January 2018 Transfer Window

[pod]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Surely they'll bring in another center back? We only have three at the club right now, one can't play on artificial pitches and ones made of grass. 

Why did we sign him.

[bazil85]

Just now, pod said:

Why did we sign him.

[Sweeper07]

12 hours ago, Dave The Buddie said:

I would say our transfer dealings are finished with. We have strengthened with a holding midfielder and a wide player and a striker in Mullen. Two areas that we could have done with strengthening is a holding midfielder and wide player IMO.

Im chuffed with our squad. We have a great balance and strength in depth

No doubt that yet again J & J have, along with the backing behind them, have been wheeling and been dealing in the transfer window to improve our squad and team with some skill juggling all the factors.

We will see on Saturday how well we can compete with a very proficient Premiership team, and that will help us gauge how good our squad/team is at this time - especially with next season in mind.

We have offloaded  a few, and farmed out some younger guys to gain experience and help the finances - all good reasons indeed.

Mullen is a much better option than what we had previously, and already has contributed when needed...goals will follow if he keeps getting game time and stays fit.

Flynn had been offered one of the longest contracts currently - so there is real belief that he will contribute a lot.. and something that was required... we can look forward to seeing what he will bring.

Hill gives us much more in the middle of the park (and can play at centre-back too).. our guys there are great, but any knocks, illnesses or suspensions and we have been low on options in midfield at times previously. 

Flanagan, Todd, Kirkpatrick,  should all become available at some point too - and utilising them to bring off weary legs, save fatigue or prevent knocks, especially when games are won could prove most wise at the sharp end of the season.

Personally I think there is more competition in the squad now - and that is a good problem to have. e.g. We have had ECK and Stelios fighting for Left back. Eck was injured at the start of the season and is currently - on both occasions Stelios has filled the gap, and he is currently playing really well. It is tough since Eck has some fabulous games when he had his chance too. But if either player is playing, we are not weakened in that position..

We now have a bit better cover in other areas too..

Any others coming in - need to be Premiership Quality - another striker who can hit 15 goals or more there in a season, and lay on a good number would go down well indeed.. (no pressure guys). We are not there yet, but we need to plan early - it is a tough place to play... and we want to hit the ground running and keep getting better...

 

[Sonny]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yeah I believe that's right but I would be a lot more comfortable with an out and out CB available to us. Especially with Irvine not playing much recently. Imagining the situation where Mac is out and something happens to Davis/ Baird for a prolonged period of time. Wouldn't be the best. Going from five CB to three, imagine it must be something on JR radar. 

We do what we did two months ago - we get an emergency loan.

[Bud the Baker]

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Surely they'll bring in another center back? We only have three at the club right now, one can't play on artificial pitches and ones made of glass. 

I agree with you that  bolstering central defence should be a higher priority than up front too especially with the arrivals of Mullen & Flynn over the last month - on top of injuries CD is an area where players are more likely to pick up suspensions.

Perhaps Davis is getting stronger as he gets more games under his belt but should the worst happen as others have mentioned we've got other options. The bottom line is I don't think JR would've let Buchannan go if he thought he would be in line for much game time.

****************

As an aside I noticed Buchannan got into the SPFL Team of the Week, good going for a guy who wouldn't even have been on our bench! 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

A big fella.

Peter Crouch??? Adebayo Akinfenwa??? Mark Yardley???

Christian Nade???

[DougJamie]

6 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Christian Nade???

Statue of Liberty moves quicker

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Sonny said:

We do what we did two months ago - we get an emergency loan.

And if Davis or McKenzie end up out for the rest of the season?

I'd much rather have a player in training with the squad that could be called on. Talk of another striker when we only really play with one out and out and have Mullen, Sutton and Smith (who can play as lone striker).

Seems strange to me we would want four players for one position but are happy with three players (two of which are known to be injury prone) for two positions. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by bazil85

[Sonny]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And if Davis or McKenzie end up out for the rest of the season?

I'd much rather have a player in training with the squad that could be called on. Talk of another striker when we only really play with one out and out and have Mullen, Sutton and Smith (who can play as loan striker).

Seems strange to me we would want four players for one position but are happy with three players (two of which are known to be injury prone) for two positions. 

What if Baird, Davis and MacKenzie all get injured - maybe we should sign 3 CDs instead of one? Davis had one long term injury with us from which he has made a full recovery. Baird has never been injured with us. Gary Mac has had a couple of injuries but is now fit. And we have 3 other players all capable of playing in CD. And we can make emergency loan like we did with McCart and save a wage for better use. So we are well covered.

 

[Kemp]

We need another striker that is versatile enough to play the current system & also effective if we need to play two up front.

Defence is well covered, Eckersley is a great CB if required.

[Soctty]

Re the centre back situation, we have three at the moment, as well as Irvine and Eckersley who can play there. As others have said, if we have a problem, an emergency loan would suffice, with McCart an ideal choice to come back, having been here before.

Jack obviously feels the way to win this league is to have more options in attack to hurt teams, and feels he has enough in reserve to deal with injuries/suspensions in defence, with a loan being preferable to bringing someone in we may not need.

