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, Feb 13, 12:33:07