I'm not angry at you in any way shape or form haha, I just find your obsession and the lengths you go to try and justify it funny, I've also not been aggressive in any way shape or form towards you and if you think I am then id really advise against going out into the real world. I may well be wrong, it's happened before and I'm sure it'll happen again, but I was noway desperate to discredit anyone, I'm happy with the info I had and from who I got it from. You can carry on wanting a GK to make to occasional decent pass out and I'll carry on being happy with a very good GK making save, commanding his area, winning us points with those skills and continuing to develop into a fantastic long term #1 for us
That's fine then. It'll come up again when we next sign a keeper to replace him. At that point I'll probably be in favour of it again and you probably won't. But knowing that it's coming you'll hopefully be prepared to stop yourself from accidentally slipping into an angry and aggressive tone.
If we sign someone who's an improvement then I'll be fine with seeing him replaced as I would with any player and if they aren't as rushworth showed, then hopefully you'll have grown up enough to realise that it isn't angry and aggressive just because someone disagrees with you and calls you out on your poor attempts to justify your constant desire to see our player of the season ( so far ) replaced
It's been widely reported he would have come in for the Sunderland game, trained as the starting keeper but got injured in the last session before. So it's not strictly true that Walter didn't think Rushworth would be worth starting over Pandur.
Millwall is the perfect example of a game where we were barely threatened but needed to break quickly to put them on the back foot. Shot stopping would have made no difference in that game but passing ability would.
Can’t be ****ed to read the last 7 odd pages but. Loan rules are different for goalkeepers than outfield players, I read this morning that Brighton’s no2 has got injured. If that’s the case and they don’t have another senior keeper that has made a certain amount of appearances (think it’s like 5 in the league or something like that) they are able to recall any of their keepers out on loan regardless of any arrangements or clauses. Don’t know if this is actually the case or not, because I can’t be bothered to look brightons squad and injury news up.
Yep I suspect it means they could recall him outside of the window. It still would mean we're no longer paying for him.
Not too bothered about Rushworth leaving. Good distribution, decent shot stopping, shaky in the air. He’ll have a decent career, but don’t think he’s much of an improvement on Pandur. I also think he could’ve done more for the second goal yesterday.
How many of those 6 did Allsop let through his hands? I mean he didn’t used to get his hands on some of them. That’s not even classed as a save. See Rushworth last game on their second goal.
Well there you go keepers aren't as special as Amin thought. I thought as you can make emergency keeper loans you'd be able to recall a keeper. Seems odd you could have a keeper out on loan but instead need to loan one in outside the window. Suppose that could cause a domino effect but would still be strange! Inside the window they may well be able to recall him because of the injury but it doesn't change the fact that one way or another we're financially compensated because of it, and it's remarkable we've reached this many posts on this subject.
This keeper debate has generated an enormous amount of traffic, which is a little odd considering that most think it hasn't weakened us, has saved us significant money and freed up another loan spot, so really isn't that much of a big deal at all. I don't even think Pandur will be overly concerned about being dropped for a couple of games, he'll just be happy to be back at No.1 (though Racioppi may well be a rather more difficult situation to sort).
