All aboard the Naisy train - poll!!

[Jim1949]

Yes

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Haven't voted, genuinely not sure. Would love to say yes but would love to know who has been sounded out. 

 

Been good and bad. 

 

I love the ******* factor he brings to us, winners need it

[Lightbulb]

Definitely yes. Intelligent coach who motivates players to improve. Any new manager  is a gamble but I feel he's got the right balance of player respect and leadership qualities. 

[stuart500]

If Naismith gets the job he will presumably want to choose his own assistant. Frank McAvoy has clearly done a great job as his mentor but it may be best if he goes back to the academy. That way we get the benefit of kids coming through being aligned to the style of play Naismith wants for the first team.

 

I've no idea who could be Naismith's assistant but I'm sure he has many contacts in the game who have the necessary coaching experience and would jump at the chance of the job. 

 

The club are in the best position I can remember in my 60 odd years of support. Neilson was the last weak link in an otherwise highly professional setup. 

 

If missing out on 3rd allows us to bring in a young determined guy who is a proven winner as a player, and a talented more experienced assistant coach, then maybe it's for the good in the long run.

 

 

[micole]

I say give the guy a chance, I have seen enough over the last few games. He knows the SPL, he knows the squad we have and also has put a bit of fight back into the team. IMO today was a good example of how he changed things ( enforced I know ) and got the players to put it all on the line. This is all IMO of course.

[Heartsfth]

4 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

So you are saying when we went down to 10 men against Celtic, we should have opened up and allowed Celtic to rip us apart.

Today, when we needed a point and went down to 10 men, we should have risked it all to go for the win when it wouldn't have changed the final league position we had.

Honestly, some times I despair at the total stupidity of posts like yours above. 

No but all we did is sat deep and kept giving the ball away. You need to try and hold on to the ball. Against Aberdeen he took off our forward players with 15 minutes to go to defend a 2-1 lead. That’s exactly what Neilson used to do. As I have said I like Naismith and I like what he says about the game but I hope the club are looking for better, possibly someone Naismith can learn from. All about opinions 

[Haken]

Yes.  He’s a fighter and his team will fight.  Strap in, folks.

[GlasgoJambo]

His (non) reaction to Wee Lee’s provocation was class 😎

Knew it deserved retribution but checked himself and shrugged it off. That was genuinely impressive. 
 

 

imagine Lennon in the same situation

 

[MattyK82]

The improvement in performance levels since he has come in, particularly at home has been very encouraging and blatantly obvious. Not just as a team, but in various individuals, such as Atkinson and Oda.

 

The way Naisy speaks pre and post match I like. And the way he leads.

 

I have seen & heard some say, but he’s  only won 2 matches, drawn 3 and lost 2. Far too simplistic way to look at things. A number of caveats simply must be taken into account (none more so than the 3 red cards in 3 matches, which have significantly affected the flow and the results of those matches  - and bearing in mind 2 of the red cards weren’t red cards - no complaints over todays one).

 

It’s hard to know whether he should get the gig permanently when we don’t know the level of the other applicants.
 

What I do know is that the early signs of Steven Naismith as Heart of Midlothian manager are promising.

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, 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.

 

 

Great post👏👏

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 hours ago, 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.

 

 

Thank christ someone sees it 👍

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You need to take account of the fixtures. One bottom six game. Working out the equivalent for the season is at least 56 points, 2 more than this season. 

 

For example you play Old Firm 2 out of 11 games normally. I've taken the home wins and away draws and extrapolated. So no away wins but win every home game outwith Old Firm which I put as all defeats. This seasons results v Hibs. Fair balanced assessment. 

 

But not accounting for more time with team. Just equivalent to his 7 games.

 

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.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

3 minutes ago, 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.

 

Bottom line - it would be typical of our board to appoint him. Use the bare minimum to justify a decision which removes any effort, shows no recruitment skill and keeps everything nice and cosy. 
 

On the basis that it would be a ****ing lame appointment, Budge will be all over it. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 minutes ago, 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.

