Shire Greats Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Away to Dundee and..... The one that made it 3/2 v Stjarnan was a poor one and very costly......v Aberdeen at fir park that resulted in a penalty.Probably more , but can't think of them at moment.The Dundee game, you mention, was comic cuts that day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Killie at Rugby Park also early in the season. He got lobbed, again, when he shouldnt have. Twardzik for all his shot stopping ability just is not good enough at this level. Which is why he was second choice at Dundee in the Chanpionship at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wispy Flossy Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Killie at Rugby Park also early in the season. He got lobbed, again, when he shouldnt have. Twardzik for all his shot stopping ability just is not good enough at this level. Which is why he was second choice at Dundee in the Chanpionship at the time. Wrong - Third choice! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Dan = Hollis = Gunner All good back up at best. Ripley > Gunnar > Dan > Hollis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Ripley > Gunnar > Dan > HollisMust confess I've seen little evidence that Twardzik, Long or Ripley are notably better than Nelson... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Craig Nelson? If you mean Neilsen then you are off yer nut! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Craig Nelson? If you mean Neilsen then you are off yer nut! I did indeed mean Nielsen (auto correct on phone). I didn't say Gunnar was better than the others. Just that there's not much evidence that any of the others are any better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yassin Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Twardzik > Ripley > Long > Hollis > Nielsen = Samson I've barely seen Ripley though so he might very well be better than Twardzik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Dan was a level up from Gunnar and Hollis. Our change in fortunes in conjunction with Dan's loan spell demonstrated his superiority. Reading between the lines, Neilsen didn't have the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 It can (and is by me) be equally argued that our change in fortunes in conjunction with Dan's loan spell was Dan's good luck because the team hit some good form. We didn't hit good form because of Dan. For example, Faddy's performance in the Thistle game was not Dan related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Dan made the saves tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 It can (and is by me) be equally argued that our change in fortunes in conjunction with Dan's loan spell was Dan's good luck because the team hit some good form. We didn't hit good form because of Dan. For example, Faddy's performance in the Thistle game was not Dan related. Disagree. The keepers presence put a previously shaky backline at ease that day. It was no secret Neilsen gave them the fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 I know many people disagree, but I think the defence's subsequent performances after Dan signed full time back up my theory. By your theory, they should have been confident and settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Regardless of what order you stick them in. Dan and Gunnar were both PISH! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Folk are still defending Neilsen? The guy was utterly pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnstone Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 I actually think that signing Craig Samson was a clever move by the club. Twardzik has not really been up to much since he signed on. Ripley could be away in january so to negate the risk of potentially having Twardzik as our only choice of keeper - we now have a decent keeper with a bit of experience who can keep these guys on their toes. Also all these people claiming we are throwing money away and we can't afford him. We know fuck all about the financial setup with regards to signings so there is no point speculating about it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzyB Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Also all these people claiming we are throwing money away and we can't afford him. We know fuck all about the financial setup with regards to signings so there is no point speculating about it. This! This this this this this THIS!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Up For It! Posted September 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 We know fuck all about the financial setup with regards to signings so there is no point speculating about it. While I agree we know nothing, we were told under previous regime that we were regularly loosing money with a much smaller squad and it was not sustainable. The society had to make numerous loans to the club. This was with a much smaller squad, performing much better in the league, while not paying transfer fees and without the changes behind the scenes that will have involved a great deal of capital outlay. I doubt sponsorship money has dramatically changed either way and attendances are declining. Yes we don't know exact financial details, but drawing conclusions from what we do know, there is no way we are not spending much more than what we were in McCall's last full season. That leads many to question the signing of players, who are very unlikely to feature, and are seen as a wasted wage. Wether they are on £200 per week or £2000 per week - from the outside looking in - it's money we simply do not need to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 If Ripley is leaving in January then we are only paying wages to a third keeper for three and a half months. I would also be amazed if we're having to pay much for someone who was out of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 I actually think that signing Craig Samson was a clever move by the club. Twardzik has not really been up to much since he signed on. Ripley could be away in january so to negate the risk of potentially having Twardzik as our only choice of keeper - we now have a decent keeper with a bit of experience who can keep these guys on their toes. To be honest, if I were Twardzik and harboured the slightest interest in playing any sort of first team football at any level then I'd have had my agent looking to get me out of Fir Park the moment Samson signed. I wouldn't have thought he'd be staying on beyond the end of this season anyway but I could well imagine he'd be looking to get out as soon as the January window opens whether it be mutual termination or even just a loan until his contract runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 While I agree we know nothing, we were told under previous regime that we were regularly loosing money with a much smaller squad and it was not sustainable. The society had to make numerous loans to the club. This was with a much smaller squad, performing much better in the league, while not paying transfer fees and without the changes behind the scenes that will have involved a great deal of capital outlay. I doubt sponsorship money has dramatically changed either way and attendances are declining. Yes we don't know exact financial details, but drawing conclusions from what we do know, there is no way we are not spending much more than what we were in McCall's last full season. That leads many to question the signing of players, who are very unlikely to feature, and are seen as a wasted wage. Wether they are on £200 per week or £2000 per week - from the outside looking in - it's money we simply do not need to spend. That's the point? What do we know? Not much. I agree it is likely the re-organisation and set up costs will likely be an outlay specifically for this year. That said, the whole sport science programme setup was at least partly funded by a donation from an english business man (see Well Society site) But, the total ongoing wage bill could quite easily be the same or less. As a made up example to speculate Vigurs, Sutton and Lawson out on £800pw. Moult, Fletcher, Clarkson in on £600pw each. Grimshaw and Taylor in on £300pw wages contribution each. 3 out, 5 in. Wages balanced The ass. manager mentioned in the Youtube video today they are adhering to budget also. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 I'm not sure about the signing of Samson but I think he'll be on the bench until the new year he is a safe pair of hands (boom boom) and knows the Scottish game so it kind of makes sense In my view he is no better than the current 2 keepers on the book and not a patch on some of our past keepers but I guess the well choices are limited by their budget onwards and upwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Dan was a level up from Gunnar and Hollis. Our change in fortunes in conjunction with Dan's loan spell demonstrated his superiority. Reading between the lines, Neilsen didn't have the bottle. Since Randolph left the keepers we have had at Fir Park have taken lack of abillity and pishness to new levels. Hollis, Nielsen, Twardzik in that order 1st being the worst. We saw a glimmer of hope with Long last season and again this term with Ripley but no long term solution so i think signing Samson may be a shrewd move by IB an experienced keeper who might bring some stabillity to a position we have struggled with since Randolph left. Admitedley he is not the best but on our budget we were never going to sign a Neuer or a Casillas were we 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Only saw him against Ross County but am I the only one that thought Robinson looked absolutely useless? A fast Casagolda? Obviously, I'm not writing him off on the basis of one 45 minute showing but didn't see much cause for optimism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Only saw him against Ross County but am I the only one that thought Robinson looked absolutely useless? A fast Casagolda? Obviously, I'm not writing him off on the basis of one 45 minute showing but didn't see much cause for optimism... Don't think he looked a world beater. But he did more than McDonald and was stronger and held the ball up a bit better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts