capt_oats

Here you go.

They do. There's actually a branding/sponsorship deal in place, "data source: Football Manager', "clock sponsored by Football Manager" etc

Grant's actually playing in the Everton U21s team right now: https://twitter.com/Everton/status/638321168496369664

Yeah, Hughes was banging on about it a while back. To be honest, I don't really see that he'll be in much of a position to make demands like that unless the buying club are feeling particularly charitable. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/john-hughes-wants-ryan-christie-back-on-loan-1-3858296

Is it not part of the deal that he gets loaned back to them?

The issue with a loan signing, as evidenced by Grant last season, is that the parent club is going to want the player to get substantial game time in their preferred position. If that doesn't happen then it's a bit of a waste of time for both player and parent club. If we're working on the premise that when fit our central pairing is going to be Pearson/Lasley with some rotation that sees one of those two drop down to the bench now and again then that's a pretty hard sell. Similarly you'd think that the sort of player that a club would be open to loaning to us based on a proposal of them being cover probably won't be that much better than the younger guys that we have here just now so doesn't really benefit us. Ripley being here for example is presumably on the basis of the fact that Boro have been told he'll play every week. Taylor perhaps less so but you'd imagine he's likely to be getting more game time with us than under Clarke at Reading. I suppose the ideal is to bring in either a) a younger guy with qualities the likes of Leitch and Cadden don't have that we can transition into the team over time in place of either of the senior pros or b) a more experienced player who can rotate with say Pearson or Lasley to allow the likes of Leitch or Cadden to get game time without the idea of running the midfield being on their shoulders at this stage. Our apparent business plan and approach to signings so far would suggest that the former is more likely I guess.

Grant signed a new deal with them in the summer so it'd be a loan. He was playing in their Dev. Squad team the other week & seems a definite part of the team at that level. http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2015/08/29/grant-relishing-goodison-test If Flow's Twitter posts that it's more likely to be 2 players we bring in are anything to go by then I'm interested to see whether it's 2 CMs and what sort of attributes they have. As others have picked up on, all of the 5 forwards we have now (whether you think 5 is excessive or not), offer noticeably different qualities and there are still key attributes that we lack in the centre of the park (creativity, physicality, pace).

Actually wouldn't disagree with you on these points, but will attempt to clarify. As far as the "no new manager bounce" thing goes I think it's equally fair to say that while we ground out those results we didn't see a sudden rejuvenation in the way we were playing though certainly I concede 3 wins and a draw out of 6 games did mark a halt to the 6 games without a win prior to McCall leaving. What I was getting at was the overall context of Baraclough's arrival, 2 narrow wins vs St Mirren & Thistle and then the wheels came off so to speak. It didn't create a particularly good first impression and was enough to create substantial doubt, which obviously still exists given that this thread is still going. You're completely correct re: the support Baraclough's had and I remember well the money that Davies had chucked at that team. I agree the improvements as yet haven't materialised and as I said Baraclough has a lot to prove and for me that has to be based on whether he can show he can actually manage the team, identify weaknesses and rectify them, get the XI players playing as a cohesive unit and ultimately win matches. We're 6 games in to the season and the knee-jerk reaction to this season so far seems to be being informed by the context of last season. I'm no McCall fan quite the opposite in fact, which is pretty clear from my posts over on Pie & Bovril, but again I agree with you re: restrictions. Obviously I have no idea what sort of budgets he was being asked to work with so in that respect I wouldn't argue with you there. As for the "short-termism" comment I made, of course there's a bottom line and that is winning games. I'm not naive enough to suggest that we would be placing an over-arching strategy over the importance of results. I suppose what I was suggesting I was against was the Ross County route that they seem to have dispensed with of seeing a huge turnover of players every transfer window or the method Killie have taken (and seem to be failing with) ie: bringing in a raft of "experienced" players at the end of their career in the hope of getting results.

^^^^^ Basically this. The major issue the Baraclough had/has is the context in which he got the job; he inherited an imbalanced, poorly performing squad and a team sat in 10th position in the league. He then proceeded to oversee a run of 8 league games without a win. On the face of it there was no new manager "bounce" and to all intents in purposes it looked like he had no impact at all. Add in the fact that he wasn't known and when it comes down to it some people just don't like his face then it's not a good first impression. As I mentioned the other day though, his record last season from taking over from McCall is almost identical to McCall's record for the remainder of the season when he took over from Brown (including 9 losses and 12 games without scoring). Indeed looking at the goals against column Baraclough's record is significantly better. Ultimately what's the difference then? You've got two managers who have almost identical league records yet by all accounts McCall was afforded time and Baraclough should be bulleted right now, he's not the man for the job etc. I'd argue the difference is that McCall, former Scotland international and someone fairly well 'known' inherited a very good squad and took over a team in mid-table and maintained that position despite his limitations as a manager. The lowest McCall's team dropped to that season was 8th. He also won 4 rounds that took us to a cup final. There was no threat of relegation, there was no "pressure". He was also able to maintain the bulk of his squad (Randolph, Hammell, Craigan, Hateley, Lasley, Hutchison, Humphrey, Jennings, Murphy and add the likes of Higdon, Ojamaa and Nicky Law) In Baraclough's case you've got an unknown manager whose last job was in the league of Ireland and who on the face of it couldn't get us out of a rut left by McCall and it becomes very easy to simply focus solely on the manager and I completely understand why folk have the fear of a repeat of last season and also why they're comparing his league record to a recent history of 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd place finishes regardless of whether that's realistic or not. Also, rather than simply maintaining and adding to a good SPL level squad Bara's been charged with a complete overhaul of the squad. Am I convinced by Baraclough? He's definitely still got a lot of work to do and a lot to prove. Like many, I think he says the right things but I'd like to see him actually put that into place. As Star Sail says we're in an obvious period of transition. Personally I have zero interest in going to watch a team defined by a short-termist outlook or for that matter watching a team put together by a Calderwood, Jeffries or someone of their ilk. But that's just me. Do I think Baraclough's the man for the job? That remains to be seen but as it stands his league record isn't that much worse than the start the last guy had (who had by far a better squad to pick from) so in that respect I'm willing to give him a bit of time.

I'll not lie, I felt 5 strikers is excessive. On a regular basis we'll have 2 on the park (McDonald +1) and two on the bench so on the face of it that means you've got one guy just kicking his heels. Again, taken on face value that seems like a waste of a wage. Ultimately though that 5th player is an insurance policy. At the moment Fletcher is out so the 4 we have available are part of the match day squad, further down the line there may be another injury (long or short term) or alternatively there may be a suspension. When it comes down to it having 5 strikers on the books is only excessive if everyone is fit and available. You can argue about whether it's a luxury or whether or not we'd be better served looking to promote one of the u20s if we need someone to fill that 'insurance' role but as it stands we've managed to get 5 strikers all with fairly diverse (positive) attributes. As I said before I'd much rather have the players in than realise we're short of a striker in 2 months time.

In fairness there was some decent link up play between McDonald, Thomas and Moult. Some of the through balls McDonald played between their full back and centre half early on were exactly the sort of thing we've been missing. The chance McDonald had later on in the second half was fashioned from good interplay between he & Thomas. No doubt McDonald tired noticeably and his passing became much slacker. By no means was that a complete display of total football but given the context and our poor run of form and even taking into account it was a dire Killie team we were playing it was good to at least see us try and play the ball on the deck more. Edit to add: I still agree that in playing Skippy deep we're not getting the best out of him however assuming it's a stop-gap measure until we get Pearson back or a new CM in then as a short term option it's not the worst plan B.

Kennedy for me though really not much in it between him and Thomas. Pleased to see Thomas get 90mins as well.

yep, I'm O2 as well and my phone is totally useless inside Fir Park.

Thought we were completely comfortable but ended up making things a bit difficult for ourselves. Getting the ball out to Thomas as much as we did in the opening stages put us on the front foot. As critical as I've been of Josh Law he did everything that was asked of him today and by all accounts was being coached through the game by Kennedy and the manager on the touchline 1st half. Fair play to the manager as well, as bizarre a sub as Laing for Leitch seemed he reacted to the fact that Killie had started targeting Law at that point. Played some decent stuff in patches. Kennedy & McManus pretty much strolled the game and both Leitch and Moult showed up well. The 451 is still an issue as we stumble in transitions, also we looked not too bad getting the ball to feet so the reverting to long kicks from hand was frustrating. Noticed Lasley having a go at Ripley about it at the end of the 1st half. Either way I'll take the 3 points and the clean sheet. All the above is written in full awareness that that is an utterly abject Killie team.

To be honest I think we just need to get back to a basic system that works just now. Bin the idea of playing McDonald in midfield/as an attacking midfielder. Trying to play a midfield diamond or a system that we're not familiar with isn't going to help. We found a bit of form last season going 442 and for the most part it should be enough to match the teams that we're aiming to pick up wins against. As has been said before, play McDonald up front or don't play him at all. Address the fact that both Law and Johnson are suffering from a loss of form and use the squad a bit. Assuming Hammell won't be risked and Fletcher still isn't quite there then I'd go: Ripley Watt - Laing - McManus - Chalmers Ainsworth - Lasley - Leitch - Thomas McDonald - Moult

Absolutely. Can't argue with that.

saw that earlier. at the very least that would suggest the Robinson signing is budgeted for and the upshot is that we have the same number of strikers as last season (not including Moore who's on loan and whose wage will likely be covered by Ayr.) agree with everyone else that we're likely to see one of the 5 as somewhat superfluous, the Bob McHugh role if you will, and there's a valid argument that that wage would be better allocated to whatever package we're offering the midfield targets we're looking at. McHugh only made 4 appearances last season IIRC. all said and done Flow also confirms that we're looking to address the midfield positions so at least it's been made clear that Robinson's arrival doesn't prohibit bringing in a player in that position.

Given the context Robinson's signing is peculiar on a purely bodies in basis. Having said that if he's better than what we have (watching his highlights reel he seems to offer something we don't have at the moment) & we're within budget then I'd rather have him in now than get 2 months down the line after the window closes & realise we could have used another striker. Haven't seen his interview but if Bara's said there will be 'others' in as has been mentioned then surely a CM will be one. Also, I noticed on Robinson's Transfermrkt profile that he can play wide, I wonder if that's an option http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/theo-robinson/profil/spieler/39514 It was reported yesterday that Fletcher was back in contention so his injury doesn't seem a plausible explanation. I'm inclined to agree with others that it doesn't bode particularly well for Clarkson. Edit to add: If he's only signed to the end of the season initially then as long as we're not paying him a fortune then it's a fairly low risk acquisition.

Unless we're planning on moving a striker on already, which seems doubtful, then it'd seem an odd move to bring another one in. The decision to loan Moore out made sense as he's going to get more game time at Ayr than he would here and at the moment he'll clearly benefit from playing every week and Clarkson is only getting minutes here and there. Moore would have been lucky to see any first team involvement beyond covering an injury crisis. By all accounts Fletcher is close to being in back in contention so that's back to our complement of 4 forwards playing for 2 places. As others have said if we're bringing anyone in then we could definitely use a specific type of midfielder since we definitely lack a physical, robust ball winning midfielder.

Internet site speculates that Fletcher could be in contention tomorrow. Quoting the man himself too. http://asia.eurosport.com/football/motherwell-striker-wes-fletcher-could-return-for-kilmarnock-game_sto4880819/story.shtml

Generally stayed out of this thread but just out of curiosity I thought I'd have a look at McCall's record in the season he took over from Brown obvious caveat being we were top 6 after the split. However that's surely evened out by the fact that McCall inherited a substantially better squad than Bara did (Randolph, Jennings, Murphy et al) and we were already out of both cups by the time Bara took over vs Scottish Cup runners up and League cup semi-finalists (the round we were already in by the time McCall was appointed) the season McCall took over: McCall (1st Jan 10 (6th pos.) - 15 May 11 (6th pos. - obviously we couldn't finish any lower)) P W D L F A Pts 21 6 5 10 16 38 23 Baraclough (20th Dec 14 (10th pos.) - 23 May 15 (11th pos.)) - not including play-off and not including the Ross County 2-2 on the day he was appointed as Black was taking the team that day IIRC): P W D L F A Pts 22 7 4 11 27 26 25 Clearly as I've posted on other threads I think Bara has a lot to prove in order to convince that there's more to him than just middle-management speak. This season is on him, no doubt about that and this isn't a for or against post more just a bit of context. Edit to add: Here's Brown's record when he was parachuted in after Gannon was binned. Brown: (29th Dec 09 (6th) - 9th May 10 (5th)) P W D L F A Pts 21 9 6 6 31 24 33

Dare I say it but that's Football Manager logic. I can understand the suggestion but it seems predicated on a couple of his attributes (pace, power) more than anything else. Given that he's hardly been bang on form at the moment I'd say that to wilfully play him out of position would be mental, he seems low enough on confidence as it is. Having said that, I would be interested to see if it'd work since I can actually see some of the thought behind the idea. I don't think a "must win" home game vs Killie is really the best time to give it a shot though.

What will be telling for me is the XI Baraclough picks. So far any changes we've seen have been dictated by injuries (or suspension) by and large his team selection has remained consistent, arguably regardless of performances: Leitch/Taylor for Pearson Moult for Fletcher Chalmers for Hammell Chalmers for Ainsworth As it stands we've still not scored more than one goal within 90 mins, however we've taken the lead in 3 of the 5 league games we've played and lost games to, on the whole, avoidable goals. The flaws and deficiencies with the team are evident for everyone to see, Ya Bezzer's graphic of goals conceded or even a simple video analysis of positioning at the goals conceded give that information. I'd say that it's up to Bara to show now that he actually has it in him to identify the issues and address them. Basically, he needs to show that he can manage. If that means dropping players that he considered to be part of his best XI 5 games ago or being flexible with formation to get the best out of the players he has then he has to do it. If players are being coached through the week to address these weaknesses but are reverting to type on a match day then it's the manager's responsibility to look at other options within the squad. The manager made the point pre-East Fife that he wanted the players on the fringe of the XI (so to speak) to step up. I don't know if it was always the plan to only give Johnson 45mins in the cup but if it's the case that he was hooked then going by reports on here Dom Thomas has done exactly what the manager's been asking for. If the manager goes back to (broadly speaking) the same XI that has come up short, underperforming players still have their berth and we're still making the same mistakes then he deserves to have serious questions asked of him. If we score first and can add to that then I'd hope we'll be OK, I still have no faith in us keeping a clean sheet though. Seeing that Moult has now scored in his last two games along with McDonald and Ainsworth getting off the mark then hopefully we might actually see a few more of the chances we've been creating being taken. 3-1 Motherwell (hopefully) McDonald, Moult & Laing for us

I think this is something we'll find out when Watt is fully fit and we see who gets the nod. As I've said before I don't really have an issue with Law being around the squad if he's there simply as cover but if he's genuinely considered our first choice right back in his current form then we have a problem.

As I pointed out the other day, for St Johnstone's 2nd goal he was stood in line with the penalty spot, marking no one, contributing nothing defensively whilst the rest of the back 4 were on the 6 yard line and Laing was having to cover 2 players. That's just basic positional play. Like others I thought Law grew into the RB role towards the end of last season but at the moment he's an unmitigated liability. Yes there are clearly other factors that don't help but I'd argue much of what's wrong with Law's game at the moment is positional awareness. Having a RB in there who is a natural defender might not fix all our problems but it might at least mark a start.