Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[capt_oats]

32 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Ta for that. I forgot about Tierney but the Goss one was barely a chance. Indeed you'd say Gogic in the first half, similar to Tierney, was a much higher quality chance even if he got nowhere near scoring.

Clearly managers might throw in tactical wrong 'uns to confuse the opposition and I don't think it's always a bad thing that any manager, GA in our case, isn't wedded to a certain style of play. But when you're in the run we're on right now it means there's no default to fall back on and there's the impression, fair or otherwise, he's just guessing from week to week. Beyond the short-term it also makes people ask just what we're working towards - e.g. if we struggled because we played Cornelius and Tierney each week but the manager asked for trust because he reckoned the experience would make them stars next season, there'd be a much bigger tolerance. 

It was a save from Alnwick though. 

Tbh, my take based on nothing in particular is that GA's come from a management environment where teams are playing 46 league games a season plus various cup competitions and the result is he's tying himself in knots with team selections trying to find a balance of "load management", horses for courses and meritocracy.

Mugabi has had good performances against Aberdeen this season so it made sense to drop him in at RB for those games. Putting him up against Kent or whoever seems like a really bad idea so SOD gets the nod there. He put in a shift so it seems unlikely he'll lose the jersey especially given he's our captain.

Binning off Goss at Ibrox to have a midfield 3 who'll rat because we're not going to see much of the ball seems sensible but rightly or wrongly he's viewed as our "playmaker" so I get why he'd be back in against County and Dundee at home.

If that's the rationale I can understand it. I don't necessarily agree with it, I'd far rather see a more settled side, but there seem to be a collection of folk on Twitter who are perpetually furious no matter what team gets picked now - which is just really fucking hard work tbqhwy.

Edited March 8, 2022 by capt_oats

[eliphas]

2 hours ago, capt_oats said:

Tbh, my take based on nothing in particular is that GA's come from a management environment where teams are playing 46 league games a season plus various cup competitions and the result is he's tying himself in knots with team selections trying to find a balance of "load management", horses for courses and meritocracy

Spot on. 

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

17 hours ago, capt_oats said:

It was a save from Alnwick though. 

Tbh, my take based on nothing in particular is that GA's come from a management environment where teams are playing 46 league games a season plus various cup competitions and the result is he's tying himself in knots with team selections trying to find a balance of "load management", horses for courses and meritocracy.

Mugabi has had good performances against Aberdeen this season so it made sense to drop him in at RB for those games. Putting him up against Kent or whoever seems like a really bad idea so SOD gets the nod there. He put in a shift so it seems unlikely he'll lose the jersey especially given he's our captain.

Binning off Goss at Ibrox to have a midfield 3 who'll rat because we're not going to see much of the ball seems sensible but rightly or wrongly he's viewed as our "playmaker" so I get why he'd be back in against County and Dundee at home.

If that's the rationale I can understand it. I don't necessarily agree with it, I'd far rather see a more settled side, but there seem to be a collection of folk on Twitter who are perpetually furious no matter what team gets picked now - which is just really fucking hard work tbqhwy.

That's the best take on things I've seen yet. I normally consider myself to be a rational type of fan, but even I have found myself being annoyed both with how we've lined up and how we've done with that lineup, but seeing that in written form makes a fair bit of sense.

To play devil's advocate though, instead of horses for courses in his lineup selection, he should maybe go more for horses for courses in his management style and realise he's not managing a team who play 46 league games alongside 3 domestic cups any more. 

I can't think of any successful spell or team in the last 20 years, where you didn't turn up to games knowing what at least 8 or 9 of the starting 11 was going to be. Any time I associate constant change in the team, such as Gannon drawing which under 19 would start's name out a hat on a Friday, or Baraclough signing a new striker every Friday has normally signified the end is near to me.

I think the problem is particularly bad by not having a settled defence. We've not only had several centre back pairings, but several back fours over the course of a season. I don't know off hand, but I would be amazed if the same back four had played a stretch of longer than 4 or 5 games together on the trot. When we finished third under McGhee, Craigan and Reynolds started every league game. 

The difference between successful Motherwell teams and this one for me is the distinction between a first-team player and a fringe player. The level of first team player is lower, but there are more of them. A fringe player more or less doesn't exist any more. Now, except for Kelly and Van Veen, there's no one in the team that "must play". That can be perceived in different ways, but for me, it's a warning flag if there's not many people in your team who are good enough to be missed. I'd much sooner return to the days where we had a great starting eleven with Daley, Hollis, McHugh, Carswell and three teenagers on the bench.

I was the biggest Alexander fan going at the turn of the year and have a particular soft spot for the fact that he's a Sky Blue like me and I know we're not in a precarious position by Motherwell's standard - but I just wonder how long a manager can actually survive without winning a league game. I said last week on here that the last time we went 10 games without a win was in 2002/03 when we finished bottom but were saved on a technicality. We're not far off eclipsing that.

 

[Ron Aldo]

[well fan for life]

Would they perhaps take Stephen O'Donnell instead?

