Brad Guzan

[lexicon]

It's as if he should be getting ten assists a season or something. Boggles the mind.

[TrentVilla]

What is so mind boggling about thinking we could and probably should get a better keeper?

Nobody is saying he is rubbish just that we could perhaps do better.

It's no different to any other position but for some reason keepers are always treated differently by fans.

[lexicon]

We could do better in every position in the side, doesn't mean that we don't have decent players already. We're not going to outgrow Guzan any time soon.

[TrentVilla]

Once again, I don't think anyone is saying Guzan isn't decent.

But we've improved other areas of the team this summer I'm not sure why Guzan (any keeper) should be treated differently yet they often are.

If Sherwood can find and land a better keeper than Guzan, which personally I think he probably could then I'm all for it. It wouldn't be my top priority but I wouldn't exclude the position from efforts to improve.

[Stevo985]

What is so mind boggling about thinking we could and probably should get a better keeper?

Nobody is saying he is rubbish just that we could perhaps do better.

It's no different to any other position but for some reason keepers are always treated differently by fans.

I don't think anyone is saying it's mind boggling that people might want a better keeper.

I do myself long term, but I think Guzan is perfectly good enough for us for where we are right now.

 

The bemusement is people placing such a high emphasis on his kicking. Some people seem to be wanting a new keeper because Guzan's kicking isn't very good.

[TrentVilla]

I agree that is over emphasised by some but that in part is also because those on the other side of the debate have seized upon that as being the main reason people want a new keeper. Therefore that has become the debate, about his kicking. Although if we had gone down that defeat at City and that mistake would have been a far bigger point of discussion.

For me the bigger, more important issue is that he was a part of the worse defence I've ever seen at Villa.

People will blame what was in front of him and rightly so but he played his part.

Last summer Senderos was signed because he was a talker, he talked those around him through 90 mins. None of our other defenders did this and neither did/does Guzan. Our entire defence improved as a result and then went to shit when he got injured.

I personally think Guzan losing his place in the side last season was not only down to his mistake at City but his lack of a voice with those in front of him, not an issue that Given suffered with.

I also feel that a lot of 'mistakes' over the last few years by Guzan have escaped greater criticism because he has been I under

concerted pressure in games. And to a point that is fair enough and reasonable as the more he has to do the more margin for error.

My suspicion is as we improve, if we improve more attention will be cast on Guzan.

He is a decent keeper, but not much more and while there are others areas of the squad in more stark need of attention the keeper position is one I would welcome Sherwood addressing.

I would also point out that Sherwood has one of the most respected keeper coaches around at the club and still seemingly looked to replace Guzan.

[Stevo985]

An interesting argument, especially as I consider Guzan's command of his box and his defence to be good, and probably Given's biggest weakness.

 

I agree that as we improve, Guzan will be more under more scrutiny.

 

But we haven't improved yet. Which is people like me's argument. For where we are right now Guzan is more than good enough. Once we move up the league (if we move up the league) then a better keeper becomes an issue.

 

But for a team that finished 17th and has so many weaknesses all over the pitch, a new keeper was a very low priority.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Stevo985

[TrentVilla]

Command of the box and command of a defence are though two different things.

 

I entirely agree with you Guzan commands his box well and far better than Given, absolutely no question about that or debate to be had in my view.

 

He doesn't though command a defence, he is very very quiet as a keeper and I can tell you that was the view of people at the club over the last couple of seasons.

Our problem, or at least one of our problems was none of the defence took control, took the lead and commanded the unit in the way the likes of Laursen did.

 

Vlaar certainly didn't, which is why I advocated taking the armband from him last summer.

 

This in my view is why we improved at the start of last season with Senderos and to a degree towards the end of the season when Clark emerged as a leader.

 

It is a large part of why we signed Richards this summer, he literally never shuts up on the pitch and it will help those around him.

 

But a keeper behind a defence should be bellowing at those in front of him, the best ones always do but Guzan is pretty quiet all the time.

 

I don't disagree re priorities, and where we are now ect. I wasn't that keen on replacing him with Begovic when so many other areas needed attention.

 

Now though I'd be more open to it, not because we've improved, we've only had one game, but because I think we will improve and I think with a better keeper behind our defence we would improve quicker.

That isn't to say Guzan is a bad keeper, he isn't but I'd say he is a bottom end Premier League keeper.

[SikhInTrinity]

Spot on Trent.

[Stevo985]

Can't argue with much of that. Just that I've not really noticed Guzan lacking a command of his defence, but I guess it's a hard thing to pinpoint. To me that's far more a problem with our defenders than it is with Guzan.

 

Nothing else you've said really disagrees with anything I've said so I think we're on the same page.

[TrentVilla]

Yeah I think so.

And to be honest it wasn't something I picked up on until my attention was drawn to it by someone within the game.

[momo]

It is a cheap shot calling him a bottom end keeper. It is not like he had Terry and Ferdinand in front of him, he had the so called chuckle brothers. It is the central defense job to organize, and their inexperience (chuckle brothers) has nothing to do with Guzan. It certainly did not get any better with standing-on-his-line-not-commanding-at-all Given. That is a much bigger weakness that no one else in the team can change, unlike the "weakness" of Guzan. If Sherwood unearths the new Schmeichel then sure buy him, but not just buy for the sake of buying. 

 

 

 

In the last three years, Howard has averaged four errors per season, an alarmingly high total, especially considering in the two seasons before that he averaged just one error. Suddenly the two-error season of 2011-12 looks more like an outlier than last year’s six.
Also, given that Everton has had a formidable, shot-limiting defense for each of the past three years, it is even more concerning that Howard has made so many errors. Faced with a relatively low number of shots, he posted a dismal 21.7 shots faced per error last season.
On the other end of the spectrum is Guzan. He faced 53 more shots than Howard last season but made just two errors. This left him joint league best with Manchester United’s David de Gea, one of the Premier League’s finest keepers.

More impressively still, Guzan delivered an incredible 91.5 shots faced per error, which is over four times greater than Howard’s mark (and well above de Gea’s 55 shots faced/error, too).

The final area of concern for Howard is his often shaky positioning and decision-making on balls played into the box. Guzan, on the other hand, has long been praised for his sound judgment in the area.

A good analysis of Guzan and Howard.

Edited August 11, 2015 by momo

[momo]

 

Lichaj also revealed that Guzan’s voice after matches is often hoarse which demonstrates how much of a vocal presence he has been in the side.

“Usually at the end of the games, he’s lost his voice and when it’s not we have to tell him to be quiet! I’m just messing around, but he’s a very vocal,” said Lichaj.

Another player talking about Guzan.

[bobzy]

I agree that is over emphasised by some but that in part is also because those on the other side of the debate have seized upon that as being the main reason people want a new keeper. Therefore that has become the debate, about his kicking. Although if we had gone down that defeat at City and that mistake would have been a far bigger point of discussion.

For me the bigger, more important issue is that he was a part of the worse defence I've ever seen at Villa.

People will blame what was in front of him and rightly so but he played his part.

 

 

But Christian Benteke was a part of the actually, statistically worst attack seen at Villa - yet we wouldn't have wanted to sell him if we had a choice?

[Stevo985]

Yeah I don't like that argument and never have. 

 

It's been used against people like Vlaar and Westwood in the past and it just doesn't hold up, imo.

 

I also agree that Guzan is better than a bottom end premier league keeper.

I still maintain he's better than Mignolet and Howard, and they're at clubs much higher up than us at the moment.

[NIVillan]

Guzan reminds me of Spink.

 

Technically a great Keeper but does not command or organise his defence well enough.

 

Given was as guilty in my eyes.  He might have been more vocal but every team he has played at  the defence has been considered dodgy.

 

With Hellboy Brad we had a top quality goalie and someone who organised his defence. 

[TrentVilla]

It is a cheap shot calling him a bottom end keeper. It is not like he had Terry and Ferdinand in front of him, he had the so called chuckle brothers. It is the central defense job to organize, and their inexperience (chuckle brothers) has nothing to do with Guzan. It certainly did not get any better with standing-on-his-line-not-commanding-at-all Given. That is a much bigger weakness that no one else in the team can change, unlike the "weakness" of Guzan. If Sherwood unearths the new Schmeichel then sure buy him, but not just buy for the sake of buying. 

 

 

A cheap shot? Not quite sure how its a cheap shot, I'm not directing abuse at the guy I'm just expressing my opinion about his ability as a keeper, no different to any thread or countless views you've expressed on players.

 

I simply don't agree with you that the keeper shouldn't have a hand in the organisation of a defence. Little point labouring that point, we simply disagree. As for the article and stats, they are interesting but don't alter my view in any way.

 

As for Given, i agree which is why I didn't want us to sign him in the first place.

 

As for the last line you seem to be disputing a point I'm not making, under no stretch of the imagination has anything I posted advocated buy a keeper for the sake of it.

[TrentVilla]

 

I agree that is over emphasised by some but that in part is also because those on the other side of the debate have seized upon that as being the main reason people want a new keeper. Therefore that has become the debate, about his kicking. Although if we had gone down that defeat at City and that mistake would have been a far bigger point of discussion.

For me the bigger, more important issue is that he was a part of the worse defence I've ever seen at Villa.

People will blame what was in front of him and rightly so but he played his part.

 

 

But Christian Benteke was a part of the actually, statistically worst attack seen at Villa - yet we wouldn't have wanted to sell him if we had a choice?

 

 

No but so was Weimann should we have held onto him?

 

Anyway, I get your point but I wasn't blaming Guzan for that defence being as bad as it was just illustrating that I think every aspect of it should be up for review and be replaced and improved on when and if possible including him.

 

That is it, that is my point. That if we can get a better keeper than Guzan we should and that that view isn't purely a result of a bad kick or two.

[momo]

 

It is a cheap shot calling him a bottom end keeper. It is not like he had Terry and Ferdinand in front of him, he had the so called chuckle brothers. It is the central defense job to organize, and their inexperience (chuckle brothers) has nothing to do with Guzan. It certainly did not get any better with standing-on-his-line-not-commanding-at-all Given. That is a much bigger weakness that no one else in the team can change, unlike the "weakness" of Guzan. If Sherwood unearths the new Schmeichel then sure buy him, but not just buy for the sake of buying. 

 

 

A cheap shot? Not quite sure how its a cheap shot, I'm not directing abuse at the guy I'm just expressing my opinion about his ability as a keeper, no different to any thread or countless views you've expressed on players.

 

I simply don't agree with you that the keeper shouldn't have a hand in the organisation of a defence. Little point labouring that point, we simply disagree. As for the article and stats, they are interesting but don't alter my view in any way.

 

As for Given, i agree which is why I didn't want us to sign him in the first place.

 

As for the last line you seem to be disputing a point I'm not making, under no stretch of the imagination has anything I posted advocated buy a keeper for the sake of it.

 

I found it a bit cheap when Guzan was/is one of the highlights of the team. I did not say that he should not be organizing the defense, but I just am of the opinion that is not solely the keepers job. It is more the job of a commanding center half who has an understanding with the keeper. His team mates also say he is vocal (see above), something I have heard multiple times. Maybe you are talking about something more specific that has to do with him being a a bit too nice, unlike Senderos and Richards??? I just like the way he comes out for crosses and barely makes a mistake doing that. Sure, the last season his Hollywood saves were a bit more infrequent, but that may be a dip in form or just a worse defense that was easily penetrated.

 

Anyway, my post was not a direct response to you, but generally a feeling that people are advocating change for the sake of change. Like I said, buying a new Schmeichel I can understand, but not someone who is debatable whether is an improvement or not.

[Zatman]

he looked a lot more comfortable on the ball tonight than he normally does