2026/27 Ins & Outs Discussion

[David]

25 minutes ago, purestate said:

I’d be happy to try unilaterally to have a squad with a lot of (Scots) youngsters getting a chance. 

That's exactly my thinking, which is why I'm not so quick to dismiss some of the players we have in and around the first team already. I do think we have set a very high bar as fans, where we're looking for Turnbull/Miller/Johnston levels otherwise we shouldn't be looking to retain them.

We're going to have fringe players. It's how it works for clubs our size who require a decent-sized squad of players. I'd rather those fringe players were our own youngsters than loans or free signings that aren't all that much better in reality.

[wellsince75]

I’m sure most fans would love to see more their own coming through and to be fair there’s a virtuous cycle re playing and promoting youngsters that will encourage better quality youngsters over time. 

There’s a balance to be found . I’m  up for youngsters going on loan which several have done . There’s an argument they’ll get ready faster for first team by doing this . The reverse must also be true where we get bigger clubs youngsters .

Not all youngsters will be good enough - not just for the first team but also the squad . If we’ve had a player who’s been with us for several years , been out on loan and still lacking I don’t really accept that because they’re young and Scottish that we should keep them in the squad . 
 

fwiw I personally think the club are doing a very decent job at getting the balance right .

 

[dennyc]

2 hours ago, David said:

 

Not every player needs to be someone we're priming to sell on for millions. Sometimes it's fine to have a Euan Wilson-type player who can plug gaps and fill in as and when needed.

This idea that if someone hits 21 and hasn't become Lennon Miller means they're not up to doing a job is crazy. 

I agree to a degree but to my way of thinking you look at each position, starter and back up, and look to upgrade where possible. From youth teams (ours and elsewhere) if possible for those back ups.. That way you achieve a constant uplift in quality on the pitch and on the bench.. And more likliehood that those bench players will elevate to first team regulars.

Regards Wilson, he has been with us for a good number of years and after a very promising start has shown little to no progress. Despite loan placements to address whatever deficiencies our coaches identified. So how long do we wait before looking to upgrade? Ditto Luca Ross I guess. And if we hold on too long, are we effectively missing out on others that might improve us?

Not saying it's easy or that some decisions are painful to make but eventually it will be to the benefit of all concerned to part ways.

Cue Wilson scoring the winner on Thursday.

 

[purestate]

16 minutes ago, dennyc said:

So how long do we wait before looking to upgrade? Ditto Luca Ross I guess. And if we hold on too long, are we effectively missing out on others that might improve us?

Yes. This is the dilemma.  
On these specific players I do think Wilson has shown enough to be the type of squad player we are talking about.  In this case we have both Williams and Longelo who would likely start at left back in almost every case but he could replace either if not available.  
Ross hasn’t, for me, shown / grasped his chance in any position.  Maybe he is an example of going out to lower league as last opportunity.  

Long may we have some coming through to have these debates. 

 

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, texanwellfan said:

I thought I read someone on here saying it was in competition rules but not sure if it was specific competition or all competitions

We need 8 in our squad of 25 for the Conference League.

[FirParkCornerExile]

Anyone think we are likely to keep Maswanhise this season as interest appears to have tailed off.

[stv]

8 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Anyone think we are likely to keep Maswanhise this season as interest appears to have tailed off.

Probably keep him, he has lost form badly, falling over with his hands in the air too often just get on with it . Give him that he really shouldn't be up front in the middle himself tho.

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, purestate said:

Ross hasn’t, for me, shown / grasped his chance in any position.  Maybe he is an example of going out to lower league as last opportunity.  

Sadly I have to agree. I've seen nothing to convince me he's got what it takes at our level. Against HB he looked lightweight and the game passed him by. There will now be other young lads knocking on the door.  

[johnstone]

3 hours ago, smiddy said:

Who was the other goalie warming up with connolly on sat ? Any idea ?

It’s the youth GK 

[Mad Dog]

29 minutes ago, johnstone said:

It’s the youth GK 

Jack McConnell, 18 year-old from Wishaw.

