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 140547 times)

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35441
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 15.06.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #960 on: October 27, 2017, 10:00:49 AM »
Have the day off today so actually watched all of Atlanta-Colombus Crew last night.

First of goal what a nuts game. How it stayed 0-0 is beyond me. Both teams hit the woodwork twice and they were some incredible misses, most entertaining goalless draw in a long while.

Guzan was back to good standard. Some good saves and his kicking was pretty good aswell. Don't know if he's premier league standard anymore but I do think the years here playing infront of substandard defences declined him so much.

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35441
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 15.06.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #961 on: October 27, 2017, 10:05:05 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.


Lambert must have rated him in some of the cup games he'd seen as he made the move to bring him back and it proved a good decision for 18 months unless you want to point out all the errors he made in 12-13 and 13-14.

Only surprise to me was Given starting that season as number 1 as his Everton home performance quickly showed he was no longer good enough to be a regular premier league goalkeeper.

I'm sure you'd agree with that from watching his games for ROI in the 2012 euros SH.....:)

Offline john e

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14865
  • GM : 23.01.20
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #962 on: October 27, 2017, 11:35:32 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?  :)
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?  :)

ha ha, as the good book says Ďbe sure your old posts will find you outí

Offline Diablo

  • Member
  • Posts: 1911
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #963 on: October 27, 2017, 11:37:50 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.


Lambert must have rated him in some of the cup games he'd seen as he made the move to bring him back and it proved a good decision for 18 months unless you want to point out all the errors he made in 12-13 and 13-14.

Only surprise to me was Given starting that season as number 1 as his Everton home performance quickly showed he was no longer good enough to be a regular premier league goalkeeper.

I'm sure you'd agree with that from watching his games for ROI in the 2012 euros SH.....:)
It may be my poor memory playing tricks on me but wasn't Given recovering from an injury in the 2012 Euros?

Offline passitsideways

  • Member
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: Sydney
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #964 on: October 27, 2017, 11:51:04 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.

I don't know how the personnel decision-making process taken by the club is supposed to have any relevance to the question of how objectively good a keeper he was.

What we do have though is the fact that he was voted our player of the season, the same season we had a fella called Benteke banging in goals left and right. Maybe one could argue whether he really should have won it over the big man, but you must be talking about a different kind of rubbish compared to everyone else.

Offline saunders_heroes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14907
  • GM : 25.01.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #965 on: October 27, 2017, 01:48:07 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.

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.

I don't know how the personnel decision-making process taken by the club is supposed to have any relevance to the question of how objectively good a keeper he was.

What we do have though is the fact that he was voted our player of the season, the same season we had a fella called Benteke banging in goals left and right. Maybe one could argue whether he really should have won it over the big man, but you must be talking about a different kind of rubbish compared to everyone else.

Didnít we once vote Stephen Ireland our player of the year? I wouldnít look too much into that.

Offline saunders_heroes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14907
  • GM : 25.01.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #966 on: October 27, 2017, 01:49:22 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.

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?  :)

Even in the rare events where I praised him I threw in a caveat. 😎

Online Dave

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 31955
  • Location: Bath
  • GM : 28.01.2019
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #967 on: October 27, 2017, 10:53:26 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.

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.

I don't know how the personnel decision-making process taken by the club is supposed to have any relevance to the question of how objectively good a keeper he was.

What we do have though is the fact that he was voted our player of the season, the same season we had a fella called Benteke banging in goals left and right. Maybe one could argue whether he really should have won it over the big man, but you must be talking about a different kind of rubbish compared to everyone else.

Didnít we once vote Stephen Ireland our player of the year? I wouldnít look too much into that.

If I remember, that was just an accumulation of the largest number of MOTM awards from the 19 matches at Villa Park, rather than something anyone voted for.

I'd also say it's a bit different Guzan winning it ahead of a striker scoring 20+ goals.

It's not like Ireland won over loads of other more deserving characters.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 10:57:37 PM by Dave »

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 #968 on: October 27, 2017, 10:58:10 PM »
If I remember, that was just an accumulation of the largest number of MOTM awards from the 19 matches at Villa Park, rather than something anyone voted for.

When the largest number of MOTM at home over a season is your goalkeeper.. well its not a good sign :)

Online Dave

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 31955
  • Location: Bath
  • GM : 28.01.2019
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #969 on: October 27, 2017, 11:04:17 PM »
If I remember, that was just an accumulation of the largest number of MOTM awards from the 19 matches at Villa Park, rather than something anyone voted for.

When the largest number of MOTM at home over a season is your goalkeeper.. well its not a good sign :)

I know he did very little up front, but Stephen Ireland definitely wasn't a goalkeeper.

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 #970 on: October 28, 2017, 04:10:01 AM »
If I remember, that was just an accumulation of the largest number of MOTM awards from the 19 matches at Villa Park, rather than something anyone voted for.

When the largest number of MOTM at home over a season is your goalkeeper.. well its not a good sign :)

I know he did very little up front, but Stephen Ireland definitely wasn't a goalkeeper.

Ah gotcha thanks. Yeah I got confused there.  I think "player of the season" being discussed in the same breath as Stephen Ireland or Brad Guzan sort of led to a processing breakdown in my brain.

Offline Pete3206

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14124
  • Location: Erdington
  • GM : 21.01.2017
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #971 on: October 28, 2017, 01:42:41 PM »
Stephen Ireland and "player" also seems like a contradiction in terms.

Anyhoo, Brad's current home stadium is a tad impressive.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2017, 01:45:10 PM by Pete3206 »

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35441
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 15.06.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #972 on: November 16, 2017, 07:38:02 PM »
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.

Flicked through some of his book in my lunch break yesterday.

Nothing earth shattering. He says he took a massive pay cut to join us which explains the 5 year contract. Criticised Lerner for cost cutting and jettisoning the experienced players (says if he knew it would happen he'd have stayed at City and bench warmed there which is a reasonable point).

Said Lambert didn't fancy him as number one as soon as he came back from the euros and knew with his first mistake he'd be out (Fellani header that went through his hands). Thought Sherwood should've been given more time.

Criticized N'zogbia for being more interested in fashion and all the trappings of a premier league footballer and just not working hard enough on the pitch. Also said he nearly joined Liverpool in 2013 which I had forgot about (if it was even reported?).

And that's it so 15 quid saved to buy the Ron Saunders booked instead....


Offline Ad@m

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8022
  • GM : 01.02.2020
Re: The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.
« Reply #973 on: August 06, 2018, 11:58:02 AM »


Could have done with this when he played for us. There were plenty of times I was left wondering what on earth was going through his mind!!