[Alanos]

1 hour ago, Ron Aldo said:

 

50p and 2 ginger bottles later and he’s off…

[ropy]

1 hour ago, Ron Aldo said:

 

Did he just play that one game for us? maybe a sub appearance too?

[rowsdower]

Is he out of contract this year?

[capt_oats]

23 minutes ago, rowsdower said:

Is he out of contract this year?

Nah, he's contracted to 2023. He signed a new deal in the summer.

[Handsome_Devil]

2 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

To play devil's advocate though, instead of horses for courses in his lineup selection, he should maybe go more for horses for courses in his management style and realise he's not managing a team who play 46 league games alongside 3 domestic cups any more. 

I can't think of any successful spell or team in the last 20 years, where you didn't turn up to games knowing what at least 8 or 9 of the starting 11 was going to be. Any time I associate constant change in the team, such as Gannon drawing which under 19 would start's name out a hat on a Friday, or Baraclough signing a new striker every Friday has normally signified the end is near to me.

I think an element of understanding can be given to 'Covid insurance' of carrying a slightly bigger squad than usual incase of an outbreak at the wrong time and slightly more rotation than normal with no reserve footie (or whatever the recent equivalent was). But yes, agree completely.

According to Wiki, Kelly has a 100% record of 37 games this season and only two others (Woolery, KVV) have played more than 30. Next on the list are SOD and McGinley with 28 - which raises an eyebrow given our full back form - and then Slattery on 27 despite his semi-exile since Xmas.

It would obviously need comparison to other squads to see if that's normal or not and we can debate cause and effect etc...but intuitively those stats do not look like the basis for a successful season to me.

 

[capt_oats]

2 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

That's the best take on things I've seen yet. I normally consider myself to be a rational type of fan, but even I have found myself being annoyed both with how we've lined up and how we've done with that lineup, but seeing that in written form makes a fair bit of sense.

To play devil's advocate though, instead of horses for courses in his lineup selection, he should maybe go more for horses for courses in his management style and realise he's not managing a team who play 46 league games alongside 3 domestic cups any more. 

I can't think of any successful spell or team in the last 20 years, where you didn't turn up to games knowing what at least 8 or 9 of the starting 11 was going to be. Any time I associate constant change in the team, such as Gannon drawing which under 19 would start's name out a hat on a Friday, or Baraclough signing a new striker every Friday has normally signified the end is near to me.

I think the problem is particularly bad by not having a settled defence. We've not only had several centre back pairings, but several back fours over the course of a season. I don't know off hand, but I would be amazed if the same back four had played a stretch of longer than 4 or 5 games together on the trot. When we finished third under McGhee, Craigan and Reynolds started every league game. 

The difference between successful Motherwell teams and this one for me is the distinction between a first-team player and a fringe player. The level of first team player is lower, but there are more of them. A fringe player more or less doesn't exist any more. Now, except for Kelly and Van Veen, there's no one in the team that "must play". That can be perceived in different ways, but for me, it's a warning flag if there's not many people in your team who are good enough to be missed. I'd much sooner return to the days where we had a great starting eleven with Daley, Hollis, McHugh, Carswell and three teenagers on the bench.

I was the biggest Alexander fan going at the turn of the year and have a particular soft spot for the fact that he's a Sky Blue like me and I know we're not in a precarious position by Motherwell's standard - but I just wonder how long a manager can actually survive without winning a league game. I said last week on here that the last time we went 10 games without a win was in 2002/03 when we finished bottom but were saved on a technicality. We're not far off eclipsing that.

That's quite the existential question. 

We went a run of 1 win in 12 at the crossover in the Brown/McCall season (and didn't win any of our last 6 - albeit we were in the top half for those).

To be clear, while I get the rationale (assuming my interpretation is vaguely correct) I don't find the whole rotation thing any less annoying. I mean Jordan Roberts has just scored at Ibrox but you decide to give Connor Shields a start in the next game? Dude! C'mon!

I get that Shaw has probably had his card marked since Tynecastle but he comes on against Rangers does a job but it's Goss who starts the next game in that position? As I say, I understand that Goss is viewed as our playmaker but also...whut?

Obviously no wins in 10 league games sounds...bad but depending on how much you like your spin we've only lost one of our last 4 (and that was a result of dubious penalty) and if you bring "all competitions" into the mix then it's one loss in 5 (and a win to boot, Yay!) and until the Celtic and United games in February we'd only lost b2b games once previously this season (Hearts (a), Celtic (h) and United (a) back in October).

As I said though, it's up to Alexander to fix it (and tbf, he's said that himself as well).

From my POV it's kind of hard to get away from the fact that in pretty much any given season over the past 5 years or so 36 points after 30 games would have us in the Top 6 conversation (it's actually 5 of the last 6). Last season 6th after 30 games was 36 points, 19/20 was 37 points, 18/19 was 45 (an outlier), 17/18 was 39, 16/17 was 37, 15/16 it was 38...you get the picture.

So despite this run of no wins in 10 we're actually pretty much around where you'd expect us to be in terms of points. Could be better, could be worse.

This just seems a mental season given there are only 5 points between 4th and 10th. In comparison this time last season the gap between 4th and 10th was 22 (TWENTY TWO) points.

To step back and think about what a Motherwell manager's KPIs are likely to be at the start of any season then 12 and 13 points clear for 11th and 12th after 30 games, in the mix for the top 6, a quarter final of a cup and unbeaten in 2 trips to Ibrox sounds like something we'd have taken back in July after we'd just been scudded by Airdrie.

Clearly expectations change though and the fact we've been sat in 4th for 11 of 30 matchdays and solidly from December through to the start of February means slipping down the table is problematic. Then there's someone like Martindale at Livi, finished last season with 1 win 12, started this season with 1 win in 8 (in fact 3 wins in his opening 16 - 4 wins from 28 games over the end of 20/21 and start of 21/22)...he's picked up now though.

Edited March 9, 2022 by capt_oats

[Rod]

18 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Nah, he's contracted to 2023. He signed a new deal in the summer.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

24 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I think an element of understanding can be given to 'Covid insurance' of carrying a slightly bigger squad than usual incase of an outbreak at the wrong time and slightly more rotation than normal with no reserve footie (or whatever the recent equivalent was). But yes, agree completely.

According to Wiki, Kelly has a 100% record of 37 games this season and only two others (Woolery, KVV) have played more than 30. Next on the list are SOD and McGinley with 28 - which raises an eyebrow given our full back form - and then Slattery on 27 despite his semi-exile since Xmas.

It would obviously need comparison to other squads to see if that's normal or not and we can debate cause and effect etc...but intuitively those stats do not look like the basis for a successful season to me.

 

Based on league starts, Liam Donnelly makes it in to our most used XI despite only starting 13 / 30 games. Tony Watt also still makes it in, despite the fact he's played with another team for the last 10.

[Handsome_Devil]

12 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

To step back and think about what a Motherwell manager's KPIs are likely to be at the start of any season then 12 and 13 points clear for 11th and 12th after 30 games, in the mix for the top 6, a quarter final of a cup and unbeaten in 2 trips to Ibrox sounds like something we'd have taken back in July after we'd just been scudded by Airdrie.

Absolutely, I don't think anyone honest would say otherwise. If we'd averaged our points evenly across the season there'd be much less angst and if we'd struggled badly at first before finding our pre-Xmas form now we'd be renewing passports and booking pre-drinks for Hampden.

But the past is a weak currency in football as we all know and one of the managers KPIs, around season ticket time at least, is being cheerleader in chief to get folk to spend 300 quid or whatever in summer. Ignoring the donations no one spent that money last year and in 2020 the existential fear of the pandemic meant largely anyone who could did and thought of nothing of the return. So in a few months folk will be making the first 'normal' ST renewal decision in three years amid a cost of living crisis and the knowledge that the club have just announced we're financially tickety boo...

We have plenty of fans who will renew out of principle every year and I've no doubt the marketing team will have various plans to tug on the heart strings. But if the board aren't worried right now about whether a significant number will look at the product on offer aware they can (probably) stream matches for free and will decide to take their chances going PATG when in the mood, they have a much stronger constitution than me!

[capt_oats]

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

Based on league starts, Liam Donnelly makes it in to our most used XI despite only starting 13 / 30 games. Tony Watt also still makes it in, despite the fact he's played with another team for the last 10.

So looking at league starts it's?

Kelly (30)
SOD (21) Mugabi (21) Johansen (18) McGinley (22)
Slattery (21) Donnelly (13) Goss (19)
Woolery (23) KVV (21) Watt (18)

Ojala (13), Carroll (12), Lamie (12), O'Hara (12), Maguire (11), Grimshaw (10), Shields (9), Roberts (7),  Efford (4), Cornelius (2), Shaw (2), Tierney (2), Amaluzor (2), O'Connor (0), Nirennold (0), Crawford (0), Lawless (0)

[ropy]

It’s getting to the point in the season where I look at the scores of other games.  After much analysis I usually get round to thinking that a draw is the best result for us.  So Dundee 0-0 St Mirren?

St Mirren would make no significant gain on us and if we do end up bottom six Dundee are still a healthy gap behind us?

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

2 hours ago, capt_oats said:

So looking at league starts it's?

Kelly (30)
SOD (21) Mugabi (21) Johansen (18) McGinley (22)
Slattery (21) Donnelly (13) Goss (19)
Woolery (23) KVV (21) Watt (18)

Ojala (13), Carroll (12), Lamie (12), O'Hara (12), Maguire (11), Grimshaw (10), Shields (9), Roberts (7),  Efford (4), Cornelius (2), Shaw (2), Tierney (2), Amaluzor (2), O'Connor (0), Nirennold (0), Crawford (0), Lawless (0)

Yeah, that’s it. Gave Donnelly the nod over Ojala due to more sub appearances. 

[ropy]

9 hours ago, ropy said:

It’s getting to the point in the season where I look at the scores of other games.  After much analysis I usually get round to thinking that a draw is the best result for us.  So Dundee 0-0 St Mirren?

St Mirren would make no significant gain on us and if we do end up bottom six Dundee are still a healthy gap behind us?

Didn’t happen 

[well fan for life]

This league is so stupid.