Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Busta Nut]

As much as I like Richard Tait he's possibly worse at defending than Josh Law.

[Desp]

5 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

As much as I like Richard Tait he's possibly worse at defending than Josh Law.

You can't judge Tait based on him being roasted by the likes of Sinclair, McKay and Hayes.  He's came from Conference level football. Of course that's going to happen. 

For me, yes he has his flaws but that's why he's playing for Motherwell.   I think he's been a fantastic signing, and it's great to have a proper right back.  He's great at going forward, and I can only assume he's great with the ladies too.  He's a beautiful man. 

[thisGRAEME]

15 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

As much as I like Richard Tait he's possibly worse at defending than Josh Law.

Fwiw, I'd say the mistakes he makes are partially down to his willingness to try and cover other people's mistakes, so gets sucked in. Struggled a bit at the start of the season but really kicked on from there.

That said, I'm biased as all f**k because I love him. #teamtait

[Busta Nut]

Josh Law came from the same level. He wasn't allowed these excuses. Tait is great going forward, I especially love that he is perfectly capable of using his left foot when he cuts inside.

He's woeful at defending though, not just against the select few players you've chosen.

 

[Busta Nut]

44 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Noticeable how much more we do that now. The build up to Johnson leaving was a solid 3 months of talking about how brilliant he was, may also play in our favour that he's hitting a bit of form in Oxford now as well.

It's going to be shite when he goes, but lets get the money.

Meant to say this earlier, but aye, yer right here. We will see McGhee and co constantly bum him up for his summer move.

Just now, thisGRAEME said:

Fwiw, I'd say the mistakes he makes are partially down to his willingness to try and cover other people's mistakes, so gets sucked in. Struggled a bit at the start of the season but really kicked on from there.

That said, I'm biased as all f**k because I love him. #teamtait

I really like him too, I just think he needs to work on his game defensively a wee bit.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Tait's an odd one. He looks fantastic up to a certain level (the bottom 8 or so teams) then gets destroyed whenever he comes up against the few quality wingers in the league.

Obviously that's to be expected when he's still only had half a season or so's adjustment to this level but it's interesting to see such a contrast.

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, thisGRAEME said:

Noticeable how much more we do that now. The build up to Johnson leaving was a solid 3 months of talking about how brilliant he was, may also play in our favour that he's hitting a bit of form in Oxford now as well.

It's going to be shite when he goes, but lets get the money.

Something else that's probably worth mentioning is the fact that we kb'd 2 offers for Moult and 1 for McDonald. It'd be good if the club could actually reinforce that message to some of the utter roasters in our support who are still coming out with the "we just give our players away"-type chat. Obviously there's history of that but it seems increasingly clear that unless it's a deal that suits the club then they're not just going to roll over and get their tummy tickled.

[Ya Bezzer!]

43 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Tait's an odd one. He looks fantastic up to a certain level (the bottom 8 or so teams) then gets destroyed whenever he comes up against the few quality wingers in the league.

Obviously that's to be expected when he's still only had half a season or so's adjustment to this level but it's interesting to see such a contrast.

I'd agree with this rather than Busta Nut's overall dismissal of his defensive capabilities.  I think he's defended quite well up to a certain level although he's certainly been given a roasting by a couple of the better players in the league.

I had him as my MotM in the first game of the season against Rangers though.

[mjw]

Something else that's probably worth mentioning is the fact that we kb'd 2 offers for Moult and 1 for McDonald. It'd be good if the club could actually reinforce that message to some of the utter roasters in our support who are still coming out with the "we just give our players away"-type chat. Obviously there's history of that but it seems increasingly clear that unless it's a deal that suits the club then they're not just going to roll over and get their tummy tickled.

Its probably best just leaving the roasters to roast away (insert Kenneth Williams gif here)
The bumping of the McGhee out thread on steelmen within minutes of us losing a match is proof of that.

We've come through another window looking a bit stronger than when it opened and hopefully stronger than the teams in the bottom six.

[Swello]

I think the team is better with Tait in there - he has given us some stability in a problem position for us (that said, I thought Hateley was decent at RB and got a fair amount of unwarranted stick due to the cast iron requirement that there has to be at least one scapegoat in any motherwell team). Tait isn't a strong tackler but his positioning is decent and he adds something going forward. His upper limit so far has been shown against Hayes, etc - but there is no reason to suspect that he can't develop further as he fully adjusts to a step up....

[Londonwell]

Tait's decent enough, has flaws which are natural coming from the level he did, I get the feeling he'll improve over time. Pretty sure he has a good few assists, I'd probably say his crossing ability is one of his stronger attributes.

I'm sure someone on steelmenonline was punting him for a Scotland cap a wee while back...

[Swello]

2 hours ago, capt_oats said:

Something else that's probably worth mentioning is the fact that we kb'd 2 offers for Moult and 1 for McDonald. It'd be good if the club could actually reinforce that message to some of the utter roasters in our support who are still coming out with the "we just give our players away"-type chat. Obviously there's history of that but it seems increasingly clear that unless it's a deal that suits the club then they're not just going to roll over and get their tummy tickled.

It's great that the club is not rolling over any more - a massive step forward in fact and one that the current management don't get enough credit for. It's only possible as long as we are realising profits on the players that we give longer deals to. Marvin was the first player that we gave a longer contract to and were then able to then sell at a decent price, giving us enough money to fund longer contracts for other targets. Moult and Cadden will hopefully allow this model to keep going - but it can only keep going in the long term if we continually identify "sellable" players, or produce them ourselves. 

McDonald, although we have stood firm on keeping him, is a throwback to our old way of doing things. We have only been able to get him on 1 year contracts and so there has been constant uncertainty around him, to the point where he has missed chunks of pre-season (and the build up to big cup games). We may take a view that for "special" players that we are in no position to get them to sign a longer deal and the uncertainty is worth it to have them in the team - but it does illustrate why we should never go back to short deals as a general approach.

[steelmen]

Great points swello, there has been a noticeable difference since dempster left and even more so since Hutchison came in.

Unfortunately they long term contracts can also bite you when the player doesn't turn out as you wish, so your scouting has to be right on the money.

McDonald has to be looked at differently, we are being very accommodating towards him because we know what he brings to the team. Thankfully he is the one exception we have.

[capt_oats]

Alan Burrows on Radio Scotland talking about the transfer stuff from last night. Quite interesting re: McDonald in so much as he's saying it broke down quite quickly:

[capt_oats]

There's yer Stephen Pearson signed til the end of the season.

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2017/02/02/pearson-returns-to-the-well/

[Swello]

PLeased with that - the definition of a low risk signing. From having a weak midfield that has been our major problem this season, we could now have one that looks like Pearson-Lucas-McHugh-Cadden, which would arguably be as strong as any in the teams around us and still would allow us to have Lasley and Clay in reserve.

[capt_oats]

9 minutes ago, Swello said:

PLeased with that - the definition of a low risk signing. From having a weak midfield that has been our major problem this season, we could now have one that looks like Pearson-Lucas-McHugh-Cadden, which would arguably be as strong as any in the teams around us and still would allow us to have Lasley and Clay in reserve.

Absolutely delighted he's signed. Unreasonably so tbh. We've really balanced up the left side of the park and Pearson signing probably takes a bit of the pressure off Frear to make an immediate impact as well. Based on his cameo against Rangers I could see him taking a bit of time to adjust to the step up.

Looking at the squad in terms of first picks and reserves at the moment you've got;

Samson (Griffiths)

Tait (McMillan) Heneghan (Ferguson) McManus (Jules) Hammell (Chalmers)

Cadden (Ainsworth) Lucas (Clay) McHugh (Lasley) Pearson (Frear)

Moult (Bowman) McDonald (McFadden?!)

Add u20s like Hastie, Campbell, MacLean (when he gets back from his injury) to supplement the squad and it looks quite decent on paper, certainly compared to the rest of 'the pack'.  It'd certainly be difficult to argue that it's been anything other than a good January window from our point of view.

I think the likes of Blyth and Kennedy are probably lost causes but I suppose if nothing else there's a bit of cover with them being there. 

[Swello]

Skippy's appeal failed. Not one to be outraged about IMO as it was always an outside chance but a big miss for our next 2 games. The inconsistency of Collum and the feeling that he evened things up is the most annoying thing - but arguing that Kiernan should have been red carded as well doesn't really help us.

[mjw]

Must have been unlucky and got a different panel from the one who overturned Kiernans red card for punching another player.

[Swello]

4 minutes ago, mjw said:

Must have been unlucky and got a different panel from the one who overturned Kiernans red card for punching another player.

Exactly. 

On the other hand, the red card for McDonald against St Mirren that was rescinded to allow him to play in the playoffs was an utter let off for us IMO, as it was a clear red and given how well he played across those two games, I think we're still up on the deal.