David
-
Posts
6,357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
94
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by David
-
-
1 minute ago, mio said:
im not a kettlewell hater but if he wasn’t booked and then sent off that’d be a few less minutes.
That's a bit of a stretch. I know we all love a good manager-bashing on this forum, but I think the three injured players we've had may have been more of a factor in it all.
-
15 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
Of course there's some truth in what you say, as the ebb and flow of a game is down to the performance and tactics of both teams not just one. However, it was quite clear on Friday that, even when presented with the option of advancing out of our own area, our midfielders quite clearly chose to be cautious and remain in situ. That was both with 10 and 11 men and clearly a conscious decision and nothing to do with Kilmarnock.
I can’t dispute that we were cautious at points on Friday (as were Kilmarnock, by the way). However, I’d argue that it’s not as straightforward as a deliberate, one-dimensional plan to sit back after scoring.
Momentum is a massive factor in football. When a team concedes, it’s natural for them to respond with urgency—pressing higher and taking more risks. This often pushes the leading team deeper. Players react instinctively to pressure. When the opposition throws everything forward, the priority often shifts to holding shape and defending—more out of necessity than by design.
There’s also the psychological and tactical side to consider. Protecting a narrow lead can lead to a subconscious shift towards caution. Players might hesitate to make risky forward passes or push too far forward, not because they’re instructed to but as a natural response to the situation. This is especially true if confidence in the defence isn’t at its peak.
Context is also key. Playing with ten men for any length of time inevitably changes the dynamic. Even when we had eleven men on the park, there’s a recovery period—both physically and mentally—where players need to readjust after a period of sustained pressure. The caution you mention may well have been a mix of regaining composure and ensuring we didn’t concede a soft equaliser.
I’m not saying we couldn’t have been more proactive or that the tactics were flawless, that's never the case, but I think these situations are rarely as straightforward as they seem. What looks like sitting back might be the result of Kilmarnock’s pressure, the game’s momentum, and the very human instinct to protect what we had.
15 hours ago, dennyc said:The momentum against Killie had clearly changed but it was not just an immediate reaction to us scoring. We were comfortable for the 30 minutes after the goal up to half time. In the second half everyone in the ground could sense the equalising goal coming and the Killie players certainly did.
My issue is that, despite that momentum switch, SK did nothing to alter the flow of the match until after Killie got the goal they deserved. Had he acted earlier maybe we could have regained control and gone on to win the match. Evidenced by the impact Maswanhise had when he came on and gave Killie something different to think about. Even with us a man down.
As you say, we are well placed in the League and SK deserves credit for that. But, how much better placed could we be if he was a bit more pro active. If he is not happy with the way momentum has switched or the fact we are falling deeper and deeper against his instructions, he has the power to try and change things. But he appears reluctant to do so until the inevitable happens.
You’ve raised some fair points regarding the flow of the match and the timing of substitutions, but I think there’s a bit more to consider when assessing Kettlewell's decisions.
Firstly, while the momentum did shift in the second half, making an early substitution isn’t always the answer. The manager has to take multiple factors into account. Which players to take off, how a substitution might alter the team’s shape, and whether the change will genuinely address the tactical problem. Bringing Maswanhise on later in the game clearly paid off, but there’s no certainty that the same impact would have been achieved earlier. Substitutions are rarely a magic fix, and their timing involves balancing immediate needs with the broader game plan.
Secondly, sitting deeper isn’t always a deliberate tactic but often a response to the opposition’s increased pressure, as I mentioned above. If Kettlewell instructed the team to push higher or play out more (which he was, by the way. He could be seen and heard from the main stand urging players to push out), and they struggled under that pressure, it’s less about managerial hesitation and more about the natural ebb and flow of the game. Momentum shifts aren’t always within a manager’s control, especially when the opposition steps up their intensity.
It’s also worth considering how finely balanced the match was. With a narrow lead, making changes too early carries risks, as they might leave the team more exposed. While an earlier substitution could have disrupted Killie’s rhythm, it also might have left us vulnerable, particularly as we went down to 10 men later on.
Finally, I think Kettlewell has demonstrated his ability to make impactful in-game adjustments, as shown by Maswanhise’s introduction. It’s easy to look back and argue a substitution should have come sooner, but in the moment, the manager's job is to assess the bigger picture: how the team is coping, the risks involved, and whether the players on the pitch can resolve the situation themselves. That’s not hesitation—it’s a measured, calculated approach in my view.
We’re in a strong position in the league, and while the manager's decisions may not always be perfect, they’ve played a significant role in getting us there. Momentum shifts and spells of sitting deep are part of the game, and they happen to every team in almost every match. I do think it's easy for us to sit here online and talk about what should have been done after the game is over, but maybe not quite as easy to do when you're the man in charge mid-game and the result is still there for the taking.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, wellfan said:
I haven’t dismissed it though. I said our league position is excellent. All I’ve done is provided some context to that position.
It’s all relative, isn’t it? I’d see your point if we were Celtic, consistently facing teams clearly below our level. But we’re not. We’re competing against sides with either equal or greater resources—that’s the real context.
3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:Not for the first time we take a slender single goal lead in the first half then sit in and invite the opposition to do their worst.
Do we, though? I think we’ve all watched enough matches to know that when a team goes behind, they often raise their game and pile on the pressure. There’s more to the tactical side than just our own decisions. Kilmarnock’s approach, how they adapted after us scoring, and other factors also come into play. We’re not operating in isolation.
I don’t think our manager has any illusions about us being defensively solid enough to grab a goal and then say, “Right, lads, let’s sit back and trust our brilliant defence to shut Killie down.”
I genuinely think it’s about the momentum of the match. I’ve seen it far too often, whether it’s us or other teams, where conceding a goal sparks a reaction, and for a spell, they go all-out to get back into the game.
-
On 12/21/2024 at 12:18 PM, Ya Bezzer! said:
Just because football is weird I'm predicting a clean sheet! 😂
I'd take that for sure. A point from Celtic away is a good result.
-
1 hour ago, wellfan said:
It’s not a narrative, it’s reality. Friday night was utter garbage, and many of our performances this season have been garbage, yet we’re somehow fourth, which is excellent. That’s both a reflection on our ability to amass points whilst being quite shite and the rest of our direct opponents being very shite. The standard on display in this league is mince.
We're fourth because we've beaten teams like Hearts, St Mirren, St Johnstone, and Dundee United at home, while picking up points away against County, St Johnstone, Hibs, Dundee United, St Mirren, and Kilmarnock.
Any team putting together that kind of record over the first 18 games of the season is bound to be closer to the top of the table than the bottom.
As for the overall quality of the league, that's a separate debate. Scottish football is what it is. We're a smaller nation, comparable in size to Slovakia, Finland, Norway, or Ireland. How strong are the domestic leagues in those countries? Are they known for their quality?
Within the context of Scottish football, we're sitting fourth—behind the two biggest clubs in the country and a big city club, and ahead of at least three sides that, given their resources, ought to be doing better than us.
It’s easy to look at our relative success and dismiss it with, "Well, the league isn’t any good anyway." If that’s your view, fair enough.
-
7 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
Wunderwell is quite right to withhold the identity of our possible signing. I understand his/her reasoning and would do exactly the same.
Maybe it would have been best to go a step further and not even mention it? Unless it was just an excuse to let "the nobodies" know their place.
-
2 minutes ago, dennyc said:
So perhaps revealing his name at this time would attract unwanted attention from the powers that be?
If it were the club who was revealing the name then sure. But on a fan forum? It's basically just speculation, no matter what anyone claims about being "in the know".
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, wunderwell said:
Don't be so idiotic. Could scupper the deal, would you like that?
How so? You think posting the guys name on a fans forum could put the deal in jeopardy?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Electric Blues said:
Not delighted, I'll grant you, but St Johnstone fans currently seem to be fairly positive about how Simo's got them playing, despite sitting just one point off the bottom after a run of poor results. Mind you, if things don't pick up for them after the January window, it'll be interesting to see how quickly they turn on him.
A new manager always gets a bit of grace. How long has Simo been there now? A couple of months? At the moment he's lost twice as many games as he's won, and his team sit in 11th. I certainly wouldn't be trading places with them.
2 hours ago, wellfan said:Our current league position speaks for itself, so fair enough, but it’s also a reflection of how poor a lot of teams around us are this season. Notwithstanding, we were utter garbage last night and a draw was a fair result. It was the wrong starting 11 and subs were made too late to be effective. We badly need a striker that fits Kettlewell’s preferred system and a midfielder to solidify the heart of the team.
Are we really reverting to the tired old "we're fourth, so every other team must be rubbish" narrative? It seems some people roll that out every time we break into the top six.
The fact is, we’re exactly where we’ve earned the right to be. Right now, we’re the fourth-best team in the league, and whether other sides are brilliant, dreadful, or somewhere in between is irrelevant.
Heading into Christmas sitting fourth in the table, with a cup semi-final secured, is a brilliant position to be in.
1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:Of course that all depends on how the opposition sets up and how they effect your gameplan. Last night was a good example of that.
This is such an important point. A lot of our supporters focus solely on what we’re doing, assuming that if the manager selects the “right” team and employs the “right” tactics, everything will fall into place. But football doesn’t work like that—our opponents play a massive role too.
Many of the common criticisms and complaints could probably be addressed and explained by the manager, highlighting factors most of us wouldn’t even consider. For example, when we argue that TJ should start ahead of Watt, are we factoring in how McInnes might set his team up to counter that? Or how that decision could create vulnerabilities elsewhere for Kilmarnock to exploit?
No, we see TJ come on for the last 15 minutes, play well, and think, “Well, he should’ve started—surely he’d have delivered that same performance over the entire game. Poor choice by the manager.” It’s rarely that simple.
-
3
-
-
13 minutes ago, steelman1991 said:
That IS our summer 🤣
That's true 😂
-
2 hours ago, Mccus28 said:
Lennon has been poor for weeks now and I assume its because he has been given the captains armband.
I could be mistaken, but I’d attribute it more to his youth. With youth comes inconsistency—it’s inevitable.
As for quality and entertainment, no matter what fans might think, those will always take a back seat to results. I’ve yet to see a club at the foot of the table with fans delighted simply because they’re playing entertaining football.
People’s livelihoods are at stake—managers, players, and even backroom staff. Relegation can mean the difference between someone keeping their job in the office or getting their P45. Last time I checked, you can’t pay your rent with entertainment tokens in place of wages.
I don’t for a moment believe any club in Scotland deliberately sets out to play poorly, but they’ll do whatever is necessary to get results. Sometimes that means an exciting 4-3 like we saw against United, and other times it’s the grind of a 1-1 like last night.
I’ve also long supported the idea of summer football. I realise most people aren’t in favour, which is fair enough, but when matches are played in dreadful conditions—rain lashing down, wind howling, fans freezing and soaked—it’s bound to affect the quality on the pitch.
Countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania all run their seasons from March to November, and there’s good reason for it. We’ve chosen not to, so we have to accept that on a cold, wet, and windy December night, the football will often reflect the weather.
-
All this talk of who should and shouldn't be playing. Maybe time to dust off the ol' tombola.
-
2 minutes ago, MJC said:
I’m pleased we won. Aren’t you?
I'm a happy clapper, mind? My hands are rid raw.
-
5
-
-
34 minutes ago, MJC said:
This is pish. Only a matter of time until they equalise.
Ah well, always next time, eh?
-
2 hours ago, smiddy said:
but seems your billy big baws on here
He's the guy who pays the actual bills to keep the place running so, I guess that might qualify? Who knows?
Anyway, back on topic. It's been made clear that those on moderation (not banned) can easily post about the football whenever they like. Those posts will be readily approved by the mods and we can all enjoy discussing the fitba.
-
7 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:
Makes you wonder why koutrombis not given a chance.
This is something that I can't understand. Has he been mentioned as being injured or unavailable?
-
9 minutes ago, Yassin said:
No idea what Steelboy said to start off this line of discussion but I don't think his post is any weirder than the one boasting about their FiL fighting in Vietnam? It's only been widely considered a catastrophic waste of time for about 60 years.
I didn't see his post as him "boasting" about it. That would be a rather peculiar thing to boast about. It's simply adding context to the reasoning behind the offence taken, and it's a valid point.
The truth is, if anyone believes they should be able to post antagonistic nonsense on a football forum, they run the chance of being put on moderation. It's as simple as that.
The main point is, no one has been placed on moderation for their views on the team, their opinions of Kettlewell, or anything as run of the mill as that. Those on moderation know exactly why they've been placed there.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, steelboy said:
That's roughly 5 million civilians killed by bombing.
Sounds like a great guy.
For those curious, this is precisely the sort of post moderation is designed to address. On this occasion, I’ve let it remain visible so everyone can see it for themselves.
It serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to provoke someone unnecessarily.
This highlights why moderation is necessary in some cases.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:
He aint no luxury in anybodys footballing world.
Sure thing.
2 hours ago, grizzlyg said:Kettlewell needs to take Blame also for thinking he is a RWB
I very much doubt Kettlewell think Tavares is a right wing back. He's obviously played him there due to lack of options at the time.
-
Although £8.2 million might seem like a really high sum for a club of our size, it actually represents solid value when you consider the analytics and projections surrounding Miller.
While he hasn’t reached their level yet, there’s no reason why he couldn’t follow a similar trajectory to players like Amadou Onana at Aston Villa or Carlos Baleba at Brighton. Onana, at 23 years old, is five years ahead in his development and far more established, while Baleba, who I believe is 20, is still on the rise. That said, based on his current progress, there’s every chance Miller could reach a similar standard in time and with the proper coaching and development.
For context, Onana moved from Hamburg to Lille for around €7 million before Everton signed him for £33 million, and then Villa acquired him for roughly £50 million. Baleba, on the other hand, joined Brighton for £27 million. Even if Miller doesn’t quite hit those heights (though he has the potential to do so), the £8.2 million fee starts to look like a decent investment for any club willing to buy him.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, stv said:
If u watched him in the flesh when he's not got the ball near him you can see he's poor, looks bored not even Hibs wanted him.
He's what I would call a "luxury" player. Don't get me wrong—he’s not a world-beater by any means, but you don’t come up through the youth ranks at Benfica and the Portugal national setup if you’re not a somewhat solid player. He also drew interest from clubs like Juventus and PSG.
I could see him doing better in the lower leagues of Italy or Spain, where the game is more technical and suits players like him. Plus, he’s still fairly young and has room to grow.
That said, he's definitely not a right wing back. You could tell his defensive game was lacking, even though he showed some promise going forward, even if it looked like he hasn’t played much lately.
I’m not saying he should start for us. As I mentioned, I don’t think he’s the right fit, but he’s certainly not the worst player we’ve had either.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:
They also say Jair Taveres is a left winger - maybe we should give him a chance there
Tavares is definitely a winger, and it's easy to see that he has something about him. He played regularly for Benfica B and was frequently called up to various youth teams for Portugal. There's clearly some talent and pedigree there, especially considering he's still only 23.
That said, I think he might be more of a luxury player and not necessarily a perfect fit for the Scottish game. I can imagine him having a solid career in places like Italy, Spain, or Portugal—though probably not at the very top level in those countries.
I'm not of the belief that he's a particularly good fit for us though.
-
6 minutes ago, thewelllfan said:
I suspect it'll be the same team that started v St Mirren with Mawsanhise in for Watt
Hopefully we see Kaleta come in for Tavares.
-
18 minutes ago, wellfan said:
The club has obviously been trying yet often failing to appropriately recruit, which will have resulted in an overspend and bloated squad as the club has had to hurriedly replace the crocks and duds it continues to accumulate. The policy of signing quantity on the cheap and/or projects vs quality in the first instance has proved to be a false economy.
It's an approach and model that has us sitting in the top six, currently ahead of two major city clubs and a few others that can afford to outspend us on players.
As mentioned in the Kettlewell thread, if we maintain the pace we've set so far, we're likely on track to finish 5th or 6th.
Motherwell v Rangers 29/12/2024
in Club Chat
Posted
It seems like a fair result overall.
We were clearly the better side in the first half, but Rangers' changes at the break, combined with us losing Stama, Miller, and Kaleta, swung the second half in their favour.
As for the two VAR incidents, they seemed straightforward to me. You simply can't put your hands on the keeper during a set piece and expect to get away with it. It’s a frustrating rule, but it’s been in place for some time now. The offside decision was correct as well—no real debate there.