I like his answer to what was his favourite save...would have been the one I didn't make. Did he hint that SKD is going to coach for us? Hope so, he deserves the chance.
My problem with Gazza was actually the opposite of what you are saying in that he actually didn't appear to have the basics right; his positioning was awful and his decision making was awful. I thought he was a hopeless case. However, there is no doubt that he has improved every which way. He has played well for the under 21's and appears to have a good attitude. I don't like dropping players who have played well so, on balance I think I'd keep him in (and maybe get Reed in somehow too!).
Didn't see the game, and I'm in no hurry to see the highlights so I'm in no position to judge his performance yesterday. But on general principle, if he's been given a chance and took it well, he deserves another one. Especially as the guy he replaced hasn't exactly shone lately. Gazza has been playing well in the U21s apparently. Hard work and improvement deserves a reward. Give him another chance. Reed too, maybe.
He came over as more mature in the interview as well. GK have longer playing lives and he is still young....given chances, he will mature into a good keeper.
Listening to the radio yesterday, it did sound as if there was a moment in the first half where Gazza really should have come and claimed the ball, but instead stayed on his line - and Palace consequently got themselves a corner off Virgil as a result. It sounded like Virgil was none too impressed about Gazza staying at home. And that did concern me, because Gazza's fondness for staying rooted to his goal line has been one of my biggest issues with him in the past. But maybe this is just me nit-picking?
Every goalkeeper in every game will make a mistake. He should listen to Virgil, but not necessarily agree with him...he has his own way of playing. So he gave away a corner...perhaps coming off his line might have led to a goal...who knows. He should discuss this with the goalkeeping coaches....better to listen to them than a peeved defender.
I understand why you're saying what you're saying but when he first played for us I felt he was excellent in positional play and he commanded the box. Then he made a blunder or two, the crowd turned (who'd have thought?), his confidence went and (this is where I start to agree with you) you're right, from that point he looked like a rank amateur. I think it's easy to forget those first two or three games and just remember the blundering bag of nerves we saw later. I can't even remember whom we played against when he looked terrific (Villa rings a bell). I'm of the opinion that his problems were all confidence. That's why I'd like to see him introduced over time (and maybe more away from home so the idiots near me in the Northam don't get on his back and set him off down the dark path again). Vin
The greatest asset a goalkeeper can have is a thick skin...must be willing to learn from a mistake, but also understand that sometimes things just happen.
Great highlights of Gazzaniga there to remind us of all the saves he made. The final save is incredible. He has to keep his place, otherwise I'm going to be fuming. He's a great shot stopper, Stekelenburg is not. Better concentration and decision making will come will experience. He also isn't in Barcelona suicide mode anymore..he doesn't take risks passing it out from the back anymore, which he was doing when he first burst onto the scene. Just getting out of that mindset alone makes him look way more solid. If Fonte and particularly Van Dijk hadn't massively ****ed up then that would have been one hell of a clean sheet. Anyone that voted no probably didn't watch the game, probably doesn't know the ages of the two players and probably doesn't realise we don't even own Stekelenburg...
first save shows his concentration, a lot of keepers may have switched off as that ball was heading for rowz before the wind caught it and he followed it all the way. Pretty sure we would have lost 3-0 if Stek had to make the same saves
Stek for me, every day of the week. one swallow doesn't make a Summer? Oh and I do know that Stek is only on loan.
I wonder when you'll come back to the point about us "must sign a new keeper" (or words to that effect). Are you just ignoring that point? You insisted we needed to sign a keeper to challenge Stekkers. You even asked if we'd be happy with Davis/Gazzaniga as back up if we didn't sign one. Now, he's the new sliced bread after one game. Must be hard being a manager.
Gazzaniga hasn't suddenly become a better shop stopper than Stekelenburg. That's highly obvious to anyone that can see. He's much more athletic and light on his feet. I assumed Gazzaniga was out the reckoning and out of Koeman's thinking. In which case we needed to sign a keeper to replace, or compete with, Stekelenburg. Since Gazzaniga's not out the reckoning, and has had a stormer. He will compete for the number one berth. If he claims it and keeps it, then he can be Forster's number two and competition in the future. If it was up to me Gazzaniga would have played long ago. I've always seen him as a very good shot stopper, with a monster kick. I've already listed his weaknesses in the post you quoted me, yet you're claiming I'm saying he's the new sliced bread? Ok buddy. No, he's a young keeper with lots and lots of potential. Young with potential doesn't seem to be something Koeman is interested in based on his treatment of Reed and Ramirez. He's not tried a right back, or a centre forward, from the academy either. Stekelenburg would have been my backup keeper. Gazzaniga would have more experience by now and improved. I'd know exactly what to expect from him on a game to game basis. The reason we don't know that is Koeman's fault for picking an ageing keeper with no athleticism between the sticks. His performance against Liverpool was an embarrassment for a Premier League keeper. I find your loyalty to an ageing keeper that we don't even own rather baffling.
Oh TinTin. I'm not showing "loyalty to an ageing keeper".... You decided I did. I didn't say Gazza shouldn't have played either. I didn't even compare him to Stekkers, so let's not try and deflect too much, eh? I have always liked Gazza and given him support when others here battered him. Feel free to go back 2 seasons and check. I think you'll find that you weren't quite so supportive of Gazza really,. Would you like me to quote your post from one week ago where you asked if we'd really want Gazza/Davis as back up? You didn't suggest Gazza should be playing. You said we needed a keeper to challenge Stekkers and maybe Forster if he doesn't return as strong. Now you're saying Gazza is your back up. I said we didn't need a keeper. All I am doing is highlighting the massive contradiction in your expert view in 7 days. I wouldn't bother doing that if you didn't post in such a matter of fact manner, criticising at every opportunity. Show some dignity and admit when maybe you may have got something wrong or overlooked something. In the last few months, TinTin your criticical analysis of Ron and the team has been fairly unforgiving. It's been every error. VvD for example has been excellent since he arrived, yet he's made two errors recently and you keep highlighting them as if it's shocking that a football might make a mistake.No player, team or manager is faultless and errors will happen. Your analysis of games is your opinion, not fact. You are entitled to an opinion and free to post it. I often agree with your opinion, but you always post it as if it is fact and completely unquestionable. Now unless you're Pep Guardiola under an alias, I'd suggest like everyone on here, me included, your opinion is just that; an opinion. For the record, I would pick Gazza against Spuds after that performance, however my needle hasn't flicked 180 degrees and if he has a nightmare and makes a howler, I will not be moaning that Ron didn't pick Stekkers, or vice versa. Just remember things in life and especially football are never black or white, right or wrong. Ok Buddy?
I haven't watched enough games to have a strong view on Stek....I just know most were happy with him initially (with some provisos). The good news is that Forster is getting better and we should see him before the end of the season....but must remember he won't land running, we may need patience. So we have Stek as back up until the end of the season...it is very hard to get a decent second keeper at our level, so I would be happy if he signed a longer contract. I am pleased that Gazza had a good game and would be delighted if he grew into the keeper he could have been, but early days yet. Certainly deserves another game and may be our only choice if Stek has injured his toe badly.
