Dodgy keeper

[AlRawdah]

The recent direction of this thread is a bit daft. The vitriol towards Marshall was on a completely different level to The Jak - that's not debateable, it's just FACT. Whether or not it was deserved is what can actually be debated.

For my own two penneth I'd say it's a trait of us and indeed football fans by and large, that when things are either bad or good the likelihood is it'll be grossly exaggerated either way. We're not known as being the most level-headed of specimens.

Spot on.

At the risk of repeating myself. We have two decent but fundamentally not-world-beating goalkeepers, both of which have their strengths and weaknesses. They both make occasional mistakes, because that's what all goalkeepers (and indeed all footballers) do. Some of those mistakes lead to goals, most don't.

Like all goalkeepers, they both get blamed for all goals that are conceded, even when they haven't really done anything wrong.

The goalkeeper that gets picked will tend to be the one with the most self-confidence at that time. Especially when the choices are otherwise roughly equal. That's Jakupovic at the moment, but his confidence does seem to be getting more fragile (and more low level mistakes are creeping into his game) so that might change.

Personally, I'm not that bothered who gets picked either way. Which perhaps makes me wonder why I just typed all this......!

 

[Walter Sobchak]

Jak's doing fine. Can't believe the fuss to be honest.

 

[bum_chinned_crab]

Phelan dropped Jak as soon as Marshall signed even though Jak had a very good start to the season.

He was dropped for no reason.

The anti-Marshall feeling should have been directed at Phelan for benching an in-form goalie.

Not entirely true, I'm pretty confident (without checking) that Marshall did spend some time on the bench.

 

[Chilton's Hundreds]

Not entirely true, I'm pretty confident (without checking) that Marshall did spend some time on the bench.

Yep just checked and I take that back.

Jak played v Arsenal in Sept and then Marshall took over for league games at Anfield.

 

[BobbyD]

Not entirely true, I'm pretty confident (without checking) that Marshall did spend some time on the bench.

I can confirm that Marshall was bought, spent 2 games on the bench which you drew 1-1 against burnley away (a good results considering they are one of the home form teams) and lost of le arse 4-1. You were on a handy 7 points for 6 games and then Phelen brings Marshall in (havent checked other team selections) and then proceed to lose 11, win 2 and draw 3 until you bring the jak back in and win 3, draw 2 and lose 2.

 

[AlRawdah]

Yep just checked and I take that back.

Jak played v Arsenal in Sept and then Marshall took over for league games at Anfield.

After a tremendous display at Stoke in the League Cup.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Marshall was excellent against Stoke and Jakupovic was poor against Arsenal, it was a perfectly reasonable decision.

The problem came when the reverse didn't happen when things went the other way.

 

[bum_chinned_crab]

Yep just checked and I take that back.

Jak played v Arsenal in Sept and then Marshall took over for league games at Anfield.

That's bad management in itself. If Phelan wanted to put Marshall in then he could and should have played The Jak at Anfield versus the most potent strikeforce in the country at the time, expect a heavy defeat and then he would have had a valid reason to switch keepers for the next game.

 

[tigermaul]

Marshall was excellent against Stoke and Jakupovic was poor against Arsenal, it was a perfectly reasonable decision.

The problem came when the reverse didn't happen when things when the other way.

Exactly!

 

[GLP]

Jakupovic came back into regular contention when Phelan left. I'd say that is more responsible for the turnaround in our fortunes. Marshall might even do a job under Silva for all we know, but for now Jakupovic is performing well. It just seems like there are some mistakes creeping in that don't seem to have cost us... whether they will if they continue or not, I don't know.

One thing I will say is that after the infamous Sheffield Wednesday game, I really had it in for Jak. He's bided his time and improved dramatically since and he's proved me wrong in the long run. I still see errors creeping into his game though.

I doubt it. Silva had already studied the players prior to joining, he'll have identified clearly from the outset which keeper he wanted to work with, in the same way he had identified a formation and personnel to work in that formation. He didn't have enough games remaining to help us avoid relegation by trial and error. The plan has been clear from day one.

I was delighted at the initial prospect of signing Marshall - expecting the Cardiff City Premier League version. Unfortunately we seem to have got the version whose career is in complete reverse to that of Jakupovic. That one game v Wednesday shouldn't cloud anyone's judgement of Jakupovic. Every time since then he has been called upon he has done well and has never let the side down.

The signing of Marshall will for me remain an ongoing mystery, he wasn't needed as priorities lay in almost every other position on the pitch but goalkeeper. That fee was wasted and doubt we'll recover any on Marshall.

 

[Fez]

To say Jak had a great game against Arsenal would be an exaggeration, so would saying he had a poor game. Some fine saves, including a penalty, some really poor defensive blunders in front of him and one man down early on. He was better than poor in those circumstances, keeping us in the game until the defence (and him) were overwhelmed. But he was dropped and then we had game after game of conceding lots of goals, static positioning (planted feet syndrome) and zero attempts at many shots - Jak gets criticised for saving them weakly, bloody amazing - that's why so many were unhappy, although the criticism did get ridiculous in its proportions; just as the exaggeration now is.

 

[originallambrettaman]

To say Jak had a great game against Arsenal would be an exaggeration, so would saying he had a poor game. Some fine saves, including a penalty, some really poor defensive blunders in front of him and one man down early on. He was better than poor in those circumstances, keeping us in the game until the defence (and him) were overwhelmed. But he was dropped and then we had game after game of conceding lots of goals, static positioning (planted feet syndrome) and zero attempts at many shots - Jak gets criticised for saving them weakly, bloody amazing - that's why so many were unhappy, although the criticism did get ridiculous in its proportions; just as the exaggeration now is.

Two of the four goals were as a direct result of goalkeeper errors. FACT.

 

[Fez]

Two of the four goals were as a direct result of goalkeeper errors. FACT.

Which two goals?

Of their goals:

1st: A long range shot across goal, he made a full length dive in response and put it out to the side - any manager would have been happy with that, it fell to their player (unlucky) who was switched on, plus free from defence and and he shot immediately - good reaction goal, but unlucky keeping, as he was already up to face the return shot, but it was deflected by the back foot of Curtis Davis. Could he have done better - only by controlling his luck and ensuring they had no players in our box.

Penalty save - any should deserve praise.

2nd: A fast paced attack, an excellent back-heel to bypass our weak defence. Jak came out to challenge and threw himself forwards to cover the angle to his near post; A clever shot across goal and it was taken into the goal by Harry. To blame Jak or Harry for this would be poor, as it was an excellent piece of attacking football.

3rd: Walcott made his run on goal, the defence was less than half-hearted. Jak managed to get his body between ball and goal, the deflection was anyone's guess. It fell, yet again to an unmarked player - Sanchez, again, a player of quality who was clinical in finishing it. I fail to see how Jak gets the singular blame for that goal, as both Curtis and Harry failed to do their jobs; Jak had done his once to keep them out. You could only say he was at fault for that goal if you were looking for a scapegoat - if one of our players had missed that shot the board would have been in uproar.

4th: Xhaka goal. Cracking shot, lots of movement of the ball away from Jak. It would have beaten most if not all. Just a sublime goal.

I really do fail to see how any of those goals can be used as an excuse to drop the GK. Under the circumstances and the dire defending against a sharp and focused opposition, I thought Jak was unlucky to come away 4-1 down.

Maybe it's about opinions, but the highlights focus on the goals and they are clear in what they show; no ambiguity. He was not at fault for two goals - FACT. Everybody could have done better, though.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[bum_chinned_crab]

Which two goals?

Of their goals:

1st: A long range shot across goal, he made a full length dive in response and put it out to the side - any manager would have been happy with that, it fell to their player (unlucky) who was switched on, plus free from defence and and he shot immediately - good reaction goal, but unlucky keeping, as he was already up to face the return shot, but it was deflected by the back foot of Curtis Davis. Could he have done better - only by controlling his luck and ensuring they had no players in our box.

Penalty save - any should deserve praise.

2nd: A fast paced attack, an excellent back-heel to bypass our weak defence. Jak came out to challenge and threw himself forwards to cover the angle to his near post; A clever shot across goal and it was taken into the goal by Harry. To blame Jak or Harry for this would be poor, as it was an excellent piece of attacking football.

3rd: Walcott made his run on goal, the defence was less than half-hearted. Jak managed to get his body between ball and goal, the deflection was anyone's guess. It fell, yet again to an unmarked player - Sanchez, again, a player of quality who was clinical in finishing it. I fail to see how Jak gets the singular blame for that goal, as both Curtis and Harry failed to do their jobs; Jak had done his once to keep them out. You could only say he was at fault for that goal if you were looking for a scapegoat - if one of our players had missed that shot the board would have been in uproar.

4th: Xhaka goal. Cracking shot, lots of movement of the ball away from Jak. It would have beaten most if not all. Just a sublime goal.

I really do fail to see how any of those goals can be used as an excuse to drop the GK. Under the circumstances and the dire defending against a sharp and focused opposition, I thought Jak was unlucky to come away 4-1 down.

Maybe it's about opinions, but the highlights focus on the goals and they are clear in what they show; no ambiguity. He was not at fault for two goals - FACT. Everybody could have done better, though.

