Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[MurrayWell]

Frustrations of the last few weeks aside, if Kettlewell keeps us up comfortably, which I suspect he will, and gets offered a deal then I absolutely get the point that folk can't really argue with it too much. 

Some of our displays, tactics and changes of late have been absolutely baffling and while I've never been in the "get him out now" camp, I remain to be convinced that he's the man to take us forward long term.

If he sticks around fair enough, I'll back him, but I fear a two-year deal, followed by a bad start to next season, will land us back in exactly the same place we were in December, with an added "bumper" payoff included. 

Might be a case of putting two and two together, but with a new CEO coming in, and some quiet murmurings about investment being on the table (although we've heard this before), it may be that those who will be running the club going forward have different ideas. 

[Busta Nut]

Kettlewell and 5-2-3 for the next two year?

Yippee!

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

14 minutes ago, Alanos said:

I fully expect Kettlewell to be offered a 2 year deal. He’s cleared the deck player wise over the last season. This summer, he’ll get a chance to shape the squad to his liking. This is the make or break part. Who he keeps from the current fannies and then the quality of the guys he brings in this summer. I don’t think he’s been awful. He just needs a plan b,c or d when plan a isn’t working.

Kelly won’t be dropped. If the defence can actually defend for a few matches, his confidence may improve. Over the next few games, he’s certainly gonna face a fair few shots. Actually saving some might be the start of redemption arc. However, I think the time is right for Motherwell and Kelly to part ways in the summer. Last thing on Kelly, he is absolutely going to the Euros as Clarke is very loyal to his players. He also tends to pick players who are actually playing for their clubs. Gordon is a way better keeper, but is kept out by Clark at Hearts so not playing regularly and neither is McCrory. If fit, Kelly goes, rightly or wrongly. 

I actually think Clark staying in at Hearts makes it less likely for Kelly to go to the Euros.

Gunn is a shoe in.

Clark is going to finish 3rd and has already shown to be favoured by Steve Clarke.

I'd then say, regardless of games played, I'd take the old experienced head who's done it at the highest level, over the goalie with one cap who's been hemorrhaging goals for a team fighting relegation.

Edited February 16 by crazylegsjoe_mfc
Fighting relegation a bit of an exaggeration, struggling in the bottom half of the table maybe better.

[Handsome_Devil]

11 minutes ago, Alanos said:

Kelly won’t be dropped. If the defence can actually defend for a few matches, his confidence may improve. 

Re the defence, I was scanning through when waiting for a train earlier: we've conceded eight goals in six games since the restart, six of which came from dead balls, ie the sort of situation where the whole team is needed to defend. If I were in the back three, I'd be making the case quite strongly that this unit is basically doing its job in stopping almost everything from open play and that the problem(s) mainly stem from the guy behind them...

[YassinMoutaouakil]

I'm supporting somebody else at the Euros if Kelly goes 

[Blink182]

There is no chance Kelly goes to the Euros. 

Will be Gunn, Gordon and Clarke. Ideally neither will be needed if Gunn is fit, but could see Clarke going with Gordon if needed as number 2.

[Handsome_Devil]

7 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

If he sticks around fair enough, I'll back him, but I fear a two-year deal, followed by a bad start to next season, will land us back in exactly the same place we were in December, with an added "bumper" payoff included. 

That's definitely a risk but alternatively we appoint someone else on a two-year deal, have a poor summer as they're not used to Scottish football and half our support want them sacked because we're eighth or ninth this time next year.

Aberdeen are maybe a different case because an era ended with McInnes and they made an insane appointment but I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that being seen to do something to show ambition is a total false economy. At least when you operate in the market we do for managers.

Jack Ross was perfectly respectable while at Hibs, had got them a rare third and various trips to Hampden before having a stinker and getting punted. If instead their board had accepted a bad 21/22 and given him the January and summer windows to rebuild, would they be worse off now? I'm far from certain. The counter-point is sacking him was correct but the subsequent appointments weren't - well, aye, because our level you're much more likely to land on a managerial failure than a success.

Someone else mentioned looking forward to appointing someone with a long-term plan...SK is arguably halfway through the clear-out, how about seeing how this long-term plan turns out first?

While everyone else tears it up every 12-18 months, the contrarian in me is more and more wanting us to try being different because I don't think the odds of failure are any worse. Let's roll the dice in a different direction (usual caveats on the next months applying!).

[dezz]

25 minutes ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I actually think Clark staying in at Hearts makes it less likely for Kelly to go to the Euros.

Gunn is a shoe in.

Clark is going to finish 3rd and has already shown to be favoured by Steve Clarke.

I'd then say, regardless of games played, I'd take the old experienced head who's done it at the highest level, over the goalie with one cap who's been hemorrhaging goals for a team fighting relegation.

Totally agree. The chances of your 3rd choice keeper having to play are so minimal that you'd much rather take along the vastly experienced guy who is clearly a respected member of the squad, even if he's not played that much club football, rather than the fringe keeper who's having a shocker of a season. From a Scotland perspective, I'm hoping Hearts get 3rd sewn up fairly quickly and Gordon can get a few more games between now and the end of the season. 

 

[dezz]

30 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

That's definitely a risk but alternatively we appoint someone else on a two-year deal, have a poor summer as they're not used to Scottish football and half our support want them sacked because we're eighth or ninth this time next year.

Aberdeen are maybe a different case because an era ended with McInnes and they made an insane appointment but I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that being seen to do something to show ambition is a total false economy. At least when you operate in the market we do for managers.

Jack Ross was perfectly respectable while at Hibs, had got them a rare third and various trips to Hampden before having a stinker and getting punted. If instead their board had accepted a bad 21/22 and given him the January and summer windows to rebuild, would they be worse off now? I'm far from certain. The counter-point is sacking him was correct but the subsequent appointments weren't - well, aye, because our level you're much more likely to land on a managerial failure than a success.

Someone else mentioned looking forward to appointing someone with a long-term plan...SK is arguably halfway through the clear-out, how about seeing how this long-term plan turns out first?

While everyone else tears it up every 12-18 months, the contrarian in me is more and more wanting us to try being different because I don't think the odds of failure are any worse. Let's roll the dice in a different direction (usual caveats on the next months applying!).

I keep flipping my opinion on SK but I'm more coming round to your thinking on this.

This season has shown us what happens to the budget when you're paying off various management teams in a short period, and when you look at SK's numbers/story there's zero guarantee we will be able to attract anyone better;

- Took over a sinking ship and kept us up more than comfortably, while getting the best out of KVV;

-Did some excellent work in cutting deadwood and trimming our massively bloated squad in the summer/January;

- Has us sitting midtable (at the moment) despite clearly being told to work with a considerably reduced budget and being limited by injuries to key players;

- Introduced Lennon Miller to the team, has transformed the bold Thelonius, and has Blair Spittal playing his best football in years (ever?)

- Has a strong record in academy football up at County, which should be attractive for a club that's always going on about how the academy is the lifeblood of the place.

Clearly the points above don't tell the full story (like 1 win in 19, being papped out the cup by Morton and chucking a 3 goal lead the other night), and I'm far from an SK fan-boy, but with an upcoming refresh behind the scenes, the vast majority of the current squad being OOC in the summer and the opportunity to hopefully use next seasons budget a bit more sensibly, I think SK has done enough in his year in charge to justify giving him the opportunity see through the squad overhaul he has begun. 

Should add though, if we end up in the playoffs or worse this season he can GTF. 

Edited February 16 by dezz

[capt_oats]

It's been mentioned before but suppose one of the problems Kettlewell has in how he's viewed is down to the distribution of his record. It's very much been feast or famine in so much as 9 of his 19 wins came in the 14 games of the 2nd half of last season after he took over from Hammell whereas only 5 have come in his 25 league games this season..

He went into this season with a completely unsustainable 64.2% win rate in the league (9 wins from 14) and is currently sitting on 20% for this season (5 wins in 25). The flip of that is that he's only *lost* 36%  - so he's actually unbeaten in 64% of his league games this season, almost two thirds.

If there's a more even distribution over his time then it's doubtful this is anywhere near a conversation. I've said this before but IMO we're probably only 2 wins short of where we might reasonably expect to be in a fairly average season (*looks at losing 2-0 to Livi and 3-0 at County*) those margins are pretty fine.

I'd say, at this moment in time I'm still very much a Kettlewell sceptic - the start he had was exceptional but unsustainable and I acknowledge that if he keeps us up then he'll more than likely get an extension which is fair enough because there's no denying he's been dealt a tough hand with all the restrictions that have been placed on him. Equally I have my doubts about his long term suitability - the fact we've gone from looking to all intents and purposes defensively sound to having one of the worst defensive records in the league with essentially the same players at the core doesn't really reflect well and that's not really assuaged by the players he's backing ie: the Harry Paton and Oli Shaw of it all.

I notice someone has updated the List of Motherwell managers page on Wiki (for league games only) and while it's slightly annoying its been separated out into interim/permanent it gives an overview of how he actually compares to other managers (again it's worth noting that McCall only had Rangers in the league for about 1.5 of his seasons in charge).

I've gone back as far as Davies for reference - the only real comparisons based on number of games are Black, Malpas, Gannon (ish), Brown and Baraclough. It gives Kettlewell 39 games and 14 wins combined = 35.8% so he's won more than he's lost (and Hammell 5 wins in 24 games = 20.8% who erm, lost more than he won):

Edited February 16 by capt_oats

[MurrayWell]

24 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

That's definitely a risk but alternatively we appoint someone else on a two-year deal, have a poor summer as they're not used to Scottish football and half our support want them sacked because we're eighth or ninth this time next year.

Someone else mentioned looking forward to appointing someone with a long-term plan...SK is arguably halfway through the clear-out, how about seeing how this long-term plan turns out first?

Overall agree with where you're coming from on this, I find myself in the bizarre situation where I was a pretty vocal supporter of Kettlewell during our worst run under him, but the last two capitulations have really got me questioning his decision making and tactical ability, leaving me wondering why he hasn't used some of the, albeit, limited budget on allowing us to play in a different way. 

As I said previously, I don't think he's been as bad as some have made out, far from a disaster. I just struggle to see what his vision is. He bangs on about having an identity and way of playing, when we knock the ball about we're actually pretty good, but as soon as he's feeling pressure it's aimless long balls and hit and hopes. We heard similar from County fans that while he could be great at times, he was pretty stubborn and refused to adapt, Aberdeen midweek is a prime example of that and his comments after even pointed to him predicting that they'd equalise, he did nothing of note to prevent this. 

On the bringing in someone else point, totally agree that everything in that respect is a risk, but I think someone new having a clean slate for next season would get more patience from the fans... I honestly reckon we're at the stage where one or two bad results would have folk calling for Kettlewell to go. Like I said, if it turns out he sticks about I don't think folk should be enraged by that, given it would mean he's probably successfully kept us up while clearing out a lot of deadwood. Just wonder if changes begind the scenes will end up impacting things. Strange old season to be honest, wouldn't at all be surprised if we turn in an unexpected performance at Tynecastle tomorrow too just to keep everyone guessing. 

[witchfindergeneral]

12 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

It's been mentioned before but suppose one of the problems Kettlewell has in how he's viewed is down to the distribution of his record. It's very much been feast or famine in so much as 9 of his 19 wins came in the 14 games of the 2nd half of last season after he took over from Hammell whereas only 5 have come in his 25 league games this season..

He went into this season with a completely unsustainable 64.2% win rate in the league (9 wins from 14) and is currently sitting on 20% for this season (5 wins in 25). The flip of that is that he's only *lost* 36%  - so he's actually unbeaten in 64% of his league games this season, almost two thirds.

If there's a more even distribution over his time then it's doubtful this is anywhere near a conversation. I've said this before but IMO we're probably only 2 wins short of where we might reasonably expect to be in a fairly average season (*looks at losing 2-0 to Livi and 3-0 at County*) those margins are pretty fine.

I'd say, at this moment in time I'm still very much a Kettlewell sceptic - the start he had was exceptional but unsustainable and I acknowledge that if he keeps us up then he'll more than likely get an extension which is fair enough because there's no denying he's been dealt a tough hand with all the restrictions that have been placed on him. Equally I have my doubts about his long term suitability - the fact we've gone from looking to all intents and purposes defensively sound to having one of the worst defensive records in the league with essentially the same players at the core that's not really assuaged by the players he's backing ie: the Harry Paton and Oli Shaw of it all.

I notice someone has updated the List of Motherwell managers page on Wiki (for league games only) and while it's slightly annoying its been separated out into interim/permanent it gives an overview of how he actually compares to other managers (again it's worth noting that McCall only had Rangers in the league for about 1.5 of his seasons in charge).

I've gone back as far as Davies for reference - the only real comparisons based on number of games are Black, Malpas, Gannon (ish), Brown and Baraclough. It gives Kettlewell 39 games and 14 wins combined = 35.8% so he's won more than he's lost (and Hammell 5 wins in 24 games = 20.8% who erm, lost more than he won):

Alexanders goals against record is honking for someone who loved defensive football

[Handsome_Devil]

1 minute ago, MurrayWell said:

Overall agree with where you're coming from on this, I find myself in the bizarre situation where I was a pretty vocal supporter of Kettlewell during our worst run under him, but the last two capitulations have really got me questioning his decision making and tactical ability, leaving me wondering why he hasn't used some of the, albeit, limited budget on allowing us to play in a different way. 

Ha, bizarrely I've gone the other way from wanting him sacked between Blair Spittal day (v Hearts at FP) and Dingwall to basically saying, once the decision has been by the board made not to do that let's commit to it and see how backing him goes.

I pretty much agree with all the points you mentioned in the 'case for the prosecution' btw. He clearly makes mistakes, still has a tonne to learn and it just shows how in the balance it could be - if there's a strong or poor conclusion to the season I think the majority will say fair enough when the inevitable happens from that.

[capt_oats]

5 minutes ago, witchfindergeneral said:

Alexanders goals against record is honking for someone who loved defensive football

In fairness that can really be put down to a couple of heavy defeats against Rangers and Celtic - 1-6 against the **** at Fir Park when we were down to 10 men, a 0-4 against Celtic at FP and a 6-0 at Parkhead on Trophy day when the team were on the beach having just confirmed Europe during the mid-week.

There's 16 goals.

His actual goal difference is -17.

Edited February 16 by capt_oats

[MurrayWell]

1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Ha, bizarrely I've gone the other way from wanting him sacked between Blair Spittal day (v Hearts at FP) and Dingwall to basically saying, once the decision has been by the board made not to do that let's commit to it and see how backing him goes.

I pretty much agree with all the points you mentioned in the 'case for the prosecution' btw. He clearly makes mistakes, still has a tonne to learn and it just shows how in the balance it could be - if there's a strong or poor conclusion to the season I think the majority will say fair enough when the inevitable happens from that.

Haha! Good to know none of us have a clue how we should feel about it and we all keep changing our minds 

[thisGRAEME]

I am really tickled at Kettlewell winning loads of games, followed by losing loads of games, followed by drawing loads of games.

It's a very funny bit.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

I'm not usually someone who puts a lot of stock in style of play over results but in a vacuum I'd say I've generally enjoyed watching us play over Kettlewell's year in charge? The second half of last season was obviously the KVV show and it's easy to enjoy games when you're winning every week but my lasting memory is still of us being on the front foot and dominating most teams.

This season has been weird but from the brief period where Slattery and Spittal turned into a Xavi-Iniesta tribute act to watching Mika body people, all the last minute equalisers and now the weekly Theo Bair show I think we've been fairly watchable even while going on the longest winless run in history. We do still resort to long ball stuff but it's not as much of a constant as it was in most of Robinson's tenure. Alexanderball was Alexanderball and Hammell had us playing nice football for about 2 months until the results turned.

This might sound absolute mental but I think if you look at each manager's terms as a whole we've played "nicer" stuff under Kettlewell than anybody else since... McCall?

[Phillips455]

SPFL twitter administrator getting involved with theos record.

 

Edited February 16 by Phillips455
Fixing the bloody twitter embed

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Liam Kelly going to the Euros

Thelonius Bair going to the World Cup

[JamesP_81]

If we were to get rid of Ketts in the summer genuinely who do we get and what would people expect from them ? There's no manager in the world that would instantly propel us into 3rd spot , well none that would be even remotely within our budget , and unless we get some Taylor Swift Dosh or completely rip up our structure then even the best manager in the world will be working with the 2nd or 3rd lowest budget in the league.

Given that our position means that we have to work smarter than our rivals to be on the same level as them I'm all for us jumping off the managerial merry-go-round and ,I don't know, maybe backing the one guy for a number of years and give this continuity malarkey a try. Maybe severance payments and trucking in a load of Josh f*cking Morrises every other window isn't giving us the biggest bang for our buck.