Stoner had 2nd in 250, now Moto2 is the new 250 class, it's the stepping stone to MotoGP, and he's shit in it.
Stoner got second because he finally had a decent bike perhaps, rather than second rate stuff he'd had in previous seasons, 125 or 250. Same as Smith now, not on a bike that is par with the others, according to respected opinion, which includes his own team.
You've done trackdays and it qualiifes you to anounce Smith as shit and talentless. You need a reality check mate, he's 7th, that's just two places and 30 points behind Redding who is on a better bike and who you seem to rate more highly. So he isn't doing too badly by that measurement.
I've no idea how he will do next year, but it's his first on a Motogp bike, a satellite at that, against Lorenzo, Pedrosa, Rossi, Hayden, Dovi - all front runners and/or winners with years of experience behind them in Motogp and on factory bikes. Marquez also in there in his first year, but on a factory bike so begins with an advantage over Smith straight away. Crutchlow in his third year, second on a 1000 and Bradl in his second year on a 1000. Spies in his fourth year and Iannone in his first, both on factory spec Ducatis.
So, you tell me, how should Smith perform against that lot in his first year - what would you consider to be success or failure when realistically, the best he can hope for is to learn the bike, avoid crashing too often and finish around 6th/7th. There are maybe two who have a chance of winning the title. Does that make the rest shit?
Judge him after his first season, not now, most of your criticism seems to be based upon a dislike of the lad rather than founded reasoning.