Emi Martinez

[Scott Nielsen]

When I read that Emery had called him out for going up for the corner I thought it was probably just an offhand comment that didn’t mean to much

But when I saw the interview on match of the day he was proper pissed off with him

To be fair, he was proper pissed off with all of it, not just Emi.

[PGW]

We're going through a shitty run but I find it bizarre that people are calling him a clown and saying get rid.

Is this your first week on here? He'll be the best GK in the World again in 2 weeks.

Emi is undoubtedly a brilliant keeper but he frustrates the life out of me, it's now time for him to take his Argentine WC cap off and
put his Villa one back on again....we need the Villa Emi!!!

[qwerty]

Enjoy watching Martinez for the remainder of the season because he will be off to a Champions League club in the summer.

His replacement will probably be Yassine "Bono" Bounou of Sevilla, the best keeper in Spain.

[ASHTONVILLA]

Enjoy watching Martinez for the remainder of the season because he will be off to a Champions League club in the summer.

His replacement will probably be Yassine "Bono" Bounou of Sevilla, the best keeper in Spain.

If he continues top play like he has since the world cup then it will be an upgrade.

[algy]

Well there’s an obvious answer to that, it’s clearly a massive risk. The key point here is that if you’re losing and injury time is already up what does it matter? If there’s the slightest chance it might help why not give it a shot? It’s obviously incredibly unlikely to result in a goal, but it does happen. Worst case scenario you concede another goal, but so what you’re already going to lose if you don’t score.

Well first, it's more that if you go down to 2-4 or whatever then there's absolutely no chance of getting anything. But at 2-3, even if you fuck up the corner you're still in with a shout.

Second, if you're sending up the keeper then there's still going to be a defender on the half way line isn't there? So why not send him up, since he'll probably be better in the air, and keep your goalkeeper where they're actually effective?

But most importantly, it's the principle. You don't resort to hoofing the ball up, or other desperate tactics. It's about more than one game here - it's also sending a message that it's ok to just change the plan because of this or that or the other. But that's not what Emery is about as far as I can see. You keep possession, you bide your time, you don't just start panicking at the first sign that the opposition aren't just going to lie down and take it.

[PaulWinch again]

Well there’s an obvious answer to that, it’s clearly a massive risk. The key point here is that if you’re losing and injury time is already up what does it matter? If there’s the slightest chance it might help why not give it a shot? It’s obviously incredibly unlikely to result in a goal, but it does happen. Worst case scenario you concede another goal, but so what you’re already going to lose if you don’t score.

Well first, it's more that if you go down to 2-4 or whatever then there's absolutely no chance of getting anything. But at 2-3, even if you fuck up the corner you're still in with a shout.

Second, if you're sending up the keeper then there's still going to be a defender on the half way line isn't there? So why not send him up, since he'll probably be better in the air, and keep your goalkeeper where they're actually effective?

But most importantly, it's the principle. You don't resort to hoofing the ball up, or other desperate tactics. It's about more than one game here - it's also sending a message that it's ok to just change the plan because of this or that or the other. But that's not what Emery is about as far as I can see. You keep possession, you bide your time, you don't just start panicking at the first sign that the opposition aren't just going to lie down and take it.

On the first point I just don’t see that when you’ve already played the allotted injury time - it really is a last throw of the dice. On the second point, it’s probably because you want a decent distributor there if it’s punted clear.
Last point I don’t think it says anything about your wider philosophy or principles, it’s a very specific circumstance. When Alisson scored for Liverpool in a similar situation a few years back so you think everyone started to think Liverpool were hoofers?

[wittonwarrior]

Emery is not a risk taker but then plays Olsen at Old Trafford and against Liverpool/Spurs and Stevenage.  To me that is throwing your last dime in.

[algy]

Well there’s an obvious answer to that, it’s clearly a massive risk. The key point here is that if you’re losing and injury time is already up what does it matter? If there’s the slightest chance it might help why not give it a shot? It’s obviously incredibly unlikely to result in a goal, but it does happen. Worst case scenario you concede another goal, but so what you’re already going to lose if you don’t score.

Well first, it's more that if you go down to 2-4 or whatever then there's absolutely no chance of getting anything. But at 2-3, even if you fuck up the corner you're still in with a shout.

Second, if you're sending up the keeper then there's still going to be a defender on the half way line isn't there? So why not send him up, since he'll probably be better in the air, and keep your goalkeeper where they're actually effective?

But most importantly, it's the principle. You don't resort to hoofing the ball up, or other desperate tactics. It's about more than one game here - it's also sending a message that it's ok to just change the plan because of this or that or the other. But that's not what Emery is about as far as I can see. You keep possession, you bide your time, you don't just start panicking at the first sign that the opposition aren't just going to lie down and take it.

On the first point I just don’t see that when you’ve already played the allotted injury time - it really is a last throw of the dice. On the second point, it’s probably because you want a decent distributor there if it’s punted clear.
Last point I don’t think it says anything about your wider philosophy or principles, it’s a very specific circumstance. When Alisson scored for Liverpool in a similar situation a few years back so you think everyone started to think Liverpool were hoofers?

Yeah, but the difference there is that we've got a side who time & time again throw games away. So we're more in need of a zero tolerance approach than Liverpool are.

[LukeJames]

Zero tolerance in yesterday's situation still sees us lose 2-3.

[algy]

Zero tolerance in yesterday's situation still sees us lose 2-3.

Which is better than losing 2-4.

[LukeJames]

But worse than drawing 3-3.

[Risso]

But worse than drawing 3-3.

As Emery pointed out, thw two outcomes are by no means of an equal likelihood though.

[olaftab]

In the situation under discussion 2-4 was always more likely than 3-3 but I would rather that he had a go than to not trying. It is also likely that in that attack Arsenal would have still scored if Emi had been in the goal as Martinelli was “one on one”.

[Risso]

Bailey was a disgrace in that breakaway, barely got a jog on as they sprinted past him.

[LukeJames]

If we were having this conversation because it happened on 89 minutes I'd agree. With 10 seconds left and a chance to put the ball into the oppositions box then I'd be happy for our GK to do what Emi did every single time. I'd rather us lose 2-4 with 10 seconds to go by throwing everything at the draw rather than accept the 2-3.