You must log in or register to see media

I never noticed before but hardly anyone behind the goal even bothers to get out of their seat when he saves the pen. ****ing embarrassing.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Which two goals?

Of their goals:

1st: A long range shot across goal, he made a full length dive in response and put it out to the side - any manager would have been happy with that, it fell to their player (unlucky) who was switched on, plus free from defence and and he shot immediately - good reaction goal, but unlucky keeping, as he was already up to face the return shot, but it was deflected by the back foot of Curtis Davis. Could he have done better - only by controlling his luck and ensuring they had no players in our box.

Penalty save - any should deserve praise.

2nd: A fast paced attack, an excellent back-heel to bypass our weak defence. Jak came out to challenge and threw himself forwards to cover the angle to his near post; A clever shot across goal and it was taken into the goal by Harry. To blame Jak or Harry for this would be poor, as it was an excellent piece of attacking football.

3rd: Walcott made his run on goal, the defence was less than half-hearted. Jak managed to get his body between ball and goal, the deflection was anyone's guess. It fell, yet again to an unmarked player - Sanchez, again, a player of quality who was clinical in finishing it. I fail to see how Jak gets the singular blame for that goal, as both Curtis and Harry failed to do their jobs; Jak had done his once to keep them out. You could only say he was at fault for that goal if you were looking for a scapegoat - if one of our players had missed that shot the board would have been in uproar.

4th: Xhaka goal. Cracking shot, lots of movement of the ball away from Jak. It would have beaten most if not all. Just a sublime goal.

I really do fail to see how any of those goals can be used as an excuse to drop the GK. Under the circumstances and the dire defending against a sharp and focused opposition, I thought Jak was unlucky to come away 4-1 down.

Maybe it's about opinions, but the highlights focus on the goals and they are clear in what they show; no ambiguity. He was not at fault for two goals - FACT. Everybody could have done better, though.

You must log in or register to see media

Interesting looking back at some of the match reports from that day...

Eldin Jakupovic should make way for David Marshall

Jakupovic had a mixed afternoon, being badly at fault for Arsenal's goal before then saving Sanchez's penalty.

He spilled the ball too often and must be under mounting pressure from Marshall for the No 1 spot.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/match-reports/hull-city-vs-arsenal-8453749

Hull 1-4 Arsenal - PLAYER RATINGS

Jakupovic 6 - Was at fault for two of Arsenal's, but did save a penalty from the Chilean.

http://instanews.cmcm.com/share/det...34&referrer=null&prevcontentid=Cl3298207ZD_uk

He made some decent saves, particularly the penalty, but overall he did have a poor game.

 

[Chilton's Hundreds]

Errors have crept into Jak's game recently - especially his kicking.

The dilemma for Silva is do you take action now (ie play Marshall) or wait for the inevitable Jak mistake that will cost us a game.

Big call for the manager but I wouldn't be surprised if we see Marshall starting before the end of the season.

 

[bum_chinned_crab]

Errors have crept into Jak's game recently - especially his kicking.

The dilemma for Silva is do you take action now (ie play Marshall) or wait for the inevitable Jak mistake that will cost us a game.

Big call for the manager but I wouldn't be surprised if we see Marshall starting before the end of the season.

You wait. You cant (and by that I mean shouldn't) drop him after we just won a game in which he made no costly errors.

 

[Fez]

Errors have crept into Jak's game recently - especially his kicking.

The dilemma for Silva is do you take action now (ie play Marshall) or wait for the inevitable Jak mistake that will cost us a game.

Big call for the manager but I wouldn't be surprised if we see Marshall starting before the end of the season.

I agree his kicking is poor.

 

[Fez]

I never noticed before but hardly anyone behind the goal even bothers to get out of their seat when he saves the pen. ****ing embarrassing.

He's done it so many times it's expected.

 

[Fez]

Interesting looking back at some of the match reports from that day...

Eldin Jakupovic should make way for David Marshall

Jakupovic had a mixed afternoon, being badly at fault for Arsenal's goal before then saving Sanchez's penalty.

He spilled the ball too often and must be under mounting pressure from Marshall for the No 1 spot.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/match-reports/hull-city-vs-arsenal-8453749

Hull 1-4 Arsenal - PLAYER RATINGS

Jakupovic 6 - Was at fault for two of Arsenal's, but did save a penalty from the Chilean.

http://instanews.cmcm.com/share/det...34&referrer=null&prevcontentid=Cl3298207ZD_uk

He made some decent saves, particularly the penalty, but overall he did have a poor game.

I included good highlights; which two goals was he at fault for?