Who goes? You (don't really) decide!

[craig 5,199]

I don't agree that Naismith has shown more than Lafferty. Naismith has scored 9 goals in 3 years. Lafferty has scored 16 goals in 2 years. I'd say they've also probably started an equal number of games as a striker over that period.

 

And Naismith has been played up front even less than Lafferty has - decent comparison ? Not necessarily

[juffery 0]

The goalscoring stat is the least of my reasons for rating Lafferty over Naismith, but it's the quickest one to type

 

 

And stat-wise, the poll says you're wrong

[juffery 0]

And, just one last one, the season before he signed, Naismith scored 20 goals in 43 games for Killie. In the two seasons before he signed Lafferty scored a grand total of 9.

[craig 5,199]

For whomever cares.... according to wikipedia the stats are :

 

Naismith - 8 goals in 56 appearances (29 goals in 102 for Killie)

Lafferty - 13 goals in 53 appearances (13 in 92 for Burnley and Darlington)

 

So FH what are your other reasons for rating Lafferty over Naismith ? I am curious because I am one of those who, whilst willing to give Lafferty a chance, think Naismith is a better player.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

And Naismith has been played up front even less than Lafferty has - decent comparison ? Not necessarily

 

Don't have the stats on that one but Naismith started plenty of games as a striker in his first season

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Lafferty has pace. Possibly the most important attribute in modern day football for an attacker. Naismith on the other hand is one of the slowest players i've ever seen. He does have above average strength for a small guy but again Lafferty is far superior in this aspect given his height. Lafferty also has the Novo knack of being a goal threat from wide positions as he seems to make instinctively intelligent runs. Naismith scored in just 3 matches in the entirety of last season and is more likely to be seen running towards the corner flag than into the box

 

It's a bad time for me to be saying this as i'm actually slightly hopeful for Naismith this season, especially if we change to a 4-3-3

[craig 5,199]

Lafferty has pace. Possibly the most important attribute in modern day football for an attacker. Naismith on the other hand is one of the slowest players i've ever seen. He does have above average strength for a small guy but again Lafferty is far superior in this aspect given his height. Lafferty also has the Novo knack of being a goal threat from wide positions as he seems to make instinctively intelligent runs. Naismith scored in just 3 matches in the entirety of last season and is more likely to be seen running towards the corner flag than into the box

 

It's a bad time for me to be saying this as i'm actually slightly hopeful for Naismith this season, especially if we change to a 4-3-3

 

Show me when Lafferty has ever used his pace in a Rangers shirt to beat a man. You being serious ? "Lafferty is a goal threat from wide positions" ? Come on, that is a stretch - Lafferty is more likely to hit row z than hit the back of the net. I doubt many teams are fearful of him playing wide and being a goal threat.

 

Technically Naismith is superior, has better agility, is far superior in the air (despite his height disadvantage compared to Lafferty).

 

Naismith spent much of last year injured, did he not ? More than Lafferty, right ?

 

Did you not say in the other thread that you rate players like Miller above a Boyd because they "do more than just score goals" ? Naismith running to the corner flag is actually similar to what Miller does - running the channels - and opens space for others. So which is it to be ?

 

Dont get me wrong, I want BOTH of them to succeed - but if you gave me a choice I would take Naismith over Lafferty - I guess we will have to agree to disagree

Edited August 11, 2010 by craig

[wabashcannonball 0]

Lafferty has pace. Possibly the most important attribute in modern day football for an attacker. Naismith on the other hand is one of the slowest players i've ever seen. He does have above average strength for a small guy but again Lafferty is far superior in this aspect given his height. Lafferty also has the Novo knack of being a goal threat from wide positions as he seems to make instinctively intelligent runs. Naismith scored in just 3 matches in the entirety of last season and is more likely to be seen running towards the corner flag than into the box

 

It's a bad time for me to be saying this as i'm actually slightly hopeful for Naismith this season, especially if we change to a 4-3-3

 

Don't worry son your alarm clock will go off soon, Watties allegedly went of a coupla weeks ago...:devil:

[Guest Flying Hippo]

I definately can't agree with Naismith being technically better than Lafferty. And he started 28 games last season to Lafferty's 25 so you can rule that out lol.

[craig 5,199]

According to IMScouting.com they both had 28 games last season (not necessarily starts) so I will take that observation back

 

That said, what was interesting was that given they had the same number of games Lafferty scored 6 to Naismith's 3 but Naismith had 3 assists to Lafferty's 1. And you wanted a player who does more than just score goals.... would appear Naismith is more likely than Lafferty in that regard - going by the stats anyway....

 

Naismith is also more of a proven goalscorer than Lafferty - you need only look at their career stats - that said, could be said Naismith is/was playing in an inferior league.