[Drew]

I'd have been happy to see Buchanan stay, but it seems the player himself might have asked for the opportunity to move on for 1st team football. That's fair enough, and demonstrates a bit of ambition and integrity on his part.

Therein lies the challenge. If we look to sign a dedicated centre half of decent quality, would he be happy to be 4th choice?  Maybe it is more realistic to look at utilising a versatile player or two (Irvine and Eckersley come mind) rather than waste a wage on a player who might well not play and could be frustrated with his position as Buchanan possibly was.

Who'd be a fitba manager...?

[bazil85]

16 minutes ago, Sonny said:

What if Baird, Davis and MacKenzie all get injured - maybe we should sign 3 CDs instead of one? Davis had one long term injury with us from which he has made a full recovery. Baird has never been injured with us. Gary Mac has had a couple of injuries but is now fit. And we have 3 other players all capable of playing in CD. And we can make emergency loan like we did with McCart and save a wage for better use. So we are well covered.

 

You say that like it's complete madness to have four CB options at a club  until three weeks ago we had five.

Davis has had two long-term injuries in three years, can't play on all pitches in the Championship and I've lost count of the number of injuries Mac has had. It's also an area of the pitch where this season we've picked up most suspensions and historically clubs pick up most yellow/ red cards. If we get one injury then we run the risk of only having two natural CB on the pitch with none on the bench. I simply think another option would relieve that worry and is more important than having Reilly on the park and Sutton, Mullan and maybe one other striker warming the bench. 

If you're happy with that risk or to count on players like Irvine (10 minutes of football in three months) and Eckersley (Injured and also injury prone) who aren't natural CB players then that's fine. But to make it sound like it's crazy to think a new CB should be a priority over a striker when we have four options for one space seems a lot stranger to me. I don't think we're all covered, yes the emergency loan is an option but you run the risk of a player coming in and not gelling with the team in the way a CB is more likely to do if he's been regularly training at the club. 

for me I'd be happy if we brought in both a new striker and a CB but I think there's a pretty strong argument for CB being more of a priority. 

[DougJamie]

I honestly feel Mullen is the answer here.............. this boy is good, and I cant think of any better in this league that would surpass.

Maybe Clark at Pars, but he is tied with Daddy there, Dobbie short measure but just signed one year deal.....................

We have IMHO the best attacking options already, and its not just about ability, its about understanding, and we get that with what we have.......

For me, its a back up goalie...... and a 10 year contract for Mr Ross 

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by DougJamie

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Kemp said:

We need another striker that is versatile enough to play the current system & also effective if we need to play two up front.

Defence is well covered, Eckersley is a great CB if required.

Mullan and Sutton available for the one striker role. If we went two up front we have Mullan Sutton, Smith and Reilly with likely first choices being Smith and Reilly. Well covered up front. 

Eckersley is injured, much more effective at LB and also injury and suspension prone. We have three CB options for two roles and others that can cover at a push (Irvine has had very little match time as well). We have four ST options for the one up front option JR prefers. We also now have two additional MF options for JR to play about with behind Reilly if he continues with one up front.  

[bazil85]

The debate also begs the question, why would an emergency loan work for a CB but wouldn't work for a ST? 

[Bud the Baker]

47 minutes ago, Sonny said:

What if Baird, Davis and MacKenzie all get injured - maybe we should sign 3 CDs instead of one? Davis had one long term injury with us from which he has made a full recovery. Baird has never been injured with us. Gary Mac has had a couple of injuries but is now fit. And we have 3 other players all capable of playing in CD. And we can make emergency loan like we did with McCart and save a wage for better use. So we are well covered.

 

Unlike basil85 I'm not ready to put Davis into the injury prone category yet but he  missed 5 months for Crewe with a knee injury in 2015/16 and 8 months for us last year, again with a knee injury. Gary Mack is injury prone as is one of the supposed alternatives Eckersley. Like I said earlier JR must have confidence in HD's recovery in relation to letting Buchanan go but I'd still put an extra central defender as a higher priority than a striker. 

24 minutes ago, Drew said:

I'd have been happy to see Buchanan stay, but it seems the player himself might have asked for the opportunity to move on for 1st team football. That's fair enough, and demonstrates a bit of ambition and integrity on his part.

Therein lies the challenge. If we look to sign a dedicated centre half of decent quality, would he be happy to be 4th choice?  Maybe it is more realistic to look at utilising a versatile player or two (Irvine and Eckersley come mind) rather than waste a wage on a player who might well not play and could be frustrated with his position as Buchanan possibly was.

 

 

 

You could use the same sorta logic for the extra striker - seems incredible to be having this argument doesn't it?

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[Drew]

5 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Unlike basil85 I'm not ready to put Davis into the injury prone category yet but he  missed 5 months for Crewe with a knee injury in 2015/16 and 8 months for us last year, again with a knee injury. Gary Mack is injury prone as is one of the supposed alternatives Eckersley. Like I said earlier JR must have confidence in HD's recovery in relation to letting Buchanan go but I'd still put an extra central defender as a higher priority than a striker. 

