Fan The Flames Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 It wasn't the Dell that made us succesful it was a good team. Yes the rake and closeness to the pitch at SM was wrong but buying an off the shelf product made it a lot cheaper, one of Lowes better decisions.
Fan The Flames Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 (edited) Interesting to see that Tottenham have insisted that the design of their new stadium incorporates seats that are as close as possible to the touchline. No doubt they had the Emirates in mind, which has about as much atmosphere as Barnet public library on a Tuesday morning. But if there's anything above all to miss about the Dell, it's the idea of striking fear into opposing players from extreme close range. The last drawings Spurs released of their new ground was an emirates clone, also highbury was just as quiet as the emirates. The dell was old and outdated, we get bigger crowds in the 3rd div than the dell could occupy. Edited 24 August, 2009 by Fan The Flames
eelpie Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 at the Dell we had during most spells areas where the fans who sung congregated.That was not applied when we moved to SMS and we dont really have a proper end. The Northam singing gets polluted by the away fans next to them, and the itchen cant hear the Northam a lot of the time due to the away fans being closer. The chapel should have been made our Kop What's wrong with the Northern taking over Kingsland? Could be the answer. Then everyone could hear you.
Fan The Flames Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 It's not the ground it's the spoilt, impatient and unrealistic fans who no longer fill it. You, like Lowe obviously know f#ck all about football if you don't know that crowds dwindle as teams drop through the divs. Our last attendance beat 5 champ sides and 1 prem which is worth celebrating. You didn't stay positive for long, the bile, it seems with you, is always close to the service.
eelpie Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 It wasn't the Dell that made us succesful it was a good team. Yes the rake and closeness to the pitch at SM was wrong but buying an off the shelf product made it a lot cheaper, one of Lowes better decisions. Contradiction there. Couldn't be a better decision if you say the rake and closeness was wrong.
Fan The Flames Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 At this point Um Pahars will start preparing statistics to prove me wrong as he always does on all my posts. That is because Mr Unt your warped point of view is so easily dismantled by the true facts. Yet you plough on regrdless.
Fan The Flames Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 Contradiction there. Couldn't be a better decision if you say the rake and closeness was wrong. If money was no object I would have prefered a steeper rake and closeness to the pitch, but this may have put a few million on the cost of the project. So Lowe had to make a decision and in my opinion he made the better decision given our spending power against what would be gained by the steeper rake etc.
um pahars Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 so the players were all sat around doing nothing until pardew arrived..? With Wotte in charge, then I wouldn't say that was out of the question;)
Rasiak-9- Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 To answer the OP two words: Leicester City St. Mary's and the Walkers' are arguably the two most similar stadia in Britain and you only have to look at their home record last season to see that it didn't cause a problem for them.
sadoldgit Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 The Dell was awesome. No one liked playing there and I am sure that helped us pick up plenty of points. St Marys however is a lovely stadium but I wouldn't say it was anthing like as intimidating for visting teams as The Dell was. We had to move but we have paid the price.
dune Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 St Marys is sh*t because there's no atmosphere from Saints fans on three sides of the ground. The Kingsland has a pocket of support nearest the Northam, the Itchen has a pocket of support nearest the Northam, the Chapel is just crap. Also why do Saints kick towards the Chapel end in the second half. It makes no sense at all. The Northam is where we need to be attacking in the closing stages so we can suck the ball into the net..
um pahars Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 Also why do Saints kick towards the Chapel end in the second half. It makes no sense at all. The Northam is where we need to be attacking in the closing stages so we can suck the ball into the net.. Well if we're defending the Northam end then perhaps you should try blowing the ball away from our net and into the oppositions;)
Joesaint Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 The Dell was awesome. No one liked playing there and I am sure that helped us pick up plenty of points. St Marys however is a lovely stadium but I wouldn't say it was anthing like as intimidating for visting teams as The Dell was. We had to move but we have paid the price. That and well.......MLT. St Marys would never have happened without him as if we had gone down with the Dell life would be very hard and invesment harder to find. I think StMarys is great and feel lucy to have a club with so much potential. COYS
Joesaint Posted 24 August, 2009 Posted 24 August, 2009 St Marys is sh*t because there's no atmosphere from Saints fans on three sides of the ground. The Kingsland has a pocket of support nearest the Northam, the Itchen has a pocket of support nearest the Northam, the Chapel is just crap. Also why do Saints kick towards the Chapel end in the second half. It makes no sense at all. The Northam is where we need to be attacking in the closing stages so we can suck the ball into the net.. Don't agree mate, please think about the positives about our club, Skates down the road would love St Marys there, if they don't get anything built and go down there life will be alot more tough. We have a club with St marys good academy great support and a great new owner. That is very important with regards Saints future. My opinion.
OldNick Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 What's wrong with the Northern taking over Kingsland? Could be the answer. Then everyone could hear you.Lol
eelpie Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 If money was no object I would have prefered a steeper rake and closeness to the pitch, but this may have put a few million on the cost of the project. So Lowe had to make a decision and in my opinion he made the better decision given our spending power against what would be gained by the steeper rake etc. How do you know if Lowe considered the rake and closeness to the pitch of significance to the atmosphere of the stadium? You are guessing and fabricating.
Frank's cousin Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 No NO and NO - as to the atmosphere, has nothing to do with the stadium - just who is in it - Think back to the noise generated in the 1st relegation season in the 4-3 against Norwich - electric and huge noise Right now we have a side that is still not good enough to compete regularly with crowds that are smaller and fans who get nervous when we are only 1-0 up with 10 to go - the atmosphere just freezes as we are all shi**ng ourselves that we will conceed - WE NEED TO KEEP cheering like we are watching Brazil and confident that we can go on and win - Thats what makes the difference, not the bricks, mortar or steel etc
Polaroid Saint Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 Read all the arguments on here and agree with all of the positives about SMS in principle. Doesn't change the fact that, to me personally, it is one of the least enjoyable football grounds I have ever been a spectator at (in the UK at least). Mainly down to the soulless nature of the construction, layout, design and décor. Which allows sh!thead supposed Saints fans to intimidate and cagoule their fellow fans. NO positivity emanates from what is - essentially - an already scabbing, rusting shell. I - for one - would rather we still had the Dell and lower capacity. FFS - I even see picturs of Craven Cottage and NotArf Krap (!) and think - "ooh a REAL stadium". They might be small with "inadequate toilet facilities" but the are proper venues for Football. Guess I'm just old-school and into aesthetics more than the average football fan (!?!) but I am not wowed by St.Marys, despite it's advantage of a 'larger gate'.
krissyboy31 Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 No NO and NO - as to the atmosphere, has nothing to do with the stadium - just who is in it - Think back to the noise generated in the 1st relegation season in the 4-3 against Norwich - electric and huge noise Right now we have a side that is still not good enough to compete regularly with crowds that are smaller and fans who get nervous when we are only 1-0 up with 10 to go - the atmosphere just freezes as we are all shi**ng ourselves that we will conceed - WE NEED TO KEEP cheering like we are watching Brazil and confident that we can go on and win - Thats what makes the difference, not the bricks, mortar or steel etc I agree to a certain extent but the Dell was a huge advantage for us because it intimidated the opposition (even the biggest teams) and every comment and quip could be heard by the players standing anywhere near the touchline/bylines. St Mary's was a necessity, as was the off the shelf type of stadium (because anything more elaborate would have bankrupted us much earlier) but the distance between the touchlines and stands should have been researched much more to have at least try to replicate the feel of that "closeness" experienced at the Dell.
No 2 to Maybush Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 Also why do Saints kick towards the Chapel end in the second half. It makes no sense at all. The Northam is where we need to be attacking in the closing stages so we can suck the ball into the net.. On a Saturday afternoon the Sun shines quite low into the eyes of the team playing towards the Chapel in the first half. Second half it's usually sunk below the height of the stadium roof. That's the only reason I've been able to come up with over the years, as, like you, I've never been able to work out why they consistently do this
dune Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 Read all the arguments on here and agree with all of the positives about SMS in principle. Doesn't change the fact that, to me personally, it is one of the least enjoyable football grounds I have ever been a spectator at (in the UK at least). Mainly down to the soulless nature of the construction, layout, design and décor. Which allows sh!thead supposed Saints fans to intimidate and cagoule their fellow fans. NO positivity emanates from what is - essentially - an already scabbing, rusting shell. I - for one - would rather we still had the Dell and lower capacity. FFS - I even see picturs of Craven Cottage and NotArf Krap (!) and think - "ooh a REAL stadium". They might be small with "inadequate toilet facilities" but the are proper venues for Football. Guess I'm just old-school and into aesthetics more than the average football fan (!?!) but I am not wowed by St.Marys, despite it's advantage of a 'larger gate'. I hear what you're saying. Give me a run down ground with character any day of the week. St Marys had to happen but the Dell was a far more enjoyable place to watch football.
Window Cleaner Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 I know the blame for our demise lies at the feet of many people who have had connections with Saints in many different roles from Directors/Chairmen, to Players and Managers, but has St. Mary's got anything to do with it? Are the players scared or overwhelmed by the size etc of it? Or is the emptyness of it a real downer on our players and a motivator for opposition players? Over the past 2 seasons, and the 2 home games this season our home record stands at this: Played 48 Won 13 Drawn 17 Lost 18 Scored 51 Conceded 58 Goal Difference -7 I'm not suggesting for a second that we up-sticks and build a new ground, but this is a problem as whatever league you play in, you MUST win you're home games. What does everyone else think about this? St Mary's is a problem cos they let bustards from Pompey build it.
CB Saint Posted 25 August, 2009 Posted 25 August, 2009 It is not SMS. It is poor performance on the pitch, uninterested players, unsetlled management, uncertainty over survival, negativity from the fans that has made SMS what it is. Is any one really surprised by our record against that backdrop?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now