Kal Naismith @ Rotherham | Page 3 | Vital Football

Kal Naismith @ Rotherham

It is noticeable that none of those writing off Naismith claim they saw a poor performance the other night.
I'm guessing that's because they didn't.
So they are in fact writing off a player they haven't seen in a competitive game wearing a Latics shirt.
That's a bit weird don't you think?
I'm with KDZ & Moonay on this one.
 
Made in Wigan said:
Be careful Jeff. Whilst you're clearly right he shouldn't have been signed, I stated similar months ago when he was, outlining why and the place went into meltdown. I'd give the lad some slack because he's not a left back, but seem to recall some of the rose tinted brigade stating Cook believed he could play there so was the best thing since sliced bread.

Bottom line - he's not good enough to warrant a starting place in a meaningful game and not good enough to make the bench barring injury and suspension to others. Why he was signed on a 3 year deal I have no idea as there is no way we could get shut given his salary.
Click to expand...

..You REALLY hate Kal Naismith don’t you?

Your fervent excitement at his alleged struggles against Rotherham practically bleeds through the screen. ?

He’s played one game - in an unnatural role. You cannot possibly judge his overall ability, good or bad nor his value to the team as a whole based on one game, no matter how much you think you’ve sussed everything out.

How about giving him a fair chance first, eh?
 
Last edited:
Capital letters in response to a post several days old - I think it's your own fervent excitement that's out of control.

Hate? No.

Think he isnt good enough for Championship standard football? Yes.
 
I don't think a single person has said 'Naismith was a good signing' or 'he will come good'. The defence of him is pretty much why condemn the lad when he's not played in his position yet and even top players for us stunk the place up in their first few games at a higher level. We signed plenty of players who had poor records who did great for us - the point isn't 'he's great' it's simply let's just give him a chance before we have him dead and buried.

For the record i think those critasising Naismith are more likely to be proven right about him, but lets just wait until he's had a fair chance and actually failed before we write him off. I suspect those eager to write him off will get to do that justifiably soon but why jump the gun?
 
HudWiganFan said:
..You REALLY hate Kal Naismith don’t you?

Your fervent excitement at his alleged struggles against Rotherham practically bleeds through the screen. ?

He’s played one game - in an unnatural role. You cannot possibly judge his overall ability, good or bad nor his value to the team as a whole based on one game, no matter how much you think you’ve sussed everything out.

How about giving him a fair chance first, eh?
Click to expand...
He doesnt hate the lad at all. He has given his reasons re his opinion on the subject and thats it.
It doesnt help the lad that when he plays, he is played out of position for some obscure reason and for a player who hasnt cracked any pots before at a lower level gets a three year 3 year contract at an higher level. Speaking out and having an opinion on that subject isnt hating a player.
 
But why have a pop at Naismith at all. Is it his fault we signed him, does he ask to be played in what is not his natural position. I think not. If you have to blame anyone, blame Cook, if you are brave enough. :computer:
 
This forum never ceases to amaze me. You pass observation on a player and suddenly they are being 'scapegoated' or having a 'pop'.

In regards being played at left back and not judging him there, I did say he wasn't one but the clappers were quick to seize on the coaches comments that he could be and was bought to play there. Now he has and its proven he isn't one they are now saying he shouldn't be judged there as it isn't his natural position. Make your minds up ffs.

In regards Cook yes he is culpable as it was clearly his signing. If he thinks he's a left back, when he clearly isnt, then his judgement should rightly be questioned. As I've said previously, the stark reality, whether people like it or not, is he isn't good enough to be in our first eleven and will only make the bench due to injury and suspension to others. Will he start tomorrow? No. Will he be on the bench? Highly unlikely.
 
My comments weren't directly aimed at you MiW and I appreciate your frustrations. I was merely pointing out in general terms that it is not the players fault he finds himself in this position and that comments from our own support during games is not helpful to the player giving his best.
 
MiW, passed observation?
You haven't seen him play!

Nor have I, but I know someone who went to Rotherham and
his opinion was that he was OK. The only flaw he noted was that whilst he put in some good crosses, he also put in some poor ones more often. So it seems his opinion on this one game that his full back duties where fulfilled.
Google may not have the full facts I'm afraid.
But I'll wait till I see him a few times before I pass comment one way or the other. why can't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.