See my post above.

Any centre half we would bring in now would be a make weight. We have, arguably, 3 of the best central defenders in the division (I certainly believe so) competing for two places, and at least two other players who can cover in there. Would we attract a player of decent calibre to sit on the bench (at best?).

Obviously, this argument could also be applied to the forward position, but I would tend to favour strengthening that area if it is a choice of one or the other.

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Unlike basil85 I'm not ready to put Davis into the injury prone category yet but he  missed 5 months for Crewe with a knee injury in 2015/16 and 8 months for us last year, again with a knee injury. Gary Mack is injury prone as is one of the supposed alternatives Eckersley. Like I said earlier JR must have confidence in HD's recovery in relation to letting Buchanan go but I'd still put an extra central defender as a higher priority than a striker. 

You could use the same logic for the extra striker - seems incredible to be having this argument doesn't it?

 

What I would say is it's a breath of fresh air to have such an argument (I would call it a debate) talking about areas where we don't need cover instead of last season when we were desperate for new recruits. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by bazil85
Clicked wrong button

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Drew said:

See my post above.

Any centre half we would bring in now would be a make weight. We have, arguably, 3 of the best central defenders in the division (I certainly believe so) competing for two places, and at least two other players who can cover in there. Would we attract a player of decent calibre to sit on the bench (at best?).

Obviously, this argument could also be applied to the forward position, but I would tend to favour strengthening that area if it is a choice of one or the other.

I guess that's the only difference. I would favor CB just purely based on the facts that Reilly and Smith are on fire, Morgan is scoring goals and Mullan/ Sutton are good back-up options. One CB injury and we don't really have an option but to play the other two and we are then reliant on playing players out of position (Possibly one that's time has come to an end at the club in Irvine)  

[Soctty]

18 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The debate also begs the question, why would an emergency loan work for a CB but wouldn't work for a ST? 

Because a striker is far more likely to be used off the bench than a central defender. It's not for an emergency we're looking to sign a striker, it's to give us a different option off the bench or for certain games.

[bazil85]

Just now, Soctty said:

Because a striker is far more likely to be used off the bench than a central defender. It's not for an emergency we're looking to sign a striker, it's to give us a different option off the bench or for certain games.

We have Mullen and Sutton as options. We also have the option of changing the way the midfield sits with two new signings in that area if we need to change the way we attack.

If we get one injury to a CB we don't have a natural replacement on the bench, with our luck with injuries and possible suspensions I'm not comfortable with that. Granted the CB option from the bench isn't a regular one but is still needed sometimes to protect a lead or in the event of injury or red cards (which has happened a good few times this season) 

[thomsons dropped it]

14 hours ago, billyg said:

Rumour is that Dundee Utd and ourselves are chasing the same striker.

 

14 hours ago, pod said:

No competition then. Welcome. 

 

You two taking the Mick.....

[Sonny]

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You say that like it's complete madness to have four CB options at a club  until three weeks ago we had five.

Davis has had two long-term injuries in three years, can't play on all pitches in the Championship and I've lost count of the number of injuries Mac has had. It's also an area of the pitch where this season we've picked up most suspensions and historically clubs pick up most yellow/ red cards. If we get one injury then we run the risk of only having two natural CB on the pitch with none on the bench. I simply think another option would relieve that worry and is more important than having Reilly on the park and Sutton, Mullan and maybe one other striker warming the bench. 

If you're happy with that risk or to count on players like Irvine (10 minutes of football in three months) and Eckersley (Injured and also injury prone) who aren't natural CB players then that's fine. But to make it sound like it's crazy to think a new CB should be a priority over a striker when we have four options for one space seems a lot stranger to me. I don't think we're all covered, yes the emergency loan is an option but you run the risk of a player coming in and not gelling with the team in the way a CB is more likely to do if he's been regularly training at the club. 

for me I'd be happy if we brought in both a new striker and a CB but I think there's a pretty strong argument for CB being more of a priority. 

For half the season we only had two fit CBs (our weakest two at the time) and we got to the top of the League. We now have 3 fit CB's and 2 back-ups so are stronger now than we were from July to Xmas!

Harry has had two bad knee injuries (different knees) so has been unlucky but does not have a history of injury problems - a bit like Darren MaGregor. He is now fit but Jack is nursing him back so did not want to play him in only his second or third game on an artificial surface - this has not ruled him out of artificial pitches for all time. Harry played nearly 200 games for Crewe over 6 years - more than 30 games a season. Gary MacKenzie played 37 games for us last season so I do not know where you think that Gary has glass legs.

And Sutton will not start for St Mirren. Jack has tried to get rid of him at least 3 times.  I believe jack is looking for a big, (well bigger than Reilly, Smith or Mullan), mobile striker to provide a different option if necessary and that is not going to be John Sutton.

[St.Ricky]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Slartibartfast said:

He's not in heaven. Unless you know something shull doesn't.

To link with another song of the moment....like Saints fans...he is on his way. For his sake and ours I hope we reach the promised land before he does.