All aboard the Naisy train - poll!!

[FarmerTweedy]

On 27/05/2023 at 18:17, ri Alban said:

Sounds like Marti whatshisface will be the next Hearts manager.

Based on what?

[Bongo 1874]

Regardless if Naismith gets the Job or not,it's vital we keep his personality and character around at Hearts.

 

 

[MattyK82]

7 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Easter Road, Paisley and Ibrox were Neilson type of performances.  You can’t deny it. It was the same stuff.   Was at all of them and it was like nothing had changed in terms of away game approach, formation and style of play. 
I’ll give you that home performances have been better to an extent and pretty exciting but results have been disappointing in the two big tests. 

Agree re: Paisley and ER (the latter of which I don’t really count, considering it was about 48 hours after Robbie left/Snodgrass got papped oot). Not so much re; Ibrox. Was a positive first half performance, unlike a Neilson one there.
 

In regards to the home results in the two big games - Two significant caveats to factor in mind. 
 

 

[Spellczech]

4 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

👏👏 so many people just not seeing what’s in front of them. Your comparison with Neilson is perfectly sensible.  Results during Naismiths audition for the job have been far from impressive. 

But during an audition results are not all that matters. The performances except for first game at Easter Road and first half in Paisley have been a big improvement. We spanked Aberdeen who finished above us and teased Hibs who finished below us. 7 games at the tail end of the season is not a great deal to work with. For me the players are the ones to blame for us not being third. If Hearts pull a new manager out of the bag who is better then great, but personally I think the performances have been a big improvement even if the results have been so-so. It is very hard for an interim manager to change the general direction of a club. If we hadn't nose-dived, nobody would be lauding Barry Robson for what he's done.

[FarmerTweedy]

On 27/05/2023 at 18:42, heisenberg86 said:

Naisy has massively improved how we play in the short time he’s been here, players are 100% playing for him and the support seems to back him. 
 

The real question is is Naisy the absolute best manager we could get? 
 

And the answer has to be no, he’s likeable, a winner, passionate, ticks a lot of boxes but just feel like we should be aiming higher as a club, the mangers position is the most important role

at any football club and feel we could do better than going with a guy who’s managed 7 first team games. 

 

That being said if the club decided to give him the job I’d be behind him 100%,  

big decision for the board to make,

hopefully they get it right 

 

 

Barca did OK with a guy who'd never managed any. He's at a wee club in England now IIRC.

 

Real Madrid did OK with a guy who'd never managed any. Think his name was Zorro or something similar! 

 

I'm not saying Naismith is the right or wrong appointment, but if we go for someone with experience, it either has to be someone who has only managed at a much lower level than us (so still completely unproven at our level) but is on the way up, or someone who has already been a failure at least once and shown themselves to probably not be capable of succeeding at any higher level than us.  The only real exception to that would be if we're really, really pushing the boat out financially with a huge investment to bring in someone who we'd normally have little or no right to think we'd be able to lure to the club.

[Groatallar]

I would give him the job based on the fact that the performances are like night and day from when Neilson was in charge.

 

Almost every player has upped their game and looks good as opposed to looking shite and disinterested.

 

There are a lot of things that need addressed but he comes over as a manager who wants to win and won't tolerate bad attitude from anyone. 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

1 hour ago, skinnybob72 said:

I'm happy to give Naismith a chance - we only lost 1 game post split which is way better than we normally do! I do hope that he can improve us away from home though as we've been dreadful for years.

 

True; but for interference from officials, it's arguable we would have won all except the away derby, with 5 days to prepare

 

4 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

I never said anything about Naismith was nonsense.  People are struggling with it because the poll question was ‘ would you like Naismith as manager next season’ 

Just because someone answers yes doesn’t mean they think he is the best candidate, they just think  they would be ok with him as manager, especially if nobody better is interested. I voted no because I’d like a more experienced manager in with possibly Naismith as his assistant. Tbh the poll question is seriously ambiguous and isn’t really worth answering. Think this discussion proves that 😂

 

Yes, yes it does, otherwise vote no or don't vote;it's perfectly obvious to anyone

 

2 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

A one year contract says (to Naismith, to the fans, to our rivals, and to any potential signing targets) that we don't really have confidence in him. It's almost just keeping him on as interim manager for longer. If we are giving him the job, I'd give him a contract for three years, but with a clause in his contract (kept private) saying that maximum severance payout is one year's salary...

