dennyc Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 I'm not a coach and only played the game to a basic amateur level but I believe some folk are losing sight of how big an ask it is for our youth players to make the huge step up to becoming a member of the of the first team squad. Not everyone is a Lennon Miller or Max Johnston........ and if we are honest it took even those two time to find their feet and have an impact. The skill can often be there but there is a lot more to being a pro footballer than just basic ability. Mentally and physically. I also don't know anything about Foster's ability as a coach but I am not convinced it would make that much difference whoever we had in that position. How a coach interacts with the kids is a factor though and the Club have a safeguarding responsibility which I have to believe means they would intervene if needs be. Said as an outsider with no insight whatsoever to the internal workings of the Club. Regards the kids that we let go, my reading is that Kettlewell and his coaches are not saying those released are not talented players but rather that the direct step up to the first team squad is too big a challenge for all but the very elite. The absence of a reserve team in which they can continue to develop in preparation for senior football is the issue rather than talent, willing or coaching ability. Finances and a lack of meaningful, supported strategy from the Football Authorities have left most top flight Clubs with little alternative other than to be ruthless and extremely selective. I agree the Analyst/Loan Manager position that has been mentioned represents an astute forward thinking innovation. Anything that assists our youth players to bridge that gap to the senior squad is to be welcomed. So, on a positive note, I see it as encouraging that Kettlewell and his team are trying to find a way to improve matters. But, hey, some will just criticise them instead as it fits their wider agenda. Add to that the sad fact that there is absolutely nothing Motherwell can do to stop top quality kids being poached by Clubs who are not operating under the same constraints as we are. And every team in Scotland is in the same position. No exceptions. In truth we have not done that poorly in comparison to others. The situation has been done to death on here but no matter the reality of the situation a few will always accuse the Club of being negligent or lacking foresight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 I'd also add that the Covid seasons put a huge dent in the progression of some of our youngsters. Many clubs scrapped their academies at that time, there were even less training and competitive match options for them, and little chance for being loaned out. I don't recall who it was, but I remember one of the coaches saying it basically put them about 2 years behind and their would be an inevitable drop in the number of players able to step up for a few seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dossertillidie2 Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 7 hours ago, steelboy said: I don't think that's the issue. The question is are we getting the most out of our players and is Ricky Foster really the best person for his coaching role? Regards foster. Something that I was confused at towards the end of the season was why was he and our academy director involved so much in first team duties? I noticed again last sat both were on the pitch and sidelines with the first team, who is looking after the academy games and players ? I believe Kettlewell has 2 other coaches and Friel on a match day. Why the need to bring in guys that should be developing our youth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 Maybe they were watching the youth players that were playing in the first team? I don't think it's that unusual to see all the coaches watching a first team game on a Saturday afternoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 8 minutes ago, weeyin said: Maybe they were watching the youth players that were playing in the first team? I don't think it's that unusual to see all the coaches watching a first team game on a Saturday afternoon. Aye. It also feels like having additional staff in the background watching replays, keeping an eye on live stats/information/replays to let Kettlewell focus on the game as well. They can then give him the information he's after to help better inform any decisions he wants to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 3 hours ago, dennyc said: I'm not a coach and only played the game to a basic amateur level but I believe some folk are losing sight of how big an ask it is for our youth players to make the huge step up to becoming a member of the of the first team squad. Not everyone is a Lennon Miller or Max Johnston........ and if we are honest it took even those two time to find their feet and have an impact. The skill can often be there but there is a lot more to being a pro footballer than just basic ability. Mentally and physically. I also don't know anything about Foster's ability as a coach but I am not convinced it would make that much difference whoever we had in that position. How a coach interacts with the kids is a factor though and the Club have a safeguarding responsibility which I have to believe means they would intervene if needs be. Said as an outsider with no insight whatsoever to the internal workings of the Club. Regards the kids that we let go, my reading is that Kettlewell and his coaches are not saying those released are not talented players but rather that the direct step up to the first team squad is too big a challenge for all but the very elite. The absence of a reserve team in which they can continue to develop in preparation for senior football is the issue rather than talent, willing or coaching ability. Finances and a lack of meaningful, supported strategy from the Football Authorities have left most top flight Clubs with little alternative other than to be ruthless and extremely selective. I agree the Analyst/Loan Manager position that has been mentioned represents an astute forward thinking innovation. Anything that assists our youth players to bridge that gap to the senior squad is to be welcomed. So, on a positive note, I see it as encouraging that Kettlewell and his team are trying to find a way to improve matters. But, hey, some will just criticise them instead as it fits their wider agenda. Add to that the sad fact that there is absolutely nothing Motherwell can do to stop top quality kids being poached by Clubs who are not operating under the same constraints as we are. And every team in Scotland is in the same position. No exceptions. In truth we have not done that poorly in comparison to others. The situation has been done to death on here but no matter the reality of the situation a few will always accuse the Club of being negligent or lacking foresight. People need to realise that in all reality the majority of the academy players on pro contracts are as good as they will ever get in footballing terms, and won't kick on to the 1st team. Good coaching can teach a player a lot but you can't coach basic ability into a player so let's face facts for every Turnbull, Campbell, Miller or Johnson there will be several mckinstry's, Hasties etc. The Motherwell model is develop 1 or 2 great talents and sell them on for a profit whether that is players we've signed ie Bair or home grown like Johnson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 2 hours ago, Spiderpig said: People need to realise that in all reality the majority of the academy players on pro contracts are as good as they will ever get in footballing terms, and won't kick on to the 1st team. I don't agree. In any sport the athletes are always better at 21 than 17. Keith Lasley was 21 years and 3 months old when he made his debut, we don't offer young players that opportunity to develop any more despite the the massive increase in athleticism in the league. Jack Vale was quite a limited player but was able to make a decent contribution for us because he had 6 years of professional training to develop him. We seem to be writing off promising boys after 2 or 3 years of training during which time we're sending them out to part time clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 4 hours ago, weeyin said: Maybe they were watching the youth players that were playing in the first team? I don't think it's that unusual to see all the coaches watching a first team game on a Saturday afternoon. Good point. I also imagine the Manager prefers all teams in the ladder to play a similar style to the first team to help kids transition across if and when the time comes. So it makes sense that our youth coaches would be involved in first team match days as well as assisting in integrated coaching sessions. Compare that to the distancing of the first team and coaches from the youth set up that Alexander established. And which was identified as a major cause of friction within the Club in the review that followed his departure. At least under Kettlewell the youth players can see a route to the first team squad, even if that step up is a huge ask. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 25 minutes ago, steelboy said: I don't agree. In any sport the athletes are always better at 21 than 17. Pretty sure professional sports coaches understand that. The facts still show, however, that rarely (if ever) have we released a 17 year old that went on to play at a higher level than us when they were in their 20s. Of course, there may be an exception from time to time, but I'd struggle to think of any youngster we released in the last 20 years that proved us wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, weeyin said: The facts still show, however, that rarely (if ever) have we released a 17 year old that went on to play at a higher level than us when they were in their 20s. Of course, there may be an exception from time to time, but I'd struggle to think of any youngster we released in the last 20 years that proved us wrong. And unfortunately finances dictate that clubs such as ourselves cannot currently afford to stick with youngsters beyond 17/18 purely in the hope they are late developers. Steelboy cites Keith Lasley but that was years ago and at a time when reserve teams existed for development purposes. For youngsters to be retained nowadays Clubs are looking for a greater likliehood of success than in the past. One we did stick with in more recent times was Barry McGuire. How did that work out? Pretty sure if I was to check back I would find that the folk that are now questioning the release of youngsters were outraged when McGuire was repeatedly kept on. More recently, Matty Connelly is another one that we have taken a gamble on. There too, only a few weeks ago questions were asked about his continued retention Like you, I cannot think of any youngster we have released (as opposed to having had poached) in recent times that has gone on to make a name for himself. The success of those we have opted to retain......Turnbull, Campbell, Miller, Johnston (even Hastie and Scott in their Motherwell careers) suggests the Club have more or less got the balance correct. Anybody looking for us to produce and retain four or five top players season upon season is just not being realistic. Also to be factored in is that there is a limit to the number of players we can employ. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 6 minutes ago, dennyc said: One we did stick with in more recent times was Barry McGuire. How did that work out? Pretty sure if I was to check back I would find that the folk that are now questioning the release of youngsters were outraged when McGuire was repeatedly kept on. More recently, Matty Connelly is another one that we have taken a gamble on. There too, only a few weeks ago questions were asked about his continued retention Maguire was 24 when he got his final contract. The previous contract was fine. Worrying about keeping two or three 20 year olds on when he we sign guys like Amalozour, Callan Elliot, Jon Obika and Ollie Shaw every year is a bit pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 47 minutes ago, steelboy said: Maguire was 24 when he got his final contract. The previous contract was fine. Worrying about keeping two or three 20 year olds on when he we sign guys like Amalozour, Callan Elliot, Jon Obika and Ollie Shaw every year is a bit pointless. So we either keep some extra 17 to 20 year olds knowing they are not yet ready for the first team and possibly never will be, or we take a punt on players that could be first team ready? Perhaps as we cannot do both we need to pick players who might just contribute right away. I agree re the quality of those recent recruits you mention, but who is to say it would have been those players we sidestepped to accommodate additional youngsters . Perhaps instead we would have passed on Furlong, Biereth, Bair, Vale and Gent. And over the years, those two or three you want to take a risk on soon become nine or twelve on the books. I assume you would be giving them all three year contracts as a minimum just in case we strike gold? I accept there has to be a balance and I would love to see more youngsters retained/ breaking through. But in truth do the Ross's, Ferrie, Wilson and Wells not meet your youngster requirement currently. And how many of them do you honestly believe are first team ready or will go on to have a top career? Are they to sit on the bench for weeks on end when what they actually need is game time, especially as we are paying their wages. We invested a fair amount in Maguire over the years. For what return? But you would risk repeating that two or three times each season. Harsh though it is, the Club have to make a judgement based on what the have witnessed up to age 17. Miller is light years ahead of them and was he was retained and is being given his chance to shine. To come back to the original question, please provide the names of those youngsters we have released who went on to prove Motherwell wrong in their assessment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 9 hours ago, dennyc said: And over the years, those two or three you want to take a risk on soon become nine or twelve on the books. I assume you would be giving them all three year contracts as a minimum just in case we strike gold? It would be quite simple to keep it to 2-4 with two year contracts. As for the cost it should be cheaper to pay young local guys than older players from further afield who have higher housing costs. As for 'name players who have went on to to a higher level'?. We don't need players for a higher level and they don't even necessarily need to be the best players in our squad. Just filling out our squad with players from the youth ranks is worthwhile. Football is like any other sport where if you cut young athletes off from professional coaching in their teenage years even the talented ones will fall by the wayside. It suits managers, coaches and senior players to have all the emphasis on the young player being solely responsible for their development. Managers don't want young players displacing their signings, coaches don't want to take responsibility for the end product of academies and senior players don't want to lose their job (there was more chance of hell freezing over on Sunday than there was of O'Donnell passing the ball to Kaleta). That suits their interests. I don't think it suits our interests as a club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 I don't know why people are questioning our Academy policy, financial constraints mean no reserve team, so the Academy is what we have. This means we bring in lots of promising teenagers and develop them over a few years, some get pro contracts the majority dont, and from those that earn a pro contract the majority of those won't make the grade and will be released. The few exceptional talents, will all get their chance at 1st team football ie McFadden, Pearson, Campbell, Turnbull, Johnson and Miller so over the years the policy has worked well for us If we get 1 or 2 making the grade from each Academy intake that's a great return, however the reality is the vast majority of them won't cut it and will be released, every club in the country operates in the same way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistAndShout Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 4 hours ago, steelboy said: It would be quite simple to keep it to 2-4 with two year contracts. As for the cost it should be cheaper to pay young local guys than older players from further afield who have higher housing costs. As for 'name players who have went on to to a higher level'?. We don't need players for a higher level and they don't even necessarily need to be the best players in our squad. Just filling out our squad with players from the youth ranks is worthwhile. Football is like any other sport where if you cut young athletes off from professional coaching in their teenage years even the talented ones will fall by the wayside. It suits managers, coaches and senior players to have all the emphasis on the young player being solely responsible for their development. Managers don't want young players displacing their signings, coaches don't want to take responsibility for the end product of academies and senior players don't want to lose their job (there was more chance of hell freezing over on Sunday than there was of O'Donnell passing the ball to Kaleta). That suits their interests. I don't think it suits our interests as a club. Come on, you were in the room when Kettlewell explained it all in depth the other night. You're just being deliberately obstinate now. Kudos for shoehorning in another dig at O'Donnell though, who was constantly talking to Kaleta when he was on the park. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 45 minutes ago, TwistAndShout said: Come on, you were in the room when Kettlewell explained it all in depth the other night. You're just being deliberately obstinate now. Kudos for shoehorning in another dig at O'Donnell though, who was constantly talking to Kaleta when he was on the park. He didn't really explain it all. He talked about the budget and the loan manager but not about how we coach boys that are out on loan and will be with a part time club 3 or 4 days a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistAndShout Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 1 hour ago, steelboy said: He didn't really explain it all. He talked about the budget and the loan manager but not about how we coach boys that are out on loan and will be with a part time club 3 or 4 days a week. They train with Motherwell as well if their loan club is part time, we've even fielded players in the Trust trophy who were out on loan in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuwell2 Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 16 hours ago, steelboy said: It would be quite simple to keep it to 2-4 with two year contracts. As for the cost it should be cheaper to pay young local guys than older players from further afield who have higher housing costs …………………and senior players don't want to lose their job (there was more chance of hell freezing over on Sunday than there was of O'Donnell passing the ball to Kaleta). That suits their interests. I don't think it suits our interests as a club. Re your first point, yes it would be cheaper but if you think you can’t develop the youngster much more but think you can develop the other guy and get a fee when he’s sold then the additional up front cost is worth it. Re point 2, I’m sure I read someone earlier this week saying SOD gave up passing to him as he looked so out of place - what was your view of what you seen? Kaleta cut out by SOD, Kaleta out of his depth/not good enough (some on here make their minds up quicker then others)or Kaleta not up to speed yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 9 hours ago, Stuwell2 said: Re your first point, yes it would be cheaper but if you think you can’t develop the youngster much more but think you can develop the other guy and get a fee when he’s sold then the additional up front cost is worth it. Re point 2, I’m sure I read someone earlier this week saying SOD gave up passing to him as he looked so out of place - what was your view of what you seen? Kaleta cut out by SOD, Kaleta out of his depth/not good enough (some on here make their minds up quicker then others)or Kaleta not up to speed yet. Having watched him on Tuesday night, Kaleta looks as if he's maybe not 100% match fit yet and still getting to grips with the pace of the game up here and looked quite tentative but was slowly growing into the game. Put 2 really good whipped in balls across the face of the goal that someone should really have got on the end of. Maybe needs a bit more time to settle in but given that, I think he'll come good eventually. Certainly got all the modern day attributes, big strong and fast so if he's a quick learner he should be fine. People forget he's a young guy living away from his family in a totally different environment from what he's used to and it will take time to adjust. Was never going to be a nailed on starter from day one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 2 hours ago, santheman said: People forget he's a young guy living away from his family in a totally different environment from what he's used to and it will take time to adjust. Was never going to be a nailed on starter from day one. You can't show compassion here, this is a football forum. WE. DEMAND. PERFECTION. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 On 7/31/2024 at 6:41 PM, steelboy said: I don't agree. In any sport the athletes are always better at 21 than 17. Keith Lasley was 21 years and 3 months old when he made his debut, we don't offer young players that opportunity to develop any more despite the the massive increase in athleticism in the league. Jack Vale was quite a limited player but was able to make a decent contribution for us because he had 6 years of professional training to develop him. We seem to be writing off promising boys after 2 or 3 years of training during which time we're sending them out to part time clubs. I agree and I also think that players who are great at youth level don't always make it at first team level and players who didn't stand out at youth level can sometimes go on and have very good careers as pros. The point is you have to give young players opportunities and stick by them. Football fans are so impatient these days but I think players like McFadden and Turnbull have give fans false ideas about what youth players should be. Those guys took to first team football straight away and left soon afterwards for big fees but that isn't exclusively what youth players should do. Sometimes youth players can be Lasley/Hammell types. Very good players that don't necessarily need to move on. They can be a Paul Quinn type. Some one that came in, made mistakes but with time became a decent player for us. They can be David Clarkson types, came in did well, had a bad spell, then came back better than ever. Or a Jamie Murphy, someone who struggled for a couple of seasons but eventually found his position and form. Another good example is Lee McCulloch who barely scored a goal for about 3 seasons then became our top scorer. Like I said, too many of us are looking for players who can come in and be sold immediately. That certainly helps the coffers but it's not the only reason for having youth players. There are guys out there that need two or three seasons of football to reach potential. We need to be patient, give opportunities and develop players who need development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 The ideal situation would be for a young player to come through, play 100 games for us and then be sold on for a decent fee, even if that is just the development fee. That way we get the feelgood factor of seeing one of our own come through, get the benefit of having them in the team and the icing on the cake at the end. Unfortunately modern football makes that much harder to achieve with the many variables that exist. Im hopeful we will get close to that with Lennon Miller. But players like him are becoming the exception to the rule. I do agree with Steelboy to an extent though, in that I dont view the risk on trying to develop a young player through the first team is necessarily that much greater than some of the lower league imports we have relied upon in recent years to fill our bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 7 Report Share Posted August 7 On 7/31/2024 at 9:23 PM, dennyc said: Like you, I cannot think of any youngster we have released (as opposed to having had poached) in recent times that has gone on to make a name for himself. Possibly Nicky Cadden. After a slow start in the lower leagues he has been playing at a decent level in England for a number of years and has just moved to Hibs. Not saying he's made a name for himself but he has been playing in League One which is either a similar or a better level than the SPL depending on who you listen to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted August 7 Report Share Posted August 7 1 minute ago, Mad Dog said: Possibly Nicky Cadden. After a slow start in the lower leagues he has been playing at a decent level in England for a number of years and has just moved to Hibs. Not saying he's made a name for himself but he has been playing in League One which is either a similar or a better level than the SPL depending on who you listen to. Cadden is a decent shout regards someone who went on to earn a decent living in football. Was certainly well thought of wherever he played. The fact we have to go back some ways to unearth a released youth player that went on to have a good full time career suggests that decisions made by our coaches in recent years were pretty spot on. Maybe unpopular with a few, but correct. Those players that have a greater chance of success will always attract richer Clubs but there again there are very few that excel after choosing to leave our Academy. I still think Bailey Rice has a chance. Sam Campbell did have, but sadly a terrible injury took its toll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted August 7 Report Share Posted August 7 7 hours ago, Mad Dog said: Possibly Nicky Cadden. Nicky Devlin is at Aberdeen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.