Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Block Y Seat 176

Naismith article in The Athletic

Recommended Posts

Enjoyable read covering being young player and his progress through the game and fair and reasoned comments about managers the ups and downs of life as a pro. Covers his time at Norwich of course and his opinion on how the club is run.

Check it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious if by just mentioning the article that someone notices and decides to post some of it here.

Edited by KiwiScot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm if it's Naismith's opinion, I'll pass.  The whole business still rankles.  I'd be interested in some inside comments from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind about what went on behind the scenes in the 2nd half of that season, or is not looking to justify themselves.  But that counts out Naismith.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Hmmm if it's Naismith's opinion, I'll pass.  The whole business still rankles.  I'd be interested in some inside comments from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind about what went on behind the scenes in the 2nd half of that season, or is not looking to justify themselves.  But that counts out Naismith.

To be fair, he only had good things to say about the club in the article. Said he wanted to play but was obviously not in Farke's plans.

I know people are upset about how he was happy to pick up the £££ whilst playing for Hearts - but the club offered him that contract. McNally should have put a relegation clause in his contract or just not signed him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cornish sam said:

Thanks Cap'n wasn't going to sign up but for £1pm it seems too good to miss...

No worries. I signed up last year, and thoroughly recommend it. (No, I'm not MB!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Darth Vadis said:

To be fair, he only had good things to say about the club in the article. Said he wanted to play but was obviously not in Farke's plans.

I know people are upset about how he was happy to pick up the £££ whilst playing for Hearts - but the club offered him that contract. McNally should have put a relegation clause in his contract or just not signed him.

The only thing that really rankled was the 'I'd play for them for free!' comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Darth Vadis said:

To be fair, he only had good things to say about the club in the article. Said he wanted to play but was obviously not in Farke's plans.

I know people are upset about how he was happy to pick up the £££ whilst playing for Hearts - but the club offered him that contract. McNally should have put a relegation clause in his contract or just not signed him.

Also, if he was on £20k like everybody else then and had cost a few million he wouldn't have been judged so harshly, he wasn't a terrible player for us and was capable of some good link up play... Just terrible value for money and I think he felt the pressure to live up to his price tag. Couldn't fault his effort really and could play a bit! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said:

I'm convinced some people on this site are on the payroll over at athletic. 

Good journalism is difficult to find for free nowadays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Good journalism is difficult to find for free nowadays. 

Depends what you consider to be good journalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Also, if he was on £20k like everybody else then and had cost a few million he wouldn't have been judged so harshly, he wasn't a terrible player for us and was capable of some good link up play... Just terrible value for money and I think he felt the pressure to live up to his price tag. Couldn't fault his effort really and could play a bit! 

I thought he was bad personally- yeah price tag plays a part but he just seemed off the pace. Lots of pointing and shouting at others without really doing much himself and generally ended up a passenger in most of his games with us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Also, if he was on £20k like everybody else then and had cost a few million he wouldn't have been judged so harshly, he wasn't a terrible player for us and was capable of some good link up play... Just terrible value for money and I think he felt the pressure to live up to his price tag. Couldn't fault his effort really and could play a bit! 

What was interesting as well was the need for Naismith to develop that “thick skin” needed to survive and adapt to professional football as a young man in house as well as on the pitch. As fans we are to quick to point and accuse players and managers sometimes and that must be frustrating as a pro’s who are almost certainly trying to do their best on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, king canary said:

I thought he was bad personally- yeah price tag plays a part but he just seemed off the pace. Lots of pointing and shouting at others without really doing much himself and generally ended up a passenger in most of his games with us. 

Sounds a bit like another Scotsman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, king canary said:

Don't, you'll get told your eliteist or virtue signaling if you post anything you have to pay to read...

Nope, only if someone posts a link to a pay wall article, someone else asks to read it and then someone unrelated to the discussion tells them to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said:

Depends what you consider to be good journalism. 

Step 1: Read a Micheal Bailey article.

Step 2: Watch a Connor Southwell video.

Step 3: Think about what you have just said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Bristol Nest said:

Nope, only if someone posts a link to a pay wall article, someone else asks to read it and then someone unrelated to the discussion tells them to pay for it.

Some people on this site keep doing this and it's become thoroughly boring. 

Creating topics about an article people can't read then telling them to pay for it is a bit annoying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Step 3: Think about what you have just said

I thought about it. Thanks. Where do i sign up? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said:

Some people on this site keep doing this and it's become thoroughly boring. 

Creating topics about an article people can't read then telling them to pay for it is a bit annoying. 

Yeah I get that- I've avoided posting any Atheltic articles on that basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Also, if he was on £20k like everybody else then and had cost a few million he wouldn't have been judged so harshly, he wasn't a terrible player for us and was capable of some good link up play... Just terrible value for money and I think he felt the pressure to live up to his price tag. Couldn't fault his effort really and could play a bit! 

Oh I agree his value for money was awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chelm Canary said:

I'm convinced some people on this site are on the payroll over at athletic. 

Hard to disagree - seems every article is talked about yet you can only read if you pay for it.  Great stuff on a forum held on a website that is free and very much at risk... but it’s all part of the Michael Bailey love-in so that’s fine. 

I have to say that I thought advertising, which this is tantamount to, was banned on here.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Hard to disagree - seems every article is talked about yet you can only read if you pay for it.  Great stuff on a forum held on a website that is free and very much at risk... but it’s all part of the Michael Bailey love-in so that’s fine. 

I have to say that I thought advertising, which this is tantamount to, was banned on here.

That is a bit of a stretch- someone posting a link they've found interesting isn't advertising, nor is someone saying they've subscribed and enjoy it.

I'm one who've advocated people paying for the Athletic- I can confirm I've not received any money from them to do so. I just think paying for stuff is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

That is a bit of a stretch- someone posting a link they've found interesting isn't advertising, nor is someone saying they've subscribed and enjoy it.

I'm one who've advocated people paying for the Athletic- I can confirm I've not received any money from them to do so. I just think paying for stuff is important.

No it isn’t: there is no link on here to the article, so it’s not a stretch at all.  
The point you appear to have missed is that this IS a free site. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chelm Canary said:

Creating topics about an article people can't read then telling them to pay for it is a bit annoying. 

 

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

I have to say that I thought advertising, which this is tantamount to, was banned on here.

Is it any different to discussing a recently released film, or indeed a football match that's live on Sky Sports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...