Vic Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 re: dqspr v. loyola, straight up and unbiased between you two I'm more of a dqspr. Bit of a rarity I presume though as almost everyone I know follow's loyola's school of thought in GK assessment, but I'm more old school and go by results as much as technique. I really don't care if my keepers do everything wrong technically (positioning, stance, balance, communication, etc) but keep the ball out of the net consistently. The saying "it may be ugly" but it works comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lomonty Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I find it funny that this is life or death argument to give Josh a start against Costa Rica. It's shameful that we have to have this debate, the next realistic international date is Sept 5 6 weeks from now!!! No friendly planned, no momentum carrying on, no chance to give younger bench players from the tournament a run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Vic re: dqspr v. loyola, straight up and unbiased between you two I'm more of a dqspr. Bit of a rarity I presume though as almost everyone I know follow's loyola's school of thought in GK assessment, but I'm more old school and go by results as much as technique. I really don't care if my keepers do everything wrong technically (positioning, stance, balance, communication, etc) but keep the ball out of the net consistently. The saying "it may be ugly" but it works comes to mind. lol Vic, what's the " loyola's school of thought in GK assessment"??? I kind of agree with you. Sutton has got the result and has clean sheets but this whole debate started when dqspr asked how come Sutton had a poor mark when he had a clean sheet. Well, if we are going to give players marks I don't think a keeper only needs a clean sheet to get a high mark specially if he made mistakes. So, the low mark came from the fact that Sutton had a quiet night and still made his life and the life of his defenders more difficult by screwing 2 plays. I doubt Paul Dolan will be satisfy with Sutton performance and the clean sheet will erase the mistakes he made. That being said, if I was the coach I wouldn't make a switch in goal. What I said was that I wouldn,t oppose to seeing Josh there (very unlikely IMO) in term of seeing what we can get with happy. But in a tournament like this, changing keepers is a massive decision before a must at least tie game like the one against CR. At this point it's not deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 To respond to dsqpr, when you are evaluating a keeper you also have to evaluate the opposition and the situation. Yes in the two first games Sutton made a couple of good saves but also made a few Fuk-ups that against better opposition and in a more serious competition, ie. WCQ could have cost us the game. I have seen Sutton live week in and week out with the Impact, also regularly on tv with TFC and for the national team and he has always been an error prone mediocre keeper who is a pretty good shot stopper. Sorry to dampen the Gold Cup euphoria but El Salvadore and Jamaica are two mediocre teams and are not playing with the intensity they would play with in WCQ. Sutton made mistakes as bad as Onstad has in WCQ in both games but got lucky. Many keepers keep a clean sheet despite their opposition having several breaks because the player shot it over the net or at the keeper. Is the keeper great as a result because he got a clean sheet? If anyone wants to look back at old posts I made similar comments about Onstad's bobbles against Belize despite his clean sheet yet we can all remember how we paid for them in the next two World Cup qualifications. I have also been critical of some of the deficiencies the Impact's Matt Jordan yet he got away with his mistakes until we faced Santos Laguna and then we were punished bigtime. Sutton is not a keeper I would want to go into WCQ with and I have seen enough of him over many years that I don't believe he ever will be. Decent as a depth player and can have the odd good game but I never want him to be our starting keeper in WCQ. Yes Wagenaar has had his successes and failures in the past but he is young and seems to have improved over the last year. He may or may not be an upgrade on Sutton at the moment but I would sure like to have that question answered. On the other hand, Hart is seeing both in practice and has more information on which to base his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 It's the nature of the position, being the last line of defence any mistakes will be more glaring! There have been bad mistakes made all over the pitch that haven't been punished, yet some posters are ignoring this and giving the players a high rating! A couple of quick examples that come to mind are Diesel getting caught in possesion late in the match, that could have led to the equalizer right there, what about Berniers' missed chance, a terrible mistake, if he scores we win comfortably and even have room for a keeper error that gets punished! I can analyze the match and point out errors by EVERY player on the pitch, that's the nature of the game, they're human and haven't played as a team together much! I'm just enjoying this run of results and the discussions that come with it, that's why I thought it was cool to rate the players from 1 to 10! The V's board is alive again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOcanadafan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Good defensive performance overall (hey, we kept a clean sheet), but I was a little troubled by our lack of winning headers for balls played into our own box. We had ES players, who are more than half a foot shorter, winning balls in the air against our defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 quote:Originally posted by dsqpr In a nutshell, my beef is that we are not giving Greg the credit he deserves. We are highlighting all the negatives and ignoring the positives, the most important of which is two clean sheets. I understand your point. I'm probably the worst guy here for nitpicking but I started this argument by challenging the statement that Sutton didn't put a foot wrong and I don't feel nay change of opinion in the subsequent discussion. Regardless, in the Jamaica match I didn't see Sutton came up big for us so he deserves credit there. And that ES shot from distance was a deceiving one and he got to it and that's all that matters. No goals allowed: keep it rolling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaku_bert Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly To respond to dsqpr, when you are evaluating a keeper you also have to evaluate the opposition and the situation. Yes in the two first games Sutton made a couple of good saves but also made a few Fuk-ups that against better opposition and in a more serious competition, ie. WCQ could have cost us the game. I have seen Sutton live week in and week out with the Impact, also regularly on tv with TFC and for the national team and he has always been an error prone mediocre keeper who is a pretty good shot stopper. Sorry to dampen the Gold Cup euphoria but El Salvadore and Jamaica are two mediocre teams and are not playing with the intensity they would play with in WCQ. Sutton made mistakes as bad as Onstad has in WCQ in both games but got lucky. Many keepers keep a clean sheet despite their opposition having several breaks because the player shot it over the net or at the keeper. Is the keeper great as a result because he got a clean sheet? If anyone wants to look back at old posts I made similar comments about Onstad's bobbles against Belize despite his clean sheet yet we can all remember how we paid for them in the next two World Cup qualifications. I have also been critical of some of the deficiencies the Impact's Matt Jordan yet he got away with his mistakes until we faced Santos Laguna and then we were punished bigtime. Sutton is not a keeper I would want to go into WCQ with and I have seen enough of him over many years that I don't believe he ever will be. Decent as a depth player and can have the odd good game but I never want him to be our starting keeper in WCQ. Yes Wagenaar has had his successes and failures in the past but he is young and seems to have improved over the last year. He may or may not be an upgrade on Sutton at the moment but I would sure like to have that question answered. On the other hand, Hart is seeing both in practice and has more information on which to base his decision. Although I arrive at a different conclusion (I wouldn't want to see Wagenaar on Friday) this is a good example of a logical and well thought out argument. I'm not good at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I think we need to bump this thread since that first goal tonight had everything we talked about here. Poor distribution and poor footwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.