The conundrum that is Naismith

[LondonBristolian]

19 hours ago, billywedlock said:

There is too much pressure on Naismith , he’s not a central CB and should not be our last man . He is no Webster and looks a liability in this position . He’s trying to be too clever , some might say brave , but it’s a litany of errors . I like that we are trying to play out from the back , but not like this . He is being targeted as an error waiting to happen . 

solutions are harder to find , maybe kalas will help as a stronger defender so Naismith can go left . Today was about many issues not just Naismith but this is a precise thread on him 

I don't think it is necessarily about where the three line up. I suspect Naismith will stay in the middle - especially as Atkinson has done well this season (if not yesterday) - but another defender acting as cover can get from RCB to the centre as needed easily enough with a bit of positional discipline and awareness. The issue for me is that none of our three central defenders are natural "cover" players and all arguably play better when someone else is available to cover for them and we either need one of the three to learn that role or switch things a little, but that depends on Kalas being fit - which he obviously isn't. 

[Slippin cider]

Naismith is crap/brilliant…..sums it up really….

[Davefevs]

17 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Having seen Wilson in pre-season and his cup/cameo appearances, he looks far too weak for this division.

I can see why he's not been playing and his subs appearance today did him no favours imo.

It was disappointing all round today with several players having shockers - Sykes was piss poor, Naismith was slow with the ball, hangs on to it too long with one touch to many, Weimann was anonymous and had no effect on the game, Conway got beaten up and was ineffective  (at least he comes back for more and will learn a lot from the last couple of games), I think Vyner switched off on a few occasions but was very good at other times, Atkinson had a very quiet game, and Williams looked poor for most of the game - been disappointed with him so far this season.

Scott, Dasilva and Wells played well and Bentley was ok apart from his usual dodgy distribution. 

People saying NPs subs were odd, the reality is that the team needed shaking up, we were never in control of that game at any time and it needed a huge shake up and a wake up to some players.

 

Thought Wilson was excellent in a couple of pre-season games I saw on Robinstv but rolled his ankle in the Exeter game I watched live. 

[bcfc01]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Thought Wilson was excellent in a couple of pre-season games I saw on Robinstv but rolled his ankle in the Exeter game I watched live. 

He was very good against a sub-par Cheltenham team who were extremely passive and I wouldn't say he had a great game against Portsmouth. I watched both games on RobinsTV not live which does present a different perspective tbh. But its fair to say that I'm not convinced by him, if he proves me wrong I'd be more than happy.

Personally, I'd much prefer Tanner in that position even though he's not really a wing back (like Sykes).

[bcfc01]

2 hours ago, Offside said:

We were horribly exposed at times yesterday in the first half - QPR exploited our lack of pace at the back. 

As for Naismith, what worries me the most is sometimes his passes are so easily cut out (like the one that led to Norwich’s second goal) and then there is a gaping hole. This is part of a wider problem. If Naismith is going to surge forward, someone has to cover him. Also yesterday it was most of the team’s bad passing that got us into trouble - I think is was a poor pass from Weimann that was intercepted in the build up to their first goal. Our decision making has to be better. 

I think the way that we play is very entertaining and exciting when the players are on song.

When we have four or five players having mares, it's always going to be a car crash.

Hopefully, a few lessons learnt and a few bollockings given will get it sorted for the Coventry game.

For me, Naismith has to be told not to hang on to the ball for too long or take the extra touches which enables the opposition to close him and others down. If he can get that out of his system maybe the errors would be minimised.

[cidered abroad]

45 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

He was very good against a sub-par Cheltenham team who were extremely passive and I wouldn't say he had a great game against Portsmouth. I watched both games on RobinsTV not live which does present a different perspective tbh. But its fair to say that I'm not convinced by him, if he proves me wrong I'd be more than happy.

Personally, I'd much prefer Tanner in that position even though he's not really a wing back (like Sykes).

Tanner. Where is he? Still not fully fit after last season's injury?

