faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 13:43:31 GMT
Blimey, if you want a keeper that has never ballsed up a back pass, then we'd be choosing from a pretty short list.
I don't think the fact that a player is coming back for an injury is any reason to describe him as not league standard.
I haven't. But where is the evidence that he is league standard?
There is no real evidence that anyone is league standard until they play in the league. Doesn't mean they can't step up. We've seen that happen with other players this season.
To be clear, I'm not saying that he is definitely league standard, as you say I have no real evidence for that. I'm saying that he can't be written off as definitely unable to step up to league standard.
Incidentally Puddy had the best clean sheet ratio of any keeper in the league below the Football League last season - 9 conceded in 18 games. Mildenhall conceded 26 in 31, which is still one of the best ratios. So based purely on factual evidence, surely if anyone can step up to the league, Puddy can?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 13:49:10 GMT
Some people appear to have written him off, based on one dropped cross that may have been a foul, and a dodgy first 20 minutes in the biggest game of his life.
A lot of people will have understandably come to the conclusion that Puddy is not up to the required standard for a team challenging for the play-off's in League Two. The Dover mistake was costly and he was very lucky to stay on the pitch at Wembley after a nightmare 20 minutes. What stands out in my mind is his trait of consistently making big errors which will prove costly at this level. Barnet away, Macclesfield away, Chester home etc and so on. More often than not our defence looked noticeably nervous playing in front of him.
9 conceded. In 18 games. Yeah, nervous defence that!
|
|
|
Post by falsenumber9 on Dec 15, 2015 13:57:28 GMT
A lot of people will have understandably come to the conclusion that Puddy is not up to the required standard for a team challenging for the play-off's in League Two. The Dover mistake was costly and he was very lucky to stay on the pitch at Wembley after a nightmare 20 minutes. What stands out in my mind is his trait of consistently making big errors which will prove costly at this level. Barnet away, Macclesfield away, Chester home etc and so on. More often than not our defence looked noticeably nervous playing in front of him.
9 conceded. In 18 games. Yeah, nervous defence that!
With all due respect to the Conference, a clean sheet against the likes of Southport, Kidderminster, Alfreton, Altringham etc is only so impressive. Let's be honest, some of those teams struggled to get out their own half so it wasn't as if he was hugely tested.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 15, 2015 14:29:43 GMT
I haven't. But where is the evidence that he is league standard?
There is no real evidence that anyone is league standard until they play in the league. Doesn't mean they can't step up. We've seen that happen with other players this season.
To be clear, I'm not saying that he is definitely league standard, as you say I have no real evidence for that. I'm saying that he can't be written off as definitely unable to step up to league standard.
Incidentally Puddy had the best clean sheet ratio of any keeper in the league below the Football League last season - 9 conceded in 18 games. Mildenhall conceded 26 in 31, which is still one of the best ratios. So based purely on factual evidence, surely if anyone can step up to the league, Puddy can?
Just so long as we agree I haven't said he's not league standard. And by God I hope he is as this farce has led us to be relaint on him being league standard. All I'd say on the stats though is that, predominantly, he had the second half of the season where we had established ourselves as being head and shoulders above all but 3 or 4 teams in the league. Indeed I fail to remember a game he played when we were under any great consistent pressure (perhaps Barnet home?), a luxury that happens rarely in this division (Carlisle and York aside).
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 14:39:43 GMT
9 conceded. In 18 games. Yeah, nervous defence that!
With all due respect to the Conference, a clean sheet against the likes of Southport, Kidderminster, Alfreton, Altringham etc is only so impressive. Let's be honest, some of those teams struggled to get out their own half so it wasn't as if he was hugely tested. Nonetheless, that is the league below the Football League, so by definition is the closest test to the Football League itself.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 14:41:38 GMT
There is no real evidence that anyone is league standard until they play in the league. Doesn't mean they can't step up. We've seen that happen with other players this season.
To be clear, I'm not saying that he is definitely league standard, as you say I have no real evidence for that. I'm saying that he can't be written off as definitely unable to step up to league standard.
Incidentally Puddy had the best clean sheet ratio of any keeper in the league below the Football League last season - 9 conceded in 18 games. Mildenhall conceded 26 in 31, which is still one of the best ratios. So based purely on factual evidence, surely if anyone can step up to the league, Puddy can?
Just so long as we agree I haven't said he's not league standard. And by God I hope he is as this farce has led us to be relaint on him being league standard. All I'd say on the stats though is that, predominantly, he had the second half of the season where we had established ourselves as being head and shoulders above all but 3 or 4 teams in the league. Indeed I fail to remember a game he played when we were under any great consistent pressure (perhaps Barnet home?), a luxury that happens rarely in this division (Carlisle and York aside). Away at Telford we were bombarded by crosses for most of the game and Puddy dealt with it very well,not so much shot stopping but the pressure him coming and taking crosses took off the defence was very important to us hanging on for the win
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 14:43:35 GMT
There is no real evidence that anyone is league standard until they play in the league. Doesn't mean they can't step up. We've seen that happen with other players this season.
To be clear, I'm not saying that he is definitely league standard, as you say I have no real evidence for that. I'm saying that he can't be written off as definitely unable to step up to league standard.
Incidentally Puddy had the best clean sheet ratio of any keeper in the league below the Football League last season - 9 conceded in 18 games. Mildenhall conceded 26 in 31, which is still one of the best ratios. So based purely on factual evidence, surely if anyone can step up to the league, Puddy can?
Just so long as we agree I haven't said he's not league standard. And by God I hope he is as this farce has led us to be relaint on him being league standard. All I'd say on the stats though is that, predominantly, he had the second half of the season where we had established ourselves as being head and shoulders above all but 3 or 4 teams in the league. Indeed I fail to remember a game he played when we were under any great consistent pressure (perhaps Barnet home?), a luxury that happens rarely in this division (Carlisle and York aside).
What farce? There's nothing farcical about covering for injury by using the loan market, its quite common in League 2 and even above.
I never said that you said he's not league standard. Others have.
Barnet were also head and shoulders above any team in the league, except for us, and their keeper didn't have as good stats. You were the one asking for evidence, anyway, and I think that's probably the best evidence we have. Not any kind of proof of Puddy's credentials, but the best we have.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 15, 2015 15:17:25 GMT
Just so long as we agree I haven't said he's not league standard. And by God I hope he is as this farce has led us to be relaint on him being league standard. All I'd say on the stats though is that, predominantly, he had the second half of the season where we had established ourselves as being head and shoulders above all but 3 or 4 teams in the league. Indeed I fail to remember a game he played when we were under any great consistent pressure (perhaps Barnet home?), a luxury that happens rarely in this division (Carlisle and York aside).
What farce? There's nothing farcical about covering for injury by using the loan market, its quite common in League 2 and even above.
I never said that you said he's not league standard. Others have.
Barnet were also head and shoulders above any team in the league, except for us, and their keeper didn't have as good stats. You were the one asking for evidence, anyway, and I think that's probably the best evidence we have. Not any kind of proof of Puddy's credentials, but the best we have.
Well you did add not league standard when replying to my post, so pretty fair to assume you were talking to me. Then again you do waffle in your posts and try to avoid being specific. We'll agree to disagree on farce (not that the farce is any of Puddy's doing) but it seems we are both of the opinion that we have to hope he is up to league 2 standard, particularly as the only option has quite clearly been told he isn't. I'll have my fingers crossed at D&G hopefully I can report he had nothing to do if not hopefully I'll be able to report he performed admirably.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 15:26:08 GMT
What farce? There's nothing farcical about covering for injury by using the loan market, its quite common in League 2 and even above.
I never said that you said he's not league standard. Others have.
Barnet were also head and shoulders above any team in the league, except for us, and their keeper didn't have as good stats. You were the one asking for evidence, anyway, and I think that's probably the best evidence we have. Not any kind of proof of Puddy's credentials, but the best we have.
Well you did add not league standard when replying to my post, so pretty fair to assume you were talking to me. Then again you do waffle in your posts and try to avoid being specific. We'll agree to disagree on farce (not that the farce is any of Puddy's doing) but it seems we are both of the opinion that we have to hope he is up to league 2 standard, particularly as the only option has quite clearly been told he isn't. I'll have my fingers crossed at D&G hopefully I can report he had nothing to do if not hopefully I'll be able to report he performed admirably. You replied to my post, which said that some people had written him off as league standard.
I don't see how its a farce though. Would it have been better to have signed another senior keeper, so that when Puddy returned after a month as was expected, we would have been paying 3 of them? That sounds more like a farce to me.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 15, 2015 16:39:35 GMT
Well you did add not league standard when replying to my post, so pretty fair to assume you were talking to me. Then again you do waffle in your posts and try to avoid being specific. We'll agree to disagree on farce (not that the farce is any of Puddy's doing) but it seems we are both of the opinion that we have to hope he is up to league 2 standard, particularly as the only option has quite clearly been told he isn't. I'll have my fingers crossed at D&G hopefully I can report he had nothing to do if not hopefully I'll be able to report he performed admirably. You replied to my post, which said that some people had written him off as league standard.
I don't see how its a farce though. Would it have been better to have signed another senior keeper, so that when Puddy returned after a month as was expected, we would have been paying 3 of them? That sounds more like a farce to me.
You'll need to reread this thread and/or perhaps the other one that was floating around at the same time as to why I believe it's a farce. And a farce it is.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 17:19:06 GMT
You replied to my post, which said that some people had written him off as league standard.
I don't see how its a farce though. Would it have been better to have signed another senior keeper, so that when Puddy returned after a month as was expected, we would have been paying 3 of them? That sounds more like a farce to me.
You'll need to reread this thread and/or perhaps the other one that was floating around at the same time as to why I believe it's a farce. And a farce it is.
Nope, don't see it. I can see an imperfect set of circumstances, but no farce.
The situation as I see it:
We have an out of favour senior keeper on the bench while his contract runs down. Not a farce. We have an in favour senior keeper, who suffered an injury that kept him out for longer than expected. Not a farce. Rather than sign a third senior keeper, Rovers elected to use the loan market to cover the injured keeper. This lasted longer than expected. Unfortunate, but not a farce.
You must see things differently. Its up to you whether you bother explaining your point of view - I've noticed that some people lose interest in a discussion when they are struggling to justify their opinion, which I suppose is only natural.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 18:21:49 GMT
How is having two full time professional keepers on the books but neither of them being considered good enough for League football while a third (who has virtually never played League football himself) is out injured anything other than a farce?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 15, 2015 19:24:35 GMT
Blimey, if you want a keeper that has never ballsed up a back pass, then we'd be choosing from a pretty short list.
I don't think the fact that a player is coming back for an injury is any reason to describe him as not league standard.
I haven't. But where is the evidence that he is league standard? There were quite a number saying that last season and before the season started about Matty Taylor, Stuart Sinclair and James Clarke. We'll soon get the chance to find out if he is of league standard and if he's not then he'll be replaced. Whatever you might think of him he did nothing in the two play off games or the final to prevent us winning them did he ? I think Lee Nicholls has been one of the better goal keepers we've had in recent years and even he wasn't immune from clangers was he ?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 20:18:54 GMT
How is having two full time professional keepers on the books but neither of them being considered good enough for League football while a third (who has virtually never played League football himself) is out injured anything other than a farce? One of them is a promising youngster, who is not ready yet. The other is out of favour, and winding down a contract. The last is injured, hardly the manager's fault. By your reckoning, we should not give contracts to promising youngsters, only sign players with league experience (cos that's always been proof that they are brilliant players), only ever give out one year contracts, and sack players who are injured. Have I got that right?
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Dec 15, 2015 20:25:02 GMT
How is having two full time professional keepers on the books but neither of them being considered good enough for League football while a third (who has virtually never played League football himself) is out injured anything other than a farce? Who doesn't consider them good enough? I assume DC thought Puddy was good enough, injury aside, or surely he would have just offered him a short term contract to see if he could prove him wrong? Problem we have as fans is ask why we're not scouring non league for decent players instead of signing league journey men but as soon as the club signs any we don't give them a chance, so far J Clarke, Leadbitter, Taylor, Sinclair & Gaffney are proving they are up to league football, hopefully, Puddy can now do likewise but if not DC's still got a month or so we sign another goalie/off load Mildenhall, assuming the latter is now surplus to requirements and doesn't surprise us by starting on Saturday.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 20:29:31 GMT
How is having two full time professional keepers on the books but neither of them being considered good enough for League football while a third (who has virtually never played League football himself) is out injured anything other than a farce? One of them is a promising youngster, who is not ready yet. The other is out of favour, and winding down a contract. The last is injured, hardly the manager's fault. By your reckoning, we should not give contracts to promising youngsters, only sign players with league experience (cos that's always been proof that they are brilliant players), only ever give out one year contracts, and sack players who are injured. Have I got that right? No, you haven't got it right at all. What we shouldn't do is declare the senior keeper 'out of favour' while his supposed replacement is out injured indefinitely and the other keeper 'is not ready yet'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 20:30:29 GMT
How is having two full time professional keepers on the books but neither of them being considered good enough for League football while a third (who has virtually never played League football himself) is out injured anything other than a farce? Who doesn't consider them good enough? I assume DC thought Puddy was good enough, injury aside, or surely he would have just offered him a short term contract to see if he could prove him wrong? Problem we have as fans is ask why we're not scouring non league for decent players instead of signing league journey men but as soon as the club signs any we don't give them a chance, so far J Clarke, Leadbitter, Taylor, Sinclair & Gaffney are proving they are up to league football, hopefully, Puddy can now do likewise but if not DC's still got a month or so we sign another goalie/off load Mildenhall, assuming the latter is now surplus to requirements and doesn't surprise us by starting on Saturday. I haven't suggested that Puddy isn't good enough. Its the other two DC clearly doesn't trust.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 15, 2015 21:12:52 GMT
One of them is a promising youngster, who is not ready yet. The other is out of favour, and winding down a contract. The last is injured, hardly the manager's fault. By your reckoning, we should not give contracts to promising youngsters, only sign players with league experience (cos that's always been proof that they are brilliant players), only ever give out one year contracts, and sack players who are injured. Have I got that right? No, you haven't got it right at all. What we shouldn't do is declare the senior keeper 'out of favour' while his supposed replacement is out injured indefinitely and the other keeper 'is not ready yet'. What is wrong with using the loan system as back up for your keeper? The alternative would playing someone that Clarke believes is not good enough (yet, in the case of the youngster). Look, I'm not saying that the circumstances are ideal but farce is a gross exaggeration, and to me Clarke has behaved pretty reasonably, without the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 21:30:40 GMT
Having to loan goalkeepers when you have three on the books is rubbish, when two are fully fit its a farce.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 15, 2015 22:58:58 GMT
Having to loan goalkeepers when you have three on the books is rubbish, when two are fully fit its a farce. One of them is Preston who I saw play in the preseason friendly against Mangotsfield, he performed really well and made two excellent saves but I've no idea if that would be good enough to get into the league team. The other is Mildenhall who I saw play in the preseason friendly against Salisbury who allowed a long range shot to go past him similar to the one Nicholls conceded against Stevenage. I also saw him play in the preseason friendly against Cheltenham where he performed abysmally, he was absolutely all over the place and seemed to have completely forgotten how to play as a goalie (I suspect it was this that prompted DC to go and get a loan goal keeper). Sadly I think age has caught up with Mildenhall, if he hadn't activated a third year of his contract as he was entitled to do he definitely wouldn't be with us now. Based on what I saw of Mildenhall in the two friendlies he would be an absolute liability. We can speculate all we like about why Preston or Mildenhall haven't been played but clearly DC doesn't consider either of them are playing at a level to warrant them getting a game. We just have to trust DC in what he is doing (I mean he isn't doing too badly at the moment is he ?), he sees the players in training so maybe they aren't performing well enough to get selected.
|
|