Steven Naismith

[davek]

How is he deluded for thinking he deserves to be in the starting 11? It may surprise people, but players like Naismith get to where they are through hard work and belief in their own ability. Why would a player who has consistently shown that he's good enough to be in and around the first team since Martinez joined and recently scored a hat-trick against the Champions not be entitled to think they may warrant a place in the starting 11?

Not aimed at you now, but some of our fanbase in general because they have no grasp on the reality of the game. They think our team should be filled with 10 outfield classy players from defence to attack with no hardworkers and no players who are in the team to do a job. These people are the same people who then moan at Barkley and Lukaku for being lazy and not getting stuck in. Except when we do have those players who are very effective at what they do like McCarthy and Naismith they get accused of not being productive or skilful enough. These are the same people who moan at any opportunity and brought a poisonous atmosphere to Goodison last season and continue to ruin the match day experience for those who can appreciate that every player has different strengths to their game.

Naismith had a good game on Saturday and contributed a lot for the team. Constantly chasing down their players and retaining possession well mostly. That's what he is in the team to do and if he's not doing that he's scoring hat-tricks against Chelsea or scoring goals against other big sides (Man United away, RS at home, Arsenal at home for example). He's not always at his best but at this moment in time, i'd much prefer to see the grafter Naismith than a player like Mirallas who only plays for himself and has proven himself to be a liability in the 2 minutes he was on for the other day. How many times has Mirallas scored a hat-trick for us against one of the best teams in the country?

He's deluded to think and say out loud that he needs to be a starter for Everton. Apart from Lukaku I cant think of another player who could believe they're that crucial for the team that they see themselves undisputedly as starters. Not even Stones or Jagielka could now that they have adequate competition for their places (and neither of them - or Lukaku for that matter - would ever open their mouths and claim they have to be starting). It's arrogant and/or deluded for any Everton player to come at team selection issues in the way he has in recent weeks. If I was in that squad I'd be mightily pissed off that someone had opened their grid to underline what they feel to be their starting place credentials.

The feller's greatest skill is self publicity. I think 3/4 years experience of the way he operates at the club underlines that 100%.

As said, off the bench trying to poach a goal against opposition not preparing to set up against him from the off and he can produce results; in the team as a starter - he's easily contained and more of a liability for us. Once Cleverley returns he'll be sitting on the bench most games. Of that I'm pretty certain.

 

[davek]

Not saying he is 'poor' mate, but as far as a starter for us if we have ambitions of top 6 then he should just not be anything more than as sub, thrown on to inject energy when we are flat or have tired legs or as a wild-card to try change a flow of a game when needed.

To highlight him he scored 4 in the first 7 last season to get off to a flyer, 3 of those came against very good teams in Arsenal, United and Chelsea, he then proceeded to score 3 in the rest of the season total... Indeed one could point to him going out the starting line up as a massive reason we turned the corner after the low point against stoke - the six games after he was finally dropped from the starting 11 we won 5 and drew 1.

He is all wrong for the system we play, other players game with him 'generally' is dragged down and he stagnates attacks as he just isn't that good in possession for the system we employ.

Yeah their is always exceptions and the Chelsea game is exactly that, an exception to the rule, for every game like that their will be 5-6 others he utterly adds nothing besides a attacking player who runs hard and has a bit of a bite at the opposition.

Do i underrate him, yup i probably do, do others overate him though, most definitely they do mate, the league is littered with players like Naismith who do a job so to speak, if we hope to achieve anything though we need to move past such players as being anywhere near the first 11, regardless of if he has 2-3 really good games a season vs the likes of Chelsea and United etc whilst stinking out the majority of the games he plays

This with bells on.

 

[Ihaters]

How can you claim that a player has got so much skill, yet can barely find a team mate when making simple passes.

He is woeful. It seems that scoring 3 goals has somehow sent people into a trance.

Ive said this for a lot longer than the Chelsea game, yeah he makes some poor passes, but he makes a lot of good passes, and some awesome long range, along the ground through balls. Can shoot, tackle, harry and has a great first touch.

His short passing is normally pretty good, but he has his moments, and that's all you pick up, just those moments.. fair play, but you would see a lot more of the qualities if you stopped just looking for the faults.

 

[davek]

Ive said this for a lot longer than the Chelsea game, yeah he makes some poor passes, but he makes a lot of good passes, and some awesome long range, along the ground through balls. Can shoot, tackle, harry and has a great first touch.

His short passing is normally pretty good, but he has his moments, and that's all you pick up, just those moments.. fair play, but you would see a lot more of the qualities if you stopped just looking for the faults.

He can do all those things, yes.
I think the biggest and most substantial gripe, though, is that we play best at pace and he's too ponderous with his movement and passing.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I would generally agree that he isn´t technically up to the game we want to play, and slows down attacks horribly at times with bad touches and lack of pace or poor passing....but, to be honest that would be me judging him mostly on last season.

We obviously should always be ready to re-evaluate our players and give them credit when it´s due, and a player like Naisy will always be working to improve. So, having said that, I would be interesting if anybody would have his passing accuracy stats for last season and those for the season up to now to compare?

I dunno if it´s just me but I think he has improved, and it would be harsh to keep beating him with the same stick if he is improving

This season Naismith average pass accuracy is 77.7%, Mirallas who seems to be the one people want to start instead is so far on 78.6%.

Previous season Naismith 75%, Kev ~85%

http://www.whoscored.com/Players/15834/History/Kevin-Mirallas
http://www.whoscored.com/Players/9314/History/Steven-Naismith

 

[bluestevon]

I still don't buy this, I thought he played well on Saturday so I'm not sure where all of the negativity is coming from. He linked up well with Barkley and the rest of the attackers. He wasn't misplacing passes or having poor touches. His pressure on their defence resulted in a turnover in possession on more than one occasion that I can remember off the top of my head. His movement was very intelligent and creates openings for the better technicians in the team. The only criticism I could have of him on Saturday is that he didn't score.

He's having a decent early part of the season, exactly like he did the first 7 games last season mate, boosted massively by the hype from the Chelsea game mind you

As for the other, 76% passing against Swansea, 78% for him for the season, for an attacking midfielder playing in a possession based system they are shocking stats.

Also be itneresting to see the distance he covers in a game - as work-rate, movement are often quoted as to what he brings to a team, but the times i have seen things like Opta stats he is usually quite a way down the list, Barry surprisingly given the stick he gets nearly always tops just ahead of Ross (who himself ha sbeen slated by some for not working hard enough)

Will be honest mate, i think his movement is fantastically overrated and never noticed him pulling players around to create space for say Ross or Rom when teams come out defensively vs us at all. I have noticed a lot of the time him kinda standing in space waiting for a pass or moving into an area effectively killing any width when he has played wider, that IMO anyway is far more representative of the Naismith you get 9/10 times, the flip side is the other 1/10 you get the one who has a knack of popping up with a crucial goal.

 

[Lanolin]

I think naismith is one of that rare breed who somehow manages to both under and overrated at the same time.

Kone is seemingly going the same way judging by his thread. The main reason seems to be people mistakenly believing they're absolutely useless at first and then, when it becomes clear they're not as bad as you thought, magnifying their plus points to the extent their importance becomes grotesquely inflated.

Lucas at Liverpool is the undisputed king of this type of player, having gone from a pub player to the best defensive mid in the world as far as kopites were concerned.

In summary, naismith's decent but no more.

 

[BlueToff]

Naismith is at his best against teams who come out at us. He is very adept at picking up little pockets of space in the final third. But against team show sit back against us he usually slows things down a bit too much.

I think he played fine on Saturday, and due to injuries he was the right player to start in that role against Swansea away.

But when we face teams at home who are going to sit back against us, he's best coming on as a sub if we need to grab a goal in the last 20 mins.

 

[bluestevon]

He can do all those things, yes.
I think the biggest and most substantial gripe, though, is that we play best at pace and he's too ponderous with his movement and passing.

Spot on Dave, whilst in past times both Barkley and Deulofeu have been slated on here for not picking their head up and seeing the pass/run etc, something they have both improved massively on this season, Naismith doesn't have that problem, he has his head up and can see the run or pass and then simply cannot execute it, one of them is fixable, the latter one isn't you can't teach a 28yo to become skilful the way you can teach a 21yo to understand the game more.

Most of Naimsith's better games have come against sides which 1. don't press us much and 2. suffer from a lack of pace themselves so his is not exposed

 

[Efcjake]

Naismith has come on leaps and bounds since his first season, no doubt about it. In his first season you despaired to see his name on the teamsheet because he was less than ineffective he was a downright liability. He was forced out wide to the right by Moyes and during that season every thing seemed to just bounce off of him. He looked as if he couldn't trap a ball or play one either.

Fast forward to Martinez coming in and playing him in his proper position and we started to see the real Naismith. While he isn't going to be pulling tekkers out of his pocket to spin past defenders or be playing them proper "boss unlocker" through balls, he has shown a much more consistent overall game since. Naismith is a slightly lesser Cahill, if we'd had Naismith when we had Cahill I think the fans would hold him in close to that highest regard reserved for the blue kangaroo. They are very similar players for the position they play, while not the most creative they are definitely serviceable and more than capable of chipping in with a decent goal tally. What they both have as players is the ability to recognize the space that should be attacked and the timing and awareness to get there at the right time. We began to outgrow the need for that player as our playing style evolved and Cahill moved on. Naismith has rose in my estimations since his torrid start, but like with Cahill before we left, I just don't feel as if his contributions are important enough to the team as a whole to justify him starting over players I believe might offer more to the play of the team.

