SikhInTrinity

Really poor point TRO. 

Refs and chairmen don't do post match interviews. Players don't blame other people and it's not their job to take the blame. 

Its part of a manager's job in any profession to take blame for their team and inspire confidence. 

For me, Sherwood doesn't do that. He's all bluster and he's being found out incredibly quickly. 

This was your earlier comment, he's stated he is the manager and he accepts the responsibility, you then state something else that he didn't mean it in this context. I think this is more to do with general dislike of Sherwood rather than what he says post-match. Also are the players blameless? Many managers blame players, I could easily go on Google and find the same managers you are praising to see them slating players in the same breath. I have more concerns with Sherwood team selection than I do with what he says post match.

Thanks for pulling up my earlier comment. Literally has nothing to do with anything but thanks all the same.

Did I say the players are blameless? 

You're arguing against points I haven't even made.

It does make a difference though.

If you had a manager who made a mistake, and blamed you publicly for it rather than admitting their own mistake, would that make you more or less likely to work harder for him/her?

Also which player has he recently come out and blamed specifically for a defeat?

Really poor point TRO. 

Refs and chairmen don't do post match interviews. Players don't blame other people and it's not their job to take the blame. 

Its part of a manager's job in any profession to take blame for their team and inspire confidence. 

For me, Sherwood doesn't do that. He's all bluster and he's being found out incredibly quickly. 

I just don't think Westwood and Sanchez can play in the same team. Both want to play the holding role.  Sanchez is better at breaking up play and Westwood is better at starting attacks.  I don't mind Westwood in attacking positions so he can play balls through like he did for Gabby early on.  However, he is never going to be a box to box player in the same mould as Gueye. One thing is for sure both of them can only play if they are in a 3 man midfield.

I think I must be watching a different game to a lot of you. I've a season ticket sitting practically next to Sherwood and my eye sight is perfect, yet I'm not seeing this massive improvement in performances others seem to be!

We haven't actually dominated a game all season and to highlight Sunderland and Leicester games in particular as points that got away gives a great deal of credit when it's not due! Sunderland game might be closest to that but actually they took the lead and hardly had to fight for an eqaliser at the death. And we were at home against a definite relegation rival who hadn't picked up a point before us. We hardly peppered their goal for a winner, think we had something like 6 shots on target. Deserved to win? Maybe. Bossed them, no chance. And Leicester, who basically played badly first half and just stepped up to a normal gear and brushed us aside in te second half.

Maybe if you're looking for unfair results you should turn to our one win this season against newly promted Bournemouth, a team that pretty much played us off the park in the first half and then we began to match them more in the second. If we should have more against Sunderland we equally could gave had less against Bournemouth.

People also say at least we aren't reliant on Benteke as much which is great in principle but just means we actually CAN'T rely on our strikers at the moment. Our midfield will score more goals than our strikers and I doubt that's a good sign!

I take the argument the team needs time to gel but it takes ZERO time to learn how to scrap. There is no excuse for giving up and not fighting for points and that's what this team does constantly. You have to be grinding out draws and wins against the teams we've played or you will be in trouble regardless of the 'better performance' and 'we'll get better over time' arguments. I love how much hope people have that it's just going to click but I don't see it. Can hardly blame injuries yet and relying on youngsters who still have to learn whatever their potential is just the desperate hopes of a beaten down fan base.

I'd rather be playing badly but have more points on the board, than playing our current below average and having very few points on the board! With the games we've played, the manner of our performances, the team 'bottle', the lack of goal threat, the odd substitutions and the reliance on youngsters I just can't see how we won't be fighting relegation this year. I have seen NOTHING to suggest we will. All I've seen is enough to know Grealish and Traore might have enough about them to be sold for a healthy profit next summer.

Then that's the question you should have asked.

 

Of the regular (currently) starting keepers, I would consider Guzan better than the following:

 

Howard, Stekelenberg, McCarthy, Boruc, Gomes, Ruddy, Foster/Myhill (I dunno who starts for the but he's better than both).

 

I'd say he's on a similar level to Mignolet, Adrian and Krul. And probably Butland but it's a bit early to make a call on Butland, despite his impressive start. But I'd happily concede somebody viewing those guys as better, its down to opinion.

 

but there's no point in having this debate. You're now just going to reply saying "no he's crapper than all of them".

Which is fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's why I originally was only addressing the ludicrous implication that guzan was the worst keeper in the league.

I never stated he was the worst, you assumed that's the point I was making. However he is not better than Howard, he never has been. As for being on par with the keepers you have mentioned that is laughable, Like i stated in the summer, if we put up Guzan for sale, he'd be wanted by Championship clubs or clubs from the States. He would not get another move in this league IMO.

Yes. I did assume it. I've already said that it was an implication. Perhaps I inferred incorrectly. 

You should let the US National team know he's not better than Howard. They might be interested as they keep playing him ahead of Howard.

See, i told you that's the response I'd get  Like I said, it's fine, that's your opinion. But it makes a debate pretty pointless.

Then that's the question you should have asked.

 

Of the regular (currently) starting keepers, I would consider Guzan better than the following:

 

Howard, Stekelenberg, McCarthy, Boruc, Gomes, Ruddy, Foster/Myhill (I dunno who starts for the but he's better than both).

 

I'd say he's on a similar level to Mignolet, Adrian and Krul. And probably Butland but it's a bit early to make a call on Butland, despite his impressive start. But I'd happily concede somebody viewing those guys as better, its down to opinion.

 

but there's no point in having this debate. You're now just going to reply saying "no he's crapper than all of them".

Which is fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's why I originally was only addressing the ludicrous implication that guzan was the worst keeper in the league.

Question how many keepers are worse than Guzan in the PL?

 

Dozens.

No names Stevo? Just be interested to know who we think is worse.

Kean, Wright, Spiegel, Blackman, Maddison, Rose, Gazzaniga, Gilmartin, Johnstone, Kelvin Davies, Darlow, Schwarzer, Bunn, Rudd, Robles, Foster, Elliot, Arlauskis, Nordfelt, Hennessey, Haugaard, Speroni, Bogdan, Given, Federici, Randolph, Boruc, Ruddy, McCarthy, Myhill, Gomes, Steer

 

Those are ones I'd consider certainly worse than Guzan.

 

There's several others who I'd rate Guzan as better than, but I left them out for sake of argument.

there's 20 teams in the PL so out of the other 19 1st choice keepers who is worse? Guzans decision making is awful and is getting worse. This isn't the keeper we had 2 years ago Guzan kept us games under Lambert but is now costing us. 

That was the question, the implication of which was that Guzan was the worst keeper in the league. I answered it.

 

Like I said, there's a few first teamers that I've left off that list who I would argue he's better than but there's not much point in having the debate, especially with SIT as our opinions on our keeper clearly are very different. I was just making the point that if I inferred from SIT's question correctly (that he thinks Guzan is the worst keeper in the league) that that's just obviously not true.

Question how many keepers are worse than Guzan in the PL?

 

Dozens.

He is absolutely shocking, his whole round keeping is bang average. He still can't kick. I'm still waiting for a game where I can truly say Guzan won us some points there. Even if we take the first goal he comes out and is in no mans land and he gets lobbed. Been calling him for him to be replaced for a long time now, the worst thing is we don't have anyone behind him who will really challenge his position.

Okay he hasn't been the greatest lately, but let's not revise history here.

Remind me of a game in the last 2 years where you can truly say Guzan you won us that. Last one I can remember is Norwich away where he saved the pen and made some cracking saves other than that I'm struggling. He's been poor for a long while now.