MelvinBragg

If you believe what you read, seems to be the case. Upside? A bigger fee. Downside? For me, harder to replace...

No one plays 442 now as it leaves you outmanned in the middle of the park. Your option is to play 3 centre midfielders and one winger but that tends to expose one full back and make your attacks predictable and easy to shut down..

I had heard 25% of anything more than the original fee. Depends on what both fees are then...

Probably a couple of hundred grand. At least one wage could be squeezed out of that even if we are giving some of it to Hutchison and Boyle...

I agree on that. Has Plummer been brought in with this in mind? I don't know but he certainly seems to have different attributes to Dunne. Robinson has used Frear there, and this is no criticism of Frear, but it is not his game. Frear is becoming a real question mark in the squad. I feel that he offers a great deal but he is an anomaly in that he is the only player in the squad that truly doesn't seem to have a natural place in a 352...

I agree with the comments stating that MacLean isn't a natural winger. He may be able to offer something there but it's not his natural position. I know Tanner has featured mainly as a second striker so far but I suspect that Robinson might have seen him as an option there. Other thought that strikes me is that Robinson may always have had 352 in mind as his default formation and therefore didn't prioritise a winger as a new signing. Certainly a few of the new signings look more comfortable in that formation. Whether it's a case that we've signed players with that shape in mind or we have found that 352 suits the players we have signed, I don't know...

Yesterday was the first league fixture that on paper you'd fully expect us to win (as much as you ever 'expect' Motherwell to win). The fact is we did while missing three first choice players and playing pretty poorly for 45 minutes. On that basis, can't grumble too much.. Bowman and Fisher are both working hard and I get the impression that a league goal for both of them would see them relax a bit and see them start to score more regularly. I really hoped yesterday that in McHugh's absence that Rose would take more responsibility and show what Robinson sees in him. Sadly I didn't see it. The fact that two young players came on and made more of an impact than him puts more pressure on him. The much discussed back three approach has one major thing going for it. Dunne, Kipré and Heneghan all look far more comfortable in that shape. I'd argue that Heneghan has had his best performances in a Motherwell shirt in a back three. Whether Robinson has signed players specifically to play this formation or not, it certainly beats McGhee's square peg in round holes approach. Are there slight concerns over the balance of the team and certain signings? Yes. But on balance, things aren't looking too gloomy. Maybe a solution to the left wing back position is needed (Plummer?) and a slightly different option up front would be good but I reckon we're moving in the right direction...

Problem with a back four is unless you have a striker who can play as a lone striker, it means 442 and only playing two in centre midfield you can get outplayed in there. That's what happened to us yesterday. 433 or a 'squinty' 442 with one winger are your other options and until Frear returns we don't have a proper winger. Or a great option for left wing back for that matter. Maybe should be a signing priority..?

Interesting reading. Sounds to me like the club are almost saying "if you want to bid for our players, fine. But we won't be selling anyone on deadline day and leaving ourselves in the same situation we were after we sold Johnson". Like, if you want to bid, get on with it...

Nope. Cadden or Tait for me...

Maybe another attempt to drum up some bids..?

I tend to agree. In flashes Lucas looked like there was genuine technical ability there. Were he ever to actually stay fit for any length of time, pretty sure he could do a good job at the levels you mentioned. Question would be is whether he is always going to be so injury prone..?

Good news is, if there's any truth to it, we can ask for a decent fee for Cadden due to the fact we'd be entitled to a fair whack of compensation should he leave at the end of his contract...

Plummer in for Dunne, Campbell in for McHugh and Griffiths in for Carson, give the armband to the last guy to captain Motherwell to a trophy. No need to worry about appeals. Would like to see a balanced side with threat from both wings. Could Frear be back? If not, Tanner or MacLean have to play...

Seem to be having a lot of possession in games without converting any chances. No striker has scored since the Morton game. Can't go on like that. Be interested to hear what those at the game thought. It sounded like we controlled the game, is that true? Are the goals we're losing down to individual errors or lack of organisation? Are the strikers not scoring because they're missing easy chances or are we not creating good chances? I've missed the last few games due to work so will be interested to hear what those who've been there think...

Lack of discipline? Be interested to see each of the decisions to see if they were justified. Concerned that we're conceding a penalty a game. Not helping ourselves. A lot of talk from those within the club that hard work and commitment are things "you get for free". Concern would be the things we're giving away for free...

You're telling me we're playing Fisher left midfield?

Apparently we're dominating possession according to every source. Would rather pick up points though...

To be fair, against Rangers it was a penalty and a deflected shot. A pen against Ross County. Can't comment on today's goals as I haven't seen them...

Still early but next few games starting to look crucial...

If we could stop conceding early goals, that would be smashing. Two weeks in a row...

Same eleven as the other night with the exception of Bowman and Fisher for Moult and Tanner. So I suspect it's the same formation as Wednesday, whatever that was...

The rules and the interpretation of them change so often these days (do you know you can make a fourth sub in extra time?!?!?) that I've kind of given up trying to work out what's right or wrong in the eyes of the SFA...

No thanks...

Ah, the old McGhee approach of worrying more about the opposition than anything else. Let's hope we don't see a return to that inferiority complex. I know studying your opponents prior to a match is crucial but I'd rather that meant slight tweaks to our set up rather than basing our entire plan on what the opposition are likely to do. I suspect we'll line up 352 anyway...