Onthefringes

A midfield 3? Kind of negates your point as we’ve set up 4-2-3-1 or a variation of since playing Inverness. Now, that may work in certain games - not to deviate and counter changes of others is Alexander like. it also gives rise to those branding KvV as lazy et all. The 3 attacking behind him never go beyond him to compliment the work he does do. Plenty questioning Hammel and the board decision to promote from within.

If Alexander had followed that blueprint he’d still be in employment.

Quite aware it isn’t rocket science. There’s merit in what you’ve described, despite basing on two goals and tiredness - suggests something about the instruction rather than ability. I’ve asked what/who would be changed?

Is it? Defensive lapses lose so many silly goals on their own merit. How would your midfield set up?

No. Why would I have to be? You’ve had it explained to you further up the page yet, you still bang on about offloading as if it comes at no cost.

Clueless. Contracts may work both ways - they certainly don’t in the way you describe.

That’s creative? Point (a) is at odds with your ‘suggesting we pay off the duds early’ statement for starters…

That’ll sort out our teams ills that you mention?

Not taking this post in isolation, but, maybe best understanding how player transfers work?

If he’s seen as a number ‘6’ type, they’re choosing to go with 2 in Slattery & Goss which has served well. Has a strength in going beyond the forward line (which van Veen requires) and engine to match so why not offer him the opportunity? There’s more than a few on the Tierney hype train. Yes, he finds pockets of space, but, as the number ‘10’ type he never goes beyond which should have been developed.

Opening gambit is a pretty sweeping statement. Suppose for those that understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not, no explanation is possible will be apt. Nobody saying there’s to be no criticism, what’s the justification? ‘Cause the vociferous support in all things Motherwell doesn’t conform to how some of the Christmas trees in our fan base see they should? There’s plenty who defend them, myself included, who have also criticised and those involved will admit this - it should be constructive though, not dismissive. Think we can be spared the mock outrage that irks more than a few. Some of the claims against that section of support are spurious at best yet, some can’t wait to get on various platforms to show ire. Don’t get me started on the midnight masses and part time detectives who bombard the club regularly with names…

Deary me, I agreed with you on the behaviour - just offering different slant. I’d fully expect them to be taken to task if it was as how you describe. There were police around. Stewards being occupied? They were only on the pitch when we scored so it wasn’t a recurring theme. As for the drink thrown, that was done to death on here at the time and it still wasn’t thrown directly at O’Donnell, something he has recognised would you believe. It was actually thrown by someone in the same group at those blocking the view of others, granted a poor aim.

As would I. Questionable stewarding and policing if what you describe actually happened? Certainly never heard that and I was within earshot throughout.

Fair enough, just feel we could do without a certain air to the posts and they’d be better served in a thread where pampers could probably be offered to those who mock outrage. For what it’s worth, my matchday experience wasn’t the worst up there despite being in the corner. Looked to be down in numbers stewarding wise - the club would have known this pre-match. The positioning could’ve been better & that had zero to do with previous misdemeanour. There was a self policing matter dealt with by the long standing bus convenor, so doft my cap there. 5 goals, clean sheet, win bonus & down the road.

Poor analogy. Shameful? It’s hardly crimes of the century. Hands off approach? Not at all. Like I said, both parties work together on a range of the issues you spoke of. See you’ve still not quantified your spurious claim.

Can the sanctimonious posts be added to a thread of their own on fan behaviours and leave discussion to team matters on a match thread? Arriving when they did meant they were located to the front of the stand which became problematic (especially for our disabled supporters sat at ground level) with your claims inextricably linked although not my recollection of events. Not condoning abusing stewards, spilling on the track was no more than high jinks - a day on the ale and or beak isn’t uncommon in football circles so they’ll resent being told by the holier than thou how they should behave when supporting their team so answer in kind. A lot of that, to their credit is self policed and whilst they may be uncomfortable bedfellows both club and non retired fellows work together. You wouldn’t have to dig to far to get that info. Paying for damage and turning a blind eye is an untruth.

Hadn’t passed Pitlochry when you were dropped off!

Slattery for me. Game passed Tierney by in the second half and easily nullified. Felt it naive in making the changes early last week, he could’ve been off on the hour this week.

Always an advocate of ‘you shouldn’t change a winning team’ but, football has evolved in most parts.

The context was there’s a gulf and it’s massive wether they like it or not between top flight & first division - I’ll be surprised the same players were given the freedom of Fir Park afforded the other evening. By your own admission, this continuity of team selection went out the window after the Aberdeen performance. Whilst not his biggest fan, Mugabi can feel hard done by being dropped? Can also be argued continuity is the polar opposite of man management of the squad.

To set up similarly and expect same shows the naivety that saw us drop 3 points last week. Professional performance against a poor Inverness Caley team will have little bearing on Saturday’s match.

I’d have extended Grimshaw’s stay too for you to vent your spleen.

I’d doubt he will for reasons mentioned previously. Some just being overly optimistic on numbers being added methinks.

Of course Hammell would want him. Lots of variables, him wanting to join isn’t/wasn’t one. Not sure I agree with strange on yesterday - he’s added to attacking options and strengthened the left back position, by his own admission, part of the pitch at interview. Squad numbers don’t match up to many more additions especially if player pathway is genuine and not lip service. Rights and wrongs of that are a different debate, think you’ve answered part for yourself. Let’s see what today brings…

Maybe works in your head, but, now how it actually does in this case.