Jump to content

Pavel....Why?


jackyboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone explain why Roeder played an old man in goal, a man who hasn't played at the top level in more than a decade, when we have the option of playing youg Krul who proved his worth in the european game. By putting Pav in goal Roeder created indecision in what is a very young inexperienced back four.  When Pav was at his best he frightened the life out of me with some of his decisions, dribbling around attackers, rushing out of his goal when he should have stayed put etc.

 

He was a great favourite with the fans and still is but I think the decision to play him yesterday cost us at least a point and could well have damaged confidence and moral. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krul has only been in training for a week since coming back from surgery. Probobly not fit yet.

 

that was the reason given - he had no choice really!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roeder had no choice at the time, but if he hadn't of signed Pav in the first place - he wouldn't have had to play him. We could have loaned someone like Pompey, Villa, Everton, etc have done in the past when their goalkeeper situation has become critical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roeder had no choice at the time, but if he hadn't of signed Pav in the first place - he wouldn't have had to play him. We could have loaned someone like Pompey, Villa, Everton, etc have done in the past when their goalkeeper situation has become critical.

 

Because Gabor Kiraly is a GREAT keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roeder had no choice at the time, but if he hadn't of signed Pav in the first place - he wouldn't have had to play him. We could have loaned someone like Pompey, Villa, Everton, etc have done in the past when their goalkeeper situation has become critical.

 

Because Gabor Kiraly is a GREAT keeper.

 

Kiraly, Walker, Kiely all keepers we could of loaned if we didn't have Pav, all better than him, all in and about the EPL.

 

Pav was a joke for the 1st goal, people can blame Ramage as much as they like, but Pav looked like he hadn't played (indecision, bad judgment, flapping, no communication) in the EPL for several years...

 

 

Oh shit, he hadn't  :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

what were we thinking employing someone with half a talent, plenty of experience and 100% commitment to the club as a 4th choice keeper?

 

someone should be resigning for this incompetence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Knightrider

Ramage admits it was his fault for the 1st goal , lay off Pav hes fab

 

He's shite man.

 

 

 

But he is 38 and beggars can't be choosers. Its actually nice to see his face again, top man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest TampaToon

yeah, let's string roeder up for not having the foresight to sign a quality 4th keeper.  every prem team has to play their 4th choice at some point, how dare he not be top prem quality?

 

Can anyone explain why Roeder played an old man in goal, a man who hasn't played at the top level in more than a decade, when we have the option of playing youg Krol who proved his worth in the european game. By putting Pav in goal Roeder created indecision in what is a very young inexperienced back four.  When Pav was at his best he frightened the life out of me with some of his decisions, dribbling around attackers, rushing out of his goal when he should have stayed put etc.

 

He was a great favourite with the fans and still is but I think the decision to play him yesterday cost us at least a point and could well have damaged confidence and moral 

 

and how does playing a 19-year-old in goal (if he happened to be fit) an appropriate decision to solidify the "young, inexperienced back 4" that you mention? sound like a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of scenario if your solution to save him from this criticism is to add youth and inexperience into the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong... i'm not slating Roeder for bringing Pav in if he wants him to be a coach, and it's not a particularly bad idea to have a fourth choice goalkeeper. But, like i said previously, if he wanted Srnicek to be a coach - he should have been a coach - not a player. It isn't an uncommon thing to loan a goalkeeper if your situation becomes critical, many teams have done it - and i think i'd rather we did that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is Krul might not be ready to play against the successful physical sides such as Bolton.

 

To concede a poor goal against Bolton as a consequence of clever Bolton players targetting him in a physical manner, and then losing his place to Given a game or so later without really getting a chance to prove that he is a good keeper is likely to be damaging to his career.

 

Would definitely rather play Srnicek over Krul against Everton as Krul will get a rough ride during Everton set pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what were we thinking employing someone with half a talent, plenty of experience and 100% commitment to the club as a 4th choice keeper?

 

someone should be resigning for this incompetence

 

Finally, someone with sense. It's not like he was signed as 2nd choice keeper. Srnicek is still better than 2/3s of the rest of the league's 3rd choice keepers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Srnicek is still better than 2/3s of the rest of the league's 3rd choice keepers.

 

According to?

 

His opinion?

 

I'd just like to know why he thinks that, thanks. Not saying he is wrong or right.

 

Well I would agree with him, but only because I can't think of many teams in the PL who have an ex 1st choice keeper as their 3rd choice keeper*

 

*And I can't name many 3rd choice keepers in the PL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...