Kmcalpin Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Although he isn't my choice of keeper I do think he's better than either Neilsen or Hollis. So, from that point of view I'm slightly happier than I was. Irrespective, he'll get my backing. I'm a bit puzzled and concerned however as to how we're going to improve our very poor defensive record. Early days in the close season of course and Stuart McCall may yet sign a very competent centre back to replace Hutchy and/or a defensive midfielder but we seem to running out of potential options to tighten things up at the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim64 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 With his mrs not on the sauce by the looks of it,told him no to be signing for that sevco lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnstone Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Early days in the close season of course and Stuart McCall may yet sign a very competent centre back to replace Hutchy and/or a defensive midfielder but we seem to running out of potential options to tighten things up at the back. How are we running out of potential options? Its May! You just made that up didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Small period granted but that IS a better record than either Randolph and Ruddy. in the 5 games he played we conceded 18 shots on target. in the 5 games gunnar played around those games (2 before, 3 after) he faced 39 shots on target. wee dan was in the right place at the right time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 How are we running out of potential options? Its May! In terms of our budget and the playing squad. Goalkeeper: Presumably Lee Hollis is leaving and Dan Twardzik is coming in. Twardzik isn't great in the air. One out and one in. Defenders: Steve Hammell and Stephen McManus have re-signed. No change at left back or in one of the central defensive berths. Craig Reid to re-sign? Hutchy - will he be replaced and if so by whom? Midfield: Lionel Ainsworth (not the best defender in the world) to re-sign or more likely leave? Keith Lasley likely to re-sign? Josh Law an attacking midfielder comes in. Given that a few players have re-signed or are likely to re-sign there will be limited scope to bring more players in. I'm simply curious as to how we are going to address our defensive weaknesses which were undoubtedly our Achilles heel last season. Now it may be that Stuart McCall is going to sign a defensive midfielder or that no personnel changes are required - simply that the same players will play better as a defensive unit next season but that isn't an obvious outcome at this point. To put things in perspective we did finish second last year and so you could argue that replacements for leavers aside, no change at all is required, but I would hope that we'd try to tighten up our defence as that was our obvious weakness. Overall I think our offensive players did the business and therefore little change there is warranted on our tight budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welldaft Mk1 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 in the 5 games he played we conceded 18 shots on target. in the 5 games gunnar played around those games (2 before, 3 after) he faced 39 shots on target. wee dan was in the right place at the right time. Ever the voice of reason So effectively you are saying he is a bombscare. maybe he was actually a decent keeper. But then it is not your style to see any positives in anything. Christ knows why I take the bait 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StipeIsGod Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 In all fairness, there may be an element of both good fortune for Twardzik and good performance from Twardzik. Either way, he's our new number one. Bring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yassin Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 in the 5 games he played we conceded 18 shots on target. in the 5 games gunnar played around those games (2 before, 3 after) he faced 39 shots on target. wee dan was in the right place at the right time. Aye but Gunnar let in 10 of those 39,compared to Twardzik's 2. I see you've neglected to mention that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Aye but Gunnar let in 10 of those 39,compared to Twardzik's 2. I see you've neglected to mention that though. 8 of them against celtic. twardzik made a few decent saves while he was here but he wasn't greatly tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yabba's Turd Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 A keeper is more than shot stopping, it's communication and organisation. I think you do yourself and both goalies a huge disservice by a statistical analysis of one variable. Let's see how the guy pans out before you crucify him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geedub Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 How is steelboy not banned yet? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yabba's Turd Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 For? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geedub Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Being deliberately negative to provoke a reaction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yabba's Turd Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Being deliberately negative to provoke a reaction. I'll let steelboy answer that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Ramsden in at Centre Half? Reid/Kerr to RB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 If you had to remove everyone who tried to provoke a reaction the site would be stone cold dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I am delighted Dan has signed up, he done well when he was here last and at least earned a chance to be our No.1. It isn't the first time he's been looked at by the club, so I'd like to think the homework has been done from our side as well and that is why he got a 2 year deal. I am just hoping that our next signing is Ronaldo, rather than someone that's been at the club, had a brother play for us or even had a loan spell with us, just purely so I can see what sort of criticism he'll get from our fans (throws fishing rod out) Seriously though we're getting our business done early this year and that has to be a good thing. With the distractions that McCall had last summer, we were a lot later getting things sorted and we all thought that we were getting rushed signings at the last minute. Although they mostly worked out well. This pre-season looks like it's shaping up well. Lets hope we add at least one new face to the back 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 How is steelboy not banned yet? These Boards should encourage reasoned debate and discussion whether or not you agree with individual posts or posters. We've lost more than enough active members in the past few years. The Mods cannot and should not ban posters simply because they disagree with you more often than not. Too many members have been hounded out in the past. We need all views on here from optimists to pessimists and all shades in between. We don't live in Russia or China or a dictatorship, so censorship is totally out. In my opinion, a member's view should not be a cause for banning them unless its totally unacceptable but lack of respect / personal attacks should be. So come on, cut out the petty name calling and bullying and stick to sensible debate. You're more than capable of doing it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Has anyone seen this? http://terracepodcast.net/chrismillarlounge/2013/12/19/break-it-down-motherwells-defence It appears to tell us that neither of the keepers are at fault for our defensive frailties. We need to look at trying to get a central defender of the books, if only Stuart McCall had seen this before offering a new contract...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Has anyone seen this? http://terracepodcas...erwells-defence It appears to tell us that neither of the keepers are at fault for our defensive frailties. We need to look at trying to get a central defender of the books, if only Stuart McCall had seen this before offering a new contract...... Interesting article Jim. In terms of individual players it singles out Stephen McManus. However my take on it is that it identifies the 4-4-2 system we play and the unbalanced mix of players as being the underlying reason for our poor defensive record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I don't think it's so much that McManus was the problem last season, but that he and Hutchinson were too similar in style. Both centre halfs who like to go for the first header. Hutchinson's best form has come alongside centre backs who are not as dominant in the air and will let him deal with the first header. Thinking of Craigan, Ramsden and Clancy... Other reason we were more defensively suspect last season was, for me, the fact we gave away possession more therefore invited pressure. In that respect, the signing of Law and the emergence of Leitch may help, despite not being "defensive" players... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welldaft Mk1 Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I think it is even more simple than that. McCall sets out his sides to attack rather than defend. that means we are open to teams hitting us on the counter attack like United. Our 2 most defensive displays were away at Pittodrie . And guess what we won both 1-0. It shows that we are capable of defending when McCall sets us up to do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I did have a laugh at it, seeing as did tend to focus on McManus. But yeah, I think the way the middle 4 has been deployed has caused a lot of problems. The article identified that if Faddy and Vigurs were in the team we were defensively weaker. However if you add Ainsworth to that as well.then it really left us exposed. However leaving out Ainsworth left us with a lack of pace to get the ball out of defence. We all remember the way McGhee had us set up for the quick counter attack and the way we could get the ball up the park quickly and take the pressure of the defence. The way we set up now, we are a lot more pedestrian and that doesn't help us if we then lose the ball. However we're doing something right with the mount of goals we are scoring, the number of games we're winning. So it probably just needs a few tweaks to sort things out. And drop McManus ............................... Not!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I am sure anyone could highlight any player and show it to be 'his' fault. Absolute bunkum dressed up as football knowledge, aka Leveinspeak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 These Boards should encourage reasoned debate and discussion whether or not you agree with individual posts or posters. We've lost more than enough active members in the past few years. Aye, but what if the reason we've lost so many active members is because of certain people who deliberately provoke for a reaction? I'm sick fed up with this idea that if you don't enjoy reading comments like "McCall's a cunt" or "that abortion of a keeper" then you're a happy clapper who isn't interested in reasoned debate or discussion. No one wants to just read pages and pages of blind optimism and praise if it isn't appropriate. The vast majority of us on here have complained about something to do with the manager, the playing staff, the board, the Well Society, etc. That's fine. I want to know what the problems are and I want to know what my fellow 'Well fans think. However, there are two or three people on here who post vile, unnecessary comments or simply stir things looking for a reaction. If that doesn't bother anyone else, fair enough. On the other hand, if that is part of the reason for people becoming disenchanted and leaving the forums, surely it at least needs to be asked if it makes sense for such a tiny minority to have such an impact on the forums? 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts