collapse collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine

Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

* H&V Best Of

Follow us on...

Author Topic: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.  (Read 140550 times)

Offline john e

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14865
  • GM : 23.01.20
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #945 on: October 26, 2017, 06:59:05 PM »
I loved him, one of my favourite players at the time

i remember defending him to the death on here even when heíd had his shitiest games which were quite frequent towards the end times
in the end I did eventually realise that it was best for all parties for him to leave


Offline Newby

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6498
  • Location: Down south now. Born in Aston.
  • GM : 01.12.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #946 on: October 26, 2017, 07:10:18 PM »
Is that an admission John? If only we could get Clampy to do the same about Bacuna! Joke.

Online Dave

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 31955
  • Location: Bath
  • GM : 28.01.2019
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #947 on: October 26, 2017, 07:12:19 PM »
We ruined Guzan. After all the goals he/we conceded the poor f***er was shellshocked by the time he left us.

Na, he was never good enough to be a number one keeper and he was only promoted to that position because he was cheap. Decent for a back up role but he should never have been our first choice. Personally I thought he was bloody useless.

It was time to say goodbye by the end, but he was plenty better than what he replaced or what replaced him.

Damning with faint praise admittedly.

Online LeeB

  • Member
  • Posts: 16490
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Standing in the Klix-O-Gum queue.
  • GM : May, 2014
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #948 on: October 26, 2017, 07:58:34 PM »
We ruined Guzan. After all the goals he/we conceded the poor f***er was shellshocked by the time he left us.

Na, he was never good enough to be a number one keeper and he was only promoted to that position because he was cheap. Decent for a back up role but he should never have been our first choice. Personally I thought he was bloody useless.

It was time to say goodbye by the end, but he was plenty better than what he replaced or what replaced him.

Damning with faint praise admittedly.

He made me angry with his part in what was probably the best performance by a Villa side in years away at Man City, he lost me then.

Offline West Derby Villan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8136
  • Location: Turn left junction 21A
  • GM : 03.05.2019
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #949 on: October 26, 2017, 08:24:48 PM »
We ruined Guzan. After all the goals he/we conceded the poor f***er was shellshocked by the time he left us.

Na, he was never good enough to be a number one keeper and he was only promoted to that position because he was cheap. Decent for a back up role but he should never have been our first choice. Personally I thought he was bloody useless.

It was time to say goodbye by the end, but he was plenty better than what he replaced or what replaced him.

Damning with faint praise admittedly.

He made me angry with his part in what was probably the best performance by a Villa side in years away at Man City, he lost me then.

Agree whole heartedly, shocking display

Offline Clampy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22814
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #950 on: October 26, 2017, 09:49:17 PM »
We ruined Guzan. After all the goals he/we conceded the poor f***er was shellshocked by the time he left us.

Na, he was never good enough to be a number one keeper and he was only promoted to that position because he was cheap.

Bearing in mind we were still paying Given a lot of money at the time, i'm not sure how that line of thinking works.

He deserved to keep his place for a while but he wasn't getting better as a keeper although towards the end he didn't exactly have the best of defences in front of him.


Offline john e

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14865
  • GM : 23.01.20
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #951 on: October 26, 2017, 09:54:38 PM »
We ruined Guzan. After all the goals he/we conceded the poor f***er was shellshocked by the time he left us.

Na, he was never good enough to be a number one keeper and he was only promoted to that position because he was cheap. Decent for a back up role but he should never have been our first choice. Personally I thought he was bloody useless.

It was time to say goodbye by the end, but he was plenty better than what he replaced or what replaced him.

Damning with faint praise admittedly.

He made me angry with his part in what was probably the best performance by a Villa side in years away at Man City, he lost me then.

I had to really dig in after that
it was the night it was going to get a whole lot harder constantly leaping to his defence
still gave it my best shot mind

Offline passitsideways

  • Member
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: Sydney
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #952 on: October 26, 2017, 11:13:27 PM »
Complete and utter revisionism to suggest he was never good enough to be the starter. Decent backups don't hold their form for a full season like he did (after taking over from Given three games into the 2012-13 season), and his form only dwindled from the second half of the 2013-14 season.

The absolute worst kicker I've seen at the professional level though - even when he was good, he was only barely capable of punting it up the pitch, so no surprise that becoming incapable of even doing that constantly would affect the rest of his game.

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35441
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 15.06.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #953 on: October 26, 2017, 11:23:35 PM »
We ruined Guzan. After all the goals he/we conceded the poor f***er was shellshocked by the time he left us.

Na, he was never good enough to be a number one keeper and he was only promoted to that position because he was cheap. Decent for a back up role but he should never have been our first choice. Personally I thought he was bloody useless.

What just because he replaced Given who was really declining at that point. If Given had been our regular keeper during 12/13 we'd have gone down that season judging by some of his pathetic displays in the cups.

Guzan more than played his part in 12/13 and I thought his level was pretty good the following season. He started declining in the 14/15 which lead to the error v Man. City where most lost full confidence in him.

It was a mistake not to replace him in summer 2015 and we all now what happened next.

We've had worse keepers. Scott Carson for a start. Guzan for the most part was the same standard as Sorensen.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 11:25:15 PM by SoccerHQ »

Offline ciggiesnbeer

  • Member
  • Posts: 6794
  • Location: Mass hysteria for Aston Villa. Some team from the mountains in Russia
  • GM : 23.01.2019
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #954 on: October 26, 2017, 11:45:27 PM »
A poor mans Friedel.

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35441
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 15.06.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #955 on: October 26, 2017, 11:50:49 PM »
A poor mans Friedel.


Friedel was solid but I never really thought we had the form he frequently showed for Blackburn. His last season we conceded a hatful. And he could never save a penalty which was bonkers as again he'd saved loads at Blackburn.

Offline eamonn

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19346
  • Location: Highgate
  • GM : 26.07.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #956 on: October 27, 2017, 01:22:58 AM »
Agreed on Friendly to a degree. About right for a team regularly finishing sixth but I actually thought he'd be better.

I wonder what Given says about us in his new book. The official store are selling it so I'm guessing it's generally favourable. Mind you, getting £10m odd off us over five years for one year's work is good going, he has every reason to speak highly of us.

Offline saunders_heroes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14907
  • GM : 25.01.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #957 on: October 27, 2017, 07:04:10 AM »
Complete and utter revisionism to suggest he was never good enough to be the starter. Decent backups don't hold their form for a full season like he did (after taking over from Given three games into the 2012-13 season), and his form only dwindled from the second half of the 2013-14 season.

The absolute worst kicker I've seen at the professional level though - even when he was good, he was only barely capable of punting it up the pitch, so no surprise that becoming incapable of even doing that constantly would affect the rest of his game.

He was released then re-signed when we realised an upgrade would cost more money than we would pay. It was one of those moments when we realised we were being run by an idiot, and it summed up our decline as a club.
Itís not revisionism, I said at the time it was a bonkers decision to make a player our first choice keeper just weeks after letting him go for not being good enough. I never rated him from day one, he was rubbish in my opinion.

Offline Ad@m

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8022
  • GM : 01.02.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #958 on: October 27, 2017, 08:16:16 AM »
Complete and utter revisionism to suggest he was never good enough to be the starter. Decent backups don't hold their form for a full season like he did (after taking over from Given three games into the 2012-13 season), and his form only dwindled from the second half of the 2013-14 season.

The absolute worst kicker I've seen at the professional level though - even when he was good, he was only barely capable of punting it up the pitch, so no surprise that becoming incapable of even doing that constantly would affect the rest of his game.

He was released then re-signed when we realised an upgrade would cost more money than we would pay. It was one of those moments when we realised we were being run by an idiot, and it summed up our decline as a club.
Itís not revisionism, I said at the time it was a bonkers decision to make a player our first choice keeper just weeks after letting him go for not being good enough. I never rated him from day one, he was rubbish in my opinion.

The fact he was the MLS's Goalkeeper of the Year at the point we signed him proves he wasn't rubbish.

He was a generally steady goalie with a habit for the occasional clanger.  Like most goalies to be honest.  He was never going to play for one of the top teams but if he didn't have a bunch of hapless kids in front of him towards the end he also wouldn't have looked as bad as is being suggested.

Offline Clampy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22814
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #959 on: October 27, 2017, 08:35:54 AM »
Complete and utter revisionism to suggest he was never good enough to be the starter. Decent backups don't hold their form for a full season like he did (after taking over from Given three games into the 2012-13 season), and his form only dwindled from the second half of the 2013-14 season.

The absolute worst kicker I've seen at the professional level though - even when he was good, he was only barely capable of punting it up the pitch, so no surprise that becoming incapable of even doing that constantly would affect the rest of his game.

He was released then re-signed when we realised an upgrade would cost more money than we would pay. It was one of those moments when we realised we were being run by an idiot, and it summed up our decline as a club.
Itís not revisionism, I said at the time it was a bonkers decision to make a player our first choice keeper just weeks after letting him go for not being good enough. I never rated him from day one, he was rubbish in my opinion.


Great shot stopper and he saved us from dropping two points yesterday.
I still think he occasionally flaps at crosses though.

Are you sure it's not revisionism?  :)