Against Chelsea must have been the first time I ever remember seeing Naismith score (or even shoot...) outside of the box.

 

[Lanolin]

Naismith has come on leaps and bounds since his first season, no doubt about it. In his first season you despaired to see his name on the teamsheet because he was less than ineffective he was a downright liability. He was forced out wide to the right by Moyes and during that season every thing seemed to just bounce off of him. He looked as if he couldn't trap a ball or play one either.

Fast forward to Martinez coming in and playing him in his proper position and we started to see the real Naismith. While he isn't going to be pulling tekkers out of his pocket to spin past defenders or be playing them proper "boss unlocker" through balls, he has shown a much more consistent overall game since. Naismith is a slightly lesser Cahill, if we'd had Naismith when we had Cahill I think the fans would hold him in close to that highest regard reserved for the blue kangaroo. They are very similar players for the position they play, while not the most creative they are definitely serviceable and more than capable of chipping in with a decent goal tally. What they both have as players is the ability to recognize the space that should be attacked and the timing and awareness to get there at the right time. We began to outgrow the need for that player as our playing style evolved and Cahill moved on. Naismith has rose in my estimations since his torrid start, but like with Cahill before we left, I just don't feel as if his contributions are important enough to the team as a whole to justify him starting over players I believe might offer more to the play of the team.

Against Chelsea must have been the first time I ever remember seeing Naismith score (or even shoot...) outside of the box.

Agree with the general point but I have to say the idea of Martinez recuing him and playing him in his 'proper position' is a bit of a falllacy. Firstly, if you asked him I'm pretty sure he'd say his proper position is as a striker. Secondly, Martinez has played him out wide just as often as Moyes did. Most notably last week, when he scored three goals.

*Alternatively, most notably could be when he played wide left at White Hart Lane and was actually laughed off the pitch by 35,000 Spurs fans - depends on your viewpoint.

 

[Efcjake]

Agree with the general point but I have to say the idea of Martinez recuing him and playing him in his 'proper position' is a bit of a falllacy. Firstly, if you asked him I'm pretty sure he'd say his proper position is as a striker. Secondly, Martinez has played him out wide just as often as Moyes did. Most notably last week, when he scored three goals.

*Alternatively, most notably could be when he played wide left at White Hart Lane and was actually laughed off the pitch by 35,000 Spurs fans - depends on your viewpoint.

I know he has played a fair bit on the wing under Martinez, but I think giving him the run of games as a second striker made him feel a lot more comfortable and gave him the platform to begin to start producing in matches.

Even when looking at the Chelsea goals, when you look at where he scored from he isn't in a wide position for any of them. He wasn't playing wide for most of the match, he was tucking inside to play Galloway on the overlap. It was much harder for him to get inside to those positions from the right-hand side (particularly under Moyes who wanted his wide players to stay wide) because he is naturally right-footed.

 

[bluestevon]

Agree with the general point but I have to say the idea of Martinez recuing him and playing him in his 'proper position' is a bit of a falllacy. Firstly, if you asked him I'm pretty sure he'd say his proper position is as a striker. Secondly, Martinez has played him out wide just as often as Moyes did. Most notably last week, when he scored three goals.

*Alternatively, most notably could be when he played wide left at White Hart Lane and was actually laughed off the pitch by 35,000 Spurs fans - depends on your viewpoint.

From memory he was actually having a decent game against spurs playing centrally and then got shifted onto the left when we brought (Barkley?) on second half?

 

[Lanolin]

Yes I'd say it was (at that point) about the best i'd seen him play for us. Couldn't understand the change.

 

[bluestevon]

I know he has played a fair bit on the wing under Martinez, but I think giving him the run of games as a second striker made him feel a lot more comfortable and gave him the platform to begin to start producing in matches.

Even when looking at the Chelsea goals, when you look at where he scored from he isn't in a wide position for any of them. He wasn't playing wide for most of the match, he was tucking inside to play Galloway on the overlap. It was much harder for him to get inside to those positions from the right-hand side (particularly under Moyes who wanted his wide players to stay wide) because he is naturally right-footed.

Aye whilst that helps his individual performance coming in centrally as opposed to having to stick wider under Moyes, it absolutely kills us trying to open up any team that sits back as we basically just get funnelled centrally and have no width, additionally it just gives even less room for Barkley to be able to either create or get a shot off as he's dragging in the fb with him