Naismith? Thoughts?

[tim cahill]

I never said he was ****, I said he shouldn't play ahead of Fellaini. I stand by that. Our best team includes fellaini behind Jelavic.

I'm not sure if it does while Gibson is out.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

****....

But so was Pienaar when he started.

 

[BleedBlue]

I'm not sure if it does while Gibson is out.

It doesn't. gibson out fellaini got to play cm

 

[Brennan]

Naismith won't play behind the striker because Fellaini does that and he's a better footballer then Naismith will ever be.

So however he could play there is irrelivant to judging his worth as an everton player. Our strongest team doesn't have Naismith in, he's useful cover and that's all.

Yes, but you don't declare a player crap because of performances in a position that he's not best in.

That would be like Real buying Rooney and playing him at defensive mid then people declaring him crap. Naismith played at Rangers either up front or alongside/behind Jelavic, and Jelavic said he's a fantastic player.

That's why there's a difference between slating performances and slating a player's overall ability.

Oh, and Fellaini has had mixed results behind Jelavic imo, he was gash against West Brom and shocking against Wigan until he was moved back to his best position.

 

[Allezfan]

I don't think he's been as bad as people have been making out. He's had some decent games and some poorer games. Don't think he's used to playing where he has been though and obviously he's new to the league. He's a squad player for us at present, we have players unavailable and Fellaini is needed in a deeper roll. Don't see why he wouldn't play there if it's his best position and we're short.

I think we'd really miss Fellaini's aerial power if we dropped him back.

The question is which position we'll miss him in the most. I've been debating it all season, Leeds had me convinced we needed Fellaini up top more than we needed him further back, Osman and neville's performances have half convinced me other wise.

Going with Neville and Fellaini, sitting behind Naismith and Jelavic with Oviedo and Mirallas on the wings might work to shackle gerrard who will run riot if up against osman and neville but at home I'd rather not neuter our own attacking threat like that.

 

[Allezfan]

"fellaini does that better"

we don't know that because naismith has never played there.

He played there for Rangers. If he was a better player than Fellaini they wouldn't have sucha poor record in europe.

 

[toffee-fellaini]

I'm not judging him until I've seen a youtube clip with all his goals in.

 

[Roztitute]

I get why people think he seems semi-gash, but I'll reserve judgement for a bit. I do think he is a proper grafter, doesn't stop running, and is good at linking up with Jelavic. However, Felli is superior to him behind the striker, which pushes him out wide right perhaps, where I'd say he is less effective. Naismith will be used to derby pressure, he was great in some of the Old Firm games - not sure whether that makes a difference mind.

 

[tim cahill]

I think we'd really miss Fellaini's aerial power if we dropped him back.

The question is which position we'll miss him in the most. I've been debating it all season, Leeds had me convinced we needed Fellaini up top more than we needed him further back, Osman and neville's performances have half convinced me other wise.

Going with Neville and Fellaini, sitting behind Naismith and Jelavic with Oviedo and Mirallas on the wings might work to shackle gerrard who will run riot if up against osman and neville but at home I'd rather not neuter our own attacking threat like that.

That's assuming Naismith won't offer us an attacking threat though. Jelavic seemed to like playing with him, he must have something.

 

[Allezfan]

Yes, but you don't declare a player crap because of performances in a position that he's not best in.

You can declare a player useless though.

Bily was useless to us because we needed a winger and he couldn't play there. He was a fine player but was of no use to us because we needed him to play a position he couldn't. Beckford was the same, we needed a lone striker and beckford couldn't play without a partner so he was useless to us while still being a very good player.

If naismith can only play in Fellaini's role than he's of no use to us because we have that position covered, where we want naismith to play is out wide.

 

[Allezfan]

That's assuming Naismith won't offer us an attacking threat though. Jelavic seemed to like playing with him, he must have something.

I think he'll offer less than Fellaini purely because the latter offers such an outlet for us with his workrate and aerial threat.

 

[tim cahill]

I get why people think he seems semi-gash, but I'll reserve judgement for a bit. I do think he is a proper grafter, doesn't stop running, and is good at linking up with Jelavic. However, Felli is superior to him behind the striker, which pushes him out wide right perhaps, where I'd say he is less effective. Naismith will be used to derby pressure, he was great in some of the Old Firm games - not sure whether that makes a difference mind.

It does for me. Some players get what these games are about more than others, Cahill for example. I've just got a feeling he could grab a goal for us.

 

[HSD]

He just doesn't seem like anything exciting to me. Which is bad. My brain just doesn't go 'YEY' when I hear name.

Time will change that though, I'm sure.

 

[tim cahill]

I think he'll offer less than Fellaini purely because the latter offers such an outlet for us with his workrate and aerial threat.

There's nothing wrong with Naismith's workrate but admittedly he won't have the same aerial threat. Although Fellaini will still be around for corners.

I just think me'd miss him more in a deeper position.

 

[tim cahill]

He just doesn't seem like anything exciting to me. Which is bad. My brain just doesn't go 'YEY' when I hear name.

Time will change that though, I'm sure.

A goal on Sunday would change that!