 

Some sort of clause would be prudent, yes, of course, correct

 

But we may need to consider vultures like rangers in this scenario with a short deal

 

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

Easter Road, Paisley and Ibrox were Neilson type of performances.  You can’t deny it. It was the same stuff.   Was at all of them and it was like nothing had changed in terms of away game approach, formation and style of play. 
I’ll give you that home performances have been better to an extent and pretty exciting but results have been disappointing in the two big tests. 

 

2nd half ,for a spell, at ER, yes; paisley first half also, but ibrox, no way, night and day

 

You can't expect a team trained to play turgid, slow stuff around the back line to change so quickly when nerves set in; maybe with an individual, but a group, no; there's alaways one or two that will break the chain and revert to type

 

49 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

...If we hadn't nose-dived, nobody would be lauding Barry Robson for what he's done.

 

Very astute, true observation

 

41 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Barca did OK with a guy who'd never managed any. He's at a wee club in England now IIRC.

 

Careful now, some will see a Barcelona analogy as hyperbole; they have no notion of scale

[FarmerTweedy]

On 27/05/2023 at 18:55, Ulysses said:

 

I suppose I could roar and shout abuse at you for your opinion - which seems to be the done thing on here these days - but I'd prefer to say that I get most of what you're saying but not all of it.

 

You are right in your description of Naismith and his way of doing things, and you're also right IMO that appointing him would be the easy option.  But I disagree that this extends to meaning that we're run as a joke or that we're not a serious operation.  We'll probably give the job to Naismith, but that's not necessarily because our management are particularly weak or bad at the job.  I suspect that a lot of clubs in our situation would do something similar.

 

We'll choose Naismith because he's the obvious choice, even though that doesn't make him the right choice.  He hasn't done well.  He's done less than OK and better than godawful.  That's the truth - 9 points from 21 and 1 from 6 in derbies is without question less than OK, but better than the godawful we were enduring at the end of RN's tenure.  Gross that up over a season. If we scored 2 points from 4 games against Hibs in a season and picked up a total of 48-49 points you would not be happy, and that's the form we've had lately.

 

Whatever about the board, as supporters we need to get away from two flawed bits of thinking.  The first is to keep looking to the familiar for a manager - the ex-player, ex-manager, former hero, whatever.  Sometimes, maybe most times, a club is better off looking for someone outside the familiar ranks.  The second is to be beguiled by short-term results.  They say that for most fans ancient history is last weekend and the future is next weekend.  We put in a temporary holding coach.  He did OK, in fact less than OK.  But we lost a lot less than usual, and it was better than the horror show that had gone before.  So compared to the end of Neilson's term Naismith looks like a godsend, even though all he's done is make things a little less awful than they were.

 

 

You have to look at the context of the results though, and the situation Naismith inherited. Just taking the results and nothing else, like you've done with the bit I've put in bold, is the sort of lazy thinking the board have been accused of.  Grossing up Naismith's results over a season is, quite frankly, utterly stupid because over a season, he won't play top 6 opposition in six out of every seven matches. In fact, it would be no less valid to argue that over a full season, his results would get us 74 points as we've averaged a point per game against other top 6 sides, and won every game against bottom 6 sides under Naismith. Over a season, we'll play 18 games against the teams that end up in the bottom 6 and 20 against the rest of the top 6. 

 

Also, he won't have to go into one in every seven games with a squad that he's only taken charge of three or four days before, and that's massively low on confidence having just lost about five or six games on the bounce. He also won't have to manage an entire season with a squad he's inherited, with no ability at any point to bring in any new signings to address any of the shortcomings of the personnel in the squad. And he's unlikely to have one in every seven games have a player wrongly sent off, and another game have someone sent off dubiously. 

 

The actual truth is, Naismith took over in difficult circumstances and while results haven't been stellar, there's far more to consider than just a simple question of how many points we took over seven games. It's very much a matter of opinion,  rather than a question of truth, how Naismith has done so far, but not many people seem to think he's done less than OK, at least without imagining a 38 game season that doesn't actually exist!

