Begs the question about the thinking behind the signing
Was it seen as an upgrade/replacement of wes? If so why then try and accommodate both in the side like last week? Surely just leave Wes on the bench?
If it was not a signing to upgrade Wes It makes wonder was it a case of signing for signings sake?
Or alternatively was the plan behind the signing to shift wes to the wing? If so I would have concerns with the managers judgement as wes has never done it from the left in my eyes
Final option is was it a signing to accommodate a change of formation ie. Play both wes and naisy in behind a striker and play narrow?
Please don't interpret this as me not liking Naismith as I like him but I can't quite work out the managers at the moment.
Posted By: happy clappy hughes on February 13th 2016 at 12:33:07
Message Thread
- Plea to Alex Neil (NCFC) - happy clappy hughes, Feb 13, 11:56:56
- If he plays Wes in his natural position it would mean Naismith missing out (n/m) (NCFC) - thirsty work, Feb 13, 12:03:38
- Naismith can't miss out today (NCFC) - trueyellow, Feb 13, 12:10:46
- Begs the question about the thinking behind the signing (NCFC) - happy clappy hughes, Feb 13, 12:33:07
- Wes is 34 in May, planning for post Wes imo (n/m) (NCFC) - harry boulders, Feb 13, 12:47:56
- Vmt (n/m) (NCFC) - thirsty work, Feb 13, 12:26:54
- Begs the question about the thinking behind the signing (NCFC) - happy clappy hughes, Feb 13, 12:33:07
- Naismith can't miss out today (NCFC) - trueyellow, Feb 13, 12:10:46
- If he plays Wes in his natural position it would mean Naismith missing out (n/m) (NCFC) - thirsty work, Feb 13, 12:03:38
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.