Shay Given

[john e]

Controversial
But I reckon Given cost us in the cup semi v Bradford
If Guzan had of played they wouldn't have scored those goals from crosses and corners as Given stayed rooted to his spot

[Percy McCarthy]

Controversial
But I reckon Given cost us in the cup semi v Bradford
If Guzan had of played they wouldn't have scored those goals from crosses and corners as Given stayed rooted to his spot

Agreed.

[LeeB]

Controversial
But I reckon Given cost us in the cup semi v Bradford
If Guzan had of played they wouldn't have scored those goals from crosses and corners as Given stayed rooted to his spot

Agreed.

Agreed too.

[Lastfootstamper]

Controversial
But I reckon Given cost us in the cup semi v Bradford
If Guzan had of played they wouldn't have scored those goals from crosses and corners as Given stayed rooted to his spot

Not controversial, it gets to the root of the Guzan/Given debate. Worldy saves, Given's one-in-ten more likely to pull it off, maybe. To cut out the danger before that save needs to be made? Guzan, every time.

[Gregorys Boy]

Controversial
But I reckon Given cost us in the cup semi v Bradford
If Guzan had of played they wouldn't have scored those goals from crosses and corners as Given stayed rooted to his spot

Agreed.

Agreed too.

Don't remember Given playing back then.  Was it because it was just the just cup?  Have been a Given fan over the years and was pleased when we signed him.  But do think he is well past his best now.

[JUAN PABLO]

Given is a good pro , hope we keep him on the coaching staff.

[Gregorys Boy]

He's earned a run in the cups. Good keeper. Honestly he's probably still one of the better players in our squad. Guzan is still number 1 though. He's not been at his best, but he's not in a bad run of form by any stretch either. Dropping him would be a mistake. I trust Given though. We're fortunate to have a back up as good.

He should play each round of the cup that we qualify for, as he's the one who is helping us get to each one. In the same way as it was absurd of O'Neill to drop Guzan for the cup final in 2010 when he was the ones who helped us get there (or, did his best to stop us getting there in the case of the Blackburn home game).

But Given is still nothing more than a competent keeper with as many faults as attributes.

Yeah how silly to play your best keeper in the biggest game of your season....

Presumably then before the final, our biggest game of the season was the semi-final? So why didn't we play Friedel then? Did we not care about that and the League Cup only became important when it was down to the last two teams?

Besides, Guzan was a better keeper then than Friedel was then. As he has proven since.

Your nic picking now.  It was good to give Guzan the experience in the cup, but when you get to the final and are playing at that time the best team in the land (well either first or second) then I think it would have been too much of a gamble to have risked an inexperienced keeper.

I don't know what drugs you have been taking if you really believe that at that stage Guzan was better than Friedel! lol.  And how has his form since proven your point.  Like most keepers of any quality he has gotten better with experience.  He was decent back then, but Friedel was one of the best in the league.  Throughout his time with us he was outstanding.  Guzan if he carries on like he has been will be just as good, but its too early to say that just now.

Nit-picking in this case is the difference between right and wrong. You can't say "well, in the biggest game of the season you should always play your best goalkeeper" when in what was previously the biggest game we didn't. Was there anything in the final that Friedel dealt with that you think Guzan wouldn't have?

The West Brom quarter final is now our biggest game of the season - presumably as he is our best goalkeeper you'd favour dropping Given and playing Guzan for that and any subsequent rounds?

Guzan didn't suddenly become a good goalkeeper when Lambert started playing him. He should have kept his place over the once-good Given under McLeish and should have been phased in better along with the once-great Friedel under O'Neill (meaning we didn't need to buy Given in the first place).

You maybe right about him over Given when McLeish took over.  But I doubt many Villa fans were complaining about the signing at the time.  And where we disagree is I don't think West Brom is our biggest game of the season so far.   As great as it would be to win the cup, we still have a lot of work to do it.  Until we get to at least the semis then I don't think we can get that excited about it.  And in case you haven't noticed we have a battle on our hands to stay in the league right now that is more important than the cup.  I would keep Given in for the West Brom game, and depending on if we make it through think about whether to play him in the semis depending on his performance against West Brom.

[Dave]

You maybe right about him over Given when McLeish took over.  But I doubt many Villa fans were complaining about the signing at the time.

I was. As were plenty of others.

[Neil Hawkes]

To add my twopenneth - the better the keeper the less "world class saves" need to be made - there will be the odd one or two, but positioning is by far the greatest aspect of a keepers job - Guzan for me.

[dekko]

To add my twopenneth - the better the keeper the less "world class saves" need to be made - there will be the odd one or two, but positioning is by far the greatest aspect of a keepers job - Guzan for me.

Agreed, its similar to centre-halves - we all love a last ditch tackle or diving save but the real skill is in avoiding having to do them.