 

TBF I think that result list puts him above Stendel but that's a bit of damning with faint praise.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

4 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

...initially 1 year contract only would be my choice if we fail to attract a seemingly gilt-edged appointment

 

This is exactly the question, an initial 1 year

 

3 hours ago, Rudy T said:

My concern has been how he’d cope when plan A failed. It’s all very well saying you want attacking fast football but when results or games are going against you do you have the courage to stick to it or the know how to change it in a positive way. What I saw today was a the mark of a football manager who could react and get the best out of the players when things were falling apart, on Wednesday at Ibrox he kept them at it and we got a draw. I’d give him the gig, these players are playing for him and I think his signings will be decent. It’ll save us a fortune and we can spend that on a player and if it doesn’t work out then he’s gone. Unless there’s some manager there that we’ll only ever get if we act now then I don’t see it as a huge gamble, in fact Naismith could turn out to be an incredible manager who if we lose now we’ll never get back.

 

Good post

 

2 hours ago, Luckies1874 said:

...As I say I like SN but I'm not going to allow them to appoint him and stay silent. It's the easy ****ing option for them to once again abdicate responsibility. It means no work for them. No vetting applicants. No interviews. No negotiations. It's a ****ing joke how we are run. An unserious football club. 

 

The only thing the current board got wrong was not appointing SN for the killie game

 

2 hours ago, Djnoisy said:

It’s down to money. Naismith is the preferred option. If it means we can offer Ginelly more of a contract and sign a proper centre back….I’m all over it. 
 

Blow a significant part of next seasons budget on a manager and work with what we have……not so sure. 

 

Seems a good opportunity, FWIW I think Naismith has very likely been seen as an option for quite some time

 

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Alex MacDonald was the obvious choice to Wallace Mercer in 1981\82. We'll never know if it was the right decision. 

 

In that case and this you had / have very respected players who were leaders with high standards.

 

But it remains uncertain. I think the whole package including the youth aspect favour giving it a chance. Get someone more experienced if it doesn't work. Because if it does work it could be brilliant.

 

Absolutely

 

25 minutes ago, merseyjambo said:

...I don’t know much about Swedish football so I’ve no idea what sort of manager Cifuentes is (if he got it). My concern with going foreign is will we get another le Guen or Alessio which will set us back and paying another manager off. I know all managers are a risk but we’re still paying Neilson’s wages, do we really want to be in that position again.

 

That's exactly who I thought of when discovering the foreign option posted on here

 

18 minutes ago, Lightbulb said:

Definitely yes. Intelligent coach who motivates players to improve. Any new manager  is a gamble but I feel he's got the right balance of player respect and leadership qualities. 

 

Agreed. Spot on.

 

12 minutes ago, Heartsfth said:

No but all we did is sat deep and kept giving the ball away. You need to try and hold on to the ball. Against Aberdeen he took off our forward players with 15 minutes to go to defend a 2-1 lead. That’s exactly what Neilson used to do. As I have said I like Naismith and I like what he says about the game but I hope the club are looking for better, possibly someone Naismith can learn from. All about opinions 

 

That's what RN used to do and lost points trying to do

[Mikey1874]

11 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

We don't play Celtic and Rangers every 7 games. We play them twice in 11. 

 

Certainly put forward the details of what you don't like. Maybe you prefer playing out from the back for example. Maybe you'd play Alan Forrest at right back instead of Atkinson.

 

But my points total of 56 for season based on the 7 results is correct. I've not been generous. 

 

Any new coach deserves time, not 6 weeks to make an impact. You make the decision on the person's qualities not the results. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Mikey1874

[Agentjambo]

10 minutes ago, 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.

 

Nail on head 👍

[GorgieFifeLife]

I was on the fence but his conduct on the touchline and his aftermath interviews helped me to decide that I wouldn’t have him as manager.  He doesn’t behave with any class at all.  He has improved our style of play a bit but I don’t see our results as anything to get excited about.  He needs to do his apprenticeship at a lower level.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, south morocco said:

Still better with your Neilson context. What would you like to see ? 

 

You're making my point for me, in fairness.  The target isn't to be better than Neilson was at the end of his time in the job.  The target (surely) is to put a bit of space between us and the other 9 in the top flight, and maybe a little less space between us and the Gruesome Twosome.

 

I don't want to see us giving the job to someone just because he isn't Neilson.

 

I don't want to see us just going for the ex-player or "returning hero" easy option.

