The Alfred Johansson Thread

[robsterwood]

"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!"

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, David said:

As I've mentioned elsewhere, we're in danger of oversimplifying what goes into these types of decisions.

It's not simply a case of looking at the fixture list and deciding to rest half the team because there's a European game coming up.

From what I gather, the players are monitored pretty closely. The staff will have data on how far they've run, how much high-intensity running they've done, sprints, accelerations, training loads and how all of that compares to their normal levels.

Then you've got the medical side. A player can be perfectly fit to play but still have a bit of tightness or be carrying a heavier workload than normal. The advice might be that he's fine for 30 minutes, fine for 60, or that another 90 minutes probably isn't a great idea.

They'll also look at recovery, how the player has been training, how many minutes he's played recently and his own injury history. A 21-year-old who has hardly missed a game through injury might be treated differently from a 30-year-old with a history of hamstring problems.

The opposition (and the playing surface, no matter how much some people like to dismiss it) comes into it as well. The coaching staff will have analysed them and worked out where they think they can afford to make changes without weakening the team too much.

So the manager might effectively be getting told that Player A is absolutely fine, Player B has played a lot but isn't a concern, Player C is showing signs of fatigue and Player D is carrying a minor issue that could become a bigger problem.

He then has to make the decision.

That's particularly relevant for a club like ours when we're playing Thursday-Sunday-Thursday and have been doing that for several weeks. Some players could end up playing four or five games in a fortnight if you just keep putting out the strongest XI.

That doesn't mean rotation is always the right decision. Managers can still get it wrong. You can change too many players, lose the rhythm of the team and end up going out of a competition you had a decent chance of progressing in. Teams far bigger with managers far more experienced than us have slipped on that banana peel before.

But I do think it's worth remembering when we see a team selection we don't like that the manager isn't working with the same information we are.

We're looking at the names on the teamsheet.

He's looking at the teamsheet plus all the physical, medical, training and opposition information behind it.

We can argue with the decision he eventually makes. But there's usually a lot more behind that decision than simply "Europe is more important, so we'll rest a few players."

This 100 times over.

But you know, he is Scandinavian, so clearly just disrespected Stenny & The League Cup.....

🤔🤔🤔

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

Its incredible that people dont understand this. 

I still find it incredible that we have fans that judge new players on 1 or 2 first team appearances after just moving to a new country and having 4 hours of training.

So not understanding everything David pointed out is not quite as surprising to me.

[Prestwickwell]

Why’s it’s surprising??

 

fans pay a lot of money & so far Vogt for example for me has shown absolutely nothing to suggest he’s a good addition ( be more than happy if that changes & certainly don’t voice it at games but it’s an opinion )

 

Not allowed to question signings….not allowed to question young players….not allowed to question the manager 😂

 

Players will have shite games but to hide in games against stenhousemuir for example shows the characters not there for me 

 

other than priest man I don’t see who’s changing that game yesterday 

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, Prestwickwell said:

Why’s it’s surprising??

Because in this day and age when all the information is discussed about sports science, load balancing, rest, recovery, nutrition, training etc. people still seem shocked when medical advice is to leave a player out the team.

The days training in the morning then down to the pub (via the bookies) for a couple of pints, a fag and a game of snooker have long gone.

[naudywell]

3 hours ago, David said:

As I've mentioned elsewhere, we're in danger of oversimplifying what goes into these types of decisions.

It's not simply a case of looking at the fixture list and deciding to rest half the team because there's a European game coming up.

From what I gather, the players are monitored pretty closely. The staff will have data on how far they've run, how much high-intensity running they've done, sprints, accelerations, training loads and how all of that compares to their normal levels.

Then you've got the medical side. A player can be perfectly fit to play but still have a bit of tightness or be carrying a heavier workload than normal. The advice might be that he's fine for 30 minutes, fine for 60, or that another 90 minutes probably isn't a great idea.

They'll also look at recovery, how the player has been training, how many minutes he's played recently and his own injury history. A 21-year-old who has hardly missed a game through injury might be treated differently from a 30-year-old with a history of hamstring problems.

The opposition (and the playing surface, no matter how much some people like to dismiss it) comes into it as well. The coaching staff will have analysed them and worked out where they think they can afford to make changes without weakening the team too much.

So the manager might effectively be getting told that Player A is absolutely fine, Player B has played a lot but isn't a concern, Player C is showing signs of fatigue and Player D is carrying a minor issue that could become a bigger problem.

He then has to make the decision.

That's particularly relevant for a club like ours when we're playing Thursday-Sunday-Thursday and have been doing that for several weeks. Some players could end up playing four or five games in a fortnight if you just keep putting out the strongest XI.

That doesn't mean rotation is always the right decision. Managers can still get it wrong. You can change too many players, lose the rhythm of the team and end up going out of a competition you had a decent chance of progressing in. Teams far bigger with managers far more experienced than us have slipped on that banana peel before.

But I do think it's worth remembering when we see a team selection we don't like that the manager isn't working with the same information we are.

We're looking at the names on the teamsheet.

He's looking at the teamsheet plus all the physical, medical, training and opposition information behind it.

We can argue with the decision he eventually makes. But there's usually a lot more behind that decision than simply "Europe is more important, so we'll rest a few players."

 

[si91]

Is it also possible that AJ is playing the politics with the Board, to try and leverage some additional players for the squad? European managers are often adept at this, highlighting the lack of depth to the Board and trying to force their hand. It may not be that case but we certainly need some reinforcements.

[Happy Dosser]

4 hours ago, David said:

As I've mentioned elsewhere, we're in danger of oversimplifying what goes into these types of decisions.

It's not simply a case of looking at the fixture list and deciding to rest half the team because there's a European game coming up.

From what I gather, the players are monitored pretty closely. The staff will have data on how far they've run, how much high-intensity running they've done, sprints, accelerations, training loads and how all of that compares to their normal levels.

Then you've got the medical side. A player can be perfectly fit to play but still have a bit of tightness or be carrying a heavier workload than normal. The advice might be that he's fine for 30 minutes, fine for 60, or that another 90 minutes probably isn't a great idea.

They'll also look at recovery, how the player has been training, how many minutes he's played recently and his own injury history. A 21-year-old who has hardly missed a game through injury might be treated differently from a 30-year-old with a history of hamstring problems.

The opposition (and the playing surface, no matter how much some people like to dismiss it) comes into it as well. The coaching staff will have analysed them and worked out where they think they can afford to make changes without weakening the team too much.

So the manager might effectively be getting told that Player A is absolutely fine, Player B has played a lot but isn't a concern, Player C is showing signs of fatigue and Player D is carrying a minor issue that could become a bigger problem.

He then has to make the decision.

That's particularly relevant for a club like ours when we're playing Thursday-Sunday-Thursday and have been doing that for several weeks. Some players could end up playing four or five games in a fortnight if you just keep putting out the strongest XI.

That doesn't mean rotation is always the right decision. Managers can still get it wrong. You can change too many players, lose the rhythm of the team and end up going out of a competition you had a decent chance of progressing in. Teams far bigger with managers far more experienced than us have slipped on that banana peel before.

But I do think it's worth remembering when we see a team selection we don't like that the manager isn't working with the same information we are.

We're looking at the names on the teamsheet.

He's looking at the teamsheet plus all the physical, medical, training and opposition information behind it.

We can argue with the decision he eventually makes. But there's usually a lot more behind that decision than simply "Europe is more important, so we'll rest a few players."

The voice of sanity: the manager's had an amazingly difficult time dealing with a new country and language (though his English is better than some of the pundits on Sportsound), a wife and new baby living here too,, a squad in turmoil during the window, a raft of injuries and obvious difficulties in recruitment, particularly up front.

He's already explained the quick sequence of fixtures has meant  he's had very little coaching time and  to work on tactics and, after one of our best nights in Europe, people turn on him after he warned us about our difficulties in beating lowly opposition in the LC last season and that we can't always play to our best because of all the availability problems. That plastic pitch would hamper any team which depends on accurate passing and all teams playing on  that surface know this.

Whatever happens  on Thursday, I'm sure AJ will play the best team he can  to carry out his chosen game-plan. We need to get behind the team and make FP start rocking again.

 

 

[dennyc]

The issue is not with rotation but with the quality of player AJ has in reserve. That's not his fault and he is not going to hide behind that excuse.  It takes a lot longer than a few weeks to build the quality of squad depth we require if we are to continue to mix it with the big boys. A run of injuries is another hurdle to overcome. And less easy to predict.

On Sunday we were dependent upon Wilson and Ross who did not progress when loaned to lower league clubs and struggled to secure a starting position at Raith or Annan respectively. And they have shown next to nothing since returning to Fir Park. Harsh for some, but realistic. For some reason, misguided loyalty or financial reasons perhaps, their contracts were extended. That error came home to roost yesterday. They were out of their depth......against Stenhousemuir. It affected the whole team. Sadly, the whole experience may well have damaged them.

Booth and Mcallister are at a different stage of their careers and may develop given the patience and Loan experience afforded to the two mentioned above. Time enough for them yet. Connolly did just fine and is a decent back up.

Although at an early stage, Whyte has clearly benefited and matured from his time at Stenhousemuir. His appearances this season reflect that progress. Whether he turns out to be the next Turnbull or Miller time will tell but early signs are promising. Contrasting his progress with that of Wilson and Ross is very telling. Same path. Different outcome. Different quality.  

I really don't know what to make of Vogt. Given the other excellent signings our recruitment team have uncovered I cannot believe how little he has contributed so far. Flashes at best. At times he looks lost. At other times terrified. Hopefully we see soon the abilities that encouraged us to sign him.

Gutted at losing to Stenhousemuir but not that surprised. The match played out as I feared believing that considerable rotation would be a huge factor. Not sure what other options AJ had. I really don't think he chose one cup over the other but rather decided to protect as many players as he could. Had he given up on the League Cup as many suggest, why then risk the players he did second half?

When we qualify for Europe next season we will be in a much stronger position to compete on all fronts. With greater depth and hopefully less injuries. It is actually amazing how well we have started this season.

 

[David]

There were, what? Eight changes to the team? When you change that many players at once, you're changing partnerships, movement, communication and most of the structure around them. A young/fringe player coming into a settled Motherwell side alongside nine or ten regulars is a very different proposition from several of them being thrown together at the same time.

They can still be criticised for playing poorly, of course. That's football. But I think some perspective is maybe needed there.

[wellsince75]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

The issue is not with rotation but with the quality of player AJ has in reserve. That's not his fault and he is not going to hide behind that excuse.  It takes a lot longer than a few weeks to build the quality of squad depth we require if we are to continue to mix it with the big boys. A run of injuries is another hurdle to overcome. And less easy to predict.

On Sunday we were dependent upon Wilson and Ross who did not progress when loaned to lower league clubs and struggled to secure a starting position at Raith or Annan respectively. And they have shown next to nothing since returning to Fir Park. Harsh for some, but realistic. For some reason, misguided loyalty or financial reasons perhaps, their contracts were extended. That error came home to roost yesterday. They were out of their depth......against Stenhousemuir. It affected the whole team. Sadly, the whole experience may well have damaged them.

Booth and Mcallister are at a different stage of their careers and may develop given the patience and Loan experience afforded to the two mentioned above. Time enough for them yet. Connolly did just fine and is a decent back up.

Although at an early stage, Whyte has clearly benefited and matured from his time at Stenhousemuir. His appearances this season reflect that progress. Whether he turns out to be the next Turnbull or Miller time will tell but early signs are promising. Contrasting his progress with that of Wilson and Ross is very telling. Same path. Different outcome. Different quality.  

I really don't know what to make of Vogt. Given the other excellent signings our recruitment team have uncovered I cannot believe how little he has contributed so far. Flashes at best. At times he looks lost. At other times terrified. Hopefully we see soon the abilities that encouraged us to sign him.

Gutted at losing to Stenhousemuir but not that surprised. The match played out as I feared believing that considerable rotation would be a huge factor. Not sure what other options AJ had. I really don't think he chose one cup over the other but rather decided to protect as many players as he could. Had he given up on the League Cup as many suggest, why then risk the players he did second half?

When we qualify for Europe next season we will be in a much stronger position to compete on all fronts. With greater depth and hopefully less injuries. It is actually amazing how well we have started this season.

 

DennyMC - not only have you one of the coolest avatars wit big Sieb but this post is absolutely top notch and summarises brilliantly where the young players are together with what many of us are thinking about Vogyt. 

For me it covers exactly where we're at. 

Great post .

[texanwellfan]

2 hours ago, David said:

There were, what? Eight changes to the team? When you change that many players at once, you're changing partnerships, movement, communication and most of the structure around them. A young/fringe player coming into a settled Motherwell side alongside nine or ten regulars is a very different proposition from several of them being thrown together at the same time.

They can still be criticised for playing poorly, of course. That's football. But I think some perspective is maybe needed there.

Lot of people stating that our fringe players are not good enough for first team squad. I disagree. When a bunch are flung into the foray, then sure, it’s a team lacking quality but when you sub on on one or two playing alongside our starters then they are fine

[Prestwickwell]

3 hours ago, dennyc said:

The issue is not with rotation but with the quality of player AJ has in reserve. That's not his fault and he is not going to hide behind that excuse.  It takes a lot longer than a few weeks to build the quality of squad depth we require if we are to continue to mix it with the big boys. A run of injuries is another hurdle to overcome. And less easy to predict.

On Sunday we were dependent upon Wilson and Ross who did not progress when loaned to lower league clubs and struggled to secure a starting position at Raith or Annan respectively. And they have shown next to nothing since returning to Fir Park. Harsh for some, but realistic. For some reason, misguided loyalty or financial reasons perhaps, their contracts were extended. That error came home to roost yesterday. They were out of their depth......against Stenhousemuir. It affected the whole team. Sadly, the whole experience may well have damaged them.

Booth and Mcallister are at a different stage of their careers and may develop given the patience and Loan experience afforded to the two mentioned above. Time enough for them yet. Connolly did just fine and is a decent back up.

Although at an early stage, Whyte has clearly benefited and matured from his time at Stenhousemuir. His appearances this season reflect that progress. Whether he turns out to be the next Turnbull or Miller time will tell but early signs are promising. Contrasting his progress with that of Wilson and Ross is very telling. Same path. Different outcome. Different quality.  

I really don't know what to make of Vogt. Given the other excellent signings our recruitment team have uncovered I cannot believe how little he has contributed so far. Flashes at best. At times he looks lost. At other times terrified. Hopefully we see soon the abilities that encouraged us to sign him.

Gutted at losing to Stenhousemuir but not that surprised. The match played out as I feared believing that considerable rotation would be a huge factor. Not sure what other options AJ had. I really don't think he chose one cup over the other but rather decided to protect as many players as he could. Had he given up on the League Cup as many suggest, why then risk the players he did second half?

When we qualify for Europe next season we will be in a much stronger position to compete on all fronts. With greater depth and hopefully less injuries. It is actually amazing how well we have started this season.

 

Think you’re pretty much bang on the money ( although ur not allowed to say vogts not good enough at this stage 😂)   
 

for me a spl teams squad should be good enough to beat stenhousemuir ( I know the injuries but the reality is even with the injured players back the attacking options aren’t good enough & im not convinced who but priestman would have affected it )

 

managers clearly not chucked the cup, he’s just not got the squad needed & the reality is despite the good start we’re liable to be out of Europe ( just where we are & it’s been a great journey so here’s hoping ) & we’re out a cup we shouldn’t be yet 

 

cups for me are massively important to us, we’ve great entertainment but we should really be doing better in these matches 

 

hopefully get some players in soon that can make a difference 

 

for the record think the manager will be a good appt 

[dennyc]

27 minutes ago, David said:

There were, what? Eight changes to the team? When you change that many players at once, you're changing partnerships, movement, communication and most of the structure around them. A young/fringe player coming into a settled Motherwell side alongside nine or ten regulars is a very different proposition from several of them being thrown together at the same time.

They can still be criticised for playing poorly, of course. That's football. But I think some perspective is maybe needed there.

The perspective is that one or two are clearly not good enough for the top division despite having been given the recognised route and support to build their career. Not based solely on Sunday but also based on the past two seasons.  They have not developed as we all had hoped. Sadly that happens all too often within every club. But for a number of reasons they are what we have at the moment and that's not their fault.

More generally, at what age and after how many games does a player stop being regarded as a youngster? When should we reasonably expect to see progress? I think it was you who highlighted that Wilson has played over 100 senior games. Many of those games surrounded by senior players within an established line up. Add some Under 21 International appearances in 2024. Numerous coaches

They are all doing their best and that effort is appreciated. For their own good I believe it would be better if they moved elsewhere.....loan meantime or straight transfer. It was painful seeing how much they struggled on Sunday. 

To be clear, I am not blaming any of those youngsters for the loss on Sunday. I don't think any senior Motherwell player came off that park thinking they had done themselves justice. I am just saying there comes a time to identify when a player is not up to the standard we require. That does not mean a player....youngster or otherwise.... does not have a future elsewhere

[Yabba's Turd]

Said on FB after the Falkirk game there seems to be a little 'emperor's new clothes' feel for me, we're nowhere near as dynamic (Hibs winner aside) as last season. and we're playing without a striker effectively, IF we're are good as we're supposed to be Stenny should have been a formality.

Glass coffin situation up by.

[Kmcalpin]

9 hours ago, David said:

As I've mentioned elsewhere, we're in danger of oversimplifying what goes into these types of decisions.

It's not simply a case of looking at the fixture list and deciding to rest half the team because there's a European game coming up.

From what I gather, the players are monitored pretty closely. The staff will have data on how far they've run, how much high-intensity running they've done, sprints, accelerations, training loads and how all of that compares to their normal levels.

Then you've got the medical side. A player can be perfectly fit to play but still have a bit of tightness or be carrying a heavier workload than normal. The advice might be that he's fine for 30 minutes, fine for 60, or that another 90 minutes probably isn't a great idea.

They'll also look at recovery, how the player has been training, how many minutes he's played recently and his own injury history. A 21-year-old who has hardly missed a game through injury might be treated differently from a 30-year-old with a history of hamstring problems.

The opposition (and the playing surface, no matter how much some people like to dismiss it) comes into it as well. The coaching staff will have analysed them and worked out where they think they can afford to make changes without weakening the team too much.

So the manager might effectively be getting told that Player A is absolutely fine, Player B has played a lot but isn't a concern, Player C is showing signs of fatigue and Player D is carrying a minor issue that could become a bigger problem.

Thanks for that insight David. I suppose thats what sports science is all about. 

So, what we're saying is that whilst a manager takes the actual decisions on team selection and and substitutions, the opinions he is presented with by other staff can, in some circumstances (like a squad limited by injuries), pretty well dictate what team he actually puts on the park. For example, "Player A has a minor strain and we recommend he plays no more than 20 minutes".  So, whilst ordinary fans like me naively assume that the manager has free rein to pick the team the reality might be totally different.   

[David]

41 minutes ago, dennyc said:

The perspective is that one or two are clearly not good enough for the top division despite having been given the recognised route and support to build their career. Not based solely on Sunday but also based on the past two seasons.  They have not developed as we all had hoped. Sadly that happens all too often within every club. But for a number of reasons they are what we have at the moment and that's not their fault.

More generally, at what age and after how many games does a player stop being regarded as a youngster? When should we reasonably expect to see progress? I think it was you who highlighted that Wilson has played over 100 senior games. Many of those games surrounded by senior players within an established line up. Add some Under 21 International appearances in 2024. Numerous coaches

They are all doing their best and that effort is appreciated. For their own good I believe it would be better if they moved elsewhere.....loan meantime or straight transfer. It was painful seeing how much they struggled on Sunday. 

To be clear, I am not blaming any of those youngsters for the loss on Sunday. I don't think any senior Motherwell player came off that park thinking they had done themselves justice. I am just saying there comes a time to identify when a player is not up to the standard we require. That does not mean a player....youngster or otherwise.... does not have a future elsewhere

As you know, I've never really been arguing that Wilson or Ross are going to become first-team regulars. They might, they might not. My point is that a club like Motherwell needs a squad, and not every player in that squad is going to be of the standard where we'd happily have them starting 30 Premiership games a season.

If they were, they probably wouldn't be squad players at Motherwell for very long.

Wilson is a decent example. He's 21 and already has a decent number of Premiership appearances. He made a chunk of them for us in 2024/25, got into the Scotland U21 squad and earned another contract.

Then JBA arrived and brought in Longelo.

Longelo hit the ground running from what I can recall, scored against Rangers and Hearts early on? And went on to have an excellent season, with nine goals in all competitions and a Player of the Year nomination. There's a reason why we're often talking about him potentially being sold on.

Wilson went to Raith shortly after Longelo established himself, and JBA actually explained the thinking at the time. We'd added competition in Wilson's position and the club wanted him getting games elsewhere rather than sitting around waiting for the odd opportunity.

Does Wilson's failure to completely nail down a place at Raith raise questions about how far he's progressed since that breakthrough season? Absolutely. I think that's fair.

But there's quite a jump from that to saying he's clearly not good enough to be part of a Premiership squad.

Those are two different standards.

Luca Ross is even younger. He turned 20 last week. At 18, he went to Annan, made over 30 appearances, started 20 or so and played every minute of their four play-off matches. We considered that loan successful enough to give him another contract. Last season he made 14 appearances for us if I recall.

Again, maybe he doesn't ultimately become a regular. Most academy players don't, sadly.

But Motherwell aren't trying to assemble 22 players who are all established Premiership starters. We couldn't afford to do that even if we wanted to.

You need your better players, then you need competition for places, experienced cover, younger players developing underneath them and players who can come into the team when injuries, suspensions and fixture congestion dictate it.

That's particularly relevant now that we're trying to deal with European football on top of everything else. We've seen the chat of injuries mounting up and it's only mid-August.

The obvious downside is that when you make eight changes at once, you're suddenly asking a lot of players who normally perform supporting roles to effectively become the team.

That's completely different from Wilson coming into an established side because Longelo is injured, or Ross coming in alongside nine or ten regular starters.

That's really all I was getting at about Sunday.

Wilson and Ross were poor. So were plenty of others. Nobody is suggesting they should be immune from criticism because they're young.

I just don't think a bad performance in a heavily rotated team establishes that they have no value as Premiership squad players.

Maybe ultimately they won't be good enough even for that role. That's possible.

But there's a fairly substantial gap between "I'm not convinced this guy will ever be a first-team regular" and "this guy has no business being in Motherwell's squad."

For a club operating with our resources, that distinction is quite important I think.

2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Thanks for that insight David. I suppose thats what sports science is all about. 

So, what we're saying is that whilst a manager takes the actual decisions on team selection and and substitutions, the opinions he is presented with by other staff can, in some circumstances (like a squad limited by injuries), pretty well dictate what team he actually puts on the park. For example, "Player A has a minor strain and we recommend he plays no more than 20 minutes".  So, whilst ordinary fans like me naively assume that the manager has free rein to pick the team the reality might be totally different.   

That's generally how it works from what I know. There would be no point in having all that technology, and the players running around with vests on under their shirts with weird boxes attached to them if we're not going to use them I guess. 

It truly is a backroom team I think. Expertise across the board. But the manager makes the final call, and the buck stops with him. So he is responsible for the loss, but there will be reasoning behind his choices I'd think.