MelvinBragg

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...

That to me is the wrong solution. We have Pearson to take the "old head" role in midfield, I'd rather see one of our young players act as cover for Lasley. If they prove not to be good enough, at least we can find out now before the likes of Lasley retires and we can plan accordingly...

I don't know if you can surmise that Law's days are numbered given he's played every game under McGhee and frankly been one of our more consistent performers. I'm one of those that would like to see Watt get a chance but frankly Law has done very little to justify any talk of dropping him. Chalmers hasn't looked the part but his only real run of games came at left midfield when the team weren't playing that well. Wouldn't write him off just yet. Given most last season thought Josh Law would never make a regular SPL footballer, there may be potential for him to develop as Law has. Leitch, I feel sorry for. He's had some good games and some bad games in the first team but never really been given a run of games to try and find consistency. Stuart McCall was by nature a conservative manager when it came to giving young players a chance so whenever things went wrong, he went back to the tried and trusted experienced players. Which worked out in terms of league position but not in terms of developing young players. I think we'll do a bit of business in this window but not as much as we'd like. Probably more departures than arrivals...

If he's arrived at the conclusion that playing Hammell at right back and Josh Law in midfield is a better option than Leitch or Cadden in midfield, then whether he watches them in training all week or not, I'd have to question his judgement and perhaps his sanity...

So what you're telling me is that they're long overdue a home defeat..?

Or he's trying to make Neilson think he's going to start Ainsworth...

Falkirk may be on the verge of selling one of their own prospects so will have some cash to spend. They also may have offered East Fife a larger sell on percentage but a smaller initial fee. As for why he'd choose Falkirk? More chance of playing regular football may be a factor...

Don't know why, but have a funny feeling we'll see Watt at right back, Law at right midfield and Laing replacing Lasley...

He played very well in the 3-3 draw with Celtic season before last and then was made scapegoat (along with Nielsen)"for the heavy defeat to Dundee United shortly afterwards. In the preseason friendly against Preston this season, he played a cracking pass for Moult to score. Are these isolated incidents enough to say he should be starting every week? No, but there clearly is some ability there. And you doubt that Cadden has the ability to make it? Based on his extensive first team appearances? That's nine sub appearances for a guy who only turned 19 in September. The class of 02 (as they're being called) made plenty of mistakes. And we're allowed to do so because we had no one else. But they learned. It seems nowadays that it's not a luxury afforded to our young players...

So we're writing off Jack Leitch after only 12 starts for the club, spread over a few seasons..? I suspect we don't have a great track record of rearing our own because if they're not world beaters right away then they're not good enough in the eyes of a lot of our fans. Not an ideal environment for nurturing young players...

No, just poor quality patter. In fairness, I do as much pelting back with that...

I like to stand. Why I got a back row seat. I suspect others are the same...

I'very had the same group of blowhards standing behind my back row seat, talking the same pish for years. Sadly I also socialise with them... The thing is, the guys behind me have tickets for seats round about us so they're not hanging over the top of random strangers. If you want to stand behind the railings, get a back row seat or find mates that have one that won't mind you standing there. Oh, and don't drop yer pie/bovril on anyone...

Does it really matter that much..?

The real concern would be Cove travelling down. If it's not safe for them, then the game may be off...

Going against what everyone else is saying, I'd be playing a slightly weakened team. A lot of our key players are over 30, a rest won't do them any harm and playing guys with something to prove should ensure 100% and no complacency. I'd go Samson Watt Hall Laing Hammell Ainsworth Lasley Cadden Thomas McFadden Fletcher Lasley, I'd play as he's missing the Hearts game and Hammell because there's no other option in his position (although you could play Watt there and keep Law at right back if you wanted to rest Hammell). If our fringe players, with four or five experienced players in the side, aren't good enough to win this game then they're simply not good enough... I suspect that McGhee will go with a stronger lineup though...

Small example of this. Years ago I couldn't tell you who owned or who was the chairman of football clubs around the country. Now, if push came to shove, could probably name most of them. Could probably name as many of them as I could first choice goalkeepers. Whether that's down to more clubs getting in financial trouble, the clubs themselves creating the SPL and being more vocal, or the rise of PR hungry chairmen like Murray, Boyle and Romanov or what, I don't know. What I do know is that it doesn't seem like a good thing to me...

As I hinted at there, Dave, I think it reflects fans' attitudes. An Accies fan at my work always seems to know how we're getting on whereas often I couldn't tell you how they're doing...

I had this conversation with someone the other day. I think there is definitely something in this, added to the fact that no matter how often they finish ahead of us we'll always be seen as the big team in Lanarkshire, gives them some sort of underdog mentality that seems to fire them up maybe more than our players (and fans, frankly). It's their big game, it's not ours...