|
Post by severnbeachline on Dec 16, 2015 0:10:44 GMT
I'd like to remind everyone at the start of this season there were decent chunks of the fanbase claiming Taylor and Sinclair would never be good enough for league football.
Let's give Puddy a chance shall we?
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 16, 2015 5:51:45 GMT
Let's give Pud a chance shall we? Sounds almost like a John Lennon line... :-)
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2015 7:00:55 GMT
Having to loan goalkeepers when you have three on the books is rubbish, when two are fully fit its a farce. Are you unable to read? You've been given the reasons why the 2 are not being played, and they are reasonable reasons. Loss of form happens. Sometimes young players are not ready for the first team, but are given contracts because they may be in the future. That's how you develop young players. A farce would be playing a kid when he is not ready. What's the view like up on your high horse?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2015 7:08:25 GMT
One thing I don't get is that we have almost exactly the same situation up front. A player under contract is not on form (Easter), so he is on the bench. We have a promising young forward who the manager thinks is not ready yet. So we have loaned a player in. No one is screaming farce at that situation.
Why are people so sensitive about goalkeepers?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 8:07:11 GMT
I first saw Puddy at Barnet where he did make a bad mistake but that apart I felt he did well that night,the defence apart from Trotman were terrible and it must have been a daunting task for Puddy. Dover away I was there but I couldn't really make out what happened,was he fouled ?. I also thought Puddy was unlucky to be dropped when Mildenhall came back into the team. Again I think not having a reserve team playing regularly isn't helping Rovers. The goal keeping situation needs to be sorted out as does a permanent centre forward.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 16, 2015 9:16:46 GMT
Having to loan goalkeepers when you have three on the books is rubbish, when two are fully fit its a farce. You're wasting your time certain people won't allow any questioning of DC's decisions . You can sum up there goalkeeper views as we don't know if Puddy is up to league standard but we should give him a chance, we also don't know if Preston is up to league standard but we shouldn't give him a chance. And making a decision on Mildenhall in August was better than making a decision in May. It's a farce but DC created so it can't be called a farce.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2015 10:07:08 GMT
Having to loan goalkeepers when you have three on the books is rubbish, when two are fully fit its a farce. You're wasting your time certain people won't allow any questioning of DC's decisions . You can sum up there goalkeeper views as we don't know if Puddy is up to league standard but we should give him a chance, we also don't know if Preston is up to league standard but we shouldn't give him a chance. And making a decision on Mildenhall in August was better than making a decision in May. It's a farce but DC created so it can't be called a farce. No, my view is that I'm content for the manager to judge who should be given a chance or not, as he sees them in training every day and I don't have any strong evidence to the contrary.
I'm also saying farce is an exaggeration. Farce means that something is worthy of ridicule, a ridiculous, comedic, nonsense situation. If you were talking to a fan of another club and they told you the same story - that we had a goalkeeper who lost form, so replaced him with another keeper. That keeper got injured, so we loaned someone in to cover until they got better. Oh, and we have a young goalkeeper on the books, but he's not ready yet. Would you really point and laugh and think that was totally crazy? Personally I would say, "oh right well there you go".
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Dec 16, 2015 10:19:53 GMT
Wouldn't you just hate to be the club that doesn't give a decent conference goalkeeper a chance in the football league, because a bunch of spectators who have never pulled on a pair of boots outside of the downs "doesn't think he will be league standard".
My gawd.
Nicholls, Puddy & even the recent messiah Mildenhall has made errors in their game. Who doesn't?? Whoever is chosen needs the full backing. Wouldn't hold my breath though, the blackthorn end morons lie in wait for that first mistake.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 16, 2015 10:31:53 GMT
You're wasting your time certain people won't allow any questioning of DC's decisions . You can sum up there goalkeeper views as we don't know if Puddy is up to league standard but we should give him a chance, we also don't know if Preston is up to league standard but we shouldn't give him a chance. And making a decision on Mildenhall in August was better than making a decision in May. It's a farce but DC created so it can't be called a farce. No, my view is that I'm content for the manager to judge who should be given a chance or not, as he sees them in training every day and I don't have any strong evidence to the contrary.
I'm also saying farce is an exaggeration. Farce means that something is worthy of ridicule, a ridiculous, comedic, nonsense situation. If you were talking to a fan of another club and they told you the same story - that we had a goalkeeper who lost form, so replaced him with another keeper. That keeper got injured, so we loaned someone in to cover until they got better. Oh, and we have a young goalkeeper on the books, but he's not ready yet. Would you really point and laugh and think that was totally crazy? Personally I would say, "oh right well there you go".
Still can't face up to why it's a farce even when it's explained to you.
|
|
|
Post by falsenumber9 on Dec 16, 2015 10:59:27 GMT
Wouldn't you just hate to be the club that doesn't give a decent conference goalkeeper a chance in the football league, because a bunch of spectators who have never pulled on a pair of boots outside of the downs "doesn't think he will be league standard". My gawd. Nicholls, Puddy & even the recent messiah Mildenhall has made errors in their game. Who doesn't?? Whoever is chosen needs the full backing. Wouldn't hold my breath though, the blackthorn end morons lie in wait for that first mistake. So unless you've played the game professionally, you're not entitled to an opinion? Seriously, come on. The majority of commentators on here have watched enough games in their lifetime to have a valid take on things. The problem for me in this case is that he wasn't 'decent' last season. He made countless mistakes which we somehow got away with. We're a club going for a play-off position in League Two and which strives to win big games. His inexperience was shown up at Wembley and we massively got off the hook. He was brought in as a number two and that's exactly where he should be at the club.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2015 12:05:42 GMT
No, my view is that I'm content for the manager to judge who should be given a chance or not, as he sees them in training every day and I don't have any strong evidence to the contrary.
I'm also saying farce is an exaggeration. Farce means that something is worthy of ridicule, a ridiculous, comedic, nonsense situation. If you were talking to a fan of another club and they told you the same story - that we had a goalkeeper who lost form, so replaced him with another keeper. That keeper got injured, so we loaned someone in to cover until they got better. Oh, and we have a young goalkeeper on the books, but he's not ready yet. Would you really point and laugh and think that was totally crazy? Personally I would say, "oh right well there you go".
Still can't face up to why it's a farce even when it's explained to you. Right back at you. Its not even unusual in football, let alone a farce.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2015 12:07:22 GMT
Wouldn't you just hate to be the club that doesn't give a decent conference goalkeeper a chance in the football league, because a bunch of spectators who have never pulled on a pair of boots outside of the downs "doesn't think he will be league standard". My gawd. Nicholls, Puddy & even the recent messiah Mildenhall has made errors in their game. Who doesn't?? Whoever is chosen needs the full backing. Wouldn't hold my breath though, the blackthorn end morons lie in wait for that first mistake. So unless you've played the game professionally, you're not entitled to an opinion? Seriously, come on. The majority of commentators on here have watched enough games in their lifetime to have a valid take on things. The problem for me in this case is that he wasn't 'decent' last season. He made countless mistakes which we somehow got away with. We're a club going for a play-off position in League Two and which strives to win big games. His inexperience was shown up at Wembley and we massively got off the hook. He was brought in as a number two and that's exactly where he should be at the club.
I can count them - 3 and a half. Number of goals conceded from his mistakes = 1, and that was a foul imo.
|
|
|
Post by falsenumber9 on Dec 16, 2015 12:13:54 GMT
So unless you've played the game professionally, you're not entitled to an opinion? Seriously, come on. The majority of commentators on here have watched enough games in their lifetime to have a valid take on things. The problem for me in this case is that he wasn't 'decent' last season. He made countless mistakes which we somehow got away with. We're a club going for a play-off position in League Two and which strives to win big games. His inexperience was shown up at Wembley and we massively got off the hook. He was brought in as a number two and that's exactly where he should be at the club.
I can count them - 3 and a half. Number of goals conceded from his mistakes = 1, and that was a foul imo.
What are those 3 and a half out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Dec 16, 2015 12:19:25 GMT
Wouldn't you just hate to be the club that doesn't give a decent conference goalkeeper a chance in the football league, because a bunch of spectators who have never pulled on a pair of boots outside of the downs "doesn't think he will be league standard". My gawd. Nicholls, Puddy & even the recent messiah Mildenhall has made errors in their game. Who doesn't?? Whoever is chosen needs the full backing. Wouldn't hold my breath though, the blackthorn end morons lie in wait for that first mistake. So unless you've played the game professionally, you're not entitled to an opinion? Seriously, come on. The majority of commentators on here have watched enough games in their lifetime to have a valid take on things. The problem for me in this case is that he wasn't 'decent' last season. He made countless mistakes which we somehow got away with. We're a club going for a play-off position in League Two and which strives to win big games. His inexperience was shown up at Wembley and we massively got off the hook. He was brought in as a number two and that's exactly where he should be at the club. Not at all, it's the way some go on in their slating of Puddy that you would think they have. The guy deserves a shot exactly the same as any other member of last seasons squad.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2015 12:24:46 GMT
I can count them - 3 and a half. Number of goals conceded from his mistakes = 1, and that was a foul imo.
What are those 3 and a half out of interest? Chester, Macclesfield, Wembley and the half is Dover, from memory
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Dec 17, 2015 8:29:56 GMT
Macclesfield away? That was 0.0 & Puddy was by far our best player. At home we dicked them by quite a lot - don't recall any errors there.
As you say he was fouled at Dover & whilst never being the show pony type of keeper some love he is a very competent player. DC has known him for years including 120 games at Salisbury - I think he knows better than anyone Puddys ability.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Dec 17, 2015 19:54:26 GMT
What are those 3 and a half out of interest? Chester, Macclesfield, Wembley and the half is Dover, from memory Puddy was clearly fouled for the Dover goal so how can that be his fault? I can't recall the Chester game and whilst he could have get sent off at Wembley I suppose another way to look at it is did his rush of blood actually keep the score 1-0 rather than let the Grimsby player have a clear run at goal? But even I was nervous at Wembley sat watching! Assuming Puddy starts on Saturday what's the betting this thread will be dead by 5pm should he keep a clean sheet?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 17, 2015 20:26:26 GMT
Puddy is our God, hopefully
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 17, 2015 20:37:49 GMT
Macclesfield away? That was 0.0 & Puddy was by far our best player. At home we dicked them by quite a lot - don't recall any errors there. As you say he was fouled at Dover & whilst never being the show pony type of keeper some love he is a very competent player. DC has known him for years including 120 games at Salisbury - I think he knows better than anyone Puddys ability. Hey, I'm pro puddy, I was just trying to be balanced. 3.5 errors, only one goal from them, in his first 18 games at a new club, is good for a lower league keeper.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 19, 2015 17:19:07 GMT
That was a highly predicted outcome to the farce.
|
|