Naysmith

[Davefevs]

45 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

Unfortunately reminds me of Sean Dyche's debut for us, he was built up to be a key signing and had a shocker first appearance. Let's hope he just had an off-day, personally I'd rather see Klose in the middle that's what helped us improve at the end of last season. Maybe play Naismith LWB and Jay could be available to play midfield. At least he's meant to be able to play most positions so try him somewhere else.

In Naismith’s case he had a very decent debut last week at Hull. Yesterday was error-prone.

Hopefully we will see Klose back in at RCB3 in our next game (Wednesday or Saturday).

@ExiledAjaxThink Dasilva played decently yesterday, but what you suggest isn’t his game really. Pring would be a different matter.  I will stand by my long standing view that Dasilva likes to receive the ball sideways or facing forwards, not with his back to goal.  It’s why if we play high starting positioned WBs you nullify some of Jay’s ability on the ball, it cuts down his options.

[RudiRed]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In Naismith’s case he had a very decent debut last week at Hull. Yesterday was error-prone.

Hopefully we will see Klose back in at RCB3 in our next game (Wednesday or Saturday).

@ExiledAjaxThink Dasilva played decently yesterday, but what you suggest isn’t his game really. Pring would be a different matter.  I will stand by my long standing view that Dasilva likes to receive the ball sideways or facing forwards, not with his back to goal.  It’s why if we play high starting positioned WBs you nullify some of Jay’s ability on the ball, it cuts down his options.

DaSilva isn't dynamic enough to play at wing back, most wing backs are aggressive, physical and direct and Jay is none of those things.

[Street red]

13 hours ago, Flagon said:

Naismith does seem to have a good pass in general play and good delivery from set pieces. Anyone know if he was corner taker / free kick taker for Luton?

Not sure on corners but definitely free kick taker at Luton hence our goal at hull last week.

[TBW]

Not impressed with him so far. 

- Gave away a penalty last week. 

- Gave away the first goal. 

- Got beaten for the third goal. 

- Lucky to not have given away a penalty in the second half. Looked stonewall to me.

Don't think his best spot is in the middle, with his crossing ability I'd much rather he was the left-sided CB.

That said, Vyner is worse. Playing them together doesn't look like it'll be fun to watch. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by TBW

[bcfc01]

4 hours ago, Fuber said:

Error for the goal, although I'd add there was no reason for Bents to play him that ball in that situation.

Didn't see the same pace issue everyone else seems to see, didn't seem any slower than Vyner, more the fact that Simm's is pretty rapid. Added to which both him and Stewart are very strong in the air - which showed today.

Personally would move Atkinson central, or put Klose in, and judge him when at LCB where he played for Luton where the aerial weakness is less of a problem.

Timm in a nutshell - also worth pointing out that same gate was shut while Naismith was alongside him, not replacing the latter.

I think he's just the player Naismith needs alongside him. They both communicate, which Kalas not Vyner really do.

If we could try converting Rob to the right, I really wouldn't mind a back three of Atkinson, Klose, Naismith. But that's highly unlikely due to balance.

For me, the strongest back three is Kalas, Klose and either Naismith or Atkinson on the left.

Balanced with two very experienced internationals/ex-internationals in Kalas and Klose.

If Kalas is physically fit, I'd play him against Coventry (if it goes ahead) and start him on saturday (I'd probably start him anyway if the Coventry game is off).

I'd be much more confident with K&K in the back three.

 

[Harry]

Our defending is awful at times. 
Naismith was one of many culprits yesterday. But I do have to question the roles the players are being asked to fill - and that comes back to Pearson and/or defensive coaching. 
 

For the first goal vs Sunderland, that’s just an awful error from a player. Some people have said that Bentley shouldn’t have played it to him. Why not? There was plenty of time for him to turn and pass, but he dawdled and chose the wrong option. A pass into HNM or wide to RA were both perfectly manageable. Bad error. 
 

