Kal Naismith @ Rotherham | Page 2 | Vital Football

Kal Naismith @ Rotherham

Was that directed at me ?... I will assume it was .

I have never seen this player so can't comment on him but my point is nobody is allowed an opinion on any player if it's less than glowing. That's all....does that pass your criteria for posting ?
 
Well that's exactly it. We won't really get a chance to see him in his proper role because he is so far down the pecking order for an attacking midfield position. Will take a massive injury crisis.
 
Whatever the reasons for buying the lad, irrelevant of which position he might play, whether he's a "scapegoat" or not (and lets be fair, we've always had 'em), let's at least give him a decent crack of the whip, eh. That's all.

I've said before, neither Burn nor Byrne had the most auspicious of starts with us, but they've developed into two of our better buys. Nowt to say this mon can't do the same .....yet.
 
So basically what we now have is a forum where nobody can say a bad word about anyone without accusations of scapegoating surface...maybe some people can see things that you oh wise one are oblivious to....
No, but it does seem that some people have jumped on the anti-Naismith bandwagon since the day he signed for us. I am not saying players should not be criticised but it does seem he has been singled out and these very same people do have "form" in previous seasons. All I am saying is give him a chance to settle in.
But for a few slices of luck Dan Burn could well have been in the same situation when he first arrived.
It serves no purpose whatsoever for fans to have ago at players when they are on the field playing for Wigan Athletic.
 
Backing Kenny up MiW, I think the issue is around the writing off of any future potential or likelihood of improvement.

I've certainly no issue with criticising the poor performance of a player. The thing that gets my goat is the subsequent assumption - as if it were a logical link - that they'll continue to be shite.
 
The lad is 26 (and a half). At that age he is should be at his peak. That peak is not good enough for Championship football. Nor is there anything in his recent past to so suggest he is going to reclaim lost glories. That's the harsh reality, however unpalatable it is for those with 'form' for viewing anything or anyone associated with the club through rose tinted glasses. As he's no better and in all honesty worse than what we have, his signing is a completely illogical one.
 
The comparison with Burn is also nonsense. That lad was just 24 when he joined with experience of premier league and championship football behind him. He had pedigree and his best years ahead of him. Sadly he was under the management of a tactically inept and stubborn manager at the time and the initial impressions weren't good. Thankfully when he was able to play his natural game did we see those qualities he had shine through.
 
Hahaha. 26 .......and a half !!! Come off it MiW, you sound like you're still in junior school !

Regardless, are you seriously suggesting that beyond the age of 26, no-one is going to be able to improve their game. As for his signing, it's only "illogical" to those who don't know the reasons behind it .......... though I suppose on that point, I'm with you ......even though I'm not whinging about it.

As for the "tactically inept and stubborn (LEAGUE WINNING) manager", I take it that you're giving Caldwell no credit for his improvement.

I watched him in the Rochdale friendly when he first came, and I can honestly say that he looked like one of the worst centre halves I've seen ........ but I was wrong, and the decision of that inept manager to sign him was absolutely bang on.

Speaking of form, you've already done an about turn re Gibson. :yes:
;)
 
Re the half, when discussing footballers it's pertinent given their limited career length. He's only ever played one season, without excelling, at the level below. To be good enough for championship football then the improvement needed will be too big a jump. If we were still in L1 I wouldn't have an issue with his signing, but we're not so I do.

Am I giving Caldwell credit for Burns improvement? No.

No about turn re Gibson, I was half right, his fitness record isn't good. He's not even played 90 minutes and is out injured again unsurprisingly. What I did see I liked, but if I'm not going to see much of it then yeah it will be a pointless signing, though it seems we've reduced our liability by only giving him a short contract. In Naismiths case the lad is sitting pretty on a 3 year deal I believe.
 
You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Is your response not junior school childishness because you didn't like the answer?
 
Maybe mate .......... though some answers aren't necessarily just opinion. Some have an element of "right and wrong, or correct and incorrect" about them.

I guess we're hitting that "disagree" option again.
;)
 
Maybe mate .......... though some answers aren't necessarily just opinion. Some have an element of "right and wrong, or correct and incorrect" about them.

I guess we're hitting that "disagree" option again.
;)

It was based on the fact he was poor under Caldwell but improved progressively when he left. But ok if you think he improved him we'll agree to disagree :censored:
 
Oh come on
It was based on the fact he was poor under Caldwell but improved progressively when he left. .................

:wagging: Hold on a sec ................ given that he won PoTS in 16/17, if you're not giving GC with any credit, saying that Burn only improved after GC left, then you must be giving the credit to Yootha. :hmmm:

Surely not.
 
The comparison with Burn is also nonsense. That lad was just 24 when he joined with experience of premier league and championship football behind him. He had pedigree and his best years ahead of him. Sadly he was under the management of a tactically inept and stubborn manager at the time and the initial impressions weren't good. Thankfully when he was able to play his natural game did we see those qualities he had shine through.
My point about Burn was that he had a very poor start to his Latics career but fortunately he wasn't singled out like other players have been and but for a few slices of fortune his poor form could have continued a while longer, especially if supporters had got on his back. So no it is not "nonsense"
 
Burn was getting a lot of stick when he first signed. The majority of Fulham fans said he was crap and he got off to a very bad start. At the start he was getting criticised even worse than Naismith is now and i remember at Forest away he even got booed by a section of our own out fans when he got the ball for a spell after his mistake for their first goal. He was getting massive abuse on Twitter and even commented on that in interviews since. Fortunately Big Dan had the mental strength to come back from that and turn it around, but i don't think many players would be able to keep their head up when it must feels like the worlds against them.

I dont want us as fans to ever do that to our own players as it's so self defeating and increases the chance of failure. I think critasising on here is fair enough as unless the players are actively looking for it they'll not see it - in which case it's completely avoidable and their own fault. The people i want to think about what they are doing are the ones who could be shouting any abuse at the player at games or tweeting him on social media. I'm not suggesting anyone on here is doing that and i hope it's not happening much but any amount of it is massively counter productive. Even Cook has commented on some of the stuff he hears from some fans in the past so if Cook is getting any i fear someone like Naismith will be getting a fair bit.

As for age Perkins was 33 and hardly had a glittering career and failed at Blackpool but was immemse for us in his first year. So there are always players who suprise you.