capt_oats

You'd think it's a mistake as they have us 3/4 to win in 90 mins. Edit: looks like they've removed the 'to qualify' market now.

Skybet have us 9/1 to qualify just now.

Can't see Cadden starting as he played today. I'd expect him on the bench at least I hope he will be. I'd think something like; Ripley Law - Kennedy - McManus - Chalmers Lasley - Grimshaw - Leitch Thomas - Moult - Robinson I really can't see us making loads of changes and starting the likes of Clarkson etc after how the East Fife game went.

Craigan's already gone on record saying Cadden could feel unfortunate not to have been more involved with the first team. IIRC he suggested that he's the closest we have to Pearson.

I don't disagree however he started yesterday with a 433 and beyond that in the games I've seen he's tried variously 4231, 451, 442, 4411 and towards the end of the Ross County game we were 352 so while the net result may be the same and we tend to revert to knocking the ball long and it's up for debate how competent we've been with any of those shapes I don't think it's wholly fair to say he's been playing the same tactics. In fact that may actually be one of the main problems. If he actually settled on a system and an XI then we might find ouselves with something to build on but unfortunately at the moment we seem to be struggling to find a settled team and system. It happened last season, all of a sudden we found ourselves with a 442 that worked to a point and gave us a foundation.

That's pretty much it. The club probably have a reality to face up to in so much as; in the modern game there are very few managers who have gone on to turn a team round after this sort of length in charge and even fewer who from the outset had very little credit in the bank with the supporters. There are probably a couple of obvious exceptions I'm missing but in general given where we are once the doubt sets in it usually only plays out one way these days. I like Baraclough and think he's had to try and turn around an utter shambles left by McCall however one of the basic requirements you ask of a manager is to take a group of players and find a coherent system that suits them and gets the best out them after close to 10 months and a full pre-season, for whatever reason we don't look any closer to that.

Agree, it's definitely not looking good for him. I've been open minded with regards Baraclough however I think we're almost certainly at the point now where his position has to be being considered. It depends on just how short of his targets Baraclough is falling at the moment. Either way it's difficult to see how he can turn things around. During his tenure despite some decent results I don't think there's really been a sustained period of good form that gives him enough credit in the bank so to speak. Even after his initial poor run it's always been a couple of good results followed by a couple of poor performances. In that regard even if the Morton and Thistle results go our way you there's a sense that it's just delaying the inevitable. There's another international break coming up and if there's an obvious candidate that can come in and take the job on then I'd think that would probably be a decent opportunity to bring someone in.

Not unhappy with that team. Pleased to see those changes. Alternative to 442 would be a 433 with Taylor on the left of the central three. If it is 433 and we've got an extra man in the centre then it could be a good move. Ripley Law Kennedy McManus Chalmers Lasley Grimshaw Taylor Ainsworth Moult Robinson Also wee Dan on the bench. No Samson.

Nah, I just read my original post back and thought it maybe came across as a bit more critical of policy than I had intended.

I was maybe being a bit harsh earlier, I wasn't long up. I completely agree that's how I took it when I heard what Les was saying about it, that it was a marker with regards our position. It's the fact that it's been repeated as much as it has I'm a bit "yeah, I know. we *get* it!". Edit: I should also say I wasn't criticising the transfer strategy as such either, I'm fully supportive of the idea in general. Certainly I'd prefer we brought I players of the like of Fletcher, Moult, Kennedy and Chalmers than journeymen at the end of their careers. More observing that it's by no means a guarantee that we'll turn profits or that just because we say that it's our strategy that it'll play out like that.

I think this is entirely accurate. There's nothing to say that we won't be able to sell a couple of the players we've brought in on at a profit but at the same time by no means is it guaranteed. I have to say I've been quite perplexed by the club running around telling anyone that will listen that we're going to bring players in to sell them on at a profit. Just because we say it often enough, doesn't mean it'll happen. Yes, we should be aiming to perform better in the transfer market but that should be fairly self evident. With regards Randolph, Humphrey et al I suppose the question is whether or not we were actively trying to sell those players or not but you're right Porter to Derby was the only deal along those lines that's brought us cash the rest are our own youth products and players who we've brought in from abroad (Ojamaa, Anier). Broadcasting our new policy to all and sundry seems a wee bit overly keen, shall we say. We're not the first club to have realised that selling players for profit is a good thing. Maybe the club feel it's helpful to recruit players if we're publicly stating we view ourselves as a stepping stone club, I don't know. It just seemed a bit "come sign for us, we want to sell you on for £££s!". Similarly what you're saying about Dom Thomas being the most likely candidate for selling on and clubs buying potential is spot on and it's not just limited to us. On a basic level Sporting Lisbon bought Ryan Gauld because he is a prodigious talent, Hull bought Robertson, Wigan bought McArthur and McCarthy and Southampton bought Wanyama and van Djik because they thought they represented value for what they were prepared to pay vs their alternative options. Ultimately that's the thing, a player is only really worth what another team is willing to pay for them and the value they see in them. If a buying club look at our players and think "I can get a player of a similar level or better for free" then it doesn't really matter what our plan is, it's down to whether someone is willing to pay a fee for our player. As I say, it's entirely possible at the end of the season someone will look at Louis Moult and think, "that's the player we need" but equally, as you point out, if our transfer history is anything to go by it's by no means a given. And with that, I'll just leave this here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/18/fifpro-transfer-fees-could-go-fifa-brussels

In fairness I think Craigan might have mentioned in a couple of his YouTube interviews that some of the u20s aren't quite ready to take the step up yet. Not writing them off, just simply saying that they're not quite there yet which is fine. It's not a binary choice, just because the coaching staff make the observation that they're not ready to step up just now isn't writing off their entire careers. If they're not ready then they're not ready and it's not going to help Baraclough any if he chucks them in only to see them fail to perform and we take an absolute tanking. It's totally unreasonable to expect the management to just start chucking in players simply because "youth". The way that Dom Thomas has been handled so far this season (30mins as a sub followed by a few starts) is how I'd imagine they'd ideally be wanting to use all the group, Leitch, Watt, Cadden. We're 7 games into the season and just because half the starting XI aren't guys who were in the u20s last year doesn't mean that they're not going to be used. It's a fine balance. I might be wrong but in one of his more recent interviews I think Craigan had said that he felt Cadden was unlucky not to have been more involved with the first team. The problem that I see with the signings of the likes of Clarkson, Samson etc and the fact that they're not playing is that it's being amplified by the owner and the club highlighting the "financial situation" and Les' general doom-mongering approach to things. On one hand you have Stephen Robinson (who I thought spoke really well at his press conference) saying we're working within our budget, which was great to hear but how does that balance when the narrative coming from the owner seems to be "give us your money or you won't have a club." In many ways this is one of the root causes of the doubt that currently exists. You can't spend your time pitching absolute doom to a fan base then be surprised when they're up in arms that the club start signing players who aren't going to see much (or any) game time or for that matter when the manager says he's only looking to bring in a goalkeeper and a midfielder and we somehow end up with 2x goalkeepers, 2x midfielders and a striker. If there are issues with the payment schedule to Hutchison and this is in the public domain then of course it's a reasonable to ask "why are we signing a 31 year old senior pro to allow our current first team back up to cover for our u20s goalkeeper's injury? Would a more appropriate solution not be to just let one of the "Elite Academy" GKs sit on the u20s bench?" ditto the fact that we seem to have got a couple of signings wrong so our solution on the face of it is just to sign a replacement rather than work with what we've got and try and find out how to improve the team and work out exactly why players aren't playing to their potential.

My take on him was similar. It was less about what he did in his half on the park and his cameo before that and more about what he looks like he offers, if that makes sense? To me he looks like he's suited to playing 'on the shoulder' of the defender and with the right service would offer something going beyond a defence and has attributes that the other four strikers at the club don't. Fletcher, Moult, McDonald and Clarkson all have something to offer but I think on the whole they seem more suited to playing in front of a back line, holding the ball up and bringing others into play rather than getting 'in behind', (to speak in football cliché again). Similarly I wouldn't be too confident in any of the others beating a centre half in a straight out sprint whereas Robinson looks like like he has that sort of pace on offer. An element of that is based on having watched him score a few goals with Derby as well I suppose. To say I was "impressed" by him would be stretching it, it's more a case of I can see why he's been brought in and what he might offer.