For the 2nd goal, lots of people of pointed the finger at Vyner. I thinks that’s a tad unfair. Vyner was isolated one on one, in the box, against the striker, with no other defensive help near him - not even in the box! Ask yourself how we managed to get ourselves into that situation. It came from our own throw in. 
Atkinson took a throw - badly. We had RA, JD and HNM all 3 yards from the ball, in the opposition half, on the touchline! 
If that wasn’t bad enough, Naismith them comes tearing over to make it 4 players on the touchline. This left Vyner as the only player in our defensive line, with not a single team mate within 30 yards of him. A pinpoint pass from Pritchard (who’d got ahead of a sleeping Williams) had Vyner turned and running toward his own goal. Should he have done better once he got back - yes, possibly. But he had zero support, so whether Simms went inside or outside, Vyner was screwed. 
 

For the 3rd goal, Wilson manages to do his job and turn the wing back around, but Williams doesn’t come over quickly enough to stop the cross. Then Naismith gets beaten easily by Stewart. 
 

Let’s consider the penalty at Hull too. Naismith diving into a challenge in his own box, one that he was never going to win. Poor decision, whether you agree with the pen or not. 
 

I also noticed Massengo charge around too much, which a couple of times caused other players to be left running toward their own goal - for example see the chance which he ran into the opposite half to close a man, meaning Vyner had to come out to cover him in midfield, leaving an easy ball inside Sykes for the onrunning wing back, from which they had a cross blocked for a corner. I also noticed an example where Naismith came charging out to midfield up at Hull which led to Bentley having to make a good one on one save. 
 

The problems are coming from many of the same deficiencies. 
 

1) We signed Naismith off the back of his season playing at Left CB in a 3 or at LB in a 4. That’s where he played the majority of games for Luton over the last 2 years. 
I don’t understand why Pearson has decided to put him as the central CB. He’s not played there before. He had Sonny Bradley doing that role at Luton. 
The system we seem to want to be playing is one with high wing backs and a back 3. In that system, you need the central CB to be the solid, towering, dominant type. He needs to be the one who stays central and heads and kicks everything away. 
The other 2 CB’s need to be mobile enough to be able to cover the spaces that the high wing backs are leaving behind them. 
The final and most important piece of this particular puzzle is that you absolutely MUST have a sitting DM, one that can cover the CB’s when they have to go wide to cover the high wing backs. 
 

We seem to be playing a central CB (Naismith) who has never played there before, a winger (Sykes) as the RWB, thus giving more issues to the RCB, a LCB (Atkinson) who is not what I’d call mobile (he’s quick once he gets in stride but he’s awfully slow on the turn) and absolutely no semblance of a holding central midfielder. 
 

This is wrought with problems. It’s too easy to get down the sides. The high wing backs leave the space (as you’d expect in this system), but the wide CB’s have no mobility to cover that, the central CB is not dominant enough to deal with the resultant pressure and we have no DM to help cover anything. 
 

I’m sorry to say, it’s a huge problem. 
I assume we’re just making do til Kalas returns and hoping that Klose can play central, with Kalas right and Naismith left. 
But in the meantime, I’d much rather see Klose central rather than Naismith. 
I’d also much rather see Tanner as a more conservative wing back outside Vyner, so that he doesn’t get exposed as much. I’d rather see Wilson at LWB than Dasilva, as JD is just not quick enough on the recovery to play as a high wing back and he’s way too easy for the opposition to play inside his line and get behind. Plus he doesn’t actually offer very much on the attacking side of that wing back role (often gets decent positions but doesn’t have the quality of finish or final ball once there).  And we need someone, anyone, to sit deep in the midfield and provide cover when the CB’s are forced wide and not a midfield that play almost as high as the wing backs and leave a huge space between the CM and the CB’s. 
 

Sorry. But this has been very poor so far. Conceding 5 goals against 2 teams who most people would reasonably say are going to be bottom half at best, is not pretty. There will be much better teams than those 2 who will absolutely tear us apart if we continue with this. 
 

It does also make me wonder about what the joined up thinking is? We’ve signed 2 right backs and yet still play a winger/no 10 there. We’ve signed 2 left footed cb’s and having to play one of them in an unfamiliar central/sweeper role. We’ve signed a tall but slow and old CB and asking him to play RCB and be mobile! We’ve signed no DM’s despite this being the most glaring omission in the system we want to play. 
The same problems persist ……..

Edited August 7, 2022 by Harry

[Davefevs]

Made the same point re their equaliser…why was Atkinson taking the throw?

[Numero Uno]

20 minutes ago, Harry said:

Our defending is awful at times. 
Naismith was one of many culprits yesterday. But I do have to question the roles the players are being asked to fill - and that comes back to Pearson and/or defensive coaching. 
 

For the first goal vs Sunderland, that’s just an awful error from a player. Some people have said that Bentley shouldn’t have played it to him. Why not? There was plenty of time for him to turn and pass, but he dawdled and chose the wrong option. A pass into HNM or wide to RA were both perfectly manageable. Bad error. 
 

For the 2nd goal, lots of people of pointed the finger at Vyner. I thinks that’s a tad unfair. Vyner was isolated one on one, in the box, against the striker, with no other defensive help near him - not even in the box! Ask yourself how we managed to get ourselves into that situation. It came from our own throw in. 
Atkinson took a throw - badly. We had RA, JD and HNM all 3 yards from the ball, in the opposition half, on the touchline! 
If that wasn’t bad enough, Naismith them comes tearing over to make it 4 players on the touchline. This left Vyner as the only player in our defensive line, with not a single team mate within 30 yards of him. A pinpoint pass from Pritchard (who’d got ahead of a sleeping Williams) had Vyner turned and running toward his own goal. Should he have done better once he got back - yes, possibly. But he had zero support, so whether Simms went inside or outside, Vyner was screwed. 
 

For the 3rd goal, Wilson manages to do his job and turn the wing back around, but Williams doesn’t come over quickly enough to stop the cross. Then Naismith gets beaten easily by Stewart. 
 

Let’s consider the penalty at Hull too. Naismith diving into a challenge in his own box, one that he was never going to win. Poor decision, whether you agree with the pen or not. 
 

I also noticed Massengo charge around too much, which a couple of times caused other players to be left running toward their own goal - for example see the chance which he ran into the opposite half to close a man, meaning Vyner had to come out to cover him in midfield, leaving an easy ball inside Sykes for the onrunning wing back, from which they had a cross blocked for a corner. I also noticed an example where Naismith came charging out to midfield up at Hull which led to Bentley having to make a good one on one save. 
 

The problems are coming from many of the same deficiencies. 
 

1) We signed Naismith off the back of his season playing at Left CB in a 3 or at LB in a 4. That’s where he played the majority of games for Luton over the last 2 years. 
I don’t understand why Pearson has decided to put him as the central CB. He’s not played there before. He had Sonny Bradley doing that role at Luton. 
The system we seem to want to be playing is one with high wing backs and a back 3. In that system, you need the central CB to be the solid, towering, dominant type. He needs to be the one who stays central and heads and kicks everything away. 
The other 2 CB’s need to be mobile enough to be able to cover the spaces that the high wing backs are leaving behind them. 
The final and most important piece of this particular puzzle is that you absolutely MUST have a sitting DM, one that can cover the CB’s when they have to go wide to cover the high wing backs. 
 

We seem to be playing a central CB (Naismith) who has never played there before, a winger (Sykes) as the RWB, thus giving more issues to the RCB, a LCB (Atkinson) who is not what I’d call mobile (he’s quick once he gets in stride but he’s awfully slow on the turn) and absolutely no semblance of a holding central midfielder. 
 

This is wrought with problems. It’s too easy to get down the sides. The high wing backs leave the space (as you’d expect in this system), but the wide CB’s have no mobility to cover that, the central CB is not dominant enough to deal with the resultant pressure and we have no DM to help cover anything. 
 

I’m sorry to say, it’s a huge problem. 
I assume we’re just making do til Kalas returns and hoping that Klose can play central, with Kalas right and Naismith left. 
But in the meantime, I’d much rather see Klose central rather than Naismith. 
I’d also much rather see Tanner as a more conservative wing back outside Vyner, so that he doesn’t get exposed as much. I’d rather see Wilson at LWB than Dasilva, as JD is just not quick enough on the recovery to play as a high wing back and he’s way too easy for the opposition to play inside his line and get behind. Plus he doesn’t actually offer very much on the attacking side of that wing back role (often gets decent positions but doesn’t have the quality of finish or final ball once there).  And we need someone, anyone, to sit deep in the midfield and provide cover when the CB’s are forced wide and not a midfield that play almost as high as the wing backs and leave a huge space between the CM and the CB’s. 
 

Sorry. But this has been very poor so far. Conceding 5 goals against 2 teams who most people would reasonably say are going to be bottom half at best, is not pretty. There will be much better teams than those 2 who will absolutely tear us apart if we continue with this. 
 

It does also make me wonder about what the joined up thinking is? We’ve signed 2 right backs and yet still play a winger/no 10 there. We’ve signed 2 left footed cb’s and having to play one of them in an unfamiliar central/sweeper role. We’ve signed a tall but slow and old CB and asking him to play RCB and be mobile! We’ve signed no DM’s despite this being the most glaring omission in the system we want to play. 
The same problems persist ……..

Totally agree on the second goal. Should Vyner have done better? Of course he should have but the "I am going to blame everything on Zak" brigade are completely missing the point about that goal (most of them wouldn't even know what you were on about if you explained it to them). Naismith was 35 yards out of position having gone for a wander whilst rolling a fag, Sykes was 35 yards out of position answering a call on his mobile and Zak had to deal with a situation on his own that he should have dealt with better admittedly but one that should never have been a situation at all given we were 2-1 ahead and no need to stretch the game. 5-10 minutes of being compact and disciplined is what was needed not that pile of shit defending. It was literally Dog and Duck standard organisation and decision making from £10K per week pro's. People have every right to get the raving hump with it because we watch pro-football to see these well paid lads do things we can't do not make mistakes we WOULD do if we were out there!!

If Steve Lansdown called Nige and Curtis Fleming into his office and said "now, I'm no football expert but could you please explain what the absolute **** YOUR team that I pay YOU very good money to coach week in and week out were doing on that second goal?" they could have no complaints whatsoever. I would honestly go as far to say that you would have to go down to our Under 16's to encounter defending so lacking in basic professionalism and, worse, know how. However it's far easier to lump the whole blame on Zak Vyner...........when Vyner get's dropped and the same things are happening unless things change sharpish at the HPC what the **** are these people going to blame it on then?

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Let’s consider the penalty at Hull too. Naismith diving into a challenge in his own box, one that he was never going to win. Poor decision, whether you agree with the pen or not. 

To be fair to Naismith he said himself that he should not have gone to ground.

[Harry]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

To be fair to Naismith he said himself that he should not have gone to ground.

Yep. It was a poor decision by a player that isn’t used to being the central defender in a 3. 
That role is essentially the ‘last line of defence’. It’s very different to being a wide CB in a 3. He’s never played it before and I have no idea why we have signed him to play there. 

[ExiledAjax]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

In Naismith’s case he had a very decent debut last week at Hull. Yesterday was error-prone.

Hopefully we will see Klose back in at RCB3 in our next game (Wednesday or Saturday).

@ExiledAjaxThink Dasilva played decently yesterday, but what you suggest isn’t his game really. Pring would be a different matter.  I will stand by my long standing view that Dasilva likes to receive the ball sideways or facing forwards, not with his back to goal.  It’s why if we play high starting positioned WBs you nullify some of Jay’s ability on the ball, it cuts down his options.

I don't think Dasilva played notably badly. Didn't mean to imply that. If he wants to receive it in front or to the side then he or the coaches need to consider the angles he's making with the CMs and CBs. I presume you think he likes to receive it on the ground to feet rather than out of the air or where he runs onto a through ball (either ground or lofted). 

Regardless, I don't think he was being 'used' to the best of his ability in yesterday's game.

[Harry]

36 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't think Dasilva played notably badly. Didn't mean to imply that. If he wants to receive it in front or to the side then he or the coaches need to consider the angles he's making with the CMs and CBs. I presume you think he likes to receive it on the ground to feet rather than out of the air or where he runs onto a through ball (either ground or lofted). 

Regardless, I don't think he was being 'used' to the best of his ability in yesterday's game.

And that’s the problem. He’s being used as a high wing back and it doesn’t suit his game. 
However, he’s also not a defensive-minded full back. 
He’s somewhere between the two. It’s hard to nail down exactly what his best role in our set up would be. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Dasilva is a bad player, just that he doesn’t seem to fit what Pearson wants. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Harry