David

Not that I don't agree, but why should that be the case now when it never really has been in the past? When results turned against us it was Alexander, Hammell etc who got the blame. Kettlewell is no different.

So, I've seen a lot of discussion about the main man between the sticks as of late and thought it maybe deserved its own thread. Kelly is an interesting one, as he's the captain and has been a regular call-up for Scotland. I think if we were told a few years back that we'd have a keeper who was in that position we'd have been well happy. But it seems many fans aren't. Let's have it said right away, that Kelly isn't perfect. If he was, he wouldn't be at Motherwell. Or he wouldn't have been for long anyway. He's no Darren Randolph or John Ruddy, that's for sure. Although it should be said that it's probably a lot easier to look better when you have a defence in front of you that consisted of the likes of Stevie Hammell, Craigan, Mark Reynolds and Shaun Hutchinson as Randolph and Ruddy both did. I think we were relatively lucky to have both those keepers at the club, and it was very clear that they were destined for better things. What is interesting is looking at who else we've had since those guys were in our team: Lee Hollis Gunnar Nielsen George Long Dan Twardzik Craig Samson Brett Long Connor Ripley Russell Griffiths Dean Brill Trevor Carson Mark Gillespie Scott Fox Aaron Chapman How many of that list would anyone take over Liam Kelly? For me it would be one. Mark Gillespie. It's when you look at that list you realise that while Kelly isn't perfect, he's better than most of what we've had the past number of years. I'd happily keep him here for as long as he wanted to stay, because the chances are good that the likes of Oxborough and whoever else comes next will be another one of the unremarkable names on that list above.

I don't think that's the way to be looking at it though. Him sitting on a 15 wins from 22 record means nothing. What matters is how he's done this season. And as others have alluded to, this is him on his first full season with his own players. As I said already, our form for this season after the preliminary league cup games stands at 3 wins, 2 draws, and 7 losses. 12 goals scored, 18 conceded. So he has a 25% win rate. Last season he reaped the benefits of the players that Hammell brought in. He got the wages Van Veen was on though to offer to another player.

As I said about Bair in another thread, I want him to succeed. It would be mental for me, as a Motherwell fan, to not want him to become this incredible success story. Same with Kettlewell. I'm hoping with every fibre of my being that he can turn this around and make a success of it.

I was indeed. I am not one for wanting a manager moved on. I'm usually among the last to say that they should go, and I'm usually among the very last to be critical of any player. This season seems different to me though. On Alexander, I saw the sense in him getting the job because he had a track record. He'd accomplished stuff before coming here to suggest he at least knew what he was doing. Kettlewell hasn't. Once he got the Ross County job on his own it became clear that he was a man seemingly out of his depth. I think he's a really articulate speaker, and he's a great personality. But what he says and what he's managed to accomplish are two different things. I think that how he carries himself in the media gains him a lot of favour with fans. He's a confident guy who's comfortable in that settling. I think his signings have, for the most part, been terrible though. I can fully get behind the moving on of the likes of Shields and Efford, but can we honestly say that the players brought in have been, on the whole, an upgrade? I don't see us getting anywhere with this current crop of players. Even if we brought in an experienced manager tomorrow I think they'd find it really difficult to get anything from the squad as it is. The problem we have now is that we have Wilkinson on a two-year deal, Davor on a two-year deal, and Bair on a two-year deal. Thankfully Obika was a year-long deal with an option. The first three won't be easy to move on and trust me, if we bin Kettlewell for a new manager before January he'll be looking to do exactly that. And while those players might not be on much, it's still a decent chunk of change for a club that continually claims to have no money. We got got rid of Danzaki, Efford, Tierney, Maguire, Lamie and McGinley this summer. And got fees for Van Veen and Shields. We then used that freed up financial space to sign Obika, Wilkinson, Souare, Davor, and Bair on contracts, and got Mika, Spencer, Shaw, and Gent on loan. That's not good business in my opinion.

Our form for this season after the preliminary league cup games stands at 3 wins, 2 draws, and 7 losses. 12 goals scored, 18 conceded. So he has a 25% win rate. Kevin Van Veen was mentioned a lot. He scored 18 goals after the turn of the year, which played a huge part in where we finished. Casey and Butcher were just as vital. None of them were players that Kettlewell signed. And that's my biggest concern.

The fact we're putting all of our faith into a 20-year-old kid who's played around 20 career games in total gives me the fear.

As is usually the case, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Kettlewell coming in with fresh ideas and a different approach will undoubtedly have helped, but Van Veen hitting a really rich vein of form also played a serious part. The thing that makes me question who's really responsible for this current run of form is who actually recruited the players we brought in. I said at the start of the season that I wasn't confident in virtually all of them, and some more than others. And sadly it's now looking like it's playing out that way. If Kettlewell is shipped out, and that's an if, we will need to do some proper recruitment in the winter window. If we don't, I don't think it matters who the manager is. No one is getting performances out of guys who are either injured or who can't score goals. If Kettlewell had the final say on our recruitment, then my fears about him would have been confirmed. His record when he was given the Ross County job on his own was pretty atrocious. It's looking like he's going down a similar route here when given his first full season in charge. I hope it's not true and that he can change things up enough to get the results needed to get to the winter window, but I have my doubts.

If I was he'd be on the naughty list.

I agree on the five game comment, but ten? We're creeping towards Christmas which is when all managers will be judged. Including Kettlwell.

Yeah, but 19 of those games were last season so they don't really matter. It's what we've done this season that matters.

I'd be surprised if he featured for more than 15-20 minutes on that pitch. If he ends up with another injury, this time due to a sub-standard surface I reckon Arsenal may end up pulling him entirely.

The jury is still very much out on Kettlewell for me. I know he did well for us in the second half of last season, but I put a lot of that down to Van Veen hitting a mental run of form. I'm not so sure we'd have gotten to where we ended up without that. As some will already know, I had my doubts about Kettlewell from the off. His record at Ross County when he got the job on his own was honking. The one thing he has in his favour is that he really does sound like someone who knows what they're talking about. His media stint wasn't an accident, he's very articulate and good in front of the camera. But all of that means nothing if he's not able to deliver. And thus far, in his first full season, I've not been overly impressed. I won't mention his signings, because I know that annoys people, but anyone who honestly thought the guys we signed to play up front would come good were either incredibly naive or just plain stupid. I don't think we have the personnel to turn this around to any great measure, and sadly, I think he'll be gone before the end of the season.

We can't judge a goalkeeper playing at Motherwell on how the international manager would rate him. In all reality, our goalkeeper shouldn't be near the international squad most of the time regardless of who he is. Kelly's form lately hasn't been great, and he probably knows that. But, a club like Motherwell can't afford to have two keepers of Kelly's level at the club. It just isn't feasible. Kelly is first choice until he leaves, most likely.

What gives you so much confidence in Oxborough? He could be absolutely honking.

And that's not to say that Bair doesn't have a role to play. As much as I don't think he's worth the paper his contract is printed on, he's someone we can fire on if we're holding a lead or looking to shore up in the last 15 minutes or so and he can do his running around and whatever else he does. But if we want to actually score goals and win football games? He's not going to be figuring much.

Bair doesn't win headers or really get much on target. It's not in his arsenal. At absolute best he can do the donkey work for a much more well rounded striker. Which is why I thought that, given a chance and a run of games, he and Shaw may be worth looking at until Biereth gets back to full fitness. Once Biereth and Wilkinson are fully fit that's the two I'd go with every time. If we use two. If we use one then it would need to be one of them.

If he does that, then we have to recognise that Bair isn't a project and is no longer a 4th choice player being stuck in there due to injury. He's then one of our first-choice strikers.

Yeah, but if Biereth isn't available, then he's our best option. Far from ideal, but it is what it is for now.

They are all grouped together in a standing section at Celtic Park, so they could likely buy tickets in smaller groups dotted around the other sections of the stadium, but it wouldn't be the same. They tend to only act up in numbers and in their section. If one or two of them act up elsewhere in the stadium they'll easily be identified and dealt with. However, knowing what they seem to be like, I'd imagine they'll refuse to attend in any other capacity as some sort of protest and "struggle" against the "capitalists" that run their club.

I don't think that will be the case. It's surely going to be Wilkinson up top if we're going with one.

Bair can be utilised from the bench, see if that role suits him better.

I'd like to see Shaw and Wilkinson start up front together.

I know I'm not really meant to be discussing Bair, but the whole idea of him starting due to injuries isn't really true, is it? He's started every single one of our eight league matches thus far. In two of those games, he started alongside Wilkinson (which he also did in the cup game), and in one he also started alongside Efford. Shaw has been on the bench for five of our games this season and has never started but has always come on at some point. There's never been any talk about him being injured or not up to playing a full 90 to my recollection. In our last three games, we've had both Wilkinson and Shaw on the bench. Okay, Wilkinson may have been coming back from injury, but again, he was available, alongside Shaw. At some point, we need to realise that Bair hasn't been used because we had no other option up front. He has been playing ahead of Shaw for five games, and ahead of Wilkinson for the last two or three because Kettlewell prefers to use him up front on his own instead of one of the other two, or alongside one of the other two. This is more of a tactical and personal preference choice by the manager than something forced upon him. Which is fine, he's the manager and he makes the decisions. But he has to be held accountable when he gets it wrong, and it looks to me like he's gotten it wrong the past few games.

Nah, that's a bit of a strawman argument there in my opinion. It's incredibly lazy to take any argument against a player and shoot it down with "Oh, you're just doing what Steelboy does..." in an attempt to silence the debate. That's bollocks, and you know it. Steelboy has an irrational dislike of certain players. I don't. I'm arguing against his results and stats, which is totally different. If we were persevering with Wilkinson, Shaw or Obika up front and they had managed a single goal in eight starts and rarely looked like scoring I'd be saying the exact same thing about them. And I doubt I'd be alone. In fact, in Wilkinson's limited game time for us I've seen more people be critical of him than anyone has been of Bair. Bair has averaged about one goal every eleven games in his career. That was roughly how many he was scoring before he started his first game for us, and he's doing absolutely nothing to make me think he'll do any better here. If we continue playing him he'll maybe get us around 3 league goals this season. At best. So no, bin the strawman nonsense. I'm debating with the points I quote in my posts. It's how an internet forum works. People say things and other people reply and argue against their viewpoint. The post I quoted was talking about how much Bair adds to the team, and how others should receive as much criticism for not scoring as he does. So again, no, I'm not debating with myself. I've learned of late that if I want to even hint at criticism of Bair I need to make sure I tread carefully lest I be tarred with the irrational hatred of players or "personal vendetta" brush. That's why I always try to quote the exact points I'm replying to. What would I be saying if Bair missed those chances? I'd actually be impressed. Because for him to miss those chances would mean he'd managed to find his way into the position of actually getting them to begin with. Bair can go through almost entire games and not register a single shot on target. You know the old saying. You miss 100% of the chances you don't take. Or in his case, the chances you don't get to begin with. Both Shaw and Wilkinson, from what I've seen, and their career history, look to me like players who could get us between 7 to 10 league goals if they were given a decent run in the team, which is around average for a decent striker at our level. They've shown in the past that they know how to score goals, and you can see that when they have appeared for us. Sure, they miss chances. All strikers do. But the fact they actually find themselves in a position to get those chances is enough for me to want to see them play. They came on late in the game when our midfield was basically fucked. They'd been trying to cope with a much better quality of player all game, plus they were being relied upon to pose any kind of forward threat. Look, all I'll say in closing is that I was critical of us signing Bair at the start of the season. I was told not to be critical until we'd at least seen him play. Now I'm being told that, after seeing him play, my criticism, which is based entirely on his abilities as a player, is "irrational" and a "personal vendetta." When we continue to play a striker who never even looks like scoring, I'm going to voice my concerns. It's as simple as that. If people don't like it? Keep scrolling.