crazylegsjoe_mfc

For me, you can place Spittal, McGinn, Furlong, Casey, Butcher and probably Penney in to the definite success category. If McKinstry hadn't been benched since February for reasons somewhat out of his control I'd probably place him in there too. You've then got Mandron, Obika and Paton (albeit on a very small sample set) who have been useful for us. Mandron and Obika haven't been world beaters in their own right - but what they have done is facilitated getting the best out of Van Veen. I don't think outwith them, many of the others have had enough of a run in the team to have had a marked negative effect on the team this season. We've been fortunate that we've not signed someone who isn't up to it, but circumstances have dictated we need to play them - see Craig Clay, Zak Jules, Tyler Magloire etc.

I don't think there's any doubt at all that a big man beside him has been instrumental in his rise. He was more than adequate under Hammell, but we just didn't get the best out of him. It's no coincidence for me now that he's not trying to win flick-ons, occupy centre halves or track full-backs (when put out left). I look at his goal return this season against the rest of his career and I do wonder if his career has been victim to an era obsessed with playing some variation on 4-3-3. There will be plenty of players who are good in a two, but not a #9, a #10 or a winger in that shape. I don't think who the striker beside Van Veen is matters that much, as long as he's physically able and willing to do the dirty work.

Had I seen this tweet, I may not have spent Sunday morning leafing through 'Well again, but it does appear that (according to the book at least) that St. John fired a blank in the middle of his scoring run.

Both Furlong and Penney (who I believe has just been out of favour, rather than injured at Charlton) are out of contract this summer, so at least there are two left back options who've been decent for us in the past available. I wouldn't have believed I'd have been writing this in January, but given we don't know how Kettlewell is in the transfer market and he's got a tune out of Goss so far, I'm leaning towards "better the devil you know". However, I really am still tickling my brain at how different he is under one manager than he was another. Since Ketts has come in, he's won a few combative challenges in midfield and I can barely remember him entering a challenge under Hammell or Grezza.

Agree with this. Mandron seems like a top bloke, but with Bevis already contracted for next season, the nice guy on the bench role is already taken. I would like to see a bit more of him, but he's off to the U17 euros shortly, so I'm not sure how much of a part he can play before the end of the season.

Believe it or not, he taught me to drive. He's a great guy, despite his employers!

He scored against them in the 2-1 defeat a few weeks ago. Edit.... I think I see what you've done there

I thought this at the game yesterday, so I dug out the Well Again book and checked. It would seem it was a chap named Ogilvie in the 1937/38 season, I don't think St John quite did get 7 in a row according to the book.

I had a look this morning and he's scored against 9/11 opponents in the league this season. Decent chance he could get one against St. Johnstone before the season is out, but giving Moult that penalty at Tynecastle may deprive him of the full set.

Even Nadir Ciftci managed a couple of goals in a meaningless final game...

He's currently scored 12 goals in 11 games, he'd now need to score 6 goals in the last 5 games. Finishing a season on 18 goals in 16 games seems a rather tall order. I wouldn't put it past him getting 26 or 27 but literally one game without a goal, he's needing snookers.

I think every team in the league would be "interested" in a striker who has scored 24 goals this season.

If the gate prices are going up, surely it would be worth their while announcing it? Say the east stand is going up to £24 next season, surely that'll make more people think a season ticket is more economical.

I know the pandemic would've been a very difficult period for many and the free ticket that we got in 2021/22 would've been a godsend to many, but I do wonder if the club hadn't made that gesture, if we'd have seen a more modest, gradual increase in prices. I know the insurance money would've taken care of the bill - but other clubs used the money elsewhere. I understand the increase isn't the club's fault - everything is dearer now - but like others, I thought the video was tone deaf and patronising. I'd also actually question what grown adult has ever bought a season ticket on the back of being motivated by a YouTube video. So all the video has served to do is piss off existing customers. I also can't join the dots with the logic in it. It almost seems like "if you can survive the deindustrialisation of the area, you can survive a 12% hike in your season ticket". I'm planning on getting a season ticket, but I am curious to hear about what is happening with the gate prices. The cost of an East Stand ticket is £21 currently and a non-early bird season ticket per game only saves you about 20p. I know the loyalty you have to your football team is unique and unlike any other business you contribute to but you really wouldn't buy anything else which wasn't incentivised. I wouldn't buy a year pass for the cinema, or anywhere else, if it wasn't economical. What actual incentive / reward is there for someone who misses 1 or 2 games to be a season ticket holder?

I imagine the gate prices must be going up too. It's currently £21 to get an individual ticket for the East Stand. The non early bird ticket (£395 / 19) works out at £20.79 per game. Surely they'll be incentivising buying a season ticket for more than a whopping 21p saved per game?

Yeah, Celtic are quite right to use the rule change to their advantage. Even with the likes of using Kyogo for an hour, it's probably kept him fresh and less injured than he was last season. It just makes the contest so much less appealing for the rest of the league. I can see how it may have been a good idea when COVID was rife but it's dumbfounding the majority of clubs voted it in. I can't even remember, for example, Martin O'Neill's Celtic team consistently making subs that don't lessen the team.

As much as when we are on a good run and they are on a bad run, I can get motivated at the prospect of us competing with them at home, I've never been enthused by games where we play the Old Firm away. The worst part of playing Celtic is that when their first XI have steamrollered you, after 60 minutes they are bringing on 3 or 4 players of just about equal quality. The five sub rule has made the prospect of games like this even worse.

I'm not going to judge him prematurely or harshly and understand he needs time to settle in, but I can't understand why he can't take a seat on a nine man bench that has three centre backs on it.

Yeah, he missed one against Dundee on the final day of the 2001/02 season. But the captain's stats are so good I'm sure we can give him that one For the record, the point I've been making is a general one about penalties. I think 12 league goals, topped up by 6 penalties I'd a fantastic return, be that as a centre forward, a penalty taker or whatever.

Zaine Francis-Angol looks like he's actively dribbling towards his own goal for your 2nd We took a few doings from United that season which were probably not contributors to finishing second with a very poor goal difference. On the other hand, that United team should've achieved more than it did.

For me, even on the days where Van Veen was doing the work of two people, was isolated etc, I still would have said he has been our best player all the season. Penney maybe rivalled him prior to the World Cup, but his form went off a cliff afterwards. Regarding the penalties - it's possible to be a good striker, a good penalty taker, or both. Fortunately for us, Van Veen is both. Penalties absolutely count - but they also give context. If you were trying to add a midfielder who could score double figures in to your midfield, would you go out and sign Mark O'Hara, who has 7 penalties from his 10 goals?

This is something that @Busta Nut often digs me up on - I agree with you regarding this. I want a number 9 to demand to hit penalties, you want them to obsess over their goal tally, breed more confidence from hitting the back of the net etc. Being a good penalty taker is a great skill in itself, but it's a different skill from being a good striker, unless every penalty they score is denying them personally a clear goalscoring opportunity. Earlier in the season, Shankland got MOTM when he scored 3 goals, 2 of which were penalties, 1 of which he was lucky enough to get to take again after he missed. That just seems flawed to me. Funnily enough, Shankland is on 18 Premiership goals with 9 pens and Van Veen is on 18 goals with 6 pens, which puts Kev a fair bit in front of Shankland for me. Just in case there is any doubt, if you're reading this Kev, I love you big man. Your goal tally is fantastic with and without penalties.

Kettlewell said in his Open Goal interview that he picked 3-5-2 based on the squad he had available to him. Given the parts of this system that don't exist in any variation of 4-3-3 are the two wing backs and the second striker and we are in a situation the wing-backs are out of contract and the second striker is likely to have suitors, that could change how Kettlewell thinks for his summer activity. It may be that he uses the same pragmatism he did to start playing 3-5-2 to see that the best players he could sign would mould the team into a different shape. That said, if there was an intention to play with wingers at any point, I imagine McKinstry would have had some gametime by now. Even just a run-out for Spittal or Mandron when we were 3-0 up on Saturday, or I guess it could be simply that he doesn't rate McKinstry.

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do. I just think that it's a big stretch from putting Butcher in there - who's an experienced leader - to an inexperienced player fresh from the league of Ireland. It has also entered my mind that Lamie has been serviceable in the past - not under Robinson or Hammell, but for much of Alexander's tenure he was for the most part, fine. If Goss and Spittal can look like different players under Kettlewell, is it inconceivable that Lamie could?

I don't know if it's just me, but I imagine if Blaney gets a run in the team in this shape, it would be left of the three. If Kettlewell goes for a straight swap, I could see him bringing Lamie (like he did on Saturday).