MelvinBragg

Stevie Hammell at Motherwell: Over 400 appearances. 2 cup finals. Twice part of teams that finished second in the league. Aye, he's a low SPL/Championship defender... If all our players were as good and consistent in their position as Hammell is in his, we'd win a lot more games...

Or Hammell won't be fit and Chalmers is getting game time to get his fitness up..? EDIT Good to see McLean back..

Theo Robinson contributed little. He didn't get many chances but his performances didn't really justify the manager giving him another chance. His time here frankly wasn't memorable enough for his name to even come up in years to come when we talk of worst ever Motherwell teams...

McGhee's predecessors did try and address the issue, however unsuccessfully. Baraclough signed a left back, McCall persevered with Angol when Hammell was unavailable. McCall brought through Carswell and Baraclough signed Grimshaw. To say that these managers have ignored the problem is wrong. The problem is that the guys they've earmarked for replacing Hammell and Lasley haven't been up to the job. What this tells us? Despite their flaws being pointed out on here, Hammell and Lasley aren't that easy to replace...

Cadden. Some good runs into the box, tracked back well, a couple of decent balls in as well. Not frightened to have a go from distance. Not suggesting he's the next big thing or he'll be a nailed on starter for years but certainly did enough to merit a start next week...

Between the two boxes we were fine. Some decent final balls put in which weren't converted. But an inability to take chances or defend basic set pieces cost us and will continue to do so until it's addressed. Good performances from Cadden, Ripley, Kennedy and Lasley. Johnson did well in the first half up to a point, but on occasions his decision making let him down...

Surprised by the team but not displeased. Would have preferred Watt at right back only as I haven't seen Kennedy play there before. Does expose the lie that he had no other options last week...

That'll be his quota for the season then...

My prediction for the lineup is that it will be the same as last Saturday with Lasley for Law the only change. Not like McGhee to admit he got it wrong...

They are a bit rough around the edges and do make mistakes, but have shown potential in some games. Bomb scare seems a bit harsh...

ZFA, I felt, was to use the phrase "all sugar or all shite". On occasions, he'd look like a real prospect. On others, he had a Straker-like tendency to look like it was the first time he'd seen a football. Very few games that were so-so. Sadly we need players who are consistent. If he could find that level of consistency, he did have some of the tools to develop into a decent player...

You're right in that at a club like ours, it probably does impact on the chances of a player getting a chance. A manager will always have one eye on job security and probably feels an experienced player is a better bet for results. However, and Falkirk and Accies are good examples of this, there's an argument that the youth development side should be ringfenced in that no matter who the manager is, their remit remains the same. Obviously every manager is going to have an idea of the type of player he wants but with the right approach at youth level, you could probably produce players to meet most managers needs...

A huge part of the problem. I read on here someone saying that they doubted Cadden had the quality to make it. Has he even started a first team game? Like I said, even if these players aren't regular starters, it might save the club money by not paying the wages of an Omar Daley, Jake Taylor or Craig Reid if they are good enough to provide cover...

Mark McGhee talks a good game on blooming young players. His track record suggests otherwise...

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't but he's just an example of a young player who didn't get a chance at Fir Park to prove whether he was good enough or not because of managers choosing to bring in players from further afield to sit on the bench...

Aye, and if we continue to wait until we are "safe" every season before blooding youngsters, it'll continue to be a problem. And we wonder why Accies and Dundee United get larger fees. McCarthy, Hendrie, Gauld and Robertson all played around 50 games by the age our players make their debuts. Are they better than our players? Maybe, but the difference is they get a chance to prove it. Compare our treatment of Luke Watt to that of Andy Robertson at United or Hendrie at Accies... EDIT Just checked. Hendrie left Accies last summer at the age of 20, having played 100 games. Gauld left United at 18 and a half having played 40 odd games.

Indeed, that might be the case. But if playing Cadden on Saturday would have been worse than playing a right back in centre midfield and a left back at right back then he must be a mile away from first team action. For me, it just sends out the wrong message to our U20 midfielders that if we're two midfielders short, we'll start with two wingers for the first time in months and play a full back in midfield rather than give them a shot. They're entitled to think "what's the point?"...

To me, that seems utterly pointless. You then end up with a situation with Cadden, Watt, Thomas and any others getting game time when the senior professionals around them will have effectively downed tools. Hardly an environment to judge them in. Also feel you can't truly judge a player until you've seen how he responds in a game that matters. Playing Cadden on the third last week of the season and we're guaranteed to finish between 7th and 9th, what will you learn about his ability to cope under pressure? Why would the experienced players have downed tools? Well, if your manager is quoted as effectively saying 40 points is job done, then win bonuses or not, you're thinking "job done". Anyone remember the performances (if you can call them that) in the run up to the Scottish Cup Final a few years back? And that's one of the reasons our youth policy fails. Other clubs trust their young players. We don't...

Due to finance in what respect? Pretty sure that whoever we brought in to sit on the bench would have cost us more than it would having Lawless as backup. Of course, assuming Lawless would have been happy with that role...

I touched upon it in the Ross County match thread but it interests me that if it seems a player from our youth setup doesn't look like he's going to become a first team regular by the age of 21, we as fans (and as a club) are happy to regard them as not good enough and cast them aside. There seems little scope for these players to be seen as good enough as backup even if they don't have what it takes to be a regular first pick. When it's generally accepted that it's a squad game these days, and we then sign players of a similar level who are older and have less potential to be late bloomers (like a Jamie Dolan or a Stephen Craigan) and who are probably on a higher wage, it seems strange. A couple of examples. We let Lawless go and sign Lionel Ainsworth. Now Ainsworth has been a good signing and when we let Lawless go we had Chris Humphrey but had we kept Lawless as a backup player, would we have needed to sign Ainsworth when Humphrey left? This season. We have signed Robinson and let Moore go out on loan. For all that Robinson has contributed, even Moore's detractors could surely see that Moore would offer as much. There have been others. Signing Nathan Thomas when Dom Thomas could easily have sat on the bench. Omar Daley when we had others who could have provided backup. Marc Fitzpatrick strikes me as another like Jack Leitch who was a jack of all trades midfielder that was never accepted (despite being a crucial part of a good McGhee team, first time round) because he never progressed the way some expected Are we going to continue in this vein of letting young players go only to bring in journeymen to take their places on the bench? It seems to make no financial sense to me at a time when every penny is a prisoner. Do we as fans have to accept that not every young player is going to be a McFadden, Murphy, Reynolds or Hutchinson and sometimes just being a Lasley, Hammell, Craigan or just good enough to step in for these guys from time to time is something that helps our club, not by bringing money in but by preventing us from spending it..? Interested to hear opinions on this..

You see, to me, the criticisms of Leitch stack up as follows... Not quick enough. Not strong/physically imposing enough. Doesn't score enough goals. Late in the tackle so picks up bookings. No real range of passing (I disagree with this one but it's said of him). All criticisms that could be levelled at someone who has played over 350 games in Motherwell's midfield. Does Leitch have Lasley's positional sense? No, but if you listen to some on here (aye, I'm looking at you, Dave), that might be no bad thing. Not saying Leitch should be viewed as a future regular first team starter, but it makes me laugh when people talk about signing cover for Lasley and Pearson. With the description of Leitch above, he seems ideal cover for Lasley. Moving away from Leitch specifically, it seems odd to me (and maybe this merits a thread of its own) that as fans, and managers have recently seemed to feel the same, we are either looking for our youth setup to provide first team regulars and the occasional player we can sell or that player is not deemed good enough. There seems no scope for a player coming through simply to become a squad player yet we are happy to bring in players to provide cover. In the current climate, would Jamie Dolan have had the chance to become a first team regular as he was at least 23 before he made a place in the team his own...?

Not surprising, why? I don't get to see much U20s action, has he gone backwards?

What Grimshaw brought was a willingness to get stuck in, energy, drive and a calmness on the ball. I think the final quality may be a big ask but I reckon the first three could certainly be provided by one of our young players. If McLean weren't injured, he'd have been my choice but I'd be happy with either Cadden or Leitch in there. I tend to agree with you that Leitch (fairly or unfairly) seems out of the picture so on that basis, I'd hope to see Cadden there on Saturday. I read on here that apparently McGhee has said that the youngsters will get more game time if we reach 40 points. To me, this is a nonsense. You learn more about these players when the game means something. Erwin and Watt last season and Hall this season have come in when we need results and have performed well. Particularly this Saturday, when Lasley will be back to help a young player through the game, it seems an ideal opportunity to give someone a chance. Hall got his chance because McGhee felt there wasn't anyone better in that position. If that applies to a crucial position like centre back, why not midfield? Surely better than the bizarre decisions that were made on Saturday...

So what you're trying to say is that Mark McGhee, employed by Motherwell FC to win football games, deliberately sent out a dreadful team selection in order to prove that he needs more players? Quite an accusation... And also the most laughable nonsense I've read on here for a while. Do you not think that McGhee is eloquent enough to make the point to the "money men" about what he feels are Leitch's and Cadden's shortcomings in order to secure a new signing or two? Frankly, that performance on Saturday, would you trust the man that picked that team to spend money on players? Maybe the board won't want to sanction any of his signings. Absolute bollocks. But no more so than McGhee deliberately chucking a game to prove how threadbare his squad is. His ego wouldn't allow it for starters...

Making a point to the money men at the club? Maybe he should have made it clear at the pre match press conference that he was going to be making a point. Maybe then fans could have saved their money and not had to watch a lamentable performance. He didn't prepare well enough for Saturday. He knew Lasley was suspended and he was banking on Grimshaw being here. If the lineup he produced was his plan B, then it looked like it was written on the back of a fag packet five minutes before we got to Tynecastle...