[FarmerTweedy]

On 27/05/2023 at 19:13, Ulysses said:

 

I hear you, but would they still be happy if we replicated our recent form for a season?  Let's say half a season?  19 games in, and Hearts are sitting in 6th or 7th place on 24 points, having played Hibs twice and picked up one point.  What would we all be saying then?

If Naismith's seven game stint was replicated over 19 games, the main thing we'd all be saying is how the feck have we had to play against top 6 teams in around 16 of our 19 games and bottom 6 teams only about 3 times???????

[FarmerTweedy]

On 27/05/2023 at 21:23, Ulysses said:

 

No, I actually don't have to take account of the fixtures.  Any new coach could have achieved 9 from 21 in all games and 1 from 6 against Hibs with that fixture list. Any new coach at all.  So what Naismith has achieved so far is the minimum that you'd expect (or less, if you say you'd expect at least 3/6 in derbies), and that only looks good because of the performances in the closing weeks of Neilson's tenure.

 

The bit in bold is just garbage. Lots of coaches would have got significantly less than 9 points from those fixtures.  Not many would have got more than 9 in those circumstances. 

 

It is, however, true that you don't have to take account of the fixtures. It's also, however, true that it would be completely and utterly idiotic not to take account of the fixtures. 

[Unknown user]

Good managers can have poor runs and shan managers can have good runs.

In truth, we really have to look away from 7 results and at whether there have been apparent improvements or not.

 

I like Naismith, his personality, his will to win, and I think he's improved our first team in a short space of time. That's enough to pass the audition for me.

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Your reasoned argument earlier after a few false starts was a very good one.

 

But you misrepresenting the case for Naismith. Its about who he is. The attitude he has brought to his football career since he started at 19 telling everyone at Kilmarnock what to do. The points are irrelevant. 

 

What points are irrelevant?  Do you mean we shouldn't think before making an appointment?   

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 27/05/2023 at 17:11, kingantti1874 said:

Neilson salary not relevant tbh. Whilst we won’t in my opinion be in the market for a manager commanding 30k for week we absolutely so have the cash to pay off neilson.  Jesus we just freed that up by letting GMS go 

 

Indeed. And Neilson is only due a salary until he gets his next gig. Regardless of whatever else folk think about him he's not the type to sit on his arse for two years just because he's collecting a check. I suppose Elbows might but I'm probably just letting my dislike of him as a player seep through.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

Only team RN beat in what? last 8?

 

perth fermers, who looked like they bet us -2

 

I don't understand how "was better than the absolute catastrophe that the final months under Neilson turned into" is supposed to be a rousing argument for Naismith.

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Numbers are of secondary significance because of the situation; let's take the 1 point from 6 from derbies 'point'; his first game was an away derby, with about 5 days to prepare

 

We could well have been 2 up at half time, but no ball in net; around the hour, 1 or 2 of our players got nervous and reverted to neilsonball, the wee team spotted this immediately and upped the intensity, then won with a goal

 

Yeserday, we took the lead, they struggled and bam! What? 16th red card in their favour?

 

We saw the match out and they took their hissy fit; the same crap with celtic and the midden away where we still got a late equaliser, red card rescinded, too

 

We also avoided what would have been a harsh defeat at ibrox, smashed RC, as expected, I suppose, but neilson never smashed them

 

Then we saw of the sheep, coming from behind in a must win game

 

Every game, fight, not flight

 

There's about 2 or 3 people lauding shithousery, that's not what I or most care about, but he has passion for the game and the club

 

We may get someone 'better', but they may cost a ridiculous amount and then chuck it for gardening leave

 

I don't think we should let him go to another Premier club

 

Thanks - that's a more thought-out response than your previous version, to be fair.

 

You did leave out a reply to my final point, though.  If we'd lost on Saturday against Hibs there's no way this poll would be running at 80% in favour of Naismith's appointment.  In fact I'd say there's a be a majority against.  Do you agree or disagree?

 

That's not an idle question.  The reality is that football supporters often engage in short-term thinking, and are often swayed by one or two events or incidents.  We're doing that here, and a huge part of our thinking is based on relief - yes, relief - at avoiding defeat to Hibs on Saturday and finishing fifth after what has been a disappointing season.  It doesn't mean that Naismith is not the right person for the job; it means the people making the decision need to take a cold, hard, clinical look beyond the events of the last few weeks.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why?

 

Seriously, why?

 

I set out my reasoning, and the numbers speak for themselves. The answer I got was "everyone starts somewhere".  In response to that, I asked a fair question. What's your answer?  I mean a proper answer, not some one-line guff that avoids addressing the actual questions involved in making the decision.

 

So far the four main arguments on this thread for making the appointment seem to be:

 

1. Everyone starts somewhere. 

 

2. Can't be any worse than the closing weeks under Neilson.

 

3. We won't get anyone better.

 

4. We want someone who's good at shithousery.

 

If those are the arguments, good luck to the people putting them forward. I kinda see the appeal myself, but I'm just pointing out that the team has not improved in Naismith's games in charge by as much as people seem to think.

 

One way or the other he's probably getting the gig.  First, because it really is the obvious thing for the Board to do.   Secondly, because he's the popular choice.  80% plus on here want him appointed, and as the saying goes "no one ever got fired for buying the market leader". If the board makes the easy and popular choice then they won't have to take the rap if it doesn't work out.

 

But here's a question for you.  If we had lost yesterday, even because of some completely random fluke 98th minute goal, do you think the yes option in the poll on this thread would be scoring anything like 80%? Honestly?

 

 

 

Good post, and here's the bit that I keep getting stuck on, perhaps unfairly.

 

At the beginning of the season, we all pissed ourselves laughing at Hibs for celebrating a draw at home against us.

 

We finished the season celebrating a draw at home against them.

 

And folk can go on about the red card but it wasn't some out of the blue nonsense like Haring's red at Paisley. Cochrane was forced into that position because three of our defenders were standing next to each other next to the touchline on a throw in, and a simple lob kick broke open a counter with more than half the pitch wide open for a layoff. Cochrane was on an island and had to run extra far because we'd inverted the fullbacks, which gave us a lot of midfield punch but risked leaving us wide open to a counter if our defenders got bunched.

 

Now granted it was one play and we shut the door on them after that, which was pleasing, but the red card was due to our tactical plan getting cut open badly.

 

When he was appointed, I said he should have the chance to win the permanent job but that he'd need to really set the heather alight. I think he's been good but the heather remains unsinged.

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

"If we'd lost yesterday"

 

Auntie, balls

 

The test was passed; the wee team were measured easily

 

 

 

-

 

 

If we'd lost yesterday this poll would probably be showing a majority looking for someone else to get the gig.  Like I said, cold, hard and clinical is where it's at.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Kettlewell has done well but I don't think we'll want him or get him

 

 

 

He's only had, what, 14 games to prove himself?  Of course that's double the number Naismith has had, but all the same it's less than half a season.  In fairness, the last 5 games were against bottom six contenders.  So how did Kettlewell do against top six opposition?  AFAIK, 5 games, 10 points, in positive goal difference territory.  That's alright, I guess - it's better than we did.  There were two slip-ups at home, one against Rangers (fair enough in this league) and the other against Dundee United (more embarrassing, I guess).  But all the same they've harvested lots of points.  Our away form has been a problem.  What sort of away form have Motherwell shown since Kettlewell took over?  Have they lost on the road at all since mid-February?  I'm not sure they have. 

 

When you say you don't think we'll want him or get him, I can see why we might not get him.  After all, he might want to stick with a job that's been going well so far.  But we are big enough to tempt the guy if we were interested, or at least we should be.  Why wouldn't Hearts consider him?

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, GinRummy said:

Or if people dismissed Naismith for the same reason. Anyone who has confidence this board will appoint a good manager is crazy imo. 

 

Er, WADR, I'm not sure it's all that strong an argument to say that we should support the board appointing Naismith because we should lack confidence in the board's ability to appoint a good manager.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The poll was not about dismissing Naismith. FFS.

 

No.  And I think you've described the core issue better than I have.

 

The issue for me is not about Naismith being a bad choice.  It's about there being a choice, and knowing what the choice is.

 

The job is too important to us to be just filled by acclamation.

[DesertDawg]

On 27/05/2023 at 07:42, GrimUpNorth said:

I'd give him it, the results haven't been the best but he's been unlucky with red cards and the post split fixtures, playing Celtic when they need a win for the title etc. First Hibs game was too soon to judge, the performances after have all been good when we've had 11 players on the pitch, but it's the style of football and his ambition which is why I'd give him it. I don't know what sort of length contract he is on but I'd start with maybe 2 year contract, back him with transfers over the summer and go from there 

 

Definitely the best comment on this thread.  We've had more fun as fans in the last 6 games than pretty much the whole season up until then, unless we've all forgotten the endless passing of Zander to Hill, back to Sibbick to Rowles, back to Hill, forward to Michael Smith, back to Zander and repeat! 

 

There was a point a couple of months back when I was close to cancelling my Hearts TV subscription as I just couldn't deal with that stuff any longer.  If you are bored, watch the "highlights" of League One in England......it's the same and often worse.  Anyway, I've been a fan too long to give up that easily, and I've seen a LOT worse, so have stuck in there and I'm happy now with what I've seen so give Naismith the job.  I've never been his greatest fan as a player but you never know.  Guardiola, Pocchetino, Tuchel all started somewhere and I wasn't fans of any of them as players either! 

 

 

[GinRummy]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Er, WADR, I'm not sure it's all that strong an argument to say that we should support the board appointing Naismith because we should lack confidence in the board's ability to appoint a good manager.

Maybe not to you. We at least have seen Naismith has had some positive impact. To me it’s about as strong an argument as you can get. Another disastrous appointment is best avoided no?

 

if you can explain to me why you think the board will appoint a good manager then that will blow my argument out the water. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by GinRummy

[Go for it 1308]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

If we'd lost yesterday this poll would probably be showing a majority looking for someone else to get the gig.  Like I said, cold, hard and clinical is where it's at.

..but we didn't lose🤔

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Go for it 1308 said:

..but we didn't lose🤔

It’s mental eh. Folk saying if this had happened or that had happened then…

[merseyjambo]

One massive thing that I saw as a positive with Naismith was the willingness of the young lads Wilson and Stevenson to commit themselves to the club.

 

Both clearly had opportunities to go down south and sign on there and from what we know, contract offers had been on the table for them for a while.

 

How much did the decision to put Naismith in charge have on them. Naismith broke into the first team at Killie at 17. Maybe his experiences of getting chances to prove himself and the pitfalls of going down south too young has helped convince these highly rated youngsters that opportunities will come here for them. 
 

From a youth development point of view, Naismith would probably be a good fit, especially if younger players can see they are likely to get a chance with ourselves.

[Dazo]

2 hours ago, Go for it 1308 said:

..but we didn't lose🤔

Yeah but just pretend we did, also at St Mirren and the football was shite. What would you think about SN then ? 😂😂😂

 

We should definitely form our opinions our fictional scenarios. 

[Go for it 1308]

4 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Yeah but just pretend we did, also at St Mirren and the football was shite. What would you think about SN then ? 😂😂😂

 

We should definitely form our opinions our fictional scenarios. 

It's never ending.  What if Germany won the war ? Its a mind **** from posters like him 😂

[Mr Elwood P]

13 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Excellent post. 

If we had not scraped a fortunate draw at Paisley or had deservedly lost a pretty meaningless game yesterday the poll would have looked very different.

We do not not know what the options are so why the landslide choice in the poll of one rookie manager.

Were you at Tynecastle this weekend?? The game was anything but meaningless. Guaranteed a UEFA spot and finished above Hibs. 4th is also our best finish without Neilson as manager since the 2010/11 season under Jefferies. The expectations of Hearts fans and reality are wildly different!

[Malinga the Swinga]

19 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Yeah but just pretend we did, also at St Mirren and the football was shite. What would you think about SN then ? 😂😂😂

 

We should definitely form our opinions our fictional scenarios. 

Fictional scenarios are the only way to make real decisions. That's a fact.

 

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Fictional scenarios are the only way to make real decisions. That's a fact.

 

We already know what happened in the past. Imagining something else happened isn’t a great way of predicting the future.  

[Dazo]

5 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Fictional scenarios are the only way to make real decisions. That's a fact.

 

I can live with that as long as you are looking at all outcome possibilities not just negative ones. If you don’t then you making things up to suit your already established point view. 

[kingantti1874]

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

No.  And I think you've described the core issue better than I have.

 

The issue for me is not about Naismith being a bad choice.  It's about there being a choice, and knowing what the choice is.

 

The job is too important to us to be just filled by acclamation.

you want the club to publish the candidates considered in public so you can take a view and rubber stamp the appointment. 
 

cool 

 

 

[Go for it 1308]

22 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Fictional scenarios are the only way to make real decisions. That's a fact.

 

WTF😂

[TexasAndy]

Naisy has been interim for 7 games and has already got into Lee Johnson's head.  He has also got Tynecastle bouncing and the players playing for him.  If psychology is one of the qualities required for successful management then he's ticking that box already.  I am now thinking it's more of a gamble to not give him the gig.  

[David McCaig]

Just now, TexasAndy said:

Naisy has been interim for 7 games and has already got into Lee Johnson's head.  He has also got Tynecastle bouncing and the players playing for him.  If psychology is one of the qualities required for successful management then he's ticking that box already.  I am now thinking it's more of a gamble to not give him the gig.  

The Naismith/Johnson H2H currently reads 

 

Johnson 4/6

Naismith 1/6

[TexasAndy]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

The Naismith/Johnson H2H currently reads 

 

Johnson 4/6

Naismith 1/6

I think Saturday is way way more than just 1 point.  Ask Hibs.

[Mister Dee]

I’m all for Naismith being given the role.
I see Zander Clark publicly supporting him today -that counts for a lot when the players believe in him. 
I’d expect the board to speak to Craig Gordon to gauge the teams belief in SN. 

[David McCaig]

14 minutes ago, TexasAndy said:

I think Saturday is way way more than just 1 point.  Ask Hibs.

The same could be said for us losing at Easter Road when Johnson ended a 4 game losing streak.

 

Naismith has shown some very promising signs but to claim he has some kind of upper hand on Johnson is just nonsense.

 

It's worth pointing out that the 11's that started v Aberdeen, Ross County and Hibs at home were available for selection v Hibs at Easter Road, Naismith opted for Smith and Kingsley as full backs with Grant in midfield.  Oda never even made it off the bench at 1-0 down.

 

It is to Naismith's credit that he immediately rectified these errors in subsequent games, but as things currently stand there is more of an argument that Johnson has the upper hand on Naismith than vice versa... Although after two games it's ridiculous to make a call either way.

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

The same could be said for us losing at Easter Road when Johnson ended a 4 game losing streak.

 

Naismith has shown some very promising signs but to claim he has some kind of upper hand on Johnson is just nonsense.

 

It's worth pointing out that the 11's that started v Aberdeen, Ross County and Hibs at home were available for selection v Hibs at Easter Road, Naismith opted for Smith and Kingsley as full backs with Grant in midfield.  Oda never even made it off the bench at 1-0 down.

 

It is to Naismith's credit that he immediately rectified these errors in subsequent games, but as things currently stand there is more of an argument that Johnson has the upper hand on Naismith than vice versa... Although after two games it's ridiculous to make a call either way.

Fair but surely you can understand he only had a few days with the squad before the ER derby. Must be quite difficult to make changes nad get your message over in such a short time.

[132goals1958]

18 minutes ago, TexasAndy said:

Naisy has been interim for 7 games and has already got into Lee Johnson's head.  He has also got Tynecastle bouncing and the players playing for him.  If psychology is one of the qualities required for successful management then he's ticking that box already.  I am now thinking it's more of a gamble to not give him the gig.  

I am intrigued by the comment from Johnson that Naismith had been disrespectful to Robbie Neilson. Surely it can’t be associated with Naismith saying things along the lines of of there have got to be improvements and other generalisations in alleviating the alarming situation at the club. Don’t see how anyone could construe those views as a dig at Robbie . Unless he addressed the situation as he saw it he would effectively be talking himself out the job. Unless off course wee Lee is privy to something we don’t know 

[JimmyCant]

Two ways of looking at this.

 

First the reason RN was sacked when he was, was to have a fresh approach come in to rescue 3rd. In that regard, Naismith failed, not by a huge amount and maybe an unrealistic task given that no regard was given to how far the squad had slipped from an acceptable level. BUT St Mirren was a horrible performance and result that stands out for me. Away form didn’t change all that much which is a massive concern that any manager coming in will need to find the answer to as first priority.

 

The other way of looking at it is performance and attitude. For me that’s changed out of all recognition and I love Naismiths interview after the derby when he says teams will need to handle the grit and a bit of nastiness at Tynecastle (along those lines) We’ve been too easy to play against. In a short period of time that’s already gone and if we appoint Naismith, no one is going to get an easy game against us. I’m sure of that at least.

 

Without knowing who is on the short list, unless there is a very exciting stellar name in there that we’re going to pay a lot of money to, I’d have Naismith appointed by lunchtime today. Bear in mind if he doesn’t get it, he’s likely off to a rival and playing against a Naismith team next season isn’t going to be a pleasant happy chummy glass of red afterwards experience for many teams.

[kingantti1874]

36 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

The Naismith/Johnson H2H currently reads 

 

Johnson 4/6

Naismith 1/6

Usually sensible posters hanging the first derby, 3 days after taking on a total cluster**** is surprising and disappointing.

 

Make your arguement by all means. But don’t use stupid points 

[JimmyCant]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Fair but surely you can understand he only had a few days with the squad before the ER derby. Must be quite difficult to make changes nad get your message over in such a short time.

I imagine he had to listen a bit to others before picking that team. Maybe Gordon Forest, maybe Shankland, maybe Craig Gordon. Maybe he decided right - one last chance or we’re ripping this up and starting again.

 

He’s already got more out of just about everyone he has selected than Neilson did (Atkinson - Kio - Ginelly - Shankland - Cochrane -Haring)and he’s won a watch getting Oda into that team. 

[B4 Part B]

10 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Two ways of looking at this.

 

First the reason RN was sacked when he was, was to have a fresh approach come in to rescue 3rd. In that regard, Naismith failed, not by a huge amount and maybe an unrealistic task given that no regard was given to how far the squad had slipped from an acceptable level. BUT St Mirren was a horrible performance and result that stands out for me. Away form didn’t change all that much which is a massive concern that any manager coming in will need to find the answer to as first priority.

 

The other way of looking at it is performance and attitude. For me that’s changed out of all recognition and I love Naismiths interview after the derby when he says teams will need to handle the grit and a bit of nastiness at Tynecastle (along those lines) We’ve been too easy to play against. In a short period of time that’s already gone and if we appoint Naismith, no one is going to get an easy game against us. I’m sure of that at least.

 

Without knowing who is on the short list, unless there is a very exciting stellar name in there that we’re going to pay a lot of money to, I’d have Naismith appointed by lunchtime today. Bear in mind if he doesn’t get it, he’s likely off to a rival and playing against a Naismith team next season isn’t going to be a pleasant happy chummy glass of red afterwards experience for many teams.

Good post!

 

I've been excited by the way we've played at home, such a difference to the end of Robbie's time. It might've been an impossible task, BUT for all the positives in performances and attitude, the must win games away to St Mirren and Hibs at home, were not won. Those niggle at me. St Mirren we were poor from the start and I don't buy the argument the red card cost us. Hibs at home, the red card totally changed the game but I was a bit disappointed with some of our tactics, killing the game worked really well and was probably why we held on for a draw, but I thought we gave up all hope of getting a winner, we had no idea how to go forward and attack or control the ball a bit better, we decided to defend and clear our lines for 45 mins+.

 

I wouldn't be disappointed if Naismith got the job, but I do hope we're trying to land that exciting stellar name!

[merseyjambo]

9 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I imagine he had to listen a bit to others before picking that team. Maybe Gordon Forest, maybe Shankland, maybe Craig Gordon. Maybe he decided right - one last chance or we’re ripping this up and starting again.

 

He’s already got more out of just about everyone he has selected than Neilson did (Atkinson - Kio - Ginelly - Shankland - Cochrane -Haring)and he’s won a watch getting Oda into that team. 

My take on the Hibs game at ER is similar.

 

Theres been all sorts of rumours re dressing room unrest and players not playing for RN.

 

Part of it was lack of time with the players especially if he’d not had much involvement with the first team but I think part of the selection at ER was rot see whether the players were not up to it or had chucked it. It proved that a lot of them weren’t up to it.

[GinRummy]

25 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Two ways of looking at this.

 

First the reason RN was sacked when he was, was to have a fresh approach come in to rescue 3rd. In that regard, Naismith failed, not by a huge amount and maybe an unrealistic task given that no regard was given to how far the squad had slipped from an acceptable level. BUT St Mirren was a horrible performance and result that stands out for me. Away form didn’t change all that much which is a massive concern that any manager coming in will need to find the answer to as first priority.

 

The other way of looking at it is performance and attitude. For me that’s changed out of all recognition and I love Naismiths interview after the derby when he says teams will need to handle the grit and a bit of nastiness at Tynecastle (along those lines) We’ve been too easy to play against. In a short period of time that’s already gone and if we appoint Naismith, no one is going to get an easy game against us. I’m sure of that at least.

 

Without knowing who is on the short list, unless there is a very exciting stellar name in there that we’re going to pay a lot of money to, I’d have Naismith appointed by lunchtime today. Bear in mind if he doesn’t get it, he’s likely off to a rival and playing against a Naismith team next season isn’t going to be a pleasant happy chummy glass of red afterwards experience for many teams.

Good stuff Jimmy 👌

[TexasAndy]

35 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

The same could be said for us losing at Easter Road when Johnson ended a 4 game losing streak.

 

Naismith has shown some very promising signs but to claim he has some kind of upper hand on Johnson is just nonsense.

 

It's worth pointing out that the 11's that started v Aberdeen, Ross County and Hibs at home were available for selection v Hibs at Easter Road, Naismith opted for Smith and Kingsley as full backs with Grant in midfield.  Oda never even made it off the bench at 1-0 down.

 

It is to Naismith's credit that he immediately rectified these errors in subsequent games, but as things currently stand there is more of an argument that Johnson has the upper hand on Naismith than vice versa... Although after two games it's ridiculous to make a call either way.

So a manager feels the need to punch out at another manager after a handshake at the end of a game.  Not ridiculous in the slightest to suggest that the manager who has punched out has had his head messed with.   Fester Road was Naismith's first game, it's ridiculous to judge him on that.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Were you at Tynecastle this weekend?? The game was anything but meaningless. Guaranteed a UEFA spot and finished above Hibs. 4th is also our best finish without Neilson as manager since the 2010/11 season under Jefferies. The expectations of Hearts fans and reality are wildly different!

First I apologise for the heresy of describing a game against Hibs as meaningless. Of course it never is ... I used to.love winning the East of Scotland Shield.

But in hard football terms Saturday barring the unlikely event of Celtic losing the cup final was about one more or one less Euro qualifying tie. 

And TBH once third was gone I was a bit meh about European qualifying. I think it is only likely to be a distraction from achieving our main priority of 3rd next season.

And when we were 10 or 11 points clear in third  were our expectations of 3rd unrealistic?

 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Some others have said it and I will say it over and over, you can only make a considered judgement on Naismith in his managerial infancy, based on what realistically we can get elsewhere.

 

Aberdeen found it almost impossible and have lucked out, based on some very agricultural football, and Neilsons poor form. They may regret their decision when it comes to producing over an entire season, I wouldn't want us to do the same, if there were an outstanding candidate.

 

I suspect there is not and will happily move on with Naismith, though 3 red cards in the 7 games, all players trying to recover positions, tells its own wee story, the style of play has become ambitious, but is high risk.

 

Looking for perfection I suppose that maybe doesnt exist, somewhere 75% in favour of Naismith style, but maybe a bit of Neilson pragmatism isn't entirely bad. You dont lose with clean sheets and we have had nowhere anywhere enough this season, none with Naismith.

[David McCaig]

16 minutes ago, TexasAndy said:

So a manager feels the need to punch out at another manager after a handshake at the end of a game.  Not ridiculous in the slightest to suggest that the manager who has punched out has had his head messed with.   Fester Road was Naismith's first game, it's ridiculous to judge him on that.

I'd say it's just a damning indictment of Lee Johnson as a human being in general rather than anything extraordinary by Naismith.