Commons v Nakamura

Was reading in the paper today Murdo Macleod thinks Commons is the closest thing we've had to Nakamura. Opinions?

 

McLeod needs to simmer down.

 

Commons is a good player and better finisher but Naka is by far the better player imo.

 

Agree with McLeod nakamura was great but I don't think he was as special as everyone made out the only real speciality he had was free kicks but commons has great vision good touch good shot and scores all the time although I must say I can't really comment too much on commons after half a season

 

If Kris Commons can maintain his level of performance for a sustained period then I would definitely choose him over Nakamura. I was never really a huge fan of Nakamura, I thought he did fine for Celtic but he was never half the player Gordon Strachan tried to make him out to be.

 

He is spot on. Was thinking that myself although commons plays a bit more advanced. Best shot since Naka. Naka is a legend from some our best years of modern times so I think commons will need a couple more seasons before he deserves comparison. Anyone who thinks all Naka had to his game was free kicks knows nothing about football.

 

Bang on the money.

 

Commons is winning the poll

Nakamura was a genius with the ball, extremely creative, and deadly at set peices, commons is better at scoring, but thats it, commons is good, but for all round play, nakamura wins easy

 

If being a key long standing player across our most successful domestic and European spell in decades doesnt at least put you in a 'greats' category at least then there cant be many in it. I would put Artur in the same category as Naka. Whatever you call the category I would say they have to

a. Be well above the normal technical standard

b. Given us at least 3 seasons

c. Been important to periods of success

 

Naka scored some vital goals for us. But Commons has been a revelation since his arrival.

 

We'll wait and see how Commons is against European opposition.
To compare anyone in the sqaud just now against the team Naka was in (at it's best) is jumping the gun a bit. THink our players still have a lot to prove, and to win, before the comparisons.
Think Naka at the moment, but Commons can actually run at players and score from basically anywhere int he final third, whereas Naka was more of a deadball specialist.

Hopefully this team will have the chance to play against some of the best in Europe.

 

Firstly, both of them are quality players.
I believe both of them are similar players in the sense that even if they hadnt had the best of games they could yet score to change the game.
For example, Nakamura playing ok then a free kick comes up and scores changes the game and Commons also, a few games hes not been at his best but out of nowhere produced goals so tough one for me, but Id have Commons to clarify aha!

 

I think Commons is the all round better player.

 

Yeah Naka is the better player but Commons offers more team wise.

 

They are similiar in that they both can strike a ball well but on the other hand both can be anonymous in a lot of matches.

Naka for me

 

Both are extremely gifted, for different reasons. Naka had the set piece gift and Commons has the open play gift.

I voted Naka, for a personal reason. I'll never forget that day inside Rugby Park in May 2007, watching Naka curl that free kick into the bottom corner in the 92nd minute to win us the league. It was complete * euphoric bedlam, as you could imagine.

I also think Naka is the better all round player, when it comes to vision and being able to pick out a good pass. All Commons has really shown in his time here so far is that he has an amazing left peg.

 

Commons is a verygoods player, but is no star yet on the world or international stage, Nakamura was!
End of discussion! Hughie Stein

 

All Naka had was Free kicks ... Are you * high?!?!