Stevo985 Posted July 9, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2015 The point is that I don't think Guzan is good enough. Half of that problem is that he has no competition. Steveo- do all good gk cost 10m? Doug - he's a bit shit because he could barely get a game for Blackburn or Norwich. I did say upto £10m. But for a keeper better than Guzan, yeah I reckon you'd be looking at 5 or 6 million minimum, upto about £10m. I'm sure there are gems out there for less, but you could say that about any position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 What I don't understand is this acceptance to sign someone a bit shit just because he is going to be back up. Sure, you won't sign many top goalkeepers by saying, btw you're going to be 2nd 3rd choice but bring someone in and say I want you to become our number 1 and let 2/3 decent gk earn their money. Courtois went to Chelsea with no intention of being number 2. Mark bunn probably can't believe his luck. Who says he's a bit shit? I don't really understand the point anyway. If we bought Charlie Austin or, I dunno, Bafetimbi Gomis to be back up to Benteke nobody would care, even though either of them isn't as good as Benteke. Sometimes you buy players who aren't as good as your first choice to be a backup. But both them players have had periods last season where they played well and arguably at some points could have been seen as a better option than benteke. Especially Austin. If we were to sign some heap of junk striker from Norwich who couldn't get a game up front for them then I'd be pretty underwhelmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I prefer the glory days of back ups like Postma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 What I don't understand is this acceptance to sign someone a bit shit just because he is going to be back up. Sure, you won't sign many top goalkeepers by saying, btw you're going to be 2nd 3rd choice but bring someone in and say I want you to become our number 1 and let 2/3 decent gk earn their money. Courtois went to Chelsea with no intention of being number 2. Mark bunn probably can't believe his luck. Who says he's a bit shit? I don't really understand the point anyway. If we bought Charlie Austin or, I dunno, Bafetimbi Gomis to be back up to Benteke nobody would care, even though either of them isn't as good as Benteke. Sometimes you buy players who aren't as good as your first choice to be a backup. But both them players have had periods last season where they played well and arguably at some points could have been seen as a better option than benteke. Especially Austin. If we were to sign some heap of junk striker from Norwich who couldn't get a game up front for them then I'd be pretty underwhelmed. Obviously goalkeeper is a very different position to striker (I'm aware you didn't introduce the analogy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Heap of junk! I bet you've never seen him play. Not once. Neither have I before you ask. I don't think the signing was one intended to overwhelm you with excitement. I don't think anyone is even pretending to be excited. Absolute nonsense. Classic. Edited July 9, 2015 by dont_do_it_doug. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 What I don't understand is this acceptance to sign someone a bit shit just because he is going to be back up. Sure, you won't sign many top goalkeepers by saying, btw you're going to be 2nd 3rd choice but bring someone in and say I want you to become our number 1 and let 2/3 decent gk earn their money. Courtois went to Chelsea with no intention of being number 2. Mark bunn probably can't believe his luck. Who says he's a bit shit? I don't really understand the point anyway. If we bought Charlie Austin or, I dunno, Bafetimbi Gomis to be back up to Benteke nobody would care, even though either of them isn't as good as Benteke. Sometimes you buy players who aren't as good as your first choice to be a backup. But both them players have had periods last season where they played well and arguably at some points could have been seen as a better option than benteke. Especially Austin. If we were to sign some heap of junk striker from Norwich who couldn't get a game up front for them then I'd be pretty underwhelmed. Out of curiosity, I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head. Which team in this league is genuinely torn between which keeper to play? I don't think there is one with two or three cracking keepers in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) What I don't understand is this acceptance to sign someone a bit shit just because he is going to be back up. Sure, you won't sign many top goalkeepers by saying, btw you're going to be 2nd 3rd choice but bring someone in and say I want you to become our number 1 and let 2/3 decent gk earn their money. Courtois went to Chelsea with no intention of being number 2. Mark bunn probably can't believe his luck.Who says he's a bit shit?I don't really understand the point anyway. If we bought Charlie Austin or, I dunno, Bafetimbi Gomis to be back up to Benteke nobody would care, even though either of them isn't as good as Benteke. Sometimes you buy players who aren't as good as your first choice to be a backup.But both them players have had periods last season where they played well and arguably at some points could have been seen as a better option than benteke. Especially Austin. If we were to sign some heap of junk striker from Norwich who couldn't get a game up front for them then I'd be pretty underwhelmed. Out of curiosity, I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head. Which team in this league is genuinely torn between which keeper to play? I don't think there is one with two or three cracking keepers in it? Well cech and Courtois loris and vorm de gea and valdes No the 2nd keeper isn't as good but the 1st keeper knows that he needs to be bang on form to keep his place. Edited July 10, 2015 by Woodytom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Heap of junk! I bet you've never seen him play. Not once. Neither have I before you ask. I don't think the signing was one intended to overwhelm you with excitement. I don't think anyone is even pretending to be excited. Absolute nonsense. Classic. I never said it was the intention or that anyone was pretending to be excited. All I was saying is that I see very little point in this signing. There is virtually no chance that he's going to have a positive effect on the team. At least shay given - we knew he could perform at this level/could be influential and respected. This guy couldn't even get into teams that are worse than us. Pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 What I don't understand is this acceptance to sign someone a bit shit just because he is going to be back up. Sure, you won't sign many top goalkeepers by saying, btw you're going to be 2nd 3rd choice but bring someone in and say I want you to become our number 1 and let 2/3 decent gk earn their money. Courtois went to Chelsea with no intention of being number 2. Mark bunn probably can't believe his luck. Who says he's a bit shit? I don't really understand the point anyway. If we bought Charlie Austin or, I dunno, Bafetimbi Gomis to be back up to Benteke nobody would care, even though either of them isn't as good as Benteke. Sometimes you buy players who aren't as good as your