To be honest, if I were Twardzik and harboured the slightest interest in playing any sort of first team football at any level then I'd have had my agent looking to get me out of Fir Park the moment Samson signed. I wouldn't have thought he'd be staying on beyond the end of this season anyway but I could well imagine he'd be looking to get out as soon as the January window opens whether it be mutual termination or even just a loan until his contract runs out.

I think that's the thing. It's completely at odds with how the club had been saying they were going forward. I think it was the press conference before the opening game before ICT Baraclough indicated he was looking to add "a goalkeeper and a midfielder" since then we've added 2 goalkeepers, 2 midfielders and a striker. The issue isn't even whether they're good signings or not (for what it's worth I think both Robinson and Grimshaw are worthwhile additions) it's simply the conflict there now seems to be between the club's stated intention and what they're actually doing in practice. I don't expect any manager to have 100% success rate in terms of the players he brings in and anyone who does is clearly stunted but the club have been very vocal about the way they were planning to approach things going forward; smaller squad, more emphasis on youth and giving those players a chance and I think a lot of fans were actually willing to get behind that and still are to be fair. It's not like we're at the stage where we're some sort of lost cause, we just really need some indication of direction. However to see such a volte-face in policy for no apparent reason is confusing at best. Given that so many of the players we've brought in are short term deals to January or end of season at most I suppose the positive to take from things is that the guys we've brought in on longer deals and paid fees for actually look worth the investment.

Actually you could probably adapt that 442 into a nominal 433 by pushing Ainsworth further up and asking Robinson to play in the channel as an inside left and have Moult go through the middle. Ripley Kennedy - Laing - McManus - Hammell Lasley - Grimshaw - Chalmers Ainsworth Robinson Moult Formatting on the above might look ridiculous on a phone.

Two options for me, not sure which I prefer though probably not risking Hammell on a plastic pitch given his recent injury record makes sense. Given the well discussed midfield issues I think the most balanced we've looked is when we've had Joe Chalmers playing left side and for away games so reverting back to him on the left side of a 442 makes some kind of sense to me; Ripley Kennedy - Laing - McManus - Chalmers Lasley - Grimshaw - Leitch Ainsworth ---------------------Johnson Moult or Ripley Kennedy - Laing - McManus - Hammell Ainsworth - Lasley - Grimshaw - Chalmers Robinson - Moult

I agree. There may well be a reason for Taylor's poor performances, I've laboured the point but I'll say it again, I think it's down to him being played out of position in a system he's not suited to but on a basic level that's not really the point. You're right, the bottom line is that it's Baraclough's job to get the best out the team and have the 11 players playing to the best of their ability. If the players aren't performing, as Taylor clearly isn't, then they should be dropped and another member of the squad given their shot. The manager's frame of reference this season beyond actual results should be his ability to manage the team ie: put out 11 players comfortable in their positions and functioning well in a unit, not persisting with players (especially ones on loan) in the vain hope that they turn the corner. I've tried to give as much perspective re: Baraclough as possible but I have a genuine worry that what we're seeing at the moment is a team simply treading water waiting for Pearson to come back with Taylor acting as little more than a placeholder. The idea that if you simply remove Pearson from our XI then everything about the way we play falls apart and we have no plan B system to compensate for him not being there is a concern IMO. Baraclough's already hooked both Johnson and Skippy at half time in games this season so you'd hope that he's at the very least able to see that a player's being ineffective. It's up to him whether he actually does it with Taylor and starts acting like a manager. Edit: re: the "waste of money" comment. Again, that's bang on. If it's the case that we were unsure about Taylor (and the 'break' clause is possibly the most obvious case of 'keep the receipt' I've ever seen) or at the very least if we did miss out on players we *actually* wanted then after all the rhetoric we've heard from the club and the owner why have we signed a player on loan to play him out of position when we have our own players who actually play in that area of the park? Why not just say "we missed out on our original targets but we've got confidence in our young players to step up and stake their claim"? Wasn't that one of the fundamental parts of the overall "project"? Same goes for Samson, my issue isn't whether he's a good goalkeeper or not. We could have signed Neuer or De Gea it wouldn't alter the fact that the net result is the same, we're now wasting yet another wage having an extra player who won't even get a game (Twardzik, ditto Clarkson) off the back of a summer when the manager and club were preaching about operating with a slimmed down squad.

