Tim Krul

[danielsroundabout 9]

Reading a fairly detailed report of yesterday''s game on the Sky sports site, I can now see how anyone not at the match can have such clear opinion (but entirely inaccurate) of match incidents.

It reads: Whilst Krul was entirely blameless for the first goal, the same cannot be said of the second."

This report sits alongside footage of all three goals which makes the statement all the more farcical.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

only QPR have let more in. Krul is responsible for possibly 3 but not the other 8. Drop pinto first most of the chances are coming down his side as he goes walkabout. I have severe doubts about krul it does look as his confidence has gone but improve the defence in front of him first including 3 cb away from home it was one of the few things that worked last season. Drop krul now and we may as well get rid as he will not bounce back

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

Of course this would likely not be a dilemna if the Webber axe had not fallen on John Ruddy.

Ruddy had a few faults, which many attributed to his injury, but he did well enough for Wolves last season and in many respects he was a Mr. Norwich figure who undoubtedly instilled confidence in his defenders for the most part.

A safe pair of hands.

It was a cost cutting decision but how much did Gunn''s loan cost us? How much is Krul costing us?

Gunn may have outshone Ruddy in many respects but this was to no avail as we finished mid-table in any case. I doubt if we had done worse with Ruddy between the sticks.

Bottom line: I would rather John Ruddy in goal for Sunday''s up-coming derby fixture than a shaky Krul.

Btw. I also think it was wrong to unload Cameron Jerome when we did. Dennis Sbreny, who also cost a fee, isn''t fit to wipe Big C''s boots.

It''s all right swinging that big axe wildly but when replacements cost about the same or more in the long run and are inferior then it becomes clumsy to the extreme.

[kirku 1,332]

Srbeny was a significant downgrade on Jerome - in ability, experience and wages. It was a cost cutting measure.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

"Srbeny was a significant downgrade on Jerome - in ability, experience and wages. It was a cost cutting measure."

I think we realise all that, but ill-advised cost cutting measure can be more expensive in the long run.

I''ll persevere for a bit with the Jerome/Sbreny aspect even though this thread is really about Krul.

I don''t think that young Dennis will ever have much to contribute to the cause. A near total waste of money that we will likely have a problem recouping.That''s clumsy cost cutting that might well end up a marginal thing in any case given the amount we will probably lose on the DS deal.

The biggest cost cutting deal of all would have been to unload Oliveira for a few bob. This seem to get more and more unlikely by the day and a situation equivalent to the Naismith problem is unveiling whereby a player, on big money, contributes nothing at all to the cause.

Tim Krul was signed on a two year deal. If he fails then we will be stuck with a duff ''keeper, probably drawing not much less than John Ruddy (we wouldn''t know) ''til July 2020.

Like I said, clumsy cost-cutting. We knew JR, he knew us. He is no age for a ''keeper and barely older than Krul in fact.

[Sussexyellow 55]

BroadstairsR

We do not know but I would expect Krul to now be on much lower wages than Ruddy.

I also may be wrong but I think Cameron Jerome was out of contract this summer so it was a case of getting something for him while we still could. There may have been an option to extend for a year, but wages probably would have been an issue.

Yes big downgrades but that is what we can afford and reflects current financial restraints. Cue arguments about the need to change the current ownership setup.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="danielsroundabout"]Reading a fairly detailed report of yesterday''s game on the Sky sports site, I can now see how anyone not at the match can have such clear opinion (but entirely inaccurate) of match incidents.

It reads: Whilst Krul was entirely blameless for the first goal, the same cannot be said of the second."

This report sits alongside footage of all three goals which makes the statement all the more farcical.[/quote]

It''s only my viewpoint a I have only seen the highlights, but the footage shows a player through on goal with just the goalkeeper to beat - and that usually means the goalkeeper is going to get beaten, unless he makes a very good save.  Now correct me if I''m wrong, but the header is well placed and powerful and Krul has to dive to save it and although it fell to a leeds player he did save it. 

So I presume at the match it looked like a soft header meaning Krul should have saved it better, but trying to be impartial and not having an axe to grind, I thought he was unlucky and that the goal was caused by the lack of a defender covering the leeds attacker.

[FCC 76]

“but the footage shows a player through on goal with just the goalkeeper to beat - and that usually means the goalkeeper is going to get beaten, unless he makes a very good save.”

Or the player is Leitner.

[danielsroundabout 9]

LDC You are defending the indefensible. The chance was attributable to more dire defending in the RB position, that they scored from it rests firmly with the keeper. Yes, I will accept your invitation to correct you, in an attempt to bring a bit of realism into your thinking. The headed attempt was from a distance of 12-15 yards which makes a mockery of your earlier ''point blank range" comment. It was to Krul''s left but not by much and if a bit of a dive was necessary then so what, in no way does it turn it into a goal worthy effort.

As for your comment about your trying to be impartial, its somewhat akin to Krul trying to save that header.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Well in the scheme of things, I suppose you could say that Krul could have done better for the first goal, but if a player is through on goal unmarked and puts a well placed powerful header in towards it, the odds are in his favour, not the goalkeeper''s.

[danielsroundabout 9]

LDC As we say in Norfolk, you''ll argue ''til the cows come home.

Whose odds were in favour is a total irrelevance. The simple facts are that a header from 12-15 yards should have been easily dealt with (simply by catching it), yet ended up as an open-goal gift to a guy on the penalty spot. Play the footage a few more times. It only took those at the game one viewing to "get it" and those seeing it on the clip also only needed one look. Is there a reason why you are unable to accept what is so obvious to others (even Farke).

[Grando 260]

I was in the Lower Barclay when those goals went in and certainly at the time thought Krul was to blame with the second goal, and, at best, complicit for the first.

I''ve just watched the ''highlights'' for the first time since the match and really can''t see how anyone can defend Krul''s role in both goals. His keeping was, to put it politely, shoddy. The defending was too, but that doesn''t excuse him. He needs to turn things around fast, though I''m sure he doesn''t need me to tell him that.