first choice to be a backup. But both them players have had periods last season where they played well and arguably at some points could have been seen as a better option than benteke. Especially Austin. If we were to sign some heap of junk striker from Norwich who couldn't get a game up front for them then I'd be pretty underwhelmed. Out of curiosity, I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head. Which team in this league is genuinely torn between which keeper to play? I don't think there is one with two or three cracking keepers in it? Well cech and Courtois loris and vorm de gea and valdes No the 2nd keeper isn't as good but the 1st keeper knows that he needs to be bang on form to keep his place. Well cech left for first team footy - vorm has got a bollock in him. Very rare to find it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 10, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) What I don't understand is this acceptance to sign someone a bit shit just because he is going to be back up. Sure, you won't sign many top goalkeepers by saying, btw you're going to be 2nd 3rd choice but bring someone in and say I want you to become our number 1 and let 2/3 decent gk earn their money. Courtois went to Chelsea with no intention of being number 2. Mark bunn probably can't believe his luck. Who says he's a bit shit? I don't really understand the point anyway. If we bought Charlie Austin or, I dunno, Bafetimbi Gomis to be back up to Benteke nobody would care, even though either of them isn't as good as Benteke. Sometimes you buy players who aren't as good as your first choice to be a backup. But both them players have had periods last season where they played well and arguably at some points could have been seen as a better option than benteke. Especially Austin. If we were to sign some heap of junk striker from Norwich who couldn't get a game up front for them then I'd be pretty underwhelmed. Out of curiosity, I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head. Which team in this league is genuinely torn between which keeper to play? I don't think there is one with two or three cracking keepers in it? Well cech and Courtois loris and vorm de gea and valdes No the 2nd keeper isn't as good but the 1st keeper knows that he needs to be bang on form to keep his place. Well cech left for first team footy - vorm has got a bollock in him. Very rare to find it for me. Not to mention Chelsea are league champions Spurs are champions league challengers Man United are in the champions league and one of the biggest teams in the world. If we were anywhere close to those clubs then my attitude toward signing Mark Bunn would be totally different. I would completely agree that we should be signing goalkeepers to push and overtake what we already have. But the reality is we are a shit football club at the moment that has no (or very little) money. And we have a perfectly good goalkeeper. And we have several other positions that need addressing much more urgently. Those are three very good reasons not to be spending money or time signing a new first choice goalkeeper. And, fwiw, to answer DDID's point I have seen Bunn play, a few times. He's decent from what I've seen. No, I don't see him overtaking Guzan, but like I've said before we don't need him to. He's good enough to have a stint in goal, and he'll play in the cup matches. Guzan knows, from last season, that if his form drops then he'll get dropped. I really don't see much of a problem with this. This is a much better solution than signing Begovic for £10m, in my opinion. Or signing another goalkeeper for a chunk of money. Again, if we had loads of money, or a better outfield squad, then my attitude would be different. Edited July 10, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Well the biggest difference in our opinions is with the rating of Guzan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 10, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Quite. guzan's ability has plummeted since he hasn't been playing in some people's eyes. To be honest, I don't expect Guzan to ever recover. It's what happens with goalkeepers on VillaTalk. As soon as people decide they don't like them, every goal becomes their fault. I'd bet my house on that happening with Guzan. It had already started last season, and it's happening now in games where he's not even playing for Villa. Edited July 10, 2015 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 We should be fine with Guzan. Overall he's performed pretty well and I can't see him being replaced as top choice by Bunn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Quite. guzan's ability has plummeted since he hasn't been playing in some people's eyes. To be honest, I don't expect Guzan to ever recover. It's what happens with goalkeepers on VillaTalk. As soon as people decide they don't like them, every goal becomes their fault. I'd bet my house on that happening with Guzan. It had already started last season, and it's happening now in games where he's not even playing for Villa. True but the opposite can happen to. VT scapegoat can fast become a hero. Petrov being the biggest example. As for Guzan I think he will be given another chance. (No pun intended). Even the best goalies have been dropped from time to time and have come back stronger than before. Hart being one example. He does need some healthy competition though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 10, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2015 Like I said before, I don't think the competition needs to be an amazing keeper. The message has already been sent that if he underperforms, even for one game, he's dropped. As long as the back up is competent and capable of taking his place, then the threat of being dropped is always there. Bunn is good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 yeah Bunn should do fine. happy we got him on a free transfer as well. what are his wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If Guzan makes too many mistakes or just isn't performing he'll be out the team and Bunn will have his chance. Crime and Bunnishment. Although I don't think us signing him (Bunn) necessarily means that we aren't going to replace Guzan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Chelsea had terrible back up keepers for years. Liverpool still have bogdan. Even the top teams don't regard back up keeper as a need of quality. Being negative about a back up keeper stinks of being negative for the sake of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Like I said before, I don't think the competition needs to be an amazing keeper. The message has already been sent that if he underperforms, even for one game, he's dropped. As long as the back up is competent and capable of taking his place, then the threat of being dropped is always there. Bunn is good enough. I haven't seen enough of Bunn to comment tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 We're used to having quality back up keepers like Given to Guzan and before that Guzan to Friedel. Now we've got someone who couldn't get on the Norwich bench last season (I don't know that, It's something I read on pinkun). Not that I'm complaining I doubt Sherwood has much choice thanks to budget, but I can understand people having reservations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts