Quote from: Phil from the upper holte on January 02, 2016, 07:57:05 PMGiven was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as GuzanGiven is not finished. He was one of our few players to emerge from our Cup Final appearance with any credit and would have been more competition for the goalkeepers position than anyone we currently have.
Given was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as Guzan
Quote from: Chris Harte on January 02, 2016, 11:45:33 PMQuote from: Phil from the upper holte on January 02, 2016, 07:57:05 PMGiven was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as GuzanGiven is not finished. He was one of our few players to emerge from our Cup Final appearance with any credit and would have been more competition for the goalkeepers position than anyone we currently have. I'd ask for a little more than "better competition than Mark Bunn" for my £3m per year if I were spending it.If I were feeling greedy I might even ask for somebody who has set foot outside their six-yard box once or twice in their twenty year career.
Quote from: Dave on January 02, 2016, 11:58:53 PMQuote from: Chris Harte on January 02, 2016, 11:45:33 PMQuote from: Phil from the upper holte on January 02, 2016, 07:57:05 PMGiven was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as GuzanGiven is not finished. He was one of our few players to emerge from our Cup Final appearance with any credit and would have been more competition for the goalkeepers position than anyone we currently have. I'd ask for a little more than "better competition than Mark Bunn" for my £3m per year if I were spending it.If I were feeling greedy I might even ask for somebody who has set foot outside their six-yard box once or twice in their twenty year career.The thing is, you could probably get a really good player in on £3m per year but Lerner's plan was to get rid of Given and replace him with someone on a fraction of those wages, hence the squad full of shit we have right now.
Quote from: saunders_heroes on January 03, 2016, 12:03:33 AMQuote from: Dave on January 02, 2016, 11:58:53 PMQuote from: Chris Harte on January 02, 2016, 11:45:33 PMQuote from: Phil from the upper holte on January 02, 2016, 07:57:05 PMGiven was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as GuzanGiven is not finished. He was one of our few players to emerge from our Cup Final appearance with any credit and would have been more competition for the goalkeepers position than anyone we currently have. I'd ask for a little more than "better competition than Mark Bunn" for my £3m per year if I were spending it.If I were feeling greedy I might even ask for somebody who has set foot outside their six-yard box once or twice in their twenty year career.The thing is, you could probably get a really good player in on £3m per year but Lerner's plan was to get rid of Given and replace him with someone on a fraction of those wages, hence the squad full of shit we have right now.Don't get me wrong, if we were spending Given's daft wages on goalkeepers who are better than Guzan and Bunn (and as Lee says, there are plenty of them), then that would be a much better situation than we're currently in. No doubt.But not having a mediocre, elderly reserve goalkeeper as one of our highest paid players is on the whole a Good Thing rather than a Bad Thing.
Quote from: Dave on January 03, 2016, 12:13:26 AMQuote from: saunders_heroes on January 03, 2016, 12:03:33 AMQuote from: Dave on January 02, 2016, 11:58:53 PMQuote from: Chris Harte on January 02, 2016, 11:45:33 PMQuote from: Phil from the upper holte on January 02, 2016, 07:57:05 PMGiven was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as GuzanGiven is not finished. He was one of our few players to emerge from our Cup Final appearance with any credit and would have been more competition for the goalkeepers position than anyone we currently have. I'd ask for a little more than "better competition than Mark Bunn" for my £3m per year if I were spending it.If I were feeling greedy I might even ask for somebody who has set foot outside their six-yard box once or twice in their twenty year career.The thing is, you could probably get a really good player in on £3m per year but Lerner's plan was to get rid of Given and replace him with someone on a fraction of those wages, hence the squad full of shit we have right now.Don't get me wrong, if we were spending Given's daft wages on goalkeepers who are better than Guzan and Bunn (and as Lee says, there are plenty of them), then that would be a much better situation than we're currently in. No doubt.But not having a mediocre, elderly reserve goalkeeper as one of our highest paid players is on the whole a Good Thing rather than a Bad Thing.But getting rid of the wasters (like Given) was to free up wages for better players who were at the top of their game. How did that work out then?
Quote from: saunders_heroes on January 03, 2016, 12:25:36 AMQuote from: Dave on January 03, 2016, 12:13:26 AMQuote from: saunders_heroes on January 03, 2016, 12:03:33 AMQuote from: Dave on January 02, 2016, 11:58:53 PMQuote from: Chris Harte on January 02, 2016, 11:45:33 PMQuote from: Phil from the upper holte on January 02, 2016, 07:57:05 PMGiven was finished, not good enough. As scary on crosses as GuzanGiven is not finished. He was one of our few players to emerge from our Cup Final appearance with any credit and would have been more competition for the goalkeepers position than anyone we currently have. I'd ask for a little more than "better competition than Mark Bunn" for my £3m per year if I were spending it.If I were feeling greedy I might even ask for somebody who has set foot outside their six-yard box once or twice in their twenty year career.The thing is, you could probably get a really good player in on £3m per year but Lerner's plan was to get rid of Given and replace him with someone on a fraction of those wages, hence the squad full of shit we have right now.Don't get me wrong, if we were spending Given's daft wages on goalkeepers who are better than Guzan and Bunn (and as Lee says, there are plenty of them), then that would be a much better situation than we're currently in. No doubt.But not having a mediocre, elderly reserve goalkeeper as one of our highest paid players is on the whole a Good Thing rather than a Bad Thing.But getting rid of the wasters (like Given) was to free up wages for better players who were at the top of their game. How did that work out then?Nowhere near as well as any of us would have liked. But I don't think I've suggested otherwise.
I agree that three million is alot for Given but its preferable to the situation we have. Who knows, if Given was putting Guzan under pressure then maybe we'd be a few points better off than we are. Admittedly there's a whole "if me nan had bollocks she'd be me grandad" about this but if we were just say five points better off then that £3m could seem cheap in the scheme of things.
Quote from: Chris Harte on January 03, 2016, 12:05:06 AMI agree that three million is alot for Given but its preferable to the situation we have. Who knows, if Given was putting Guzan under pressure then maybe we'd be a few points better off than we are. Admittedly there's a whole "if me nan had bollocks she'd be me grandad" about this but if we were just say five points better off then that £3m could seem cheap in the scheme of things.As SH says, maybe if we'd spent even half of the money we were wasting on Given's contract on a better goalkeeper than either of them, then Guzan could currently be putting that better keeper than him under pressure rather than one mediocre goalkeeper pushing another mediocre goalkeeper into being a bit better?
I reckon the team we had in 2006 would easily beat any line-up of the past four seasons. Players like Laursen, Bouma, Mellberg, Steven Davis, Gareth Barry, Milan Baros, JPA. They achieved 42 points that year, more than we have had in five seasons.