time to develop. 

[D'Jaffo]

3 hours ago, diegomarahenry said:

Bullen is playing guys who could be used as impact subs from the start. McKenzie isn't going to change a game and neither is Rose so when you are struggling to get a foothold in the game and look to the bench, there is f**k all there that makes you think things will change. 

With guys like McGeady and Amartey, there is hope they can do something when they come on. Yesterday, McGeady was very quiet from the start. 

You’re far better starting your strongest team and trying to get ahead rather than going behind and have to sub players on to try and chase the game. 
 

I actually think McKenzie would’ve been an effective sub for the last ten minutes yesterday as Chalmers was getting in behind but was then losing it. With McKenzie there’s the chance that he holds it up and buys a bit of time. I thought Amartey did okay in that respect as well. I’m apt to forget how big he actually is and that he’s not a slim winger who gets pushed about easy. 

[Peil]

6 hours ago, Shibuya said:

If we have everybody fit, does McGeady get in the starting team? 

I thought he had a very quiet game yesterday in an unfamiliar position and I don't believe he's got the legs to play out wide.

Nah, doesn't have the legs for it anymore.
Was a point in the second half, where he turned his man easily enough, but just didn't have the wee burst to move away from him.

[Scott-ish]

1 hour ago, D'Jaffo said:

I actually think McKenzie would’ve been an effective sub for the last ten minutes yesterday as Chalmers was getting in behind but was then losing it. With McKenzie there’s the chance that he holds it up and buys a bit of time.

Chalmers will lose the ball and over-do it a lot of the time. But he'll then curl one in or, like yesterday, ping an absolute peach of an outside of the boot pass to create a scoring chance. I'd take that potential of something special happening over McKenzie coming on and doing absolutely nothing any time.

[D'Jaffo]

3 minutes ago, Scott-ish said:

Chalmers will lose the ball and over-do it a lot of the time. But he'll then curl one in or, like yesterday, ping an absolute peach of an outside of the boot pass to create a scoring chance. I'd take that potential of something special happening over McKenzie coming on and doing absolutely nothing any time.

Nine times out of ten, yes. But when we’re 1-0 up with ten minutes to play I’d rather have players on the pitch who can hold the ball up and will compete with defenders for high balls. Chalmers is capable of brilliance but when you’re trying to see out a slim lead you don’t want him trying to over complicate it and lose the ball. 

[Scott-ish]

2 hours ago, D'Jaffo said:

Nine times out of ten, yes. But when we’re 1-0 up with ten minutes to play I’d rather have players on the pitch who can hold the ball up and will compete with defenders for high balls. Chalmers is capable of brilliance but when you’re trying to see out a slim lead you don’t want him trying to over complicate it and lose the ball. 

I'd rather we were trying to make it 2-0 at home against that shower of shite than run the clock the down and defend the last 10 minutes and in doing so inevitably concede.

[Richey Edwards]

The best way to defend a 1-0 lead is to make it 2-0.

[Roxanne's man]

Paul Smith? This sort of thing pisses me off something stupid. No need for this religion nonsense anywhere.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Roxanne's man

[ryanayr1987]

32 minutes ago, Roxanne's man said:

Paul Smith? This sort of thing pisses me off something stupid. No need for this religion nonsense anywhere.

I’d fine him for this! 

[No_Problemo]

33 minutes ago, Roxanne's man said:

Paul Smith? This sort of thing pisses me off something stupid. No need for this religion nonsense anywhere.

I was wondering what bumped Paul Smith back up the midfield pecking order in front of Senga. Clearly the mutual love of the Queen, for him and Bullen. 

It isn’t the smartest like, obviously fully entitled to like away at anything related to Rangers winning but a post of them thinking they own the town (as well as deciding it is of a certain religion) of the club he plays for isn’t the brightest. 

Edited December 17, 2023 by No_Problemo

[Roxanne's man]

3 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

isn’t the smartest like, obviously fully entitled to like away at anything related to Rangers winning but a post of them thinking they own the town (as well as deciding it is of a certain religion) of the club he plays for isn’t the brightest. 

I agree. By all means, on football terms, congratulations to sevco on the cup win but this religious nonsense needs punted. 

I'd like to know who did that to the Wallace tower, I'm guessing some south Ayrshire council eejit.

[No_Problemo]

1 minute ago, Roxanne's man said:

I agree. By all means, on football terms, congratulations to sevco on the cup win but this religious nonsense needs punted. 

I'd like to know who did that to the Wallace tower, I'm guessing some south Ayrshire council eejit.

It’ll have been for the coronation. 

[Roxanne's man]

2 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

It’ll have been for the coronation. 

Genuinely never thought of that.

[Rb123]

1 hour ago, Roxanne's man said:

Paul Smith? This sort of thing pisses me off something stupid. No need for this religion nonsense anywhere.

Fact half of those mutants will be that brainwashed to actually they've genuinely done that for them...