Something that I remember NP saying a while ago was they are working with him. Could that be with a position change in mind? Right Wing Back? One who is more defensively equipped than Sykes? It would reduce our attacking threat but could be one of the solutions to our defensive problems?

[Taylor10]

4 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I agree we have few options now. I can see positives in Naismith's game, so, if we had Kalas & Klose fit as a central defensive unit, I do wonder if midfield might be tried.  Hopefully, it would be a more of a Sergio Ramos experiment than a Richard Foster one!  

Ultimately, you could see yesterday confidence drained away from the back line after that first goal, and when you get nervous about the players around you, you make mistakes.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd like to see a player who can establish a proper defensive screen in front of the central defenders. James is as near as we've got to that IMO, but of course, was unavailable yesterday. 

I think if we changed system it would be more likely to see him there.

I agree though I feel as though we don’t have much protection from midfield. I’ve not actually been impressed with James, however he seems to hold his position well and as you say he’s as near as we have to a defensive midfielder as such. I think overall we look more solid when he plays alongside Scott but lack mobility. Horses for courses I guess!

[GrahamC]

27 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Tanner. Where is he? Still not fully fit after last season's injury?

Something that I remember NP saying a while ago was they are working with him. Could that be with a position change in mind? Right Wing Back? One who is more defensively equipped than Sykes? It would reduce our attacking threat but could be one of the solutions to our defensive problems?

He was on the bench yesterday, he was at Burnley & Norwich, too.

My understanding is that we have used him in training as a RCB (think he played there at Wycombe, too) as we have no CB cover with Klose & Kalas unavailable.

[Numero Uno]

On 02/10/2022 at 15:54, LondonBristolian said:

I don't think it is necessarily about where the three line up. I suspect Naismith will stay in the middle - especially as Atkinson has done well this season (if not yesterday) - but another defender acting as cover can get from RCB to the centre as needed easily enough with a bit of positional discipline and awareness. The issue for me is that none of our three central defenders are natural "cover" players and all arguably play better when someone else is available to cover for them and we either need one of the three to learn that role or switch things a little, but that depends on Kalas being fit - which he obviously isn't. 

Although many people either won't see it or refuse to see it Vyner was on the cover for Naismith more than you might think on Saturday. The most obvious example being when Naismith gave the ball away and Vyner's recovery tackle literally prevented a forty-yard free run in on goal by QPR forwards with nobody to stop them bar Bentley. On current form, Vyner is the first defender on the team sheet without question - people may justifiably think that fact sums us up defensively right now, but it is a fact regardless.

[Steve Watts]

Sadly I think Naismith had his best half for us after half time today. At times in the first half he was so bad that Coventry were playing through balls to him.

If the mistakes he makes were made by Zak Vyner the place would be toxic.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Steve Watts said:

Sadly I think Naismith had his best half for us after half time today. At times in the first half he was so bad that Coventry were playing through balls to him.

If the mistakes he makes were made by Zak Vyner the place would be toxic.

I think that’s very unfair.  Was he really that bad?  I recall he got one pass back from King that he didn’t need / want, and lost it trying to play to Vyner before he got closed down…but it was him that recovered well, got himself into position to block the attack.  There was another where I think he fouled their striker after he’d been dropped in the shit (can’t remember who by), but he did it in such a way that the ref couldn’t see and he moved away with the ball.

I’m seeing so much “if it was Vyner….” stuff, I think some people are over-focussing on every little thing that isn’t perfect about the way he plays…and ignoring anything decent he does.  Vyner is irrelevant to the debate imho.

 

[NorthBris_Southstand]

Last night to me highlighted the differences between having a high risk/low risk player in that middle of the defense. In previous games we have been more able to cut lines/play through the middle due to Naismith's willingness to take a risk in stepping out or playing a through ball to cut the lines in the middle of the park. As has been noted many times, this has a propensity to go wrong and give away good chances to the opposition, but on the other hand it makes us more incisive in attack (High risk/high reward). Compare that to when King played in that role tonight who very much took a low risk approach to the role and meant that as a team we were constantly playing from one side of the pitch to the other trying to get around coventry rather than through (hence the 40+ crosses), low risk passes which didn't give away as many opportunities but also we struggled to create anything clear cut ourselves.

Obviously this is just an observation on one position and the team as a whole didn't function as well as it has done in attack tonight, but as mentioned before on this thread, that risk-taking from deep has been a feature of the good and bad in our play this season, if Naismith is injured for a few games that will certainly change the way we operate.

[Steve Watts]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think that’s very unfair.  Was he really that bad?  I recall he got one pass back from King that he didn’t need / want, and lost it trying to play to Vyner before he got closed down…but it was him that recovered well, got himself into position to block the attack.  There was another where I think he fouled their striker after he’d been dropped in the shit (can’t remember who by), but he did it in such a way that the ref couldn’t see and he moved away with the ball.

I’m seeing so much “if it was Vyner….” stuff, I think some people are over-focussing on every little thing that isn’t perfect about the way he plays…and ignoring anything decent he does.  Vyner is irrelevant to the debate imho.

 

There were some good decisive pieces of defending, which I applauded and gave him credit for, but it's the same mistakes all the time that he's making.  He needs to take far fewer risks with the ball.  The reason it's being focused on is because the mistakes that he does make tend to occur in an area of the pitch that puts us in trouble.

I also don't think the Vyner references are irrelevant.  They have no impact on Naismiths mistakes, true, but the situation is very similar and therefore comparisons are completely relevant.  Vyner, prior to this season, would make the same mistake over and over again and it gets costly.  The same thing is happening with Naismith.  And it's still true that as soon as Vyner makes a mistake the crowd are quick to jump on him, irrespective of the fact that he's turned it round massively.  That hasn't been the same with Naismith who, at his age, really shouldn't be making the mistakes he makes.  The issue we have is that we have no opportunity to take him out of the spotlight at the moment such is the lack of real options with Klose and Kalas out. 

[BigAl&Toby]

1 hour ago, Steve Watts said:

There were some good decisive pieces of defending, which I applauded and gave him credit for, but it's the same mistakes all the time that he's making.  He needs to take far fewer risks with the ball.  The reason it's being focused on is because the mistakes that he does make tend to occur in an area of the pitch that puts us in trouble.

I also don't think the Vyner references are irrelevant.  They have no impact on Naismiths mistakes, true, but the situation is very similar and therefore comparisons are completely relevant.  Vyner, prior to this season, would make the same mistake over and over again and it gets costly.  The same thing is happening with Naismith.  And it's still true that as soon as Vyner makes a mistake the crowd are quick to jump on him, irrespective of the fact that he's turned it round massively.  That hasn't been the same with Naismith who, at his age, really shouldn't be making the mistakes he makes.  The issue we have is that we have no opportunity to take him out of the spotlight at the moment such is the lack of real options with Klose and Kalas out. 

I agree with a lot of this. Naismith isn’t anywhere near as good as he seems to think he is.

Some moments of excellence that might grace the Premier League are all too often overshadowed by moments that wouldn’t look out of place up on the Downs……

He wants the ball from Capn Dan. Capn Dan rolls the ball to him. Kal takes it forward. He stops. He plays it short. He launches it long. **** me. It’s coming back….

If he had cover directly behind him - K or K - then it might well work.

As it is I think he’s been found out and what he might have - and did - get away with to some extent earlier in the season isn’t happening anymore.

And yet Capn Dan and Kal persist. Perhaps they know best…

[AppyDAZE]

15 minutes ago, BigAl&Toby said:

I agree with a lot of this. Naismith isn’t anywhere near as good as he seems to think he is.

Some moments of excellence that might grace the Premier League are all too often overshadowed by moments that wouldn’t look out of place up on the Downs……

He wants the ball from Capn Dan. Capn Dan rolls the ball to him. Kal takes it forward. He stops. He plays it short. He launches it long. **** me. It’s coming back….

If he had cover directly behind him - K or K - then it might well work.

As it is I think he’s been found out and what he might have - and did - get away with to some extent earlier in the season isn’t happening anymore.

And yet Capn Dan and Kal persist. Perhaps they know best…

A bit harsh on DB. This is clearly the way the manager is asking them to play, and to be fair, Bentley is making a lot of good saves and playing well this season.

[Northern Red]

[Negan]

7 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Worst defensive display of the season and he’s not involved. He might make mistakes yes but they are individual ones. Today was just abysmal across the whole back line. However what do you expect when putting Andy king back there 

[Northern Red]

Just now, Negan said:

Worst defensive display of the season and he’s not involved. He might make mistakes yes but they are individual ones. Today was just abysmal across the whole back line. However what do you expect when putting Andy king back there 

Worst attacking display as well. I don't think that's coincidence.

[eardun]

4 minutes ago, Negan said:

Worst defensive display of the season and he’s not involved. He might make mistakes yes but they are individual ones. Today was just abysmal across the whole back line. However what do you expect when putting Andy king back there 

Shouldn’t be underestimated how much responsibility Naismith takes on organising our defence. 

[joe jordans teeth]

I think the argument is dead in all honesty,he might give us all a heart attack at times but without him the team breaks down,no bringing the other teams midfield onto us left us humping it

[Jeez]

So we can now agree we’re a worse team without Naismith.

Many calling for him to be dropped in the thread with good few of us that could see what he brings despite the errors.

[M.D]

11 minutes ago, Jeez said:

So we can now agree we’re a worse team without Naismith.

Many calling for him to be dropped in the thread with good few of us that could see what he brings despite the errors.

I agree, we also missed James yesterday, we are a different side without them two and also Scotty..

[Super]

We struggle defensively with or without him. That's obvious.

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Jeez said:

So we can now agree we’re a worse team without Naismith.

Many calling for him to be dropped in the thread with good few of us that could see what he brings despite the errors.

3 hours ago, M.D said:

I agree, we also missed James yesterday, we are a different side without them two and also Scotty..

I’ve often said that being able to play one or two better players makes a big difference to when you have to play one or two worse players….that really what Nige meant when he said his squad lacked depth.

Both James and Naismith are organisers.  We missed that yesterday.  King couldn’t fill that gap yesterday.

[Jerseybean]

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/kal-naismith-at-bristol-city-how-has-it-gone-so-far-what-issues-does-he-face-whats-next/
 

[Davefevs]

 

[Son of Fred]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread with thoughts of everyone (hopefully) being fit post world cup.

With Naismith clearly a defensive vortex,,yet bringing much to the side generally it's for me obvious,if selected,that he can't be positioned in what clearly will still be a back three.

So,do we go 3-1-4-2 with Naismith in front of the three??

I'd prefer to see him on the left of a 3-5-2, Pring & Tanner as wing backs, Naismith sitting inside of Pring - Kai's decent bringing the ball forwards, tackling back and would add a bit of bite - with less likelihood of him being exposed.

With Atkinson left of the three behind Pring & Naismith I'd say looks very solid - hopefully getting more quality on the ball into the box. - sorry Jay!

Edited November 8, 2022 by Son of Fred

[Firstyardleftinbed]

It's a tricky one, having Naismith in the middle of the three does make us more vulnerable defensively as he's ok in the air but not great and can make mistakes. However, in the middle I think he's better placed to make the passes that will set up our attacks. We just need to not be so predictable with it and not have him start every attack, that way teams will push two men on to him (like QPR and Norwich) and it'll be impossible to get out.

It might be worth trying him in midfield but I have a feeling he won't be any where near as effective getting the ball with his back to goal and would end up dropping so deep he'd end up on top of the back 3 or 4

Edited November 8, 2022 by Firstyardleftinbed

[Red Army 75]

I know he has made mistakes. But with him in our side I feel so much more confident we are going to win games. Glad he’s back we have missed him 

[Garland-sweden]

He played well today.