Leaderboard

Thats my issue with the whole farce. I can almost forgive the original call, but not the doubling down. That is either an obstinate ignoring the obvious because he didn't want to admit a mistake or it was a genuine belief it was still a red card. Either way it should mean he doesn't ref a Premier League game again

Hi Folks Just to wish you all a Merry Christmas when it comes and enjoy the fact the Christmas cracker jokes won't be anywhere as bad as my own efforts!! 🤪🤪 COYW

The same to you and Mrs G and all Motherwell FC and Steelmen on Line COYW

Merry Xmas Grizzly and all my fellow Steelmen / women / those who dont wish to be gendered! Not going to Parkhead so would prefer 3 points at home to Rangers on the 29th as a present! Im sure we can all drink to that! 🥃🥃🥃

That decision was nothing to do with VAR, they did their job and told the referee to reassess his decision; as it was a subjective decision they couldn't overturn it, just tell the ref he was an idiot and review it, which is what happened. VAR worked perfectly in this incident.

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. 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.