Jump to content

Brad Guzan


R.Bear

Recommended Posts

I'm checking the higlights as I write this.

First leg

First goal - initial corner outswinging, comes down level with the penalty spot. WOuld be crazy for the keeper to be claiming it out there. Cleared, defelcted back in and they score. I think Given could have spread himself the other way, btu it would have been a great stop if he'd saved it.

 

Second goal - Low hard cross, header is made on the corner of the 6 yard box at the near post side. Again, no chance any keeper is claiming that

 

Third Goal - Another outswining corner. Header is made on the penalty spot. Perhaps Given could have dived and saved the header, but he had a man on the line who you'd think would cover it and didn't. Point is he couldn't have claimed the cross.

Second Leg

Only goal - Vlaar loses his man, free header, again level with the penalty spot, more or less. Not claimable

 

I'm sorry but Guzan wouldn't be coming and claiming any of those crosses.

Ok, you could say Guzan would influence the game and those situations would neevr arise, but that, imo, is a huge assumption to be making.

Command of area doesn't just boil down to coming off your line to claim crosses. It's about bossing the area first and foremost. Also you need to look at all the crosses in the matches, not just the ones for goals. How much encouragement did they get to keep crossing the ball in throughout the tie? How much of an influence would a more physical, more vocal keeper better on crosses have had to negate that? Of course the overall defeat wasn't given's fault at all, but having Guzan in there would definitely have meant the plan A, B and C for bradford consisted of getting the ball in the box so much
fair points, but my point was about the goals themselves. What you say may be true, but it's all an assumption.

The mere statement that had we had guzan in goal we'd have beaten bradford is, in my opinion, wrong.

It's the same as me saying if we'd had Ashley Westwood in midfield we'd have won the tie.

Maybe we would have, but there's nothing in the game you can say he directly affected so it's purely a guess.

I love Guzan, he's better than Given. But I don't think it would have made a difference if he'd faced bradford. I'm. Basing that on the goals conceded.

I think this is merely, as seems to be a trend on Vt, a case of people being incredibly harsh about whichever keeper isn't flavour of the month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm checking the higlights as I write this.

First leg

First goal - initial corner outswinging, comes down level with the penalty spot. WOuld be crazy for the keeper to be claiming it out there. Cleared, defelcted back in and they score. I think Given could have spread himself the other way, btu it would have been a great stop if he'd saved it.

 

Second goal - Low hard cross, header is made on the corner of the 6 yard box at the near post side. Again, no chance any keeper is claiming that

 

Third Goal - Another outswining corner. Header is made on the penalty spot. Perhaps Given could have dived and saved the header, but he had a man on the line who you'd think would cover it and didn't. Point is he couldn't have claimed the cross.

Second Leg

Only goal - Vlaar loses his man, free header, again level with the penalty spot, more or less. Not claimable

 

I'm sorry but Guzan wouldn't be coming and claiming any of those crosses.

Ok, you could say Guzan would influence the game and those situations would neevr arise, but that, imo, is a huge assumption to be making.

Command of area doesn't just boil down to coming off your line to claim crosses. It's about bossing the area first and foremost. Also you need to look at all the crosses in the matches, not just the ones for goals. How much encouragement did they get to keep crossing the ball in throughout the tie? How much of an influence would a more physical, more vocal keeper better on crosses have had to negate that? Of course the overall defeat wasn't given's fault at all, but having Guzan in there would definitely have meant the plan A, B and C for bradford consisted of getting the ball in the box so much
fair points, but my point was about the goals themselves. What you say may be true, but it's all an assumption.

The mere statement that had we had guzan in goal we'd have beaten bradford is, in my opinion, wrong.

It's the same as me saying if we'd had Ashley Westwood in midfield we'd have won the tie.

Maybe we would have, but there's nothing in the game you can say he directly affected so it's purely a guess.

I love Guzan, he's better than Given. But I don't think it would have made a difference if he'd faced bradford. I'm. Basing that on the goals conceded.

I think this is merely, as seems to be a trend on Vt, a case of people being incredibly harsh about whichever keeper isn't flavour of the month.

the goals scored don't really come into it for me. it's the continual encouragement that bradford got to keep slinging the ball in there. i don't believe that would've happened with guzan in nets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's agree to disagree.

 

Imo, Given deserves stick, but not for those games. He's done nothing wrong yet is getting slated for it.

 

But as I said, this is typical of VT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's agree to disagree.

 

Imo, Given deserves stick, but not for those games. He's done nothing wrong yet is getting slated for it.

 

But as I said, this is typical of VT.

is he actually getting slated, or are people just saying we'd have had a better chance if we played our best keeper instead of given? because so far as i can see it's the latter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good. Dread to think how many goals we'd ship from set-pieces with calamity Given in goal.

 

 

I think it's time to face the fact that Given is past it.

 

 

Bradford was a collective failure but make no mistake he was one of the main culprits.

I'd call that "slating" him.

Saying Given was one of the main culprits for us being unable to beat a league 2 team is, frankly, utterly ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he is past it, he showed that last year to be fair. He's still a great shot stopper, but he's never had much command of his area and it's gotten worse in the last few years. He's not getting any unwarranted slating for the most part, apart from the first one. Calamity Given is a bit much

 

For the third one though, I would actually say he was one of the main reasons, not one of the main culprits. If you're playing us and Given is in goals, you know that an already high chance of scoring from crosses gets higher again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was one of the main reasons we stayed in the league last year so I'm not sure how that shows he's past it!

But whatever. You asked if anyone was slating him, and they clearly are. Whether you think it's justified is besides the point really.

But on that point I still think you're being incredibly harsh regarding that game.

For a keeper to be called one of the main reasons we lost despite not actually doing anything wrong is harsh whatever way you dress it up.

He dealt with every cross he had to deal with. The ones they scored from weren't his fault.

But I'm obviously not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â