[David]

15 hours ago, dennyc said:

I agree to a degree but to my way of thinking you look at each position, starter and back up, and look to upgrade where possible. From youth teams (ours and elsewhere) if possible for those back ups.. That way you achieve a constant uplift in quality on the pitch and on the bench.. And more likliehood that those bench players will elevate to first team regulars.

Regards Wilson, he has been with us for a good number of years and after a very promising start has shown little to no progress. Despite loan placements to address whatever deficiencies our coaches identified. So how long do we wait before looking to upgrade? Ditto Luca Ross I guess. And if we hold on too long, are we effectively missing out on others that might improve us?

Not saying it's easy or that some decisions are painful to make but eventually it will be to the benefit of all concerned to part ways.

Cue Wilson scoring the winner on Thursday.

Look, I'm not saying Wilson is anything special. But he's 21 years old, he's closing in on 50 games for us altogether, and he's played over 100 career games in Scottish football. 

By my count, we have a decent number of defenders on the books, and throughout the season we'll see varying levels of availability depending on injury and suspension, so someone like Wilson could be useful to plug those gaps while also seemingly willing to not play for longer spells when availability is higher.

If we decide tomorrow that he's not progressed enough and we want to move on, who fills that gap? Do we pay money for a player to come in and fill that role? Or, more likely, do we find some random from down south with very similar attributes to Wilson to fill the gap on loan?

My guess is that the likes of JGR, JKL, Moormann and Williams aren't on buttons salary-wise, so having someone like Wilson as a somewhat versatile squad player, most likely on budget-friendly wages, isn't the worst thing in the world. 

My choice on when we'd upgrade from him is when another youngster comes through in that position, and we can then plug them in and see if their potential ceiling is higher. Is there someone in the youth setup who fits that criteria that could replace Wilson? If so, get them up and let's see how they do. 

Until then, I'd rather we kept Wilson than potentially find ourselves short if the injuries pile up, or go down the route of a loan who comes in and does absolutely nothing. 

On Luca Ross, I see from socials that he's just turned 20 years old. Are we deciding players are no good before they hit 20 years old now? 

As a comparison, Maswanhise had not played a single game as a senior pro by that age. Paul McGinn was heading into his first full season for Queens Park in the third division. 

Again, not saying either will become superstars, but we're getting awfully quick to want to pull the trigger on these kids these days.

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, David said:

Look, I'm not saying Wilson is anything special. But he's 21 years old, he's closing in on 50 games for us altogether, and he's played over 100 career games in Scottish football. 

By my count, we have a decent number of defenders on the books, and throughout the season we'll see varying levels of availability depending on injury and suspension, so someone like Wilson could be useful to plug those gaps while also seemingly willing to not play for longer spells when availability is higher.

If we decide tomorrow that he's not progressed enough and we want to move on, who fills that gap? Do we pay money for a player to come in and fill that role? Or, more likely, do we find some random from down south with very similar attributes to Wilson to fill the gap on loan?

My guess is that the likes of JGR, JKL, Moormann and Williams aren't on buttons salary-wise, so having someone like Wilson as a somewhat versatile squad player, most likely on budget-friendly wages, isn't the worst thing in the world. 

My choice on when we'd upgrade from him is when another youngster comes through in that position, and we can then plug them in and see if their potential ceiling is higher. Is there someone in the youth setup who fits that criteria that could replace Wilson? If so, get them up and let's see how they do. 

Until then, I'd rather we kept Wilson than potentially find ourselves short if the injuries pile up, or go down the route of a loan who comes in and does absolutely nothing. 

On Luca Ross, I see from socials that he's just turned 20 years old. Are we deciding players are no good before they hit 20 years old now? 

As a comparison, Maswanhise had not played a single game as a senior pro by that age. Paul McGinn was heading into his first full season for Queens Park in the third division. 

Again, not saying either will become superstars, but we're getting awfully quick to want to pull the trigger on these kids these days.

My view is we should upgrade all areas when the chance presents itself, first choice or bench. If that means the likes of Wilson lose out then so be it. But only if we can do better. Maybe Wilson will prove to be a late developer but given the chances he has had here and elsewhere I have my doubts. How long do we wait before trying someone new? Preferably from within as you say but if no-one presents themselves then look elsewhere. Someone who is less of a quality drop from the regular first choice. Someone who will push the player ahead of him to maintain his performance level. Someone who convinces us he can eventually perform at a high level.

Ross is at the stage Wilson was around a year or two ago. Failing to convince that he will prove good enough to ever command a first team place. Possibly has earned a wee bit longer but needs to prove he can contribute more when given the chance. We have stuck with players in similar situations in the past (possibly for financial reasons) and inevitably it does not work out. It's a tough and ruthless approach but we cannot retain players just because they are good guys who came through the Academy and give their all....... if their ability does not support our progression.

As a comparison,  Whyte has shown much more in his loan spell at Stenny and his limited first team minutes with us than either of the two under discussion. It seems likely he will grab his opportunity when it comes. Miller, Turnbull and Johnston from within as earlier examples. Priestman more recently from without.  So no Whyte upgrade and it meets the preference for giving youth a chance. I suppose it boils down to the quality of player I believe we should commit to long term and how long we should give a player to prove he has that quality.

As for Maswanhise and McGinn I take your point regarding their early careers.. But from a Motherwell point of view they delivered and contributed almost immediately. So it's not a like for like comparison. I should add 'when given the chance', because Maswanhise was hardly flavour off the month under Kettlewell. And It's not an age thing. If a player is not good enough we should move on....21 or 31 it makes no difference. 

[joewarkfanclub]

I do think the home grown quota thing makes a difference to these discussions.

Id have no issues including Booth or Whyte in Euro squads. Neither disgraced themselves last Thursday. But we need 8 homegrown in a 25 man squad, with 4 having to come from our own Academy.

I guess Wilson and Ross are going nowhere right now, regardless of what anyone thinks about their abilities.

[David]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

My view is we should upgrade all areas when the chance presents itself, first choice or bench. If that means the likes of Wilson lose out then so be it. But only if we can do better. Maybe Wilson will prove to be a late developer but given the chances he has had here and elsewhere I have my doubts. How long do we wait before trying someone new? Preferably from within as you say but if no-one presents themselves then look elsewhere. Someone who is less of a quality drop from the regular first choice. Someone who will push the player ahead of him to maintain his performance level. Someone who convinces us he can eventually perform at a high level.

And if someone of that level is available, happy to play that role at a club like ours, and their salary reflects said role, then fantastic. Until we find someone, though, I wouldn't be moving Wilson out, because we'd only need to scramble to fill that gap and would likely end up with another no-name loanee who passes through Fir Park as so many have in the past. 

I also think Wilson is pretty much past the stage of "getting a chance" with us. He's played almost 50 games. He's at over 100 professional games. He is what he is. Which, to me, is a decent enough fringe player for a club of our size. He's a fairly versatile left-sided player and can do a job when required. How many managers has he been here under now? He's also had three contract extensions, so the club obviously see something in him. 

The truth is, we're Motherwell, not Man City. We most likely can't expect to have many players coming here who are happy to sit on the bench and try to force their way into the team. That's why in the past we've gone for late loans along the lines of Osong, Hegyi, Plange, Dickson, Tavares, and Buyabu to fill those fringe player gaps. 

I'll take someone like Wilson or Ross over those types of signings every day of the week. 

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

Ross is at the stage Wilson was around a year or two ago. Failing to convince that he will prove good enough to ever command a first team place. Possibly has earned a wee bit longer but needs to prove he can contribute more when given the chance. We have stuck with players in similar situations in the past (possibly for financial reasons) and inevitably it does not work out. It's a tough and ruthless approach but we cannot retain players just because they are good guys who came through the Academy and give their all....... if their ability does not support our progression.

Ross has played fewer than 50 or so career games as a professional. Most of them came for Annan on loan. 

This has nothing to do with him being a nice guy (he might be an arsehole for all we know!), and it's more about the idea that we're in a position to give a kid who's just turned 20 years old and has played a small number of games for us the bullet for "failing to convince"? Jesus Christ, I know the standing joke is that we don't give players time to show what they have, but that's harsh in my book!

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

As a comparison,  Whyte has shown much more in his loan spell at Stenny and his limited first team minutes with us than either of the two under discussion. It seems likely he will grab his opportunity when it comes. Miller, Turnbull and Johnston from within as earlier examples. Priestman more recently from without.  So no Whyte upgrade and it meets the preference for giving youth a chance. I suppose it boils down to the quality of player I believe we should commit to long term and how long we should give a player to prove he has that quality.

Whyte is a different proposition altogether from what I've heard. There's talk of him being good enough to actually get into the first team and become a regular. That's a bit of an unfair comparison to a few guys who I have said are basically fringe players at this stage. 

You also mention Miller, Turnbull and Johnston. So that's the bar for a young player being considered worth a contract? You either have to be one of the top youngsters we produce in decades, or you're out the door and deemed not good enough? 

It seems if you were in charge, we'd have a squad of 13 players, because if someone is basically only good enough to be a backup, they're not good enough to retain. We don't need backups. We need a squad full of top-quality prospects and first-team-ready players, correct?

Absolute insanity. 

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

As for Maswanhise and McGinn I take your point regarding their early careers.. But from a Motherwell point of view they delivered and contributed almost immediately. So it's not a like for like comparison. I should add 'when given the chance', because Maswanhise was hardly flavour off the month under Kettlewell. And It's not an age thing. If a player is not good enough we should move on....21 or 31 it makes no difference. 

Yes, but the question is "good enough" in what way? And for what? If someone isn't good enough to be a first eleven player they should be moved on? Christ.

Anyway, I think we've both covered all our points, but I'm glad you're not calling the shots 😂

[dennyc]

28 minutes ago, David said:

 

It seems if you were in charge, we'd have a squad of 13 players, because if someone is basically only good enough to be a backup, they're not good enough to retain. We don't need backups. We need a squad full of top-quality prospects and first-team-ready players, correct?

Absolute insanity. 

Yes, but the question is "good enough" in what way? And for what? If someone isn't good enough to be a first eleven player they should be moved on? Christ.

Anyway, I think we've both covered all our points, but I'm glad you're not calling the shots 😂

And this shows me you haven't got a clue what I'm saying. I thought I was very clear but my bad if not.

Where did I say we should have a squad of 13?

Where did I say anyone not up to Turnbull etc standard should be shipped out? 

Where did I say anyone not first team ready should be moved on?

Where did I say players should not be given time to reach a standard?

What I did say, and I'll repeat it in the hope you get it, is that we should always be looking to upgrade where possible, from within or by recruitment. And that applies across the board, the entire squad which at last count was way more than 13.

As for Wilson, I haven't counted the number of games he has had. But if your figure of 100 is correct then the progress he has made in that time is disappointing. In truth he was a better player when he first broke through. In my opinion he has regressed but you are entitled to disagree as you clearly do.

 

[Yoshi-1991]

The fact we are this far along and there has been no sign of us getting the top end of the pitch dealt with is somewhat worrying. 

Would like to see at least 1 AM and 2 striker options minimum. 

[ropy]

Wilson is fourth or fifth choice left back at the moment (Longelo, Williams, Johnny K, possible SODs), it is a difficult role to recruit for, but due to injuries to all of these players he has needed to play and he has done fine.  I think we should be focussing elsewhere in the team.

[David]

22 minutes ago, ropy said:

Wilson is fourth or fifth choice left back at the moment (Longelo, Williams, Johnny K, possible SODs), it is a difficult role to recruit for, but due to injuries to all of these players he has needed to play and he has done fine.  I think we should be focussing elsewhere in the team.

He can also play further forward if needed, and also in the middle to the left side as well in a pinch. Like I said, a useful, low-cost option to have around.