[OCD]

They gave a 35-year old a 5-year contract - most people at the time thought that was crazy and rightly so. What pissed me off with McLeish was when Given was out for a few games with an injury, Guzan played brilliantly and then once Given was fit again he put him straight back into the team. Guzan didn't deserve that or being released on a free. One of the good things Lambert did was to bring him back. Spotting a good player was never Lambert's problem (coaching them was another matter).

I agree with the post about the less world class saves a keeper has to make. It's the same with a defender not needing to make last gasp tackles because of their positioning. Given made one very good save, which if he had held onto the ball in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to make.

[Damo70]

They gave a 35-year old a 5-year contract - most people at the time thought that was crazy and rightly so. What pissed me off with McLeish was when Given was out for a few games with an injury, Guzan played brilliantly and then once Given was fit again he put him straight back into the team. Guzan didn't deserve that or being released on a free. One of the good things Lambert did was to bring him back. Spotting a good player was never Lambert's problem (coaching them was another matter).

I agree with the post about the less world class saves a keeper has to make. It's the same with a defender not needing to make last gasp tackles because of their positioning. Given made one very good save, which if he had held onto the ball in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to make.

Those are three crucial points for me. I was happy to have Given on board but the finances involved were huge for a player getting on, even by a keepers standards. Secondly, Guzan should have kept his place and I think something like that sends out the wrong message to both regulars and reserves and lastly Guzan should not have been released.

[Gregorys Boy]

They gave a 35-year old a 5-year contract - most people at the time thought that was crazy and rightly so. What pissed me off with McLeish was when Given was out for a few games with an injury, Guzan played brilliantly and then once Given was fit again he put him straight back into the team. Guzan didn't deserve that or being released on a free. One of the good things Lambert did was to bring him back. Spotting a good player was never Lambert's problem (coaching them was another matter).

I agree with the post about the less world class saves a keeper has to make. It's the same with a defender not needing to make last gasp tackles because of their positioning. Given made one very good save, which if he had held onto the ball in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to make.

Those are three crucial points for me. I was happy to have Given on board but the finances involved were huge for a player getting on, even by a keepers standards. Secondly, Guzan should have kept his place and I think something like that sends out the wrong message to both regulars and reserves and lastly Guzan should not have been released.

Well that is different then.

But for a goalkeeper 35 isn't old, many hit their peak form round that age.

[Dave]

They gave a 35-year old a 5-year contract - most people at the time thought that was crazy and rightly so. What pissed me off with McLeish was when Given was out for a few games with an injury, Guzan played brilliantly and then once Given was fit again he put him straight back into the team. Guzan didn't deserve that or being released on a free. One of the good things Lambert did was to bring him back. Spotting a good player was never Lambert's problem (coaching them was another matter).

I agree with the post about the less world class saves a keeper has to make. It's the same with a defender not needing to make last gasp tackles because of their positioning. Given made one very good save, which if he had held onto the ball in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to make.

Those are three crucial points for me. I was happy to have Given on board but the finances involved were huge for a player getting on, even by a keepers standards. Secondly, Guzan should have kept his place and I think something like that sends out the wrong message to both regulars and reserves and lastly Guzan should not have been released.

Well that is different then.

But for a goalkeeper 35 isn't old, many hit their peak form round that age.

It's still old. Not ever goalkeeper is Brad Friedel or Mark Schwarzer. We gave Friedel a three year deal. When Man Utd signed Van Der Sar at 34, they gave him a two year deal.

Friedel had barely missed a game in over a decade when we signed him, Given had missed half of four of the previous six seasons through various recurring injuries (and one of the two that he didn't get injured, he barely played a match all season while he was on Man City's bench).

Can you think of a single other example of a 35 year old being given a five year contract?

[Gregorys Boy]

They gave a 35-year old a 5-year contract - most people at the time thought that was crazy and rightly so. What pissed me off with McLeish was when Given was out for a few games with an injury, Guzan played brilliantly and then once Given was fit again he put him straight back into the team. Guzan didn't deserve that or being released on a free. One of the good things Lambert did was to bring him back. Spotting a good player was never Lambert's problem (coaching them was another matter).

I agree with the post about the less world class saves a keeper has to make. It's the same with a defender not needing to make last gasp tackles because of their positioning. Given made one very good save, which if he had held onto the ball in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to make.

Those are three crucial points for me. I was happy to have Given on board but the finances involved were huge for a player getting on, even by a keepers standards. Secondly, Guzan should have kept his place and I think something like that sends out the wrong message to both regulars and reserves and lastly Guzan should not have been released.

Well that is different then.

But for a goalkeeper 35 isn't old, many hit their peak form round that age.

It's still old. Not ever goalkeeper is Brad Friedel or Mark Schwarzer. We gave Friedel a three year deal. When Man Utd signed Van Der Sar at 34, they gave him a two year deal.

Friedel had barely missed a game in over a decade when we signed him, Given had missed half of four of the previous six seasons through various recurring injuries (and one of the two that he didn't get injured, he barely played a match all season while he was on Man City's bench).

Can you think of a single other example of a 35 year old being given a five year contract?

No I agree that five years was too much.  We just disagree on Given as a keeper.