The Brad Guzan Depreciation thread.

[Dave]

I don't need to add more to this as I completely agree with John e. I think he has been encouraged to always play from the back and with an inexperienced team like ours we will often be put under pressure for it.

Same here.

The method of distribution isn't really something that a goalkeeper is going to decide on a whim - even at amateur level there's going to be a plan in place to whether it goes long or short, and at the moment it's clear that he's being encouraged to play it out from the back.

If it's established that he's not good enough to play it short and that's how the coaching staff want us to play then there is an argument that he needs to be replaced. But Sako's goal on Saturday is in no way evidence of that - he did his part properly.

[RussellC]

As I and others have said, the error on Saturday was unarguable Amavi's. In isolation Guzan's part was negligible at best. But therein lies the problem, this isn't an isolated incident and his form, in my opinion, has been on a downward trajectory for some considerable time now. We're talking about a keeper with 119 first-team games and 79 International caps. To simply say suggest that him being encouraged to play out from the back is an excuse for playing Amavi into trouble like that isn't good enough. It's got nothing to do with being (or not being) a crowd favourite, it's to do with watching a player over an extended period of time and seeing the flaws in his game get bigger and bigger. It's much the same as the situation with Gabby.

In a nutshell, for me, Guzan has shown a consistent lack of footballing intelligence and I would be looking to replace him as a matter of priority. That's not me scape-goating him, it's me passing judgment on a player that I've seen a lot of.

[Dave]

As I and others have said, the error on Saturday was unarguable Amavi's. In isolation Guzan's part was negligible at best. But therein lies the problem, this isn't an isolated incident and his form, in my opinion, has been on a downward trajectory for some considerable time now. We're talking about a keeper with 119 first-team games and 79 International caps. To simply say suggest that him being encouraged to play out from the back is an excuse for playing Amavi into trouble like that isn't good enough.

The number of games and caps is irrelevent. Even if he'd played 500 hundred games he will still have his instructions whether to pass it short to the defence or send it long to the front men, based on the tactics we're using at the time. It's not an excuse - he's clearly being encouraged to go short at the moment, he did so and the person that he passed to (who was in plenty of space at the time) took a couple of touches and lost the ball.

As for the bit in bold, was his part negligible at best or did he play Amavi into trouble? Because surely it can't be both?

Edit: just to add the caveat, that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue - his distribution is clearly his weak point. It's that Palace's winner on Saturday isn't further evidence of it.

[john e]

quote fail

[KRS]

Just because Guzan may or may not be being instructed to pass it out from the back doesn't mean he has to every time he has the ball or in any way negate him of any responsibility for the goal conceded on Saturday...he had a decision to make and he decided to pass it to a team mate who had an opponent a few yards away from him by the time he received the ball. The pass was so telegraphed that any opponent player could have read what was about to happen and that is why Dann stole so much ground on Amavi by the time he actually received the ball...its not like Amavi had time to look up and make a pass or clearance as Dann was all over him as soon as he'd taken his first touch. Was there even a shout from Guzan to say "man on"?

If its not safe to pass short then clear it long. It really is quite simple.

[Ian.]

The goal was totally Amavi's fault. He could have passed it short or even long which is what is suggested Guzan should do. He tried to take someone on and lost the ball. Bad decision by him.

Hopefully Amavi will learn from that error because he looks a cracking prospect. I can't see how the blame for the goal is aimed at Brad at all really.

[KRS]

Watch it again and see how little time Amavi has once he receives the ball and Dann is all over him. The point is that he shouldn't have received the ball in the first place, and if he had the option to clear it long then why didn't Guzan do that in the first place instead of stitching up his team mate?

[aj2k77]

We really do have a team full of thickos if they only play to a preset plan without adjusting to what's happening on the pitch.

[brian green]

I don't think they are thick aj I think they have not learned to be mentally strong and fully focused to the final whistle. That is why we concede so many late goals.

[aj2k77]

I don't think they are thick aj I think they have not learned to be mentally strong and fully focused to the final whistle. That is why we concede so many late goals.

I agree with you there Brian, there's also been too many nicey nice players without that real will to win. Players like Gabby, who smirk their way through mistakes. Some of the beatings we've taken and the performances we've put in the last few years and I've yet to see anyone getting angry about it I'd be bloody livid if I were them.

[brian green]

I think the reason so many of them seem to be unconcerned about defeat and humiliation can be laid, along with many other vices, at the door of the agents. In this day and age the agent has become the player's flak jacket. Agents have anaesthetized their clients to censure or criticism. Money is all that matters. When Jimmy Dugdale failed to clear off the line the goal that relegated us, the entire Holte End suffered with him and his suffering was palpable. Fast forward to summer 2015 and the Villa captain shames himself and his agents by his words and actions and I don't suppose any of them have given it a second thought.

[Slaphead]

Maybe his logic was that if he kicked it long they would immediately get possession and be on the front foot again and throwing it out would allow us to keep possession? With Benteke gone, we won't be winning as many high balls as we used to because that man was exceptional in the air.

[clash city rocker]

Know for a fact that if a football commentator critises a player there is a chance the agent will call the commentator and basically register his displeasure at his comments.

[brian green]

I once publicly criticised a jockey for the way he rode my horse and I came very close to being taken to court by his agent. It is probably worse in football.

[Risso]

As I and others have said, the error on Saturday was unarguable Amavi's. In isolation Guzan's part was negligible at best. But therein lies the problem, this isn't an isolated incident and his form, in my opinion, has been on a downward trajectory for some considerable time now. We're talking about a keeper with 119 first-team games and 79 International caps. To simply say suggest that him being encouraged to play out from the back is an excuse for playing Amavi into trouble like that isn't good enough.

The number of games and caps is irrelevent. Even if he'd played 500 hundred games he will still have his instructions whether to pass it short to the defence or send it long to the front men, based on the tactics we're using at the time. It's not an excuse - he's clearly being encouraged to go short at the moment, he did so and the person that he passed to (who was in plenty of space at the time) took a couple of touches and lost the ball.

As for the bit in bold, was his part negligible at best or did he play Amavi into trouble? Because surely it can't be both?

Edit: just to add the caveat, that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue - his distribution is clearly his weak point. It's that Palace's winner on Saturday isn't further evidence of it.

Whether he's being encouraged to play it short and build from the back or not, he needs to have the intelligence to decide when the situation calls for playing it out, or giving it a big punt up field.  Normally with two minutes left I'd prefer us to retain possession and build slowly, but not when there were so many of their players in close proximity to ours in our half.  He was definitely partly at fault for the goal.