capt_oats
-
Posts
13,153 -
Joined
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by capt_oats
-
-
8 minutes ago, ropy said:
Was it Ainsworth that took a ball to the base of the left hand post and had to play round it before knocking it over the line? A tap in but a belter.
It was.
0 -
14 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:
I imagine it's probably something that one of new media guys at Saints have gone to the Courier with "here's a wee exclusive for you".
Both previously worked at the Herald and Perthshire advertiser(owned by the Record) doing sports coverage. Both Saints fans too and no doubt will hate VAR also.
For avoidance of doubt I wasn't being entirely serious in asking if RG was behind it.
0 -
Well...I take it this is your doing @RandomGuy.
0 -
5 hours ago, Swello said:
Technology to help with objective decisions (ie - goal line tech or offside) is completely fine - but we now know that having multiple people using technology for subjective decisions makes things actively worse - the assumptions around what VAR would be useful for were completely flawed from the outset and the promises about how it would be used (clear and obvious) were naïve or dishonest.
And for what it's worth, I think the offside rule is miles better than it was. The idea of interfering with play can still be subjective of course but it's *so* much better than the older, much stricter interpretation of the rule. Handball has been fucked beyond all recognition - but a lot of the changes over the past couple of decades have been pretty positive I think.
I want VAR gone - but if there was a compromise proposal to massively pare it back so that it was only used for obvious stuff and with strict time limits, I could probably live with it.
This is kind of it for me. It's very much a case of the genie being out of the bottle so it seems unlikely that it'll be binned however it's be a sensible step for there to be a genuine discussion about why VAR has been as much of a shitshow (even though anyone who had been paying attention could see it coming).
That said, while I don't have much sympathy for the clubs - as I've said it's a Leopards Eating People's Faces Party situation where it seems actual adults seemed to think it wouldn't affect them and we'd just be levelling out the decisions that were going against them - but I think it's probably fair to say that what they're getting isn't what was pitched to them. Naive as the expectations of what they'd get might have been.
For me, as @Busta Nut and others have said the one thing that VAR is actually good for is offside specifically because it's a binary choice.
In which case narrowing the scope of VAR feels like a logical step.
Leave it for these Yes/No decisions eg: is someone offside or not, is a ball in or out, was a foul inside/outside the area and leave the on field ref to officiate the game as they see fit without having someone in their ear second guessing decisions.
0 -
Bring him home.
Also...if we're revisiting traditional international break topics this hits a bit different now that we've battered them in the league.
3 -
7 minutes ago, JayMFC said:
Also, I probably wasn't that surprised at the time. I was perhaps a little disappointed as someone vehemently opposed to VAR but I think it's easy now, after it's been just a shambles, to be quite revisionist. The actual truth is, at the time, a lot of folk were pretty content to welcome in VAR, on the proviso it was done well.
Obviously that proviso looks laughable now, but I wouldn't really say that the club voted for VAR against some sort of groundswell of opposition.
Oh, absolutely.
I seem to remember Alexander being entirely in favour of it and for a lot of (naive) people there was an expectation that it would be a great leveller and in general it'd be a panacea for Scottish Football...despite all evidence to the contrary.
Indeed some may say it was a case of...
2 -
11 minutes ago, JayMFC said:
I agree with the comments about the short turnaround in terms of a consultation with fans, and I also have to say that I've been vocally opposed to VAR from the very beginning, but it's also probably just worth flagging that I was surprised that, through the Society's consultation, there was a majority in favour of VAR.
8 -
3 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:
Was it not voted on by the Society members or am I getting myself mixed up?
You're sort of right. Society members received "consultation" (at very short notice) but the club just went ahead and waved it through regardless.
0 -
12 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
Hard to have any sympathy when the club voted for it against the wishes of those fans two years ago, but it's a positive step nonetheless.
Absolutely. It has massive Leopards Eating People's Faces Party energy but as @Desp just said to Duncan on Twitter "Clubs realising they've made a c**t of it and now opening calling it how shite it is should be a good thing."
2 -
On 18/03/2024 at 17:26, Desp said:
Agree. I'd like to see Hearts, Motherwell & St. Mirren take the lead on this. Providing the relevant Boards of the FOH, Well Society & whatever St. Mirren have are actually in favour of VAR or not.
It's one of the points I asked in my email to the WS. I think there's 7 or 8 on the Board of the WS, so I'm keen to see if a majority of the Board are in favour of it or not. If the majority of the Board aren't in favour, what's their plan?
I suppose in a round about sort of way that's us made our position on VAR public.
