DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Well with Sherwood and a few new additions I think we could get an extra 10 points next season and a new keeper would be part of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) I'd say that a new left-back, Cleverley's replacement, forward and perhaps another winger are bigger priorities than goalkeeper - but that still puts it like 4th/5th on the list. The remit must be to improve on average players in the XI and Guzan certainly qualifies as such in my opinion. It depends on our budget ultimately and we have no idea what it is this summer. The signs are that it will be an improvement on previous season's outlays going by some of the players we've reportedly tried for so far. So let's see. Edited June 28, 2015 by Isa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 Well with Sherwood and a few new additions I think we could get an extra 10 points next season and a new keeper would be part of that Which is a completely different statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) That's not 'a new keeper will provide 10 points' then is it Edited June 28, 2015 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 So many events happen in one game let alone a whole season that how could you credit a keeper with extra points? If a new keeper comes in and helps us improve whats the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) So many events happen in one game let alone a whole season that how could you credit a keeper with extra points? If a new keeper comes in and helps us improve whats the issue? It's tought to credit keepers with extra points specifically. But I wasn't the one who made the claim. SOmeone else said a new keeper could give us 10 extra points. My point was that is a huge leap. Look at it this way, if we'd had Asmir Begovic in goal this season instead of Brad Guzan do you think we'd have finished 10th (i.e gained 10 extra points)? I'd say the chances of that are incredibly low. I've explained the issue I have several times, but once more won't hurt I guess. My issue is the improvement would be greater if the money was spent on more pressing areas of the team. Simple as that. I'm not denying that a new keeper COULD improve us. I'm just saying that the amount it would improve us isn't enough to justify the time and money that will most likely go into it. To try and give a comparison, look at it this way. Let's say Fabian Delph doesn't want to leave. So we have a perfectly good central midfielder playing for us. Now let's say Sherwood moved him on for £10m and replaced him with a slightly better midfielder for £20m (or £15m, whatever). That would have improved us, and cost us £5m-10m. But would you not agree that it would probably be an unnecessary way of spending our time and money when there are other more critical areas of the team to work on? When we've got a perfectly fine player playing that position already who doesn't want to leave? Edited June 28, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarroki Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 We are allowed to sign people without them being in order of priority/ability. Sherwood might see this as the least important player to swap but if he's the one that needs doing most urgently then get it done. Why wait and not get a keeper he wants because he needs to sign a left back first because it's more important? It just seems so illogical to me. If Newcastle put in a 10m bid for Austin, and it was accepted, would people be against us matching it and going for him because other areas need strengthening? Seems more like sentimentality than anything 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 yo, keep the ball outta the net, dawg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 It's tought to credit keepers with extra points specifically. But I wasn't the one who made the claim. SOmeone else said a new keeper could give us 10 extra points. My point was that is a huge leap. Look at it this way, if we'd had Asmir Begovic in goal this season instead of Brad Guzan do you think we'd have finished 10th (i.e gained 10 extra points)? I'd say the chances of that are incredibly low. I read it differently at first but I still don't think it's madness. You're talking about a keeper performing well in 4 extra games last season to gain those points. With the way we played against man city I think a better keeper not making that horrendous mistake picks us 3 more points up. Is it that crazy to think a team that let in 58 goals could have picked up 7 more points with a better keeper? I'm not denying that a new keeper COULD improve us. I'm just saying that the amount it would improve us isn't enough to justify the time and money that will most likely go into it. To try and give a comparison, look at it this way. Let's say Fabian Delph doesn't want to leave. So we have a perfectly good central midfielder playing for us. Now let's say Sherwood moved him on for £10m and replaced him with a slightly better midfielder for £20m (or £15m, whatever). That would have improved us, and cost us £5m-10m. But would you not agree that it would probably be an unnecessary way of spending our time and money when there are other more critical areas of the team to work on? When we've got a perfectly fine player playing that position already who doesn't want to leave? I can see your point but I think Delph is the wrong comparrison. Delph is a key player for us, Guzan is not. I doubt a club like ours could improve much on someone like Delph, I really don't think we'd struggle too much to improve on Guzan. I don't see it as unnecessary, I can see it as making sense. We're not going to solve all issues and create the perfect squad this summer. So why not sign a number 1 goalkeeper that you've got faith in to do that job over the next few years while you continue to build and improve the squad? A goalkeeper performing well that inspires confidence in everyone will be a key addition to the side, Guzan was that player, he isn't now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 You really think a better keeper (in terms of who we could realistically sign) would have had us finishing 10th instead of 17th this season? I'm sorry but that's just not true. Maybe if you're talking about De Gea or Courtois instead of Guzan. But not if you're talking about someone who we could actually sign. Asmir Begovic certainly wouldn't have had us finishing 10th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) We are allowed to sign people without them being in order of priority/ability. Sherwood might see this as the least important player to swap but if he's the one that needs doing most urgently then get it done. Why wait and not get a keeper he wants because he needs to sign a left back first because it's more important? It just seems so illogical to me. If Newcastle put in a 10m bid for Austin, and it was accepted, would people be against us matching it and going for him because other areas need strengthening? Seems more like sentimentality than anythingIt's nothing to do with the order we're signing players. You've misread my posts if that's the conclusion you've drawn. I agree that if we addressed all areas of the team this summer then it wouldn't matter. But we won't. Unless we spend £50m and sign 7 or 8 players. Which we won't. The Austin comparison doesn't work because another striker is a priority. Benteke is pretty much our only striker, depending on how Kozak recovers. So we do NEED another striker. We don't NEED a new goalkeeper. Edited June 28, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I just don't think it's that far fetched to think a better keeper could have had an effect on 3/4 games. I don't think it's a guarantee but I don't think it's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 I just don't think it's that far fetched to think a better keeper could have had an effect on 3/4 games. I don't think it's a guarantee but I don't think it's crazy. I do. A keeper that we could sign. Asmir Begovic is not worth 10 points a season compared to Brad Guzan. He just isn't. And he's about the best keeper we could probably sign, unless we pull off a real coup. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I just don't think it's that far fetched to think a better keeper could have had an effect on 3/4 games. I don't think it's a guarantee but I don't think it's crazy.I do. A keeper that we could sign. Asmir Begovic is not worth 10 points a season compared to Brad Guzan. He just isn't. And he's about the best keeper we could probably sign, unless we pull off a real coup. If a gk installs the defence with confidence making them perform better then yes he could be worth that amount of points. Whilst not a bad keeper by any stretch of imagination and whilst he has improved, Guzan in my eyes has never been good at organising a defence. If a new keeper comes in who can do that, then we could see an increase in performance of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 Let me ask you two questions. Do you think, with Begovic in goal, Aston Villa would have finished 10th last season? Do you think, with Brad Guzan in goal, Stoke would have only finished 14th last season? If you can answer yes to either of those then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Guzan has got a lot worse in people's opinions since he hasn't been playing. It's a bit like Gil. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) There's so many variables to take into account in both those scenarios. The simple question for me is can we do better replacing Guzan with someone like Begovic? The answer is a clear yes IMO and along with other additions should see us much better than last season. If that happens then I fail to see what the issue is, just because he doesn't prioritise positions the way some would have doesn't make it wrong. Edited June 28, 2015 by DCJonah 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 I've explained the issue several times, so let's leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Based on our previous transfer funds and the suggested fee for Begovic there won't be a whole lot left over for further additions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Based on our previous transfer funds and the suggested fee for Begovic there won't be a whole lot left over for further additions. Based on our previous activity we would never even bid for Begović in the first place or have signed Richard on the reported wages. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Based on our previous transfer funds and the suggested fee for Begovic there won't be a whole lot left over for further additions. Based on our previous activity we would never even bid for Begović in the first place or have signed Richard on the reported wages. That's a very fair point. However previous evidence suggests that we don't usually spend much more than £20 million. IF we have a much larger transfer kitty and Guzan being replaced is only a small piece in a larger puzzle then that's excellent. I have my doubts though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts