dennyc

Given that Lafferty had gone off, I would have hoped that whoever had been instructed to cover him at set pieces would have picked up Taylor rather than leaving it to Goss. But having taken Taylor, Goss allowed him a free run at the ball setting up a fairly straightforward finish. Although physically at a disadvantage, Goss could at least have tried to block the run. But yes the ball was in the air for ages and Sol should have had time to position himself better. Given the run Taylor was allowed, he may well have overpowered Sol in any case. I think Taylor scored a back post equaliser late on in a previous match so the entire defence should have been aware of that possibility. In short I think there were several players at fault for the goal.

Seems like it. But if you add in 12 months of failure at Hibs prior to that then it makes it less of a shock. Hibs fans I know had been calling for his sacking for months and were delighted to see him go. The shambles of their Scottish cup final defeat by Saint Johnstone, following on from a semi final thrashing by the same team, and their League form certainly contradicted the hype that was built round Ross . It was only his media mates that were up in arms and calling foul when he was sacked. He did well at Alloa followed by St Mirren and earned his step up. But he has now underperformed at three bigger clubs and failed to deliver despite substantial financial backing. I wonder how much in total he has invested across Sunderland, Hibs and United with no return? But I do accept American owners are more likely to act quickly. Does not mean they were wrong in this case though. Looking at the United squad, their are a good few that I would have been delighted to see at Motherwell. McGrath, Levitt and Middleton as examples. They would walk into our first team.

It is a difficult one to get the right balance. If a club with limited finances is going to invest £16k a week in respect of 3 or 4 players in the hope of success , that club would probably want to tie those players into a decent length of contract. The hope being that the players can be moved on for a sizeable fee before their contracts end. Thus recouping most of the money paid out over the period.....or even better earning a profit . So maybe 3 year contracts? Kelly springs to mind. If the contract is limited to only one year then the players can walk for nothing and seek even higher wages elsewhere if they are performing well. So the investment could be for nothing, on or off the pitch. I doubt loyalty would come into it. If the investment did not result in a cash windfall from Europe, or a domestic cup win, then a club could have a noose round their neck wage wise for the following two years at least. Committed to around £800k a season for three seasons in respect of only 3 or 4 players seems quite a burden to me. And possibly for under performing players. Given that in our case it would have been Alexander recruiting those players, I am delighted we did not take that gamble. And of course (as has already been mentioned) you have possible unrest within the squad at the wages being paid to a select few. Particularly if those on high wages are not contributing as expected.

Against Aberdeen and Livi, Efford's contribution as a sub was in important factor in both victories. From a defensive point of view he supported SOD who had run his heart out and was tiring. and on the offensive side he continued the attacking threat that SOD had provided all afternoon. Exactly the impact you hope a sub will have. Something that Alexander's substitutions constantly failed to achieve. So although he might not be a world beater, let's not underplay his contribution and improvement under Hammell. I certainly don't yet see him as a first team fixture but can we please acknowledge that he has shown up and contributed.

I take it your not saying it's ok because it also happens elsewhere? What happens at other clubs is irrelevant. If it is the case at Motherwell then it is an issue. An embarrassing and damaging issue.

Cannot remember the game...think it was away from home last season or season before. Did we not get a player sent off for a a jersey pull on half way to stop a break away? Can remember the argument that it was so far from goal so extremely harsh. And maybe same happened to Aberdeen (Devlin) last season? Thoughts were both fouls were regarded as stopping a goal scoring opportunity which I agree Lundstrum foul was not. For me that Rangers tackle was worse in that there was more danger of causing injury and if the rules say that is a yellow but a jersey tug on half way is a straight red, then the powers that be need to get a grip. And sorry, but our penalty yesterday was a joke. Clearly nowhere near a hand ball. Neither referee or Assistant had a clear view and guessed at the ball hitting an arm based on the reaction from several of our players, Goss in particular. If that had been given against us, this forum would be in meltdown......and rightly so. VAR will change nothing if current Scottish referees are doing the reviews on their "off days". After all it is their colleague out there and roles are likely to be reversed the following week. "Don't embarrass me and I wont embarrass you". And how on earth would Collum's ego allow him to be wrong? I'm all for VAR helping to arrive at the correct outcome, but to do that we need the video review folk to have as little conflict of interest as possible. So retired, non Scottish referees?

Don't think he triggered any clause. He sat out games until the Club agreed to change his contract before that clause (inserted at his request) was activated. One game short of the extension target. The deal was he that signed on to benefit us IF he got to into the Euros squad, but was free to walk for nothing thereafter. I don't think Motherwell had much choice to be fair. Any games he played after the new contract was signed did not count towards any extension. Worked out ok for us I guess but we were extremely lucky Clarke stayed loyal and selected him. It must have been a close call given he never got on the pitch at the tournament and I don't think he has featured since. His situation was entirely different from Watt who I believe gave his all even when it was evident Alexander did not want him long term. I got the impression Watt thought he was staying for at least another two seasons, until he found out otherwise. In other words he did not down tools like Gallagher. " Deccy is sitting it out until his contract is sorted out" was a quote from a team mate. And this was the same Tony Watt whose departure was the sole reason for our decline according to some. Until the reality of where Alexander was taking us hit home that is. Anyway, both players no longer have anything to do with Motherwell. Yesterday's men. But I would welcome Watt back.....on our terms. Gallagher not so much.

Albeit everyone is broadly supportive of Hammell, the Board have faced criticism from several on here. Noteworthy that those shouting loudest have had an axe to grind with the Board (and Burrows in particular) for some considerable time. Way before the decline since last December. So the past few weeks must have been orgasmic for them. More fuel to the fire and all that. Others have expressed concern but in a much more supportive, constructive manner. As you would expect on a fans' forum. But can you imagine the seethe from that first group if Hammell had been appointed within hours of Alexander leaving? From memory Burrows and the Board have been criticised for appointing Robinson, sacking Robinson, appointing Alexander, sacking Alexander, sacking Alexander to soon, being slow to ditch Alexander, appointing Hammell, not appointing Hammell immediately, and not taking enough time before appointing Hammell. My view is that the Board have acted promptly enough whilst taking the time to assess the merits of those interested in the position. I don't think the likes of Pep and Jurgen expressed an interest so perhaps some on here need a dose of realism. Having considered all the information available to them the Board decided to appoint Hammell, That's good enough for me and for anyone to question their integrity in doing so is farcical. For what it's worth I would have preferred Valakari but he too would have been a risk, although for different reasons. As for integrating different areas within the Club, youth in particular, I believe that set up existed successfully when Craigen was in charge of youth development. A system that was responsible for Turnbull, Hastie, Scott etc etc breaking into the first team and earning the Club millions. Within that system others were poached by Clubs such as Leeds, Norwich and Rangers. But again resulting in much needed income. Latterly under Robinson..... but more so under Alexander....., I believe that structure was dismissed and I wonder how much contact Alexander actually had with our younger players and Hammell/Kerr. Perhaps CoVid had a part to play. Alexander clearly preferred to bring in his own team of like minded coaches and preferred to recruit senior players he had previously worked with and trusted. That approach continued into this season despite its limitations as evidenced by our style of play and poor results in 2022. If Hammell and the Board believe a return to that earlier set up will help to secure our future, put a more attractive product on the pitch, and provide a better balance of experience and raw talent, then more power to them. Seems to me the people in charge are doing what they believe is best for Motherwell FC.

Disagree 100%. If anything the Board could be accused of being too loyal to Alexander...... and by all accounts serious consideration was given to making the change before the start of the season. And this is a Board who having made that original decision and seeing no hint of improvement, then acted swiftly and decisively. And how do you know they had no plan B already in their minds? Facts suggest otherwise. In a very short space of time they have sifted through over 70 applications (some perhaps invited), identified a short list of suitable applicants and conducted interviews. At the end of the day they have now announced the appointment of a young, qualified coach who has an in depth knowledge of the Scottish game and has Motherwell's best interest at heart. I think change was very much in the minds of the Board, but being the Club we are, Alexander was given the opportunity to show he had the ability and support to turn things around.

On the face of it, it might look like a cautious and cheap option. But what we now have is a young dynamic manager who has the Club's interest at heart. He has been in the Scottish game as a qualified coach for a good number of years and will have many decent contacts within the game. From his comments it is quite clear he was at odds with our style of play under Alexander and his team and is also well aware of the areas we must strengthen. I wonder how long he would have stayed around if Alexander had remained? The Board states resources will be made available to bring in new faces and so they need to follow through on that promise. In better times this would more readily be seen as an exciting, brave appointment that augers well for the future of the Club. He clearly has a bond with the fans which hopefully will give him time to put his plans into practice. It may take time but the thought of watching his brand of football rather than the eye bleeding rubbish we have been subjected for months has me well on board.

I would say realistic and positive. We could all do with a dose of that.

Phew! I think his Norway and Faroes success was at about third division level. And he has not followed even that up at the Blue Brazil. But for some reason he is held up as a great coach. Never seems to stay anywhere for any great length of time. Then again many fall into that category. I had heard Ross being mentioned before you came up with your tongue in cheek comment. But had dismissed it out of hand as nonsense.

You've got me worried now. Please tell me you are having a laugh. In a matter of months Ross managed to dismantle all the good work Craigen did with our youth/reserve/B team. Tactically clueless as shown against Hearts in the Reserve Cup Final which I had the misfortune to attend. Several of our promising youngsters seemed to disappear under his reign. Liam Brown for one was outstanding under Craigen but deemed not required under Ross. What was once a source of great talent and income for Motherwell produced next to nothing in Ross's time. He does appear to have contacts at Motherwell so I am not surprised his name has been mentioned. He is always held up by the usual BBC pundits as a star in the making and came to Motherwell highly touted. But for me he achieved little other than helping to warm up the first team pre game. If he gets the job, I hope my fears are misplaced. But not for me. There is a reason he has not been trusted with a job beyond Scandinavian and Scottish lower tier clubs. As evidenced by his record at Cowdenbeath. His spell as assistant at Notts County did not end well either. His CV does not stack up to the likes of Valakari and Lennon.

You might be on to something there. Maybe delete Spittal. Insert Kirk. He likes a goal up there.

Fair point. 3 years maybe? I was just surprised that Liverpool's nine CL/Uefa wins plus three Super Cup wins were not enough to take them above the clubs I mentioned. As Liverpool did spend time outside the the top division and were banned as you say, it suggests to me that the co-efficient to a degree reflects number of appearances whereas I thought achievement when actually participating would have a greater reward. Real Madrid of course have mastered both. So playing in a League like ours gives Rangers and Celtic a head start in collecting points over those who have to fight to get a European place. Ever presents since the early sixties sitting above the likes of Liverpool despite achieving little. Kiev as an example. I appreciate that the OF have appeared in a number of finals but others have not. Just an observation. That's all.

Again, it is not the fact Alexander dropped O'Donnell to the bench. That was justified in most folks eyes but perplexing when others were just as poor but retained their place regardless. So let's get that straight. What is being highlighted is that in our time of dire need, when his chosen replacement at right back was becoming a liability and rapidly losing confidence, Alexander refused to use O'Donnell off the bench...... or to even start a game. And that continued into this season even after our home performance against Sligo. Being on the bench, we have to assume that O'Donnell was fit enough and performed well enough in training to merit that place. O'Donnell's recent comments suggest he did just knuckle down and get on with it. So why not try him as the situation on the field became more and more depressing? No wonder most people believe it was personal and that O'Donnell was being made to suffer. Refuse the Bench position and he could have been suspended by the Club. Credit to O'Donnell for not going down the Declan route.

It is not really about O'Donnell though. It is about Alexander and his style of management. O'Donnell is just an example of that style and also Alexander's stubbornness and refusal to do what might have been good for the Club during a spell which at best can be described as poor. Slattery, Woolery. Lamie and to a lesser degree Tierney could all be substituted for SOD as players who were sidelined at a time when others were performing poorly but retained.......Goss, McGinley, Carroll, Shields, Efford, Ojala as examples. And you keep saying that folk are insisting O'Donnell should not have been dropped. That is just not true, no matter how often you repeat it. What people are saying is that when we were in freefall, Alexander for some reason totally ignored a player who he deemed good enough to sit on the bench and who represented his country. Not even worthy of a try at a time when his preferred selection was becoming a liability with confidence shot to pieces. And is still suffering. So instead of deflecting to the rights and wrongs of O'Donnell can you please comment on Alexander's performance from January to season end, including his team selections and formation? I say end season, but you can include this season's brief venture into Europe if you like. Clearly those factors were enough for the Club to get rid of him. No matter that " he avoided relegation and got us into Europe".

A really interesting read. What surprised me is how Liverpool as multiple winners across the tournaments sit below the OF and Kiev. I guess it just bears witness to how some clubs being guaranteed European football each season skews the figures. And highlights how long it takes for others to overtake them if those lower quality teams get through a few early rounds. Dukla Prague are even in there despite being disbanded and disappearing for a number of years before a local Prague club resurrected the name and progressed up the Divisions.

Great point. Seems to work perfectly well for Scandinavian clubs as several results in Europe this season confirm. Not too bad an effect on Irish Clubs either in the earlier rounds! Would be great if our lords and masters in Scotland actually looked and acted upon what would be good for Scottish football rather than blindly following others. And heaven forbid us fans get a say.

Is that when he was still Captain. I'm sure that happens at many clubs going through a bad spell. The captain calling a meeting that is.

I think it is pretty unprofessional to completely ignore a player who you deem is good enough for the bench (if not the first team) when the first team is in freefall. I also think it is unprofessional to ignore a player who is good enough for the International team when the player you have selected out of position to take his place is a liability and whose confidence is being destroyed. Alexander was entitled to make his point to SOD, but he carried it on too long and to the detriment of the Club. Sitting on the Bench, watching poor performance after performance, but not being allowed to contribute could be considered more of a punishment to a top player than being dropped altogether. That was not professional from Alexander although it looks to be his style. And it carried on into the new season in an attempt to force O'Donnell out of Motherwell altogether. More bench sitting and a replacement signed. No doubt some fans would be happy with that and they are entitled to that view. If you read O'Donnell's comments he got his head down and worked hard which suggests to me he accepted he had areas to improve. He had certainly made errors in a run of games, like many others. He also made no comment at the time regarding the fall out. That is professional. And I'm not saying Manager's should be influenced unduly by fans' reaction to players. What is wrong is to use that as a justification for defending Alexander's victimisation of a specific player.

I agree 100% re the level of our wages. We are never going to be able to compete with a good number of the teams in our league. And many lower/non league English clubs are financially ahead of us also. We are limited in the quality of player we can recruit from "the usual sources" so that heightens the need for a fresh approach and a strong youth development programme...notwithstanding that some will follow the route of Bailey Rice and a good few others. In hindsight I wonder if our strategy of working with an expanded squad for CoVid reasons hamstrung us to a degree, especially as various contracts were then extended....using up much needed resources over the following one or two seasons. How does the actual size of our squad compare to the likes of Livi, County, St Johnstone etc? I wonder if they are working with smaller squads enabling them to offer higher wages, within the same overall budget that we work to. If that is the case it will likely take time for us to reach an effective balance. I really do believe we have arrived at a time where the Club will need to look at their entire strategy moving forward. A new Manager is only part of that. I sense the Board have much thinking to do.

It does not matter what the disagreement was about, but if it was about SOD not being good enough then why was he even on the Bench? Drop him altogether if that is the Manager's considered assessment. The fact is we had a Manager who punished a player by dumping him on the bench and (even worse) then ignoring him when the team he was managing was in freefall. That is not what I consider a professional approach. Harmed the team as a whole, the individual player and also the players exposed by being forced to play out of position. Only one person appears to have acted professionally, and it was not Alexander. And if you read O'Donnell's comments he is still conducting himself as he should. The fans call out various players every game but I did not see Alexander treating those players as he did O'Donnell. Well, not for the same length of time anyway. It seems Slattery and Carroll to name just two were paroled. His treatment of O'Donnell was vindictive, whether or not benching him originally was justified. And it continued into the new season. Yorkyred is correct in that fallouts happen at all clubs from time to time. But at most Clubs BOTH parties work to patch things up for the benefit of all. Does not read like that was the case here. As for continuing to bash a guy who has thankfully gone, were you there on Saturday to see the shambles he left behind? Despite Alexander stating what a great job he had done. Did you read Hammell's comments about the state of the squad he inherited? ...Unfit, confidence shot, players with little game time pre season....and as a result little scope for trying different set ups. On Saturday, not one fan sitting around me was happy with what they were watching but all were unanimous that Hammell had been left to tidy up a shambles of Alexander's making. And they were not just referring to the O'Donnell situation. And let's not mention his summer recruitment...or lack of. You and a few others can defend Alexander as is your right. But the evidence against him explains why you appear to be in the vast minority.

Not at all. I think in those days fans were a bit more rational when it came to certain other teams. Since then sporting dislike has turned to obsessive hatred for some. A blight that sadly affects more than Motherwell. "Tribal" is the word often used.

Kelly and (when he eventually got recalled) Lamie are about the only two that had 5 decent games all season. And they made mistakes as well. Plenty of others........to name a few in no particular order....Carroll, Mugabi, Goss, Shields, McGinley, MacGuire and even Watt and Van Veen....had a run of games where they made the same mistakes over and over. But they were not treated in the same way as O'Donnell. That is, benched and ignored until season end no matter how dire the situation got. Short time memory seems to work both ways. So no. I'm not going to scapegoat O'Donnell for making errors. He sure did, but so did everybody else. Almost the entire team was underperforming from January onwards, if not before. Just some were singled out more than others. O'Donnell was not alone in that but he suffered most. Grimshaw came close but in his case he disappeared from the matchday squad for not being good enough but was not made to sit on the bench game in game out. As for fan votes. I'll take those with a pinch of salt given that many of those voting would not have voted for O'Donnell if he had scored a hat trick in the last five minutes against Celtic/Rangers in a cup final. And if we are to believe fan votes online, then us Motherwell fans voted Goss as our player of the year in the matchday BBC poll. I think O'Donnell was treated appallingly. You don't. We'll just have to agree to differ.