Give Youth A Chance

[steelboy]

 

Lee Lucas has played what, 90 minutes of first team football? The guys in the youth team in that position (Campbell, Turnbell) have played 0 minutes. So to suggest one is better than the other, at first team level, is pure guesswork on your part.

 

FWIW, I struggle to see the point in the Lucas signing, as he doesn't appear to be a replacement for McHugh (if that's the reason he's signed). Clay, I think is coming on to a game. I take your point on fitness, but he's played 7 or 8 games this season. If he's still blowing out his arse after an hour six weeks down the line, then you'll have a valid point.

 

No arguments from me on the McFadden front. I think it's farcical when we're bringing him on for 10-15 minute appearances when there's others in the squad who, IMO, deserve it or need it more. He's got a job as an assistant manager so he should focus on that. The Faddy love-in after a meaningless goal on Friday was bizarre.

 

I don't believe for a minute there is some "Mark McGhee conspiracy" to refuse to play younger players. He's shown last season with Hall and Cadden that they will get a chance. I have no doubt he will do once again, once he and the management staff believe they are ready. I'm happy to trust their judgement on that, rather than a few punters on a messageboard. When they do get their chance, it's up to them to prove they're good enough, and mature enough, to take it. (See Hall and Cadden for examples, not Thomas or Watt).

Lucas is 24 and has played a handful of games. He's got no more experience than the youths really. It would surely have been better to roll the money we are spending on him, Belic and Blyth into a starting midfielder and use the younger players as cover and subs when need be.

 

Motherwell teams that would have hammered the current incarnation got good service out of Fitzpatrick, Smith, Page, Kinniburgh, Saunders and Forbes none of whom went onto a good career but made important and cheap contributions. Craigan talking about players not being ready is unbelievable. He wasn't ready but getting some appearances under his belt didn't exactly hurt him or MFC.

 

Reading this forum sometimes you would think the club existed for the purpose of selling players to English clubs. If we become a development team for Conference players - which we will be in 12 months time if we don't change tact - attendances will go through the floor. Who actually wants to see that?

[milo]

I can see merit in both Desp and Steelboys points.

[Desp]

There's nothing in that I can argue with Steelboy, they are all valid points, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. When Marvin Johnson was sold, can you remember the clamour on here, and other social media platform, to "get one or two in"? Those were Belic and Bowman, with Lucas following. Would we honestly be any worse off if none of them had come in? Probably not. I get that. MFC however, will have to take gambles a lot of the time. So there's always the chance a gamble will fail.

 

Very interesting point you make about the likes of Fitzpatrick, Fagan, Forbes etc. Not one of them went on to anything better? Who's fault is that? The player for not being good enough? The club for putting them in too soon when they weren't ready. Perhaps there was no blame whatsoever, maybe the club just got more out of their ability than most thought possible. Again, it's a bit of a gamble. If we had the likes of Campbell, Thomas, Turnbull and Mackin in the team the last few games, and suffered 4-0 and 6-1 defeats (like Kilmarnock have just done) what would this place be like?

 

Attendances is another conversation all together, but they'll continue to decrease gradually no matter what happens on the park, IMO.

 

We are a selling club, as it every other club in the country. Whether we can do it with our own players, or having to bring them in from elsewhere, that's always going to be the "business plan".

[Joeboy]

No arguments from me on the McFadden front. I think it's farcical when we're bringing him on for 10-15 minute appearances when there's others in the squad who, IMO, deserve it or need it more. He's got a job as an assistant manager so he should focus on that. The Faddy love-in after a meaningless goal on Friday was bizarre.

 

I am undecided on that one. The merits of what you say may be true. Faddy came on Friday when it was 2-0 and we still probably fancied ourselves to get something from the game. If we were winning or getting beat by a bigger margin, I'd be all for bringing on a younger player. His goal on Friday was a splendid bit of technique which he could easily have scored at 2-0 and created a late charge for an equaliser. Also, at Partick the week before, he put his foot on the ball and worked it across to Tait to cross for the goal. That's not something that I think you'd have seen from the likes of Thomas or MacLean. So the fact he has impacted the last two goals we have scored tells you he is still contributing. If the game is a foregone conclusion, then yes, look to the future. If you are weighing up who is more likely to conjure up something to get you back in the game, then opt for McFadden.

 

Lucas is 24 and has played a handful of games. He's got no more experience than the youths really. It would surely have been better to roll the money we are spending on him, Belic and Blyth into a starting midfielder and use the younger players as cover and subs when need be.

 

Motherwell teams that would have hammered the current incarnation got good service out of Fitzpatrick, Smith, Page, Kinniburgh, Saunders and Forbes none of whom went onto a good career but made important and cheap contributions. Craigan talking about players not being ready is unbelievable. He wasn't ready but getting some appearances under his belt didn't exactly hurt him or MFC.

 

Reading this forum sometimes you would think the club existed for the purpose of selling players to English clubs. If we become a development team for Conference players - which we will be in 12 months time if we don't change tact - attendances will go through the floor. Who actually wants to see that?

 

I agree with you in parts, there have been many times in recent years I feel that we've made signings for the sake of it whilst halting our own youngsters. See Esteban Casagolda/Bob McHugh, Stephen Hughes/Stuart Carswell and maybe even Omar Daley/Steven Lawless for examples of this. However, I do think your view that Lucas has no experience than our youths is incredibly short sighted. He will have been playing against a better calibre of youths and fringe players while at Swansea. Furthermore, how many of our youths could claim to have 19 under 21 caps (and two goals). For what it's worth, from what I've seen I would have liked Allan Campbell to have been closer to the team, instead of signing Lucas short term. But whatever Lucas does give us I'm sure will be a "cheap contribution" as he didn't seem to be flush with suitors and I can't imagine a short term deal was that hard to negotiate. I can't see him proportionately being on much more than the likes of Saunders, Fagan, Fitzpatrick and Forbes were when they were in the first team.

[weeyin]

Rubbish.

 

Don't be getting carried away with a single transfer, our cross border trading over the last few years has cost us a fortune.

How much has it cost?

[CMWellfan]

How much has it cost?

 

Set aside the Johnson transfer - when was the last time we earned a coin from selling an English player back down south?

 

And I can't begin to count the amount of Englishmen that have been through our doors in the last five years. No doubt someone has the time to list them.

 

Our transfer record has been APPALLING - and we have been a net exporter of cash to the English game, which is absurd.

 

..................................................

 

I have faith in Alan Burrows.

 

I do think he made a couple of ( maybe more ) serious mistakes in the summer. I don't want to go over old ground regurgitating them.

 

McGhee is a temporary fixture, none of us will be shocked if he's elsewhere next season.

 

Burrows is not temporary - he has to ram the new club ethos down the throat of the coaching staff and management in situ.

 

It would be a start - an outstanding start - if he assessed via his sports fitness staff if the players he is offering contracts too are capable of playing ninety minutes.

[CMWellfan]

 

I am undecided on that one. The merits of what you say may be true. Faddy came on Friday when it was 2-0 and we still probably fancied ourselves to get something from the game. If we were winning or getting beat by a bigger margin, I'd be all for bringing on a younger player. His goal on Friday was a splendid bit of technique which he could easily have scored at 2-0 and created a late charge for an equaliser. Also, at Partick the week before, he put his foot on the ball and worked it across to Tait to cross for the goal. That's not something that I think you'd have seen from the likes of Thomas or MacLean. So the fact he has impacted the last two goals we have scored tells you he is still contributing. If the game is a foregone conclusion, then yes, look to the future. If you are weighing up who is more likely to conjure up something to get you back in the game, then opt for McFadden.

 

 

I agree with you in parts, there have been many times in recent years I feel that we've made signings for the sake of it whilst halting our own youngsters. See Esteban Casagolda/Bob McHugh, Stephen Hughes/Stuart Carswell and maybe even Omar Daley/Steven Lawless for examples of this. However, I do think your view that Lucas has no experience than our youths is incredibly short sighted. He will have been playing against a better calibre of youths and fringe players while at Swansea. Furthermore, how many of our youths could claim to have 19 under 21 caps (and two goals). For what it's worth, from what I've seen I would have liked Allan Campbell to have been closer to the team, instead of signing Lucas short term. But whatever Lucas does give us I'm sure will be a "cheap contribution" as he didn't seem to be flush with suitors and I can't imagine a short term deal was that hard to negotiate. I can't see him proportionately being on much more than the likes of Saunders, Fagan, Fitzpatrick and Forbes were when they were in the first team.

 

I think we all like the idea of Lucas and harbour dreams that he's gonna become an EPL level midfielder in our team.

 

Knowing our luck he'll trip over a butterfly and will never play for us again.

 

Some risk for a wee team on a tight budget to take.

[Ya Bezzer!]

Let's be honest about this, if we can't give young players a chance now when the overall standard is much lower than it was when the likes of McFadden, Lasley and Hammell broke through when will we ever do it.

 

You can watch U20's football till the cows come home but there is only one way to find out if a player is going to make it at senior level and thats to play him at senior level. Quite frankly I have no time for all this "there not ready for senior football" balonie.

 

They are not Under 16's, they aren't even Under 18's they are Under 20's and they are all taking a wage home from this club. A lot of those guys are 20 years old or coming up to 20 - David Ferguson, Ross McLean, Dylan Mackin, so what are we doing - spending a lot of money we don't have on some glorified youth club?

 

There have been lots of players that have gone on to have great careers, not because managers thought they were ready, but because managers had no choice but to thrust a young player into a team due to injuries, suspensions and a whole lot of other reasons. Managers will very rarely because, understandably, they are covering there own arse.

 

It's also worth noting that plenty youth team wonder players went on to do nothing in the senior game, while bang average youth players thrived at senior level. That's why I think you have to give EVERY player at that level a chance at the top level, not just picking out two or three chosen ones.

 

Now I completely understand why its not always appropriate to bring on a young player, or start one, and I know we can't have more than two or three at any one time. Matches this season, right across the league, have been very tight in the bottom 8 teams say, and every manager wants to get points on the board at this stage of the season and stay away from the bottom. But I'll give you an example of when young players should be getting a chance. Hamilton Accies. After 50 minutes of the game we are 4-1 up at home and what happens? We make one substitution and its Lionel Ainsworth. For me there is really no excuse for not getting one or two young lads into that game.

[David]

In my opinion, I'd rather see us tighten up on our summer signings and use our own young players instead.

 

For example, this year we signed nine players, eight permanently and one on loan I think. How many of those nine players will be first-team regulars? If all of them prove to be vital parts of the first-team then fair enough, the signings are warranted.

 

What I'd rather we did though was instead of spending our wage budget on eight or nine half-decent players, spend it on three or four players that we really think could do a job and improve the first team quite a bit (ideally a mix of experienced heads who aren't at the end of their career, and young prospects who can be sold on), and plug the gaps left with young players from our own academy.

 

As has been said, it's virtually impossible to judge a young player on a handful of appearances or 10 minute cameos. What needs to happen is at the end of each season McGhee sits down with Craigan and they work out between them who can be drafted up to the first-team squad.

 

Not every youngster has to be a superstar in the making, they just have to be solid, decent additions to the squad. The kind of player who can come in and do the kind of job that a Craig Clay or a Lee Lucas can do.

 

I know such a system isn't as easy to implement as I'm making it out to be, and most likely this is what the management team are already doing, but I'm just a bit fed up seeing us spunk cash away on players who have zero impact and disappear quietly into the night the following summer.

 

 

[capt_oats]

For example, this year we signed nine players, eight permanently and one on loan I think. How many of those nine players will be first-team regulars? If all of them prove to be vital parts of the first-team then fair enough, the signings are warranted.

 

So far two thirds of them.

 

Tait, Heneghan, Clay, Bowman have started every game since signing. Assuming McHugh recovers from his concussion it's fair to say he'll be considered a first pick and with any luck Brill will get his shot ahead of Samson. Of the other 3 one is on a short term 6 month deal, another is on a 6 month loan deal which leaves Blyth but I'd say expecting 100% hit rate is pretty unrealistic tbh.

[Graeme Bremner]

I say give youth a chance but not at the risk of top flight survival get ourselves points on the board once we hit 28 points and have a set way of playing look to integrate them in then

[sbcmfc]

We do seem to have signed too many players.

 

Not sure if it's a case of sign 5 and hope 3 work?

 

I think we could still run with a tighter squad and have some young players as back up.

 

Blyth is a good example of a player I'm not convinced we really need, I know he's been unavailable, but would he get a game anyway? Will Lucas feature when Mchugh returns? Did we need him either? Belic sounded like what we needed, where is he.

 

This is without going back to Theo Robinson, Wes fletcher etc.

[ONeils40yarder]

In my opinion, I'd rather see us tighten up on our summer signings and use our own young players instead.

 

For example, this year we signed nine players, eight permanently and one on loan I think. How many of those nine players will be first-team regulars? If all of them prove to be vital parts of the first-team then fair enough, the signings are warranted.

 

What I'd rather we did though was instead of spending our wage budget on eight or nine half-decent players, spend it on three or four players that we really think could do a job and improve the first team quite a bit (ideally a mix of experienced heads who aren't at the end of their career, and young prospects who can be sold on), and plug the gaps left with young players from our own academy.

 

As has been said, it's virtually impossible to judge a young player on a handful of appearances or 10 minute cameos. What needs to happen is at the end of each season McGhee sits down with Craigan and they work out between them who can be drafted up to the first-team squad.

 

Not every youngster has to be a superstar in the making, they just have to be solid, decent additions to the squad. The kind of player who can come in and do the kind of job that a Craig Clay or a Lee Lucas can do.

 

I know such a system isn't as easy to implement as I'm making it out to be, and most likely this is what the management team are already doing, but I'm just a bit fed up seeing us spunk cash away on players who have zero impact and disappear quietly into the night the following summer.

 

 

You seriously dont think that happens every season already?

[ONeils40yarder]

We do seem to have signed too many players.

 

Not sure if it's a case of sign 5 and hope 3 work?

 

I think we could still run with a tighter squad and have some young players as back up.

 

Blyth is a good example of a player I'm not convinced we really need, I know he's been unavailable, but would he get a game anyway? Will Lucas feature when Mchugh returns? Did we need him either? Belic sounded like what we needed, where is he.

 

This is without going back to Theo Robinson, Wes fletcher etc.

We needed Blyth when we signed him ie being one of our 1st signings of the Summer...you could argue that Bowman wasnt needed

[capt_oats]

We do seem to have signed too many players.

 

Not sure if it's a case of sign 5 and hope 3 work?

 

I think we could still run with a tighter squad and have some young players as back up.

 

Blyth is a good example of a player I'm not convinced we really need, I know he's been unavailable, but would he get a game anyway? Will Lucas feature when Mchugh returns? Did we need him either? Belic sounded like what we needed, where is he.

 

This is without going back to Theo Robinson, Wes fletcher etc.

 

At present I count a first team squad of 21 including an assistant manager. That's about normal, no? Were we not at about 26 after Baraclough's trolley dash? Worth adding that 1 is a 6 month loan and another is on a short term deal until January.

 

Samson, Brill; Tait, Heneghan, McManus, Hammell, Chalmers, Kennedy; Cadden, Lasley, McHugh, Lucas, Clay, Thomas, MacLean; McDonald, Blyth, Bowman, Moult, Belic, McFadden

 

As an example Thistle's first team squad lists 25 players https://ptfc.co.uk/team/first-team/

Killie list 25 http://www.kilmarnockfc.co.uk/Teams?sTeam=398

Dundee list 24 http://dundeefc.co.uk/team/first-team/

Ross County list 19 but + Chris Burke who's not listed that makes 20 http://www.rosscountyfootballclub.co.uk/squads/1st-team/

[sbcmfc]

Perhaps we've just been a bit unlucky with guys like blyth, mchugh and Wes fletcher getting injured shortly after arriving.

 

We had quite a good run under McCall where we appeared to have a squad of about 15 players.

 

My worry is that we have a bit of quantity over quality, whereas in the most part of Mccalls reign we seemed to have a tight but strong squad. (Although the downside of no competition for places was evident towards the end).

 

We went the other way under barraclough.

 

Perhaps we do have the balance about right, although running with a few less senior players and using youth as a back up could allow us to raise the standard slightly...

[sbcmfc]

On a different note (and as the transfer thread is locked) was speaking to an Ayr fan yesterday who was asking about Dom Thomas as he reckons they are getting him on loan as Moore is out and no sign of return.

[capt_oats]

Perhaps we've just been a bit unlucky with guys like blyth, mchugh and Wes fletcher getting injured shortly after arriving.

 

We had quite a good run under McCall where we appeared to have a squad of about 15 players.

 

My worry is that we have a bit of quantity over quality, whereas in the most part of Mccalls reign we seemed to have a tight but strong squad. (Although the downside of no competition for places was evident towards the end).

 

We went the other way under barraclough.

 

Perhaps we do have the balance about right, although running with a few less senior players and using youth as a back up could allow us to raise the standard slightly...

 

It's fair to say with McCall there was a core group of starters, it's stating the obvious to point out that the squads amounted to more than that though.

 

2011-12 - 14 players started 10+ league games however 22 players were used in league games over the course of the season.

2012-13 - 13 players started 10+ league games, 24 players used

2013-14 - 16 players started 10+ league games, 25 players used

 

So far this season we've seen 8 players start every league game with 20 players used in total.

[Aidan bell]

Hopefully Thomas and 2 or 3 more get a loan deal sorted in order to continue their development. It seems that a few are too good for the development league and not quite ready for full 1st team starts. With this being the case they need to be loaned out or end up being another mchugh, leitch or carswell.

[capt_oats]

Hopefully Thomas and 2 or 3 more get a loan deal sorted in order to continue their development. It seems that a few are too good for the development league and not quite ready for full 1st team starts. With this being the case they need to be loaned out or end up being another mchugh, leitch or carswell.

Completely agree. In principle that's what you'd hope would be happening. It's a significant jump in standard from u20s to Premiership. I've no problem with coaching staff making a judgement call on whether a player is deemed ready or not they see them in training, I don't. I'm just a wee guy on the internets who pitches up and watches some games now and again. You'd hope that a development loan would go some way to helping bridge the gap.

 

However, the issue there is surely it requires another manager/club to actually want the player and be willing to play them.

[stuwell]

I suspect that DT going to Ayr is to cover for our other player there who has concussion

[CMWellfan]

Hopefully Thomas and 2 or 3 more get a loan deal sorted in order to continue their development. It seems that a few are too good for the development league and not quite ready for full 1st team starts. With this being the case they need to be loaned out or end up being another mchugh, leitch or carswell.

Our under 20 team should consist of under 18's only. other Under 20's should either be in the first team or out on development loan. And if thatt means loaning them to the English conference then so be it.

 

Offer a deal to these teams that they vwill pick up a percentage of any future fee. 3 - 5% would be enough. In the case of gge Johnson transfer that would have netted the loan club £20 - £30 grand. Interesting money for smaller teams.

 

I believe we have a scout crawling all over the conference, for example. He should be opening up loan relationships. And we should have offered Thomas or Mackin on loan to Blyth's when we bought Bowman, leaving them short a striker.

[Yabba's Turd]

How exactly do you make a player go on loan to the conference? This isn't Champ manager, who pays the loanees living expenses? At least loaning a player in this country he can for the most part get up the road after training and commute from home.
There should be a succession between playing for the under 20s as an 18 year old and going on loan, but it should be to Clyde,Airdrie,Livingston or the like.

[CMWellfan]

How exactly do you make a player go on loan to the conference? This isn't Champ manager, who pays the loanees living expenses? At least loaning a player in this country he can for the most part get up the road after training and commute from home.

There should be a succession between playing for the under 20s as an 18 year old and going on loan, but it should be to Clyde,Airdrie,Livingston or the like.

 

Who said you had to make a player go on loan to the conference?

 

You offer the player the chance, he either takes it or he doesn't.

 

There's a well worn path of Scottish players heading down south as young as sixteen, never mind nineteen.

 

Guys like Peter Crouch were on loan at Norwegian clubs at the age of sixteen.

 

And the club pays the living expenses in association with the host club.

 

Your notion that they need mollycoddled and home to Mummy every night is just pathetic.

 

These are young men desperate to make it in the game, potential millionaires.

 

You'll find that many of them have more bottle than you do.

[GrahamH]

Crouch was 19 when he was on loan in Norway. There's a huge difference between 16 and 19 and a huge difference between Tottenham sending players out on loan and Motherwell sending players out on loan.