 

I want us looking at someone who can play a game that is high-energy and on the front foot but which is also based on data and technical analysis, because IMO you need both to succeed.  And I want us to stop saying "I know we didn't win but actually it was great except for [insert excuse about what went wrong here]".  We let Neilson off the hook for long enough doing that, and we shouldn't use it to let Naismith off the hook either.

 

Naismith might well be good enough, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to be sure.  That means that if we appoint him we're experimenting, and we should not be experimenting.  We had a chance to use this season to consolidate and build on last season.  We didn't take it, and if we do experiment next season there's a danger we'll end up floundering around in 6th or 7th place next January while looking for Naismith's replacement.

 

Isn't there someone in Scotland (or in England, for that matter) who can do the job we need and who we can entice to Tynecastle?  And does that necessarily have to be someone who has a Hearts connection or who we think "gets" the club?

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Any new coach deserves time, not 6 weeks to make an impact. 

 

Then let's hire a new coach who has some kind of track record elsewhere and give him time.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, GorgieFifeLife said:

I was on the fence but his conduct on the touchline and his aftermath interviews helped me to decide that I wouldn’t have him as manager.  

 

Are people judging him positively because he can "get it up the opposition"?  Isn't there more to coaching and management than that?

[Vic Vespa]

Anybody is a gamble, I was all for an experienced manager that's what a club like Hearts deserves especially where we are now money wise.

 

Now though, I'd be inclined to give Naisy a shot,  I like what he's saying, we do look good and when you consider these aren't his players you would think he would get to sign players that fit in with the way he wants to play, and let go the players that don't fit in with that.

 

Would be gutted to get ampther manager in and we regress.

 

So the way Naisy wants us to play, if he can do it, well I'm in 🙂

[Ulysses]

16 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Bottom line - it would be typical of our board to appoint him. Use the bare minimum to justify a decision which removes any effort, shows no recruitment skill and keeps everything nice and cosy. 
 

On the basis that it would be a ****ing lame appointment, Budge will be all over it. 

 

By the way, for all the moaning I'm doing here I actually don't sodding know who should get the job.

 

To add to that I thought we could have had another couple of goals against Aberdeen, so I don't want to come across as just complaining about Naismith - that's not what I'm about at all.  But on the other hand I don't think we should be going for someone who we put in as a stopgap for 7 games if there's a reasonable possibility we can get someone else who has a proven track record and who can improve things for us next season.

[Diego10]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Then let's hire a new coach who has some kind of track record elsewhere and give him time.

I get the point - but the kind of 'track record' we can attract is going to be pretty limited.  If its someone doing well in a job atm there will be compensation to pay and the likelihood is they're at a level below we are atm.  Or it's a past track record with recent troubles which might work out (steve Clarke to Killie for example) or might not.

 

Not saying we shouldn't be looking wide, i just think as much as I'd love it to be otherwise, we're not attracting anyone top class unless they're a punt.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

You're making my point for me, in fairness.  The target isn't to be better than Neilson was at the end of his time in the job.  The target (surely) is to put a bit of space between us and the other 9 in the top flight, and maybe a little less space between us and the Gruesome Twosome.

 

I don't want to see us giving the job to someone just because he isn't Neilson.

 

I don't want to see us just going for the ex-player or "returning hero" easy option.

 

I want us looking at someone who can play a game that is high-energy and on the front foot but which is also based on data and technical analysis, because IMO you need both to succeed.  And I want us to stop saying "I know we didn't win but actually it was great except for [insert excuse about what went wrong here]".  We let Neilson off the hook for long enough doing that, and we shouldn't use it to let Naismith off the hook either.

 

Naismith might well be good enough, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to be sure.  That means that if we appoint him we're experimenting, and we should not be experimenting.  We had a chance to use this season to consolidate and build on last season.  We didn't take it, and if we do experiment next season there's a danger we'll end up floundering around in 6th or 7th place next January while looking for Naismith's replacement.

 

Isn't there someone in Scotland (or in England, for that matter) who can do the job we need and who we can entice to Tynecastle?  And does that necessarily have to be someone who has a Hearts connection or who we think "gets" the club?

 

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

By the way, for all the moaning I'm doing here I actually don't sodding know who should get the job.

 

To add to that I thought we could have had another couple of goals against Aberdeen, so I don't want to come across as just complaining about Naismith - that's not what I'm about at all.  But on the other hand I don't think we should be going for someone who we put in as a stopgap for 7 games if there's a reasonable possibility we can get someone else who has a proven track record and who can improve things for us next season.

 

Agreed fully on both.

[GorgieFifeLife]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

Are people judging him positively because he can "get it up the opposition"?  Isn't there more to coaching and management than that?

I believe some are judging like this and yes there is much more to it than that and we can attract someone with greater abilities in these areas I am sure.

[BackOfTheNet]

Yes. Getting involved in a bit of aggro on the touchline means you can’t be a good manager. Yup. Only weak no hopers without class do such things. Not winners.

 

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

He’s as Hearts as ****. 

👏👏

 

And that’s a massive plus point versus bringing in someone who’s like ‘Who are Hearts again, where do they play’?

 

It’s already giving an advantage to the club.

 

In my opinion, of course.

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

Yes. Getting involved in a bit of aggro on the touchline means you can’t be a good manager. Yup. Only weak no hopers without class do such things. Not winners.

 

 

I love Tuchel, he could not give the slightest of ****s if he's liked 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Smithee

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

10 men in 3 of the matches. 

 

Hes done better than ok. But can he fix a defence and is the style of football sustainable?

[tynie]

1 hour ago, Famous 1874 said:

It’s a tough one as I like Naisy but as a club we can’t afford to get Neilson’s permanent replacement wrong. 

 

Under Naisy we’ve shown some promising signs and certainly play a far more attractive style than under the previous regime. 
 

However we’ll likely have far more qualified and better managers applying for the role. The club should exhaust all options first. Let’s not just give Naisy the job because we got a point at Ibrox.  He has no experience of building a squad which is a major requirement for me. 
 

Currently in the no camp just because I think there is undoubtedly better managers out there. If in say a few weeks time we announced Naisy then I wouldn’t be disappointed. 
 

However if Naisy was announced let’s say in the next week or 2, then I’d be certain to say that we’ve went with the cheap option.

Semantics, I have stated all along Hearts will not bring in a new manager while still paying Neilsen. We do not have that kind of cash so unless we come up with a major benefactor I strongly suspect Naismith will be the manager off the Hearts.

 

[Ulysses]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

I love Tuchel, he has a remarkable ability to find himself in just the right place at just the right time.

 

 

Fixed that for you.   

[Whitecapjambo]

Think I'm for giving him the gig. Doubt he'll want to go back to U18 management after a relatively successful Interim stint. Means we could lose him if we don't and don'tthink we could afford to let a young manager with potential, who is part of the club, walk away.

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

I get the point - but the kind of 'track record' we can attract is going to be pretty limited.  If its someone doing well in a job atm there will be compensation to pay and the likelihood is they're at a level below we are atm.  Or it's a past track record with recent troubles which might work out (steve Clarke to Killie for example) or might not.

 

Not saying we shouldn't be looking wide, i just think as much as I'd love it to be otherwise, we're not attracting anyone top class unless they're a punt.

 

Just now, tynie said:

Semantics, I have stated all along Hearts will not bring in a new manager while still paying Neilsen. We do not have that kind of cash so unless we come up with a major benefactor I strongly suspect Naismith will be the manager off the Hearts.

 

 

Naismith it is, then.

[BackOfTheNet]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

I love Tuchel, he could not give the slightest of ****s if he's liked 

As most winners are to be honest. Not exactly a quality personable trait, but in competitive sport it’s a common trait amongst most who are successful

[gregzy2k7]

I'm geniunely dissapointed that 80% of us think Naisy is the best we could do, still not on board tbh, he has done ok but nothing more results wise over his 7 games in charge. 

Having said that I would still take him over the usual suspects like Martindale or Robinson ect.

Edited May 27, 2023 by gregzy2k7

[GorgieFifeLife]

4 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

Yes. Getting involved in a bit of aggro on the touchline means you can’t be a good manager. Yup. Only weak no hopers without class do such things. Not winners.

 

Conte is a clown.  Never use other people’s behaviour as a standard for yourself.  We need a manager who knows what he is doing and has a track record, not someone to get it up the opposition to please the hard of thinking.

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, tynie said:

Semantics, I have stated all along Hearts will not bring in a new manager while still paying Neilsen. We do not have that kind of cash so unless we come up with a major benefactor I strongly suspect Naismith will be the manager off the Hearts.

 

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 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

people always saying if not robbie / now naisy then who 

 

hypothetically speaking would anyone want any of these above naisy 

 

Roy hodgson

neil warnock

frank lampard

alex Neil

 

probably the top two wouldn’t be interested for personal reasons anyway and the other two unobtainable but would any of these be preferred candidates

 

top two for me yes and possibly Alex Neil 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

3 minutes ago, Whitecapjambo said:

Think I'm for giving him the gig. Doubt he'll want to go back to U18 management after a relatively successful Interim stint. Means we could lose him if we don't and don'tthink we could afford to let a young manager with potential, who is part of the club, walk away.

 

EXACTLY THIS!

 

After seeing what he's done here, he'll be wanted

 

killie will be itching to get him and the perth mob also have no manager; would you really let the ugly wee scrote doon the stairs shag the prom Queen, when you took her to the dance?

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

6 minutes ago, Whitecapjambo said:

Think I'm for giving him the gig. Doubt he'll want to go back to U18 management after a relatively successful Interim stint. Means we could lose him if we don't and don'tthink we could afford to let a young manager with potential, who is part of the club, walk away.

he pretty much said in his pre match interview that he wanted to be a manager now with the inference that if he didn’t get the job he would be looking elsewhere - not in a back me or sack me type way just calmly describing where he felt he was in his career

 

 

[Gorgi1874]

Loved his statement on Sportscene ref the stramash about what happens when you come to our stadium and that we have each others back. Right attitude, he's winning me over.

[BackOfTheNet]

3 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

people always saying if not robbie / now naisy then who 

 

hypothetically speaking would anyone want any of these above naisy 

 

Roy hodgson

neil warnock

frank lampard

alex Neil

 

probably the top two wouldn’t be interested for personal reasons anyway and the other two unobtainable but would any of these be preferred candidates

 

top two for me yes and possibly Alex Neil 

Who the hell would want Frank Lampard? He’s shown he can barely win a solitary game with a £600 million squad. He’s useless.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

Just now, BackOfTheNet said:

Who the hell would want Frank Lampard? He’s shown he can barely win a solitary game with a £600 million squad. He’s useless.

yup not me - although when he first started out as a coach I thought he would do well 

[BackOfTheNet]

6 minutes ago, GorgieFifeLife said:

Conte is a clown.  Never use other people’s behaviour as a standard for yourself.  We need a manager who knows what he is doing and has a track record, not someone to get it up the opposition to please the hard of thinking.

Naismith has won me round with his tactics, with his down to earth interviews and saying the right things. His punting of players not fully focused on the job and general overall managerial display since he took over. Having a wee word in Johnson’s ear that lead to a stramash between two bitter rivals is not going to change my mind on that.

 

I find it very odd that anyone would have it as a deciding factor either way. And likely they were already in the not Naismith camp to begin with if they do.

[Arry]

Big  CH and a Colin Cameron type … forwards are just fine.  If Gino moves on then so be it. Captain fantastic up top with Boycie #10 more than enough for 3rd place.

[Diego10]

8 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

people always saying if not robbie / now naisy then who 

 

hypothetically speaking would anyone want any of these above naisy 

 

Roy hodgson

neil warnock

frank lampard

alex Neil

 

probably the top two wouldn’t be interested for personal reasons anyway and the other two unobtainable but would any of these be preferred candidates

 

top two for me yes and possibly Alex Neil 

Leaving aside the fact 2 of these guys are over 70 and one is useless, there's not a chance in hell we can afford any of them

[Regular John]

Naismith isn't the man for me. Needs more time as an assistant rather than the main job regardless of our form/results since he came in which haven't demonstrated enough for me.

 

We're too big a club for an entry level manager to come in.

[Chopchop]

Give him the job and let him build a side. Few players needed to keep us on the front foot. We want exciting football which he wants to give. Shows a lot of hearts and would be good for our youngsters. Good leader who people would look up to. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

32 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

By the way, for all the moaning I'm doing here I actually don't sodding know who should get the job.

 

Don’t worry. The whole ‘if you don’t want a B team coach with zero credentials and about three games at first team level then you have to name a different candidate’ patter is the sort of shite the fanboys on here are famed for.