craig 5,195 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 As I said above Gribz..... Wallace would start before Papac Naismith would definitely start before Healy. Not having Naismith in your starting XI means that you definitely dont have our best team listed. Naismith is our only creative force other than Davis & Jelavic. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted August 7, 2011 Author Share Posted August 7, 2011 As I said above Gribz..... Wallace would start before Papac Naismith would definitely start before Healy. Not having Naismith in your starting XI means that you definitely dont have our best team listed. Naismith is our only creative force other than Davis & Jelavic. I hear what your saying Craig. But Wallace hasnt proved himself yet. Naismith - I like him as a right sided forward but not in a 4-4-2. We are always scared to drop people because of who they are...lets sack that and play to our strengths for one. i.e get rid of those who think they are auto picks (Whittaker, Edu, McCulloch, Naismith). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I hear what your saying Craig. But Wallace hasnt proved himself yet. Naismith - I like him as a right sided forward but not in a 4-4-2. We are always scared to drop people because of who they are...lets sack that and play to our strengths for one. i.e get rid of those who think they are auto picks (Whittaker, Edu, McCulloch, Naismith). Wallace has been more impressive than Papac this season. he may not have proved himself but he is a better player all round than Papac in my opinion. Solid defensively and good going forward, a better option than Papac. As for Naismith, quite simply not having him in your team means that you dont have our best team listed. It really is that simple. Whether you dislike Naismith up front beide Jelavic or not the reality is that he is a better option than Healy up front and he is also a better option than Ortiz at RM. So no matter what argument put forward, Naismith should be in any of our starting XI's. I also find it interesting that you say that wallace hasnt proven himself yet, but quite happily place Ortiz in your starting XI when he quite obviously has not proven himself either - in fact, I would go as far as to say that Wallace has proven himself more than Ortiz has. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted August 7, 2011 Author Share Posted August 7, 2011 Wallace has been more impressive than Papac this season. he may not have proved himself but he is a better player all round than Papac in my opinion. Solid defensively and good going forward, a better option than Papac. As for Naismith, quite simply not having him in your team means that you dont have our best team listed. It really is that simple. Whether you dislike Naismith up front beide Jelavic or not the reality is that he is a better option than Healy up front and he is also a better option than Ortiz at RM. So no matter what argument put forward, Naismith should be in any of our starting XI's. I also find it interesting that you say that wallace hasnt proven himself yet, but quite happily place Ortiz in your starting XI when he quite obviously has not proven himself either - in fact, I would go as far as to say that Wallace has proven himself more than Ortiz has. Quite simply? Not quite! Its an opinion game and your opinion doesnt win. Only can be decided if the team takes to the test...and its not going to happen. Your saying if Naismith isnt in the starting XI then its not our strongest team? Let Naismith prove that one please! Yes, I'll give u the point about Ortiz isnt proven but Wallace is. But Wallace has trickier colleague to dispense. Papac hasnt done anything wrong, so why remove him? Or is it a case of "lets play someone because of who they are" with Wallace also? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) Quite simply? Not quite! Its an opinion game and your opinion doesnt win. Only can be decided if the team takes to the test...and its not going to happen. Your saying if Naismith isnt in the starting XI then its not our strongest team? Let Naismith prove that one please! It is the manner in which I post - I should have said quite simply in my opinion. Still, it is quite simple that not having Naismith in your team means you dont have thebest starting XI Yes, I'll give u the point about Ortiz isnt proven but Wallace is. But Wallace has trickier colleague to dispense. Papac hasnt done anything wrong, so why remove him? Or is it a case of "lets play someone because of who they are" with Wallace also? I disagree. Naismith's best position, in my opinion, is the right side of a midfield 4. That being the case I would happily argue that Ortiz has a much more difficult colleague to displace than Wallace. Papac is Mr dependable but he offers little going forward. Naismith on the other hand, given the lack of midfield creativity, is our most creative player (he and Davis) and the one who has the best understanding with Jelavic. That makes Ortiz's job much harder than Wallace's. No, it isnt a case of playing someone because of who they are. But, in my opinion, Wallace enhances our starting XI more than Papac. Just because someone "hasnt done anything wrong" doesnt mean that they should stay in the team. If we signed Messi would we keep any of our players in the team just because they had done nothing wrong, and let Messi click his heels on the bench ? I doubt it. It is all about having the best players you can to get you a win. I think Wallace offers us slightly more than Papac. Dont get me wrong, I agree that Papac has done little wrong, but I think Wallace offers us more. Edited August 7, 2011 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted August 7, 2011 Author Share Posted August 7, 2011 It is the manner in which I post - I should have said quite simply in my opinion. Still, it is quite simple that not having Naismith in your team means you dont have thebest starting XI I disagree. Naismith's best position, in my opinion, is the right side of a midfield 4. That being the case I would happily argue that Ortiz has a much more difficult colleague to displace than Wallace. Papac is Mr dependable but he offers little going forward. Naismith on the other hand, given the lack of midfield creativity, is our most creative player (he and Davis) and the one who has the best understanding with Jelavic. That makes Ortiz's job much harder than Wallace's. No, it isnt a case of playing someone because of who they are. But, in my opinion, Wallace enhances our starting XI more than Papac. Just because someone "hasnt done anything wrong" doesnt mean that they should stay in the team. If we signed Messi would we keep any of our players in the team just because they had done nothing wrong, and let Messi click his heels on the bench ? I doubt it. It is all about having the best players you can to get you a win. I think Wallace offers us slightly more than Papac. Dont get me wrong, I agree that Papac has done little wrong, but I think Wallace offers us more. Respect your opinion I like naismith wide right but wouldnt play him automatically. Miller just scored in 92nd min for Cardiff to win at West Ham...wanker!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metlika 0 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Respect your opinion I like naismith wide right but wouldnt play him automatically. Miller just scored in 92nd min for Cardiff to win at West Ham...wanker!! Miller was awful as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 It is all about having the best players you can to get you a win. I think Wallace offers us slightly more than Papac. Dont get me wrong, I agree that Papac has done little wrong, but I think Wallace offers us more. Definitely agree with this. Wallace offers more. Played in an U19 Euro final against Spain, very very experienced at SPL level for a 24 year old and became the 1st choice left back for Scotland before his injury. He'll make mistakes like every player does, but he immediately looks like our 1st choice left back whether Papac likes it or not. At least in Papac we have half decent cover for Wallace. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I cant see Papac being dropped. I think the St Johnstone game was a sign Ally will try to accommodate both. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I cant see Papac being dropped. I think the St Johnstone game was a sign Ally will try to accommodate both. To be honest I dont have that much of an issue with it. The way in which Wallace gets himself ahead of the LM is good for the team. This allows Papac to play him in and then cover him. Having a full back who overlaps can be just as effective (more so in some cases) than having a winger. And given Papac can also throw in a decent cross we effectively have two guys being able to put the ball in the danger area whilst not losing our defensive rigidity. If Papac plays at LB then he wont get forward enough, leaving Wallace/Wylde/Ortiz to do it all by themselves. By having Wallace at LB and Papac LM it gives more of a threat from crosses. Dont get me wrong, I would prefer a proper LM but I dont think Wallace as over-lapping LB and Papac at LM is the worst personnel we could have. Certainly more effective than we have on the other side of the pitch at RB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.