Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 People do accept that. I don't know anybody who doesn't. But there's a difference between accepting he isn't great at distribution, and blaming him for a goal that wasn't his fault. Witch hunt might not be the correct term. But like I said, if he did that 2 seasons ago nobody would bat an eyelid. It's only because people have suddenly decided they're going to be overly harsh on him that they've decided it was his fault. VillaTalk has turned. He's going to make a "mistake" every game now, you watch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted August 23, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm not blaming him for the goal, I've been quite clear about that but I think he contributed to it. Witch hunt is the wrong term. And I completely disagree with you on the rest, personally I also think he has been massively over rated by a lot of fans. I also think some of his flaws have have masked by the side that was in front of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Watched it multiple times now. Can't understand how anyone can blame Guzan for that. Completely Amavi's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul33 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 There was three minutes to go and the entire Palace side was in our half and pressing like pack animals. You do NOT bowl the ball out to your full back in that scenario. Amavi lost the ball but Guzan should have sat on it until the danger zone was clear and he could go long. 90% Guzan's fault in my books ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 Several free men inside him. Could have gone back to the keeper. Could have cleared it. Plus, he wanted the ball. It's not like Guzan gave it to him when his back was turned. Blaming Guzan is nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Here's the moment Amavi received the ball. This is on his right foot, had he waited until it was on his left, Dann would have been half a yard closer. I was wrong on the previous page. At this exact moment, he has four options as I see it. There are passes into danger available to Clark, who has a man near him, and (poss Westwood?) who also has a man near him but could receive the ball on his blind side. There's knocking it out of play for a throw in. There's turning around and passing it back to Guzan. Or there's trying to beat his man. None of these are great options. The way I see it, Dann reacted quickly, but there's a reason he's running towards our defender, totally out of his own position, at the same time his whole team is jogging back to their half, and that is that he sensed danger. Guzan's distribution here gave Amavi a poor range of options, of which he took the wrong one. The goal is primarily Amavi's fault, for sure. But if Guzan could be trusted to distribute the ball well upfield, he wouldn't be rolling the ball out to a fullback who has no good options on the edge of his own penalty area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 There was three minutes to go and the entire Palace side was in our half and pressing like pack animals. You do NOT bowl the ball out to your full back in that scenario. Amavi lost the ball but Guzan should have sat on it until the danger zone was clear and he could go long. 90% Guzan's fault in my books ! If anything it's the other way round, 90% Amavi's fault. Obviously if Guzan would have never rolled the ball out this wouldn't have happened. I do feel that Guzan put him in the shit somewhat, since there was an obvious man on, why on earth would you throw it out to a fullback when there's a man on? However, it's clear that Amavi had a whole range of options at his disposal. He could have cleared the ball down the pitch on either foot, or even just kick it out of play. He tried the 'clever' option and paid dearly for it. Perhaps, unluckily for him, it was Scott Dann closing him down on the right channel. If it was a winger they probably wouldn't have made such a good tackle. Either way, it's almost exclusively Amavi's fault. IMO we play out from the back far too often, but perhaps that's a criticism for the Sherwood thread. We looked uncomfortably doing it against United and paid for it yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 why on earth would you throw it out to a fullback when there's a man on? Because you trust a £9m fullback to be able to not lose the ball in that situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) why on earth would you throw it out to a fullback when there's a man on? Because you trust a £9m fullback to be able to not lose the ball in that situation? His price tag is irrelevant. Scott Dann is also an expensive, highly-rated Premier League football player. Either it was the right option for a ball out or the wrong one, and Dann was too close for it to be the right one. However, it's clear from that angle that Guzan's ball is only a small part of the blame, and clearly Amavi has to shoulder the majority of the responsibility. EDIT: To fully state the point, the reason we're talking about this in the Guzan thread is that if he could be trusted not to waste the ball, especially by punting it straight out of play, then he probably wouldn't have been rolling the ball out to a fullback in the 88th minute when we're under pressure. His ineptitude at distribution has negative consequences. In this case, they are indirect and he's not the main culprit for the goal, but if one player's weakness puts other players in difficulty, then it's fair to look at the root cause. Edited August 23, 2015 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) why on earth would you throw it out to a fullback when there's a man on? Because you trust a £9m fullback to be able to not lose the ball in that situation? Not really, he could have been rolling it out to Roberto Carlos and it would have still been a risk. When you're on the verge of what would have been widely regarded as a good point it's just an unnecessary risk. The result obviously validates this and I'm sure he won't be throwing out to his fullbacks like that again. Edited August 23, 2015 by Dr_Pangloss 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 I just don't see rolling the ball to your fullback when he has enough time to take a touch AND wanted the ball in the first place as a risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I think I remember Rodgers at Liverpool last season saying something like "Well you make mistakes there with the way we play and it costs you goals, but thats the way we play" like theres no way im not playing out from the back and if it costs us the odd goal then so be it. The old adage of not being afraid to make mistakes springs to mind. As far as Brad goes, completely regardless of whether it was 0-100% Brad or Jordan's fault yesterday, I think I have turned. The mistake at Citeh last year was bad. Sherwood decided to drop him rightly or wrongly but he did and I really think it's affected his confidence. As a result I think his distribution is getting worse not better and whenever the ball is played to him this year he looks as nervous as hell. He might not be the most adept at aiming his kicks at the big man's head but at least in years gone by 50% of his kicking didn't end up in the stands. He is a great shot stopper. I love him for coming and claiming crosses the way he does. He has salvaged this club points on his own at various times over the last few years and he deserves and commands my respect. He's not suddenly at 30 going to develop the brain or the feet to any huge standard and while we can survive with players lacking something from their game if we want to kick on we really need to improve the playing staff. 19 year olds like Grealish are the ones you improve with training. 30 year old international players you would expect to have their ship together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 i thought the goal incident was actually one of his less dangerous passes out to fullbacks. there were quite a few other occasions where he scuffed it so opposiiton players had time to close, passed it when it was clear bacuna or amavi would have players right on top of them, or just booted it out of play so we immediately gave possession back to palace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I just don't see rolling the ball to your fullback when he has enough time to take a touch AND wanted the ball in the first place as a risk. This whole 'Amavi wanted it' bit is also irrelevant to the question of whether it was the right or wrong option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 What has changed from the end of last season? Guzan has not improved yet now he is first choice again and we've reduced the quality of the GK's in the squad by replacing Given, Sherwood's first choice, with Bunn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midian Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Yes Amavi shouldnt of come inside with the ball but why on earth in the 88th minute Guzan is peeing about and rolling it out then Palace are in our half I will never know,just clear the ball to there half not roll it out. Ive said for a long time now some of Guzan's decision making is terrible,add his poor kicking and distribution he will lose us more games than win them. Bunn has done nothing wrong pre aeason so why he hasnt started with him I dont know. Edited August 23, 2015 by midian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 TBH I don't think we've reduced the quality of our goalkeeping options by replacing Given with Bunn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 His distribution has gone to pot but I don't think its sensible to blame him for the goals yesterday. I do think Sherwood is telling him to play it short, in the old days he'd have just banged it up to Benteke/Gestede. He also made a couple of excellent stops yesterday. No issue with the big guy at all, just needs to stay calm when he's in control of the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted August 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2015 The goal was Amavis fault all day every day. Guzan probably shouldn't have given him the ball. But had he kicked it direct and it went out of play I would have been screaming at him to pass it to Amavi. So you know, it's one of those.... I'd give Bunn a game to be honest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts