Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[fat_tony]

1 hour ago, rowsdower said:

Funny, because prior to SK joining we were all talking about how bad a RB O'Donnell was and how he would be better suited to RWB.

He is frequently our only out ball, and has been steady in that position for a while. Signing Koutroumbis and Kaleta suggests he's not the long term solution there, but he's hardly our biggest problem.

Yeah how quickly we forget how exposed SOD consistently was under #alexanderball. My only concern with SOD at RWB is that he can't keep it going for 90 minutes. But as you say, he's steady and provides an out ball. 

I'm far more concerned about the midfield.

[welldaft]

10 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

It certainly turned out that way. 

The manager has the final say but on matters of health, fitness and rehab he's going to trust the professionals, and you'll never convince me otherwise that they didn't approve the plan.

And if they approved - perhaps even encouraged - a 45-minute run out, you think SK should overrule their years of experience and expertise? Clearly we can be facetious and say yes because the medical team seem shit and we'd all sack them but you can only piss with etc.

 

Let it go HD. It was a massive mistake. And it backfired spectacularly. If he is out for any length of time. That is on the Manager.

For the thousandth time I rate Kettlewell. He has done a good job up to now. 

But he f**ked up today and I hope it does not have the impact I fear it may have. 

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

44 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I have no idea...I expect he'd have been given a maximum by our medical experts, what it was is pure speculation. I can't imagine 45 would have been thought safe though 50 fatal but who knows. There are obvious pros and cons to starting him to gain fitness but fundamentally it's not any less logical than having a guy on the bench for 20 minutes at the end. 

Edit to add that tactically I probably wouldn't have done it either (tbh I'd mentally written off today so gave our team no thought whatsoever) but that's not really the point we're kicking the arse out of, it's whether SK was irresponsible in even playing him. Caveats about us not knowing the story, but on that alone you either say he was because of the result or he wasn't because he trusted the process and it's not on him someone else screwed up within that.

I think 20 mins from the end is more logical. You have watched 70 minutes of a game, saw what its like physically and can make a call on if the conditions suit said player. Chuck in that he's playing against a tiring defence rather than one on an even keel with him.

I do agree with you that the medical team would have passed him fit and I do agree on your point in your previous post that SK has every right after 18 months to be asking these questions. I don't think it's as black and white as our injury predicament being Kettlewell's fault, the medical department's fault or luck, but a perfect storm of the three. But for me, tactically definitely does play a part in the point we are kicking the arse out of. If he had risked him on account of having no fit strikers, it would be a lot more palatable than him having done it benching last week's strikers in the process (with the obvious caveat of them having a sitter each).

In the once bitten, twice shy mould though, I would be looking at Callachan's situation from last week and saying to myself "do we really need to push him here?". Regardless of who's fault it was, there is an obvious point to be made that were are not learning from our mistakes and the injuries are compounding.

[wellboy1991]

I have worries for Miller for the cup game next week. He clearly was struggling all week and then today took some real heavy hits from the Rangers hammer throwers. 

Looked to be limping coming off the pitch. A midfield of Davor, Halliday and Sparrow would be a sorry sight… 

[ropy]

If Stama had come on at 60 minutes and gone off at 89 minutes who would we blame?

[Eliphas Pettigrew]

33 minutes ago, ropy said:

If Stama had come on at 60 minutes and gone off at 89 minutes who would we blame?

Rest assured we'd find somebody

[Handsome_Devil]

8 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I think 20 mins from the end is more logical. You have watched 70 minutes of a game, saw what its like physically and can make a call on if the conditions suit said player. Chuck in that he's playing against a tiring defence rather than one on an even keel with him.

...

Regardless of who's fault it was, there is an obvious point to be made that were are not learning from our mistakes and the injuries are compounding.

Swings and roundabouts... doing it from the beginning means minutes when the game is still live rather than folk are jogging it in, you're still in a nothing to lose situation etc. it's obviously more common to do it at the end but it's hardly the only option either.

Agree completely on the mistake and the need for change, I said along with everyone else before half-time that something had gone wrong - my objection is to the 'this is all Kettlewell's fault it's entirely on him' reaction. Unless you think he's knocked out a sports science degree in his spare time (or is ignoring medical advice) and is making all these calls too, that's just blatantly untrue.

Edited August 11 by Handsome_Devil

[Well Fan]

To say I was surprised at Stama starting this match is an understatement. Thought he might come on last 20 min or so to experience the intensity of playing Rangers. Fully expected one of the other forwards ploughing a lone furrow. 

Injury wise....... The Club have left themselves open to criticism from signing past injury prone players, training methods? and introducing players not at the level of fitness required to start matches. 

Have always gave SK the benefit of doubt in his tenure but to say that's eroding quickly is an understatement. 

Can see a totally horrendous season unfolding. 

Can only hope other players not currently playing, hit the ground running when they are required/fit. 

SK report card.... 