Quote"We are aware from the recent SFA announcement and from interaction with SPFL officials that a full review of VAR is ongoing and we have had input into that process. There are many potential consequences of some of these decisions, but we are most concerned that the inconsistency of decision making, regular lengthy VAR interventions during most games and lack of any clarity on why decisions have been made, is having a serious impact on fans’ enjoyment of the game.
The feedback we receive from our own fans on VAR is almost entirely negative and, if given a choice, we believe most would vote to no longer have it in use. It’s actually not easy to find anyone who either participates in football or watches it who is happy with the current position."
4 -
7 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:
There's various articles about the City Group in France:
While I'm unsure about the merits of this for us in general, if the offer was to become part of the Abu Dhabi promotion campaign I'd take kicking around the Championship and Challenge Cup every time.
I mean, absolutely +1 on this but I suppose it's testament to the effectiveness of Sportswashing from various States that it's not a stretch to suggest that there's probably a fairly sizeable section of our support who'd actually see that sort of alignment as something aspirational.
Which is entirely depressing on multitudes of levels.
2 -
1 hour ago, JayMFC said:
Couple of you may have already completed this online or on Saturday when Sean from the Society Board, along with some volunteers, was talking to people outside the ground - but if anybody's got a spare few minutes, feel free to fill out this survey on Society values etc: The Well Society (office.com)
Not far off the target originally set for respondents, so if some of the fine posters on P&B complete it, the target should be easily accomplished, ta!
Done but also as @Desp says
4 -
Aye put some fucking respect on the name.
BIG JOHN SUTTON INCOMEING.
6 -
On 14/03/2024 at 16:28, capt_oats said:
This definitely feels like an Aberdeen win.
Supporters on our side who haven't learned their lesson looking at the Top 6, us coming off the back of scudding the **** and generally being in alright form (we've only lost 2 of our last 10 league games).
3 -
Following on from @thisGRAEME's re-post from The WS re: updating contact details, this is an interesting questionnaire/survey from Sean if you want to fill it in.
2 -
7 hours ago, Gianfranco said:
Aberdeen are 2/1 at some of the bookies which feels weird maybe?
0 -
1 hour ago, betting competition said:
Motherwell with an easy win!
1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:Comfortable home win, 2 or 3 nil.
1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:I'd fancy Motherwell to win this.
28 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
2 -
This definitely feels like an Aberdeen win.
Supporters on our side who haven't learned their lesson looking at the Top 6, us coming off the back of scudding the **** and generally being in alright form (we've only lost 2 of our last 10 league games).
Everything points to us just not turning up and losing 2-0.
So aye, there's every chance we do Burrows a turn here.
2 -
I genuinely feel sympathy for Obika as I can't imagine it's a good place to be if you're trying to work your way back to fitness only to break down again. Even more so when you factor in the time he missed with his hamstring pinging when he was at Morecambe as well.
Having said that, it's almost like a bit we're doing now:
QuoteMeanwhile Jon Obika has suffered another hamstring injury in training having already had three lay-offs with a similar issue over the past 12 months.
“I don’t have a specific update, we will have him scanned and find out what’s going on,” Kettlewell said.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Sortmeout said:
Am I right in saying that if ourselves and Livingston reject this proposal then it’s fails under the 10/2 rule (or 11+1 or whatever it is called)?
Depends.
QuoteThe SPFL board haven’t yet made it clear if a 9-3 majority will carry the day or whether the issue needs an 11-1 majority to pass.
0 -
23 minutes ago, Cloontang said:
Always felt Clark was too easily beaten tbh. I remember once under no pressure he sliced a clearance right onto the bonce of Scott McDonald who headed home.
This will never be beaten.
Tbf, I think @crazylegsjoe_mfc absolutely called it right about Kelly here:
On 13/02/2024 at 17:20, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:I might be miles out and others might disagree, but my perception of Kelly is that his performances often reflect the mood in the camp.
When we are doing well (his loan spell, the run-in last season, when Alexander was shitfesting wins), you tend either to not notice him, or only hear good things about him.
As soon as the chips are down and we are playing badly, he seems more likely then to make things worse than better and that's when all of his mistakes come out.
Goalkeeper and captain are two roles who you need to step-up during a crisis. Unfortunately, ours is the same guy and he doesn't.
Stick him in a team that's confident and playing on the front foot and he's...fine. Good, even.
He just seems to go to pieces when things aren't necessarily going our way.
1 -
3 hours ago, chris1883 said:
I feel we have similar mindsets. My issue is the argument seems to be ANY grass pitch is better than ANY synthetic pitch... which we all know is 100% not the case. In the SPL as soon as a synthetic pitch is mentioned, the mind goes immediately to Livingston's surface - which IMO is one of the poorest synthetic surfaces out there. You then look at the carpet at Starks' - it doesn't look pretty, but I haven't heard any major blame levied at it for anything.
Look, I am absolutely an advocate for grass pitches in the SPL, but there needs to be a standard and we need to bin the silly grass is always better than plastic ideology. Ideally hybrid systems should be in place in Scotland... that, however, would be extreme folly at the cost of around £1.5m.
I'm not sure that is the argument tbh.
The argument as far as I can see is that after several seasons, rightly or wrongly, it's increasingly been viewed as an absolute fucking riddy that we've a top flight league with games being played on the sort of surfaces that you'd see at the local Power League. Now, the Starks Park pitch may be a proverbial bowling green but currently, they're not in the Premiership whereas Killie and Livi are and it's their surfaces that have presumably motivated the lock out.
Whether it's true or not there's a general opinion that players don't like fully artificial surfaces, managers don't like them, fans don't like them and I'd imagine clubs who have prioritised investment on their playing surface to get them to a high standard are generally quite scunnered by others not adopting a similar position.
I mean, both are choices. No one's saying you *have* to spend £1.5m on a nice hybrid pitch just as two specific clubs in the Premiership decided it was worth trading off the quality of their pitch against on the money they'd save by having their 3G.
Killie and Livi both used to have grass pitches, but their going the artificial route presumably wasn't dictated by footballing reasons. I've noticed a couple of posts in this thread talking about how Killie are only reverting to grass because Bowie is putting his hand in his pocket which is fair enough but the rub there is, I guess, if they have a wealthy backer and money isn't an object why aren't they sticking with an upgraded version of the kind of surface they have just now?
Is it because despite all the Lovejoying through this thread there's a general acknowledgement that grass/hybrid surfaces are generally going to be preferable or "better" compared to a fully synthetic/artificial?
I mean, that's not for me to say.
It seems pretty clear there's now a view (presumably with Livi sinking in the way that they are) that for the top league the standard should be that games should not be played on fully synthetic surfaces and chances are they'll be able to implement this without being seen to be penalising any single team (assuming Livi are relegated and neither Raith or Airdrie are promoted).
Is it gatekeeping? Sure you could look at it that way. Should it be a priority? Maybe not. Will this improve Scottish football in any meaningful way? Almost certainly not. Is this being tabled in order to save Aberdeen from relegation? Yes. That's definitely what's happening here.
That said, as things stand, of the top 22 clubs in the country there are only Killie (who AFAIK are replacing their surface imminently), Livi, Airdrie and Raith currently playing on plastic. The rest - a significant majority in anyone's language - are either hybrid or grass.
It begs the question, if the vast majority of clubs in the top two divisions are able to maintain grass pitches is it that unreasonable for that to be a standard for the Premiership?
I guess there's a view that "convenience" and "it's more cost effective" or "our Youth Academy can train on it" isn't really enough of a justification when you're talking about top flight football. Is that particularly fair if you're talking about some of the small clubs with artificial surfaces currently installed? Not really.
However, again, as far as I can tell no one is "banning" artificial surfaces. If you're a team cutting about the Championship. League 1 or League 2 then you can be "maximising income" til your heart's content.
The proposal seems to be that they're just not being allowed in the Premiership and respectfully, if fan owned clubs like Thistle and Morton are able to maintain grass pitches in the Championship then you'd think teams competing at Premiership level should also be able to.
Either way, it's a fair point to mention that if the SPFL are going to get all particular about the quality of surfaces at Premiership level then they should equally be making recommendations on standards being met and maintained on all their grass surfaces.
1 -
16 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:
Don't disagree...and playing Gordon for every minute when he was approaching 40, bringing in Gunn from nowhere when he got injured and only using Kelly/Clark at all when there was no choice suggests there is a strong preference for when the decision is made.
The counter-argument is Gordon is obviously either not fully fit or back to his best. The logic of that is irrefutable tbh. And the follow on is then taking a guy to the Euros when not fully fit or at his best having - barring a change at Tynecastle - probably played only four competitive games, three of which will have been against lower league opposition, in 20 months following a serious injury is daft.
Similarly if it’s as much about presence/non-playing stuff with Gordon then there’s presumably nothing to stop us taking him along for ‘vibes’ and sticking with the goalkeepers who have been consistently part of the squad while he’s has been broken.
0 -
Just read the wee preview of the Aberdeen game on the official and genuinely laughed at the injury news.
https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/03/12/aberdeen-visit-north-lanarkshire/
8
Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted · Edited by capt_oats
That's pretty much how I'm looking at it as well.
Respectfully, Hearts is probably the ceiling for someone like Spittal. It's nominally a sideways move from us but the uplift in wages makes it a no-brainer from his POV.
Assuming we stay up etc we've had a good two years out of him.
Look forward to hearing Sked make out that he's always rated him now.