I'm reading a lot into things here and speculating fairly wildly so feel free to ignore me but I'd suggest that given there's a clause in Taylor's contract that presumably allows us to cancel it in January gives the impression that we've taken a punt on him presumably after missing out on our initial targets (Bolger and probably Irvine) and expedited by Pearson's injury. That we seem to be playing him out of position suggests that we've possibly even taken him on a recommendation rather than having properly scouted. The fact that Grimshaw has pitched up now on a short term deal looks to me as if we're trying to rectify the error until Pearson's back and match fit. As baffling as our recruitment has been since the opening day of the season I think it's fair to say that bringing in the likes of Fletcher, Moult, Chalmers & Kennedy in the early stages of the window remain solid signings and fit the specific sort of profile we're meant to be looking at. So given Taylor looks so out of place added to the 'break' clause in his deal makes me think we weren't totally sure on him in the first place. I really wouldn't be surprised to see him head back to Reading in January assuming Pearson returns to full fitness and Taylor continue in the dubious form he's shown to date. Who knows though we may work out that he's not actually a central midfielder and find that he hits form.

Going by the blurb on the official site Long's apparently a long term injury. Other than that, I agree with your rationale. Edit: just saw Superward beat me to it.

Utterly mental and completely pointless signing. We're paying another senior pro a wage to basically sit on the bench. Genuinely baffled as to why anyone at the club thinks it's necessary or how there's any vaguely acceptable justification given the whole "financial situation" thing.

As it stands we have a first choice goalkeeper who by all accounts, assuming he's fit, will start every game and kicking prowess aside has been doing a decent enough job. Regardless of people's thoughts of Dan as a first choice goalkeeper he fits the role of back-up goalie just fine. I believe Morrison has been playing in goal for the u20s so that's pretty much covered. If there's honestly the suggestion that we're somehow signing a 31 year old free agent in some sort of convoluted process to provide cover for an injury to our u20s keeper then not only is it a waste of a wage, it's just plain mental. There is just no valid reason for us to sign him given our current squad. Even in the event of Ripley and Twardzik both getting injured we'd surely just go for an emergency loan. Given that this is the 3rd time (that I can remember) he's been linked with us since the end of last season I get the impression that someone claiming to be #ITK is just really desperate for him to sign with Motherwell and can't take a hint (or is just trolling everyone) or alternatively (more likely?) his agent is flying a kite and trying to make it look like there's a team actually interested in him given he's been without a club for a while now.

Are you comparing the attendance on Saturday with the attendance at the first home game of the season? For what it's worth the 1st home game vs Ross County last season was marginally less well attended than Saturday's game; 13/12/14 - 3,193 12/09/15 - 3,545 Actually here's 1st home game vs County in 2013: 28/09/13 - 4,263 The first home game vs United doesn't really make a good comparison as it was the Friday night game on the telly that we won 1-0 (Black's first game in charge). 07/11/14 - 3,961 08/08/15 - 4,859 09/11/13 - 5,103 Our first home game of last season was vs St. Mirren and compares 4,620 vs the 4,859 at the United game in August and vs 2013's 1st home game of the season vs Aberdeen 6,242. Edit: So just to clarify the attendances this year for the corresponding fixtures (ie: 1st home fixtures) vs both United and Ross County were up by 898 and 352 respectively on last year.

Apologies in advance for another tl,dr post; Cheers. It's one of those things I suppose. You see Motherwell and the level of football they're playing every week it's not necessarily the case with the other clubs you see them once a round of fixtures. So as thisGraeme says, it's all about how things are perceived. A good example that someone over on Pie & Bovril posted was that according to Sportsound McNamara needs "more time" (he's been there since 2013) while the "pressure in on" Alan Archibald (who's been manager at Thistle since...erm 2013). As I've suggested those are just basic figures, they don't tell you anything of performances. Dundee's 9 wins within that period may well have been Bayern-level exhibitions of total football whereas another team may have scraped a series of 1-0s. In a sense Baraclough and the club have made a rod for their own backs by selling the idea of bringing through youth and a pressing, positive style of football so ultimately regardless of results they're going to be judged by this to an extent. I'd put forward the argument that deciding one way or another 7 games into the manager's first full season in charge is a bit premature. Just for the sake of clarity that post isn't meant as anything other than what it is. I'm not putting forward the idea that we have the new Ancelloti or Guardiola at Fir Park just simply that within the context of the league he's managing in then Baraclough's record (given he took over the team at a particularly low ebb) actually holds up reasonably well against guys who are being lauded as unqualified successes (we're talking about a difference of 4 draws between Bara and Hartley for example though I acknowledge Dundee finished top 6.) What is certainly the case is that of our bottom 6 rivals last season he's comfortably ahead of Locke, Archibald, Canning (3 of his 6 wins are this season) and obviously Teale. You can argue that Baraclough's been backed and supported by the board but so too has Locke (I don't imagine Boyd is playing for pocket money and they're chucking 3 year deals about like they're going out of fashion) while it's pretty well accepted that Roy MacGregor is chucking money at Ross County (if Jackson Irvine's reported wage is anything to go by). When it comes down to it, we're 7 games into the manager's first full season in charge so for me the level of full on knee-jerk fatalism that's accompanying every dropped point or poor performance is slightly early. He may well go on to lose another 6 in a row but similarly he might win 3 of the next 6 and we find ourselves sat mid-table. Actually related to Ross County since McIntyre is being used as something of a benchmark in terms of "impact" his record from taking over til the end of the January transfer window when they hit that exceptional run of form was such: Ross County P W D L Pts 18 2 6 10 12/54 (22%) Win - 11% Baraclough from taking over until the end of the window was (not including the 2-2 Ross County game as Black took the team for that IIRC): P W D L Pts 8 2 1 5 7/24 (29%) Win - 25% Nah it doesn't Andy just league form to date. I think the bulk of my numbers are right but I'll happily stand corrected if there are any errors in the arithmetic. Edit: If you were to add in play off wins then that's 11 wins in 31 games so a win % of 35%.

Following on from that post earlier here's a breakdown of the records of the other managers in the league (not including Hearts and I've covered McIntyre above). Outwith Aberdeen and Celtic it's really much of a muchness, you can see that a number of teams were able to pick up points through seeing out draws but when it comes down to actual win % there really isn't that much between the majority. Where the manager has been in charge for longer than Baraclough I've just used the same time-frame. Apologies for not including for and against and goal differences but frankly I couldn't be arsed adding them all up. As I said above you can take what you will from this information. Ultimately if the team isn't coherent on the park and we're seen to be struggling then it's clearly difficult to look beyond that. It's interesting to see how managers who have developed the reputations of Hartley, Hughes and Wright compare though. Aberdeen (under McInnes during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 28 19 5 4 61/84 (72%) Win - 67% Celtic (under Deila during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 29 22 4 3 70/87 (80%) Win - 75% Dundee (under Hartley during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 29 9 9 11 36/87 (41%) Win - 31% Dundee United (under McNamara during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 29 8 5 16 29/87 (33%) Win - 27% Hamilton (under Canning) P W D L Pts 24 6 6 12 24/72 (33%) Win - 25% ICT (under Hughes during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 29 10 9 10 39/87 (44%) Win - 34% Kilmarnock (under Locke) P W D L Pts 22 4 7 12 19/66 (28%) Win - 18% Motherwell (under Baraclough not including play offs) P W D L F A GD Pts 29 9 5 15 32 35 -3 32/87 (36%) Win - 31% Partick Thistle (under Archibald during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 29 7 9 13 30/87 (34%) Win - 24% St Johnstone (under Wright during same period as Baraclough) P W D L Pts 29 11 9 9 42/87 (48%) Win - 37%