....and they could pretty soon be second in the SPL! The difference there was that Parky was eventually forced to play Randolph due to Robbie's injury, and he came in and was able to make a very strong case for being our permanent no.1. Parky did not agree and so Randolph left when his contract ran out.
I wonder if our owners have £1million laying around somewhere? For those defending Hamer, it wasn't a 'one-off mistake' he does it a number of times every single match and rarely gets punished. He is far too risky; -he rarely catches long-range shots without dropping them. -he always catches the ball right on the edge of the area instead of letting it come to him (clearly Orient away hasn't taught him a lesson) -he always takes one touch too many when an opposition striker is running at him (and was punished last night for his slow reactions). If I'm honest, I'm not a big fan of either of our keepers, but eachs strengths and weaknesses seem to be in exact opposites with one another; Hamers distribution is his best attribute, Sullivans distribution is his worst attribute. Hamer always drops the ball, Sullivan managers to catch it solidly every time. I'm not sure who I prefer really if I'm honest, but I guess I'd like to see Hamer dropped - even if its only so we know that Powell is willing to change things, and so that Hamer knows the number 1 shirt isn't his by default.
I just posted this on Rufus98's thread and I'll post it here again now. I seriously think that had he not got a back four of such quality in front of him, Hamer would have been found out long ago. I can't believe we actually paid money for him, let alone the amount we forked out. Never have been happy with him, especially his positioning at crosses, his tendency to flap at the ball and worst of all, the way he gets boxed in at corners, which at some point is going to cost us goals.
Personally I don't think that was the case, it seemed to me that: -the club treated Randolph like **** (bringing in loanees ahead of him etc) -Parky played him in the last 8 games or so (after Robbo's injury) to make him happy (and make him believe he could possibly have a chance getting the number 1 shirt) and thus hopefully he'd sign a new contract. -Randolph wasn't falling for it, and after being treated like ****, left at the first opportunity when his contract ran out.
I must say I'm shocked at some of this. Hamer is not 'protected' by the back four, he is an INTEGRAL part of the back 5. Defences need to have confidence in their goalkeeper or they will be jittery, and our defenders most definitely do have it. This back 5 is one of the stingiest in the football league, how many times this season have we one by the odd goal without playing well? Those victories owe an awful lot to our back 5. WWOCB, how on earth can you say that Hamer always takes an extra touch? That's a ridiculous generalisation. Every single keeper takes as many touches as they feel they can, and (as I have already said) every keeper has at some point been caught out by pure luck that it hit the striker at exactly the right angle to go in. This is not a problem particular to Hamer. His shot-stopping is good enough, if not brilliant (if it were, he would be in the Premier League). Over the past two months his handling at crosses has improved noticeably, for which he deserves great credit. HE IS YOUNG, and will only get better. Of course he is not perfect, but he is good enough to be an INTEGRAL part of a side that will be champions. What more do you want? Rant over.
The point of this thread though is whether or not he deserves to be an automatic choice every game. Sullivan is also a young 'keeper, and has performed well enough IMO to be given a chance at some point, although I wouldn't drop Hamer for that one mistake. I also think Pope will eventually be better than either of them.
Captain B - it's probably just a question of how I think responsibilities should be shared out on a pitch, but I think that the keeper should always be protected by the back four. It's not about Hamer, it's about how well the the two full backs and the two centre backs do their job. Think of the keepers in the Prem that catch the eye consistently with the brilliance of their saves. Why do we notice them? Because they make so many saves. Why do they make so many saves? Because the back four are protecting them inadequately. Hennessey, Al Habsi, Bogdan have been brilliant this season - what's the connection? Poor cover. Without them, we'd have seen some cricket scores. I doubt whether Hamer has to make more than three or four direct saves from shots/goal bound headers in an entire game, such is the strength of the players in front of him and IMO, that's the way it should be.
SlackBladder, obviously it was a massive generalisation when I said 'always'. The true meaning of the term is pretty redundant in modern speech, but you're right, my word choice could have been better. I do feel however that he has an annoying habit of taking one too many touches etc. FHB - I agree about Pope judging from the (very few) games I've seen from him. He really is superb in the air and from crosses. I'm have a mixed opinion about the back 4/back 5 debate. I feel the number of clean sheets this season says a hell of a lot more about Solly/Taylor/Morro/Wiggins than it does about Hamer, however, those four seem far less confident when its Sullivan behind them, and they don't seem to communicate very well.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Hamer was injured on Saturday and limped off on Saturday. That means he probably didn't train on Sunday and and maybe not on Monday. It was a big call to play him on Tuesday and maybe one that should n't have been taken. That he made a mistake (probably two) was obvious. The question is should we have played a 80 to 90% fit player in goal when we had a 100% fit player on the bench. Probably not. SHould we play him on Saturday. I think that call has got to be assessed carefully by the coaches. Is he better than Sullivan maybe. Does he deserve to be dropped? not if he is fully fit and capable of delivering the performances he has delivered earlier in the season. If he is not 100% then Sullivan should be played.
Captain, I am not anti Hamer or pro Sullivan but Chris goes on about his squad and that the team's position being down to a large squad of players. Now if your second keeper never gets the chance to play then we do not operate a squad system for the keeper we, in fact, have a first team keeper and an emergency backup. When the highlights are on the BBC tomorrow I think you will agree that last night's error was schoolboy stuff, indeed every keeper can have his clearances charged down but NOT when he has so much time to clear it in the first place. When will Sullivan ever get the chance to prove he is a good keeper if not after the error made by Hamer last night?
Agree with the idea that it appears Sullivan is our 'emergency keeper', and I certainly think its unfair. As much as I'm not a fan of Sullivan, for practically his whole career he's played second-fiddle, the very reason he came to Charlton was because he wasn't getting games (due to Forde being an ever present for the scum). His morale is probably pretty low, which can really affect the mood in the changing-room. Luckily from everything I've heard, he seems to be fairly professional about it. But playing an unfit keeper ahead of him is pretty low. I've just remembered, at one point last night I saw Hamer running towards his water-bottle and he seemed to almost hopping, anyone else notice that?
It's a hard call this one. I've now seen the TV highlights and I remain of the view that Hamer was slow to dive to the first goal, belter though it was. He went down in instalments to a similar shot earlier in the season - bury I think it was. That said, he looks much less flappy than he did a few games ago. I've not seen enough of Sullivan to form a view. What I have seen didn't suggest that he was any better that hamer. Incidentally I thought the Colchester keeper looked very flappy indeed on Tuesday. As if he was going for crosses with his eyes shut. On balance I'd persevere with hamer for no other reason that to keep his confidence up.
I understand the confidence thing but not resting him could make him feel 'undroppable' and so hinder his desire to improve?
Cant believe it,one mistake!!!!!!....So we play Sullivan he makes a mistake and Hamer back next game..He will learn from it.and i bet he wont do it again...People early in the season were calling Wiggins the weak link!!!...oh so fickle.....
Maybe. And it's fair to say that the second goal was a genuine dyed in the wool howler! I just wonder if dropping him for an honest mistake is sensible. I'd have dropped him a few weeks ago when he was flapping consistently for several games. But he's been better of late and Tuesday was just one of those things. If he does it again on Saturday..........
Been away from this thread for a few hours (down the booza watching Spurs v Steve) - but am again surprised that anyone believes we are a better team by dropping Hamer because of one mistake - what sort of continuity and confidence is that going to instill in the whole team going forward ? All this rubbish about being in the squad, i mean , does Alex Ferguson think, 'well , lets give someone else a try because he's in the squad ' ! like **** he does - its a stupid argument.Hamer is no 1 , hes done well so far, simples ! I agree with Jimbob, there is no way he should be dropped for one mistake, but i could have understood if he was dropped after his flapping against Sheff U
That's the thing Stu, some people do not rate him as highly as you and question if he is actually our best keeper.
It wasn't a small mistake Stu.... watch it on the BBC tomorrow and still say it was small! Playing 'to me...to me...to me' for two minutes while an attacker closes you down is not small. He had loads of time to 'get rid' but instead decided to be cleaver and ended up looking stupid.
