Jump to content

Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, capt_oats said:

Edit: Actually, we signed Richard Tait on a 3 year deal back in 2016. Turns out Moult was a 3 year deal in 2015 also. So there you go.

Carson was originally a 3 year deal as well I’m sure. 

It is fairly rare though but the type of gamble I can get on board with. From the bits I’ve seen the boy certainly has a lot of good physical attributes mixed with some decent ability. 

At worst, he looks like he’ll at least be a handy squad player. However the length of the deal suggests that Alexander is confident he can smooth out some rough edges and develop him as a player.

Where as when Robinson was chucking 1 year deals at guys like Manzinga, Illic and Petravicius it always suggested that he was hoping for the best but wasn’t actually expecting all that much.

Edited by Casagolda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back then I was working in a call centre in Kilmarnock until 7 and had to settle for the radio for the first leg. I just remember going nuts in my room.

My life has changed a lot in the 6 years from those glorious games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Casagolda said:

Carson was originally a 3 year deal as well I’m sure. 

It is fairly rare though but the type of gamble I can get on board with. From the bits I’ve seen the boy certainly has a lot of good physical attributes mixed with some decent ability. 

At worst, he looks like he’ll at least be a handy squad player. However the length of the deal suggests that Alexander is confident he can smooth out some rough edges and develop him as a player.

Where as when Robinson was chucking 1 year deals at guys like Manzinga, Illic and Petravicius it always suggested that he was hoping for the best but wasn’t actually expecting all that much.

Aye, while I'm not expecting to see Flow cutting about Fir Park Street just dishing out 3 year deals Oprah-style; "You get a 3 year contract! You get a 3 year contract! You get a 3 year contract!" I'm interested to see if this is a strategic change with recruitment and whether on a board level we've recognised that aspects of our approach were pretty much a false economy. Signing 3 players or whatever at a lower cost in the hope that one comes good really just leads to a massive churn.

I guess signings like Gallagher and Polworth were kind of similar to Shields in so much as they were known within Scottish football and we had competition from St Johnstone to sign them but signing a young(-ish) player who on the face of it seems to have been at least looked at by a fair number of our peers, has been (relatively speaking) in demand and is coming off the back of an, again, relative breakthrough season feels like a slightly different step for us. It's nice - and I'm on board with it.

To the point of the 1 year deal guys I think most of us understood what the principle was in so much as they were low cost, low risk, with a high up side if they worked out and ultimately the budget's the budget - it's money we'd be spending anyway - so we afforded a degree of risk in taking a punt and we'd cut them loose if it didn't work out.

The up side of that approach was getting players like Kipré and Ally Gorrin in the side but ultimately when you start reeling off the 1 year guys who ended up cut they were definitely exceptions rather than the rule.

Edited by capt_oats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

Two things I forget about that game.  Marvin Johnson stealing Nicky Law's soul and how good Long was in goal (in that game) really doesn't get talked about enough

I was amazed by how good he was in both legs of the playoffs, as up until that point he had been very poor. I particularly remember a Friday night game against Aberdeen, where we went 1-0 up and were arguably the better side until he chucked a couple in and we lost 2-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest superward

Interesting wee nugget from Martin Foyle. Maybe a wee nod to the change of direction some have indicated on here. Bit more data led 

"On why he left, he continued: "Everything at the club then changed and they've gone in a different direction so I made the decision to leave. They wanted to be more data-led but at the end of the day, you've still got to find people who want to play for the club, rather than just coming for the money. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rate Shields, but your lot aren't great with your predictions of players making the grade in the top flight. See Mark Durnan and Kevin Holt.
Conveniently missing out Lyndon Dykes there...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be just because it's what I do every day but it baffles me how anyone could be against using data to inform your transfer strategy. Like I'd rather use raw numbers to narrow down who we are looking at then send some guy on a wild goose chase in a Vauxhall Astra. 

Robinson was tremendous as a manager. But I think in the end he fell on his transfer market shaped sword with the aforementioned Manzinga/Sloth/Ilic/Petracompetitionwinner type transfers. Like I don't mind signing folk who are a bit rough round the edges but when your entire team are like that it's a disaster waiting to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, well fan for life said:

Might be just because it's what I do every day but it baffles me how anyone could be against using data to inform your transfer strategy. Like I'd rather use raw numbers to narrow down who we are looking at then send some guy on a wild goose chase in a Vauxhall Astra. 

Robinson was tremendous as a manager. But I think in the end he fell on his transfer market shaped sword with the aforementioned Manzinga/Sloth/Ilic/Petracompetitionwinner type transfers. Like I don't mind signing folk who are a bit rough round the edges but when your entire team are like that it's a disaster waiting to happen. 

I wouldn't have sloth in this bracket tbf to Robinson, Guy was a danish international who played for Leeds, he just, for whatever reason, was hopeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Neil86 said:

I wouldn't have sloth in this bracket tbf to Robinson, Guy was a danish international who played for Leeds, he just, for whatever reason, was hopeless.

Aye, Sloth had a CV. For whatever reason he just didn't fancy it or Robinson didn't take to him.

The others are a very specific niche of players who were signed on the basis they had a particular attribute that we/Robinson completely overestimated our/his ability to improve them through coaching.

I think you'd also exclude guys like Plummer who only really signed because Hammell picked up an injury (then he got injured himself) and Mugabi who's obviously gone on to be fine but was only picked up because of an injury to Charlie Dunne.

Edited by capt_oats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did it not become common knowledge that, as a person, Casper Sloth was an utter p***k?

One of the Robinson gambles I would liked to have seen given more time was Christian Ilic. He played at a decent level before us and seems to still be at a decent level after leaving. I'm pretty sure we signed him as a left back but in his few appearances he was always played on the right wing.

For players with good names but who were shite at football, Sherwin Seedorf must surely go down as the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a novelty group we have ended up in. I would expect us to win this with only Queen of the South causing any real issues. Could be that Sheild's first game for us is against his old club.

 

there is also the Derby with Airdrieonians, but if you watched their play off match against morton the  you know its not going to be really hard.

20210528_132002.jpg.a8c3bb00c8168b7e527506eeaace18a4.jpg

 

Here are the other groups in case you want to view them.Screenshot_20210528-131801_YouTube.thumb.jpg.15d1a711ab8ddd0fb854fe6840cf4e82.jpg

Edited by Phillips455
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:
14 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:
I rate Shields, but your lot aren't great with your predictions of players making the grade in the top flight. See Mark Durnan and Kevin Holt.

Conveniently missing out Lyndon Dykes there...

So 1 hit to 2 very, very bad misses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 1 hit to 2 very, very bad misses.
Almost 100 games a that level, I think you're pushing it to say Holt was a very, very bad miss. If he was so terrible I'm doubtful he'd have continued to play. And if that is regarded as a very, very bad miss then a player going on to the English Championship and becoming first choice striker for the National team surely deserves more than "hit" [emoji38]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...