Can do better.                        5/10

Stubborn                                 9/10

Communication with staff  8/10

Lack of width - wingers        0/10

 

 

[Ceiling Granny]

11 hours ago, rowsdower said:

 

I saw plenty of mentions of us only passing back, but there were many occasions where there was literally no one in a forward position to play the ball too.

I like wingers, and whether SK likes them or not, it would be nice to have at least one give us an option.

Can’t remember if I said it on here, or just speaking with friends, but this is likely to be my heads gone this season. I completely understand passing it back to take a bit of pressure off, but we’ve absolutely no idea how to get it back up the park (successfully) once we’ve done that. 
 

I’ve nothing to add on the Stama chat - starting him was a ridiculous decision.

[ropy]

14 minutes ago, Ceiling Granny said:

Can’t remember if I said it on here, or just speaking with friends, but this is likely to be my heads gone this season. I completely understand passing it back to take a bit of pressure off, but we’ve absolutely no idea how to get it back up the park (successfully) once we’ve done that. 
 

I’ve nothing to add on the Stama chat - starting him was a ridiculous decision.

My bug bear is passing it back to the keeper, I haven’t been triggered this season yet but the defender looks up and can’t see a forward pass so he rolls it back to the keeper so that he can try it from 25 yards further back.

[welldaft]

I thought at the time Casey did not do well at either goal and I see Sportscene highlighting this.

Others are to blame for the balls getting into the box but once there you need to be and do better. Can Kettlewell not see this ?

I always thought that our 1st choice central defence would be McGinn, Gordon and Balmer. With Casey and Blaney as back up. Nothing I am seeing at the moment changes that view. 

Balmer may not be that good. Who knows. I am surprised that to date he has not got much game time. 

 

[David1979]

14 hours ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

No.

Stamatelopoulous admitted he wasn’t fit last Saturday. 

So you think that the player himself and the medical team all advised the manager that the player wasn't fit and Kettlewell selected him to play anyway?

[TheMotherwell1]

2 minutes ago, David1979 said:

So you think that the player himself and the medical team all advised the manager that the player wasn't fit and Kettlewell selected him to play anyway?

Give it a rest mate. 

[witchfindergeneral]

On 09/08/2024 at 14:37, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

Surely we've learned some lessons about playing people before they are match fit.

hahaha, good call Nostradamus

[ClaretAmberb]

17 hours ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

No.

Stamatelopoulous admitted he wasn’t fit last Saturday. 

Being match fit isn't the same as being injured. 

[Handsome John]

32 minutes ago, ClaretAmberb said:

Being match fit isn't the same as being injured. 

Exactly. Think the usual phrase “blowing out my arse” doesn’t mean you are likely to have a muscle pop! 

[Well Fan]

If you are not 100% fit due to pre season training levels, carrying an injury or unfamiliar to SPL pace. Your chances of injury in a match against Rangers at Hampden has exponentially increased. 

I don't know the reasons for every injury but I can safely say there will be major discussions going on in the background. 

TBF SK has been trying to get minutes in legs and phase players in. So, in some ways I can see his logic. 

Stama yesterday was a mistake and nothing otherwise will change my thinking. 

I'm sure SK thinks otherwise also. Hindsight eh!!!! 

Anyway, after an exciting phase of player signings, let's wait see who meets requirements and who falls short. We ain't seen enough as yet! 

However, slightly concerned at minute due to lack of pace/width and support middle to front. But need see all players available to make fair judgement. 

I'm sure SK and team are well aware as they are on final year of contract. His stewardship and his head on the block. 

Here's hoping for an upturn in fortunes and performances to maintain Premier league status for further years. 

 

 

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, ClaretAmberb said:

Being match fit isn't the same as being injured. 

Aye. Some folk are absolutely losing the run of themselves with this.

The quotes from Stamatelopoulos after the game last week basically translated to him saying he was blowing out his arse (as @Handsome John says above) not that he was an injury risk.

Essentially he was fit and available to play yesterday (ie: not injured) but not match fit. By all accounts he's not a known sick note so depending on how much he was involved in the bounce game I'd imagine our hope was that he'd get maybe 50 mins to an hour yesterday and work on getting him involved - which in normal circumstances is absolutely fair enough IMO.

For me, the context is the big WTF? about this.

We' had 8 first team players either injured or doubtful having spent the week fielding questions about the increasing number of injuries we've had to deal with along with the fact that we're having to manage other players minutes because they're coming back from injuries that meant they couldn't fully participate in pre-season.

With all that in mind you'd have thought we'd maybe have erred on the side of caution and given Stamatelopulos a longer run out in a bounce game or something given the nature of the injuries we've seen and also the fact that we had Robinson sat on the bench (who ironically *has* a full pre-season in the tank).

Edited August 11 by capt_oats

[David1979]

5 hours ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Give it a rest mate. 

I'll take that as a no. 

[YassinMoutaouakil]

KVV didn't make the squad for Groningen's first game of the season..