Motherwell v Kilmarnock 20/12/2024

[stv]

We could and should have won that if we had a manager that was a bit more dynamic and willing to keep going for another goal instead of holding onto what we have when the game gets stale . As has been said before his subs were wrong the last two subs should have been his first two subs it was obvious that we needed speed up front to push for a second goal and stop them pushing forward. I think their goal was comming for about 10 mins and we did fuk all about it. The faster forward players would have taken pressure off our defence. It's not fair on Stam to play him up front himself he needs players beside him in the box. SK never seems to play to players to their strengths . He's probably a good manager at our leval albeit reactive rather than pro active but exciting he definitely ain't .

[David]

2 hours ago, Electric Blues said:

Not delighted, I'll grant you, but St Johnstone fans currently seem to be fairly positive about how Simo's got them playing, despite sitting just one point off the bottom after a run of poor results. Mind you, if things don't pick up for them after the January window, it'll be interesting to see how quickly they turn on him.

A new manager always gets a bit of grace. How long has Simo been there now? A couple of months? At the moment he's lost twice as many games as he's won, and his team sit in 11th. I certainly wouldn't be trading places with them.

2 hours ago, wellfan said:

Our current league position speaks for itself, so fair enough, but it’s also a reflection of how poor a lot of teams around us are this season. Notwithstanding, we were utter garbage last night and a draw was a fair result. It was the wrong starting 11 and subs were made too late to be effective. We badly need a striker that fits Kettlewell’s preferred system and a midfielder to solidify the heart of the team. 

Are we really reverting to the tired old "we're fourth, so every other team must be rubbish" narrative? It seems some people roll that out every time we break into the top six.

The fact is, we’re exactly where we’ve earned the right to be. Right now, we’re the fourth-best team in the league, and whether other sides are brilliant, dreadful, or somewhere in between is irrelevant.

Heading into Christmas sitting fourth in the table, with a cup semi-final secured, is a brilliant position to be in.

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Of course that all depends on how the opposition sets up and how they effect your gameplan. Last night was a good example of that.

This is such an important point. A lot of our supporters focus solely on what we’re doing, assuming that if the manager selects the “right” team and employs the “right” tactics, everything will fall into place. But football doesn’t work like that—our opponents play a massive role too.

Many of the common criticisms and complaints could probably be addressed and explained by the manager, highlighting factors most of us wouldn’t even consider. For example, when we argue that TJ should start ahead of Watt, are we factoring in how McInnes might set his team up to counter that? Or how that decision could create vulnerabilities elsewhere for Kilmarnock to exploit?

No, we see TJ come on for the last 15 minutes, play well, and think, “Well, he should’ve started—surely he’d have delivered that same performance over the entire game. Poor choice by the manager.” It’s rarely that simple.

[grizzlyg]

My night was completed when after the Mariah Carey song at half time it was announced ove4 the tannoy it was a special request for me!!, my mate's lad knows the announcer so they played wee trick on me as they know I hate that song 🤪🤪🤪

[Mad Dog]

19 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

My night was completed when after the Mariah Carey song at half time it was announced ove4 the tannoy it was a special request for me!!, my mate's lad knows the announcer so they played wee trick on me as they know I hate that song 🤪🤪🤪

Played a trick on everyone: who doesn't hate that song?

[Big Stall]

Not going to waste time on the red card. Everyone & their dug knows it was wrong, including the VAR operators who gave the ref a golden get out by sending him to the tv.

Aside from that, it was a brutal game. Maybe some of it was down to the stop start nature as Kettlewell said but the reality is we didnt actually look to have a real go until we were down to 10men.

Honking football, at least it was a friday & could wash it away with pints. Positive - another point gained. But thats all. 

[Kmcalpin]

3 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

My beef with SK this week is that once again his subs were reactive instead of pro-active.

At 1-0 we should have been trying to change it up and reinforce our lead rather than just waiting and hoping Killie wouldnt score.

Halliday and Paton were always going to tire. We should have got on the front foot at that point and gave them something to think about at the back rather than giving them free reign to change their attacking options.

Davor was such a negative substitution and he was one of those involved in the lead up to Polworths goal.

I wouldnt have started Maswanhise. But he should have been on at 60 minutes.

It was clear long before Killie scored that they had the upper hand that we were defending deeper and deeper and withdrawing into our box. Our midfield had disappeared. We had no width and no leadership on the pitch. No problem with Paton and Halliday being taken off for the reasons that you say, but it was too late and the wrong changes made. They should have been retired at about the 55/60 minute mark and Sparrow and Manwhanise introduced to the fray.  That was a huge error of judgement. When Davor appeared Killie would have been given a huge psychological boost. That signalled to them that we were quite happy to sit back and soak up any pressure. 

[Clackscat]

18 hours ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

Absolutely bizarre stuff from the refereeing/var team tonight.

Giving the red card is one thing...but having the ability to 'have another look' and then double down, is quite another. Totally baffling stuff and another black mark against VAR for me...

 

Less said about Killies penalty appeal, the better. Again, what are the VAR folk looking at?

 

On the game, we looked jaded, well off it and didn't really ever control the game at all. A point is a decent outcome

VAR not at fault for red card, they did the right thing by asking the clown of a ref to look at it again

[grumpy]

The argument could be made that the Seddon injury, and substitution, caused a necessary rethinking of the later substitutions. In an ideal world, Seddon would have lasted 90 minutes allowing O'Donnell to replace Kaleta, giving us more defensive nous at the end when we were under pressure. I agree that the subsequent substitutions should have been earlier, both due to fatigue (Ap Stam, Watt & Halliday) and tactically, getting TJ into the fray earlier. We could have risked Paton or Watt playing 90 minutes and replaced the other one with O'Donnell allowing Kaleta to move forward, or to put O'Donnell on instead of Moses, but everything is easier with hindsight.

[texanwellfan]

42 minutes ago, grumpy said:

The argument could be made that the Seddon injury, and substitution, caused a necessary rethinking of the later substitutions. In an ideal world, Seddon would have lasted 90 minutes allowing O'Donnell to replace Kaleta, giving us more defensive nous at the end when we were under pressure. I agree that the subsequent substitutions should have been earlier, both due to fatigue (Ap Stam, Watt & Halliday) and tactically, getting TJ into the fray earlier. We could have risked Paton or Watt playing 90 minutes and replaced the other one with O'Donnell allowing Kaleta to move forward, or to put O'Donnell on instead of Moses, but everything is easier with hindsight.

You mention hindsight but surely Seddon injury is just sub on Wilson as direct replacement. A number of posters pre game were ok with starting Watt with the intention of replacing him with TJ after about an hour and also bringing on Sparrow at the same time to keep up the energy in midfield. You have O’Donnell on the bench as direct replacement for Kaletta tiring or injury. So it’s not all with hindsight. 
I’m a supporter of SK and keeping him here despite his faults (all managers have their specific faults) but it is very frustrating when there is apparently a sensible simple option for keeping up our performance levels with appropriate subs at the right time. 

[grumpy]

39 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

You mention hindsight but surely Seddon injury is just sub on Wilson as direct replacement. A number of posters pre game were ok with starting Watt with the intention of replacing him with TJ after about an hour and also bringing on Sparrow at the same time to keep up the energy in midfield. You have O’Donnell on the bench as direct replacement for Kaletta tiring or injury. So it’s not all with hindsight. 
I’m a supporter of SK and keeping him here despite his faults (all managers have their specific faults) but it is very frustrating when there is apparently a sensible simple option for keeping up our performance levels with appropriate subs at the right time. 

Wilson for Seddon was the substitution that was made, my point was the knock on effect of only having 4 more subs. I thought Kaleta was well off the level of the previous week and being replaced with O'Donnell would have had a beneficial effect for the team balance (IMO). My point on hindsight was that the timing and personnel involved in the substitutions ended up with us getting a point despite a numerical dis-advantage, a plus in my book, different choices my have ended in a different result. I wasn't being (over) critical of Kettlewell, I actually quite like him. I was just voicing an opinion that he possibly could have done better with his substitutions.

The bottom line is, I'm glad I'm not the manager 'cos results don't rest on my opinions.

[wellfan]

18 hours ago, David said:

Are we really reverting to the tired old "we're fourth, so every other team must be rubbish" narrative? It seems some people roll that out every time we break into the top six.

The fact is, we’re exactly where we’ve earned the right to be. Right now, we’re the fourth-best team in the league, and whether other sides are brilliant, dreadful, or somewhere in between is irrelevant.

Heading into Christmas sitting fourth in the table, with a cup semi-final secured, is a brilliant position to be in.

It’s not a narrative, it’s reality. Friday night was utter garbage, and many of our performances this season have been garbage, yet we’re somehow fourth, which is excellent. That’s both a reflection on our ability to amass points whilst being quite shite and the rest of our direct opponents being very shite. The standard on display in this league is mince. 

[joewarkfanclub]

23 minutes ago, wellfan said:

It’s not a narrative, it’s reality. Friday night was utter garbage, and many of our performances this season have been garbage, yet we’re somehow fourth, which is excellent. That’s both a reflection on our ability to amass points whilst being quite shite and the rest of our direct opponents being very shite. The standard on display in this league is mince. 

Hard to argue with this.

But a lot of that is on the managers. Players play under instruction and you only need to look at the difference of our performance last Saturday and this week to see the players can play far more attractive attacking football if they are allowed.

Its like us playing 3 at the back. It can actually work pretty well if you allow the wing backs to press up the park. If you tell them to sit it totally removes your ability to attack effectively.

Unfortunately the risk attached to playing expansive football is too much for most managers in our league, so most prefer to shithouse games the way we have been doing.

If both managers do it you get the "spectacle" that was Friday night.

Hoping SK can be braver going forward. I know what I prefer to watch.

[David]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

It’s not a narrative, it’s reality. Friday night was utter garbage, and many of our performances this season have been garbage, yet we’re somehow fourth, which is excellent. That’s both a reflection on our ability to amass points whilst being quite shite and the rest of our direct opponents being very shite. The standard on display in this league is mince. 

We're fourth because we've beaten teams like Hearts, St Mirren, St Johnstone, and Dundee United at home, while picking up points away against County, St Johnstone, Hibs, Dundee United, St Mirren, and Kilmarnock.

Any team putting together that kind of record over the first 18 games of the season is bound to be closer to the top of the table than the bottom.

As for the overall quality of the league, that's a separate debate. Scottish football is what it is. We're a smaller nation, comparable in size to Slovakia, Finland, Norway, or Ireland. How strong are the domestic leagues in those countries? Are they known for their quality?

Within the context of Scottish football, we're sitting fourth—behind the two biggest clubs in the country and a big city club, and ahead of at least three sides that, given their resources, ought to be doing better than us.

It’s easy to look at our relative success and dismiss it with, "Well, the league isn’t any good anyway." If that’s your view, fair enough.

[wellsince75]

Big OX was very poor for the goal.   That's a couple of very soft goals he's conceded recently. 

Appreciate he had a great start to the season, equally we can't afford to concede such soft goals without consequence.  

We've been quick enough to drop other areas when they've made mistakes, be interesting to see how many more goals before making a stitch in the sticks.  

[wellfan]

41 minutes ago, David said:

It’s easy to look at our relative success and dismiss it with, "Well, the league isn’t any good anyway." If that’s your view, fair enough.

I haven’t dismissed it though. I said our league position is excellent. All I’ve done is provided some context to that position.

[Kmcalpin]

2 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

But a lot of that is on the managers. Players play under instruction and you only need to look at the difference of our performance last Saturday and this week to see the players can play far more attractive attacking football if they are allowed.

Its like us playing 3 at the back. It can actually work pretty well if you allow the wing backs to press up the park. If you tell them to sit it totally removes your ability to attack effectively.

Unfortunately the risk attached to playing expansive football is too much for most managers in our league, so most prefer to shithouse games the way we have been doing.

If both managers do it you get the "spectacle" that was Friday night.

Hoping SK can be braver going forward. I know what I prefer to watch.

I get most of that and I agree. However we don't have the squad to shitfest games, especially at home. We don't have physical, trench warfare type players that the likes of Killie, St Mirren, Dundee United or Ross County do. Don't get me wrong, you can overdo that quality.  As with many things its getting the balance right. My ambition in football is simple and modest just go out and win games, by whatever legal means.  Yes, I like expansive football too, but its not achievable at our level whilst picking up points.  

SK's overly cautious defensive tactics were a talking point amongst those around us on Friday evening. Not for the first time we take a slender single goal lead in the first half then sit in and invite the opposition to do their worst. Thats fine if you're 2 or preferrably 3 goals up. We've seen the pattern played out on Friday night oft before. The midfielders sit deep on the edge of our box or even in it. The 2 wing backs are left exposed  - Killie hit the by line with alarming ease; they rained in crosses from only 30 yards out. Our keeper is going through a bad spell with aerial balls, and the central defence isn't exactly watertight in the air. When we managed to clear the ball to the 30/40 yard mark our lightweight midfield was clearly instructed to remain in situ and not move out with the inevitable result.  Even when we randomly pack the box with 9/10/11  players the opposition still find plenty of space to test the exposed Oxborough (forced into the highest number of saves in the Premiership). Just look at Polwarth's goal on Friday  - all the time and space in the world to pick his spot. 

I get that injuries and tiredness  eg Paton and Halliday play a factor but we really do need to up our game considerably during spells when defending and not in possession.  I do wonder if 2 banks of 4 midfielders & defenders, with instructions to halt the attackers at the 40 yard mark would be more effective.  Either way, if we must persist with defensive shitfest tactics during games then we need to bring in players with more physical/abrasive attributes; adjust our formation accordingly and be more proactive with substitutions 

[texanwellfan]

I think the 2 major points fall on the shoulders of SK and as a generalization, are….
1. The squad we have is best suited to attacking football, so let’s play more attacking football. 
2. We need to be using subs earlier and do like for like. Less confusion, maintain our organization, shape and energy. 
 

Despite what I say above, I’m in the “keep SK camp” even with his shortcomings. I’m hoping at some point he will finally break the mold and realize that you can win games and take fine margins out of the equation, by playing attacking football and that subs need to happen before mistakes or tiredness cause us problems. 

[joewarkfanclub]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

I get most of that and I agree. However we don't have the squad to shitfest games, especially at home. We don't have physical, trench warfare type players that the likes of Killie, St Mirren, Dundee United or Ross County do. Don't get me wrong, you can overdo that quality.  As with many things its getting the balance right. My ambition in football is simple and modest just go out and win games, by whatever legal means.  Yes, I like expansive football too, but its not achievable at our level whilst picking up points.  

SK's overly cautious defensive tactics were a talking point amongst those around us on Friday evening. Not for the first time we take a slender single goal lead in the first half then sit in and invite the opposition to do their worst. Thats fine if you're 2 or preferrably 3 goals up. We've seen the pattern played out on Friday night oft before. The midfielders sit deep on the edge of our box or even in it. The 2 wing backs are left exposed  - Killie hit the by line with alarming ease; they rained in crosses from only 30 yards out. Our keeper is going through a bad spell with aerial balls, and the central defence isn't exactly watertight in the air. When we managed to clear the ball to the 30/40 yard mark our lightweight midfield was clearly instructed to remain in situ and not move out with the inevitable result.  Even when we randomly pack the box with 9/10/11  players the opposition still find plenty of space to test the exposed Oxborough (forced into the highest number of saves in the Premiership). Just look at Polwarth's goal on Friday  - all the time and space in the world to pick his spot. 

I get that injuries and tiredness  eg Paton and Halliday play a factor but we really do need to up our game considerably during spells when defending and not in possession.  I do wonder if 2 banks of 4 midfielders & defenders, with instructions to halt the attackers at the 40 yard mark would be more effective.  Either way, if we must persist with defensive shitfest tactics during games then we need to bring in players with more physical/abrasive attributes; adjust our formation accordingly and be more proactive with substitutions 

Precisely why I feel he needs to be braver and allow us to go play.

I could understand it earlier in the season when we had injuries. But we have attacking options now. We should use them.

[David]

3 hours ago, wellfan said:

I haven’t dismissed it though. I said our league position is excellent. All I’ve done is provided some context to that position.

It’s all relative, isn’t it? I’d see your point if we were Celtic, consistently facing teams clearly below our level. But we’re not. We’re competing against sides with either equal or greater resources—that’s the real context.

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Not for the first time we take a slender single goal lead in the first half then sit in and invite the opposition to do their worst.

Do we, though? I think we’ve all watched enough matches to know that when a team goes behind, they often raise their game and pile on the pressure. There’s more to the tactical side than just our own decisions. Kilmarnock’s approach, how they adapted after us scoring, and other factors also come into play. We’re not operating in isolation.

I don’t think our manager has any illusions about us being defensively solid enough to grab a goal and then say, “Right, lads, let’s sit back and trust our brilliant defence to shut Killie down.”

I genuinely think it’s about the momentum of the match. I’ve seen it far too often, whether it’s us or other teams, where conceding a goal sparks a reaction, and for a spell, they go all-out to get back into the game.

[Kmcalpin]

15 minutes ago, David said:

Do we, though? I think we’ve all watched enough matches to know that when a team goes behind, they often raise their game and pile on the pressure. There’s more to the tactical side than just our own decisions. Kilmarnock’s approach, how they adapted after us scoring, and other factors also come into play. We’re not operating in isolation.

I don’t think our manager has any illusions about us being defensively solid enough to grab a goal and then say, “Right, lads, let’s sit back and trust our brilliant defence to shut Killie down.”

I genuinely think it’s about the momentum of the match. I’ve seen it far too often, whether it’s us or other teams, where conceding a goal sparks a reaction, and for a spell, they go all-out to get back into the game.

Of course there's some truth in what you say, as the ebb and flow of a game is down to the performance and tactics of both teams not just one. However, it was quite clear on Friday that, even when presented with the option of advancing out of our own area, our midfielders quite clearly chose to be cautious and remain in situ. That was both with 10 and 11 men and clearly a conscious decision and nothing to do with Kilmarnock. 

[wellfan]

51 minutes ago, David said:

It’s all relative, isn’t it? I’d see your point if we were Celtic, consistently facing teams clearly below our level. But we’re not. We’re competing against sides with either equal or greater resources—that’s the real context.

No, that’s just some more context.

[dennyc]

29 minutes ago, David said:

 

I genuinely think it’s about the momentum of the match. I’ve seen it far too often, whether it’s us or other teams, where conceding a goal sparks a reaction, and for a spell, they go all-out to get back into the game.

The momentum against Killie had clearly changed  but it was not just an immediate reaction to us scoring. We were comfortable for the 30 minutes after the goal up to half time. In the second half everyone in the ground could sense the equalising goal coming  and the Killie players certainly did.

My issue is that, despite that momentum switch, SK did nothing to alter the flow of the match until after Killie got the goal they deserved. Had he acted earlier maybe we could have regained control and gone on to win the match. Evidenced by the impact Maswanhise had when he came on and gave Killie something different to think about. Even with us a man down.

As you say, we are well placed in the League and SK deserves credit for that. But, how much better placed could we be if he was a bit more pro active. If he is not happy with the way momentum has switched or the fact we are falling deeper and deeper against his instructions, he has the power to try and change things. But he appears reluctant to do so until the inevitable happens.

[Benson]

3 minutes ago, dennyc said:

The momentum against Killie had clearly changed  but it was not just an immediate reaction to us scoring. We were comfortable for the 30 minutes after the goal up to half time. In the second half everyone in the ground could sense the equalising goal coming  and the Killie players certainly did.

My issue is that, despite that momentum switch, SK did nothing to alter the flow of the match until after Killie got the goal they deserved. Had he acted earlier maybe we could have regained control and gone on to win the match. Evidenced by the impact Maswanhise had when he came on and gave Killie something different to think about. Even with us a man down.

As you say, we are well placed in the League and SK deserves credit for that. But, how much better placed could we be if he was a bit more pro active. If he is not happy with the way momentum has switched or the fact we are falling deeper and deeper against his instructions, he has the power to try and change things. But he appears reluctant to do so until the inevitable happens.

Yep everyone in the ground could sense a killie goal was coming, apart from the manager. 

[well_said]

5 hours ago, wellsince75 said:

Big OX was very poor for the goal.   That's a couple of very soft goals he's conceded recently. 

Appreciate he had a great start to the season, equally we can't afford to concede such soft goals without consequence.  

We've been quick enough to drop other areas when they've made mistakes, be interesting to see how many more goals before making a stitch in the sticks.  

Kettlewell was not so quick at dropping Kelly despite numerous mistakes that caused goals conceded and points dropped.

[dennyc]

12 minutes ago, Benson said:

Yep everyone in the ground could sense a killie goal was coming, apart from the manager. 

That's what gets me. Given how agitated SK was getting and the heated discussions he was having with SF, I think he was concerned. And he must have felt the growing anxiety in the Stands. But despite being the only person with the real power to alter things, he did nothing until Killie scored and the referee also took a hand. An earlier change might not have worked, but had he acted earlier at least we would not have been relying on lady luck or Killie misses. And Killie might have had to change their half time game plan which was working a treat.