Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
pete

Another Krul Clanger

Recommended Posts

To be fair, the OP makes a good point. Krul has dropped a few clangers this season, and if we do go up, a new goalkeeper has to be one of the first things on the shopping list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the highlights he made a couple of top notch saves and the clanger as you put it was not that bad and one of the defenders should have cleared the second ball , Pete the blue scummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will adding know some of you are desperate for the next Martin or Whits you can crucify for every mistake while your favourites will be bullet proof ala Olson who could make all the mistakes in the world but walked on water

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have to keep in mind that Krul didn't play first team football for a long time until he joined us.

While there is the odd mistake, he does command his area well and his distribution is good too. He also does pull off some good saves that often go unremarked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank Christ that Pete wasn't 'supporting' arguably the greatest team that ever played the game l.e. the 1970 Brazilian World Cup winners ...........because their goalie was absolute pants:classic_rolleyes:

Just saying.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fair to call the goal poor from Krul but overall his performance was good and it wasnt the same kind of mistake as the West Brom game.

The other key advantage to Krul is he does a good job of organising the defence. His communication is very good and his distribution has been an important start point to our attacks at times.

Certainly we arent going to get anyone any better in the champs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say the pinkun reporters aren't helping - in the way that Angus was apparently faultless, they are very much remarking on and marking down Krul.  Interestingly, the Sunday Times gives Tim a score of 7, with several of our guys getting 6s; Marco m was their Star Man with 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Walton, who as those listening to the Radio Norfolk commentary will know, was summarising yesterday, highlighted three defensive errors leading up to the Swansea goal, none of which was down to Krul:
1. The initial header from the corner should have been directed back towards the touchline, not straight out centrally
2. Following the initial clearing header, City defenders were static instead of quickly moving further forward en bloc 
3. No Norwich player attempted to close down Naughton as he collected the cleared ball and advanced towards the penalty area

Attributing fault for the goal to Krul is simply ignoring the shortcomings on this occasion of those in front of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for keepers and strikers is that their mistakes are usually magnified because of where they play.

 

Mistakes in midfield or defence can sometimes be covered by team mates.

 

Krul has been more than adequate for us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Herman said:

I find that I am agreeing with everyone on this thread except the OP. 😀

A few others have criticised Krul, by most seem to see it for what is Herman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the mistakes he has made deserve criticism but I also think he is a good keeper, who has improved a great deal. I doubt we would be able to get someone different, that is much better and with the amount of experience he has, without spending millions that we don't have. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Mark Walton, who as those listening to the Radio Norfolk commentary will know, was summarising yesterday, highlighted three defensive errors leading up to the Swansea goal, none of which was down to Krul:
1. The initial header from the corner should have been directed back towards the touchline, not straight out centrally
2. Following the initial clearing header, City defenders were static instead of quickly moving further forward en bloc 
3. No Norwich player attempted to close down Naughton as he collected the cleared ball and advanced towards the penalty area

Attributing fault for the goal to Krul is simply ignoring the shortcomings on this occasion of those in front of him.

And yet all of those things are totally negated if Krul doesn't spill a 25 yard shot that is struck straight at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, king canary said:

And yet all of those things are totally negated if Krul doesn't spill a 25 yard shot that is struck straight at him.

No team can afford to keep relying on its goalkeeper to make up for weaknesses elsewhere in defence. Mark Walton's second and third criticisms have applied equally in several previous games, and account to a considerable degree for our vulnerability at corners and other set pieces. And to describe Naughton's strike as "a 25 yard shot that is struck straight at him" involves a quite ludicrous economy with the truth in ignoring everything about the strike which actually contributed to Krul's so-called "spill".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sceptical about Krul. He doesn’t seem half the GK he was during his time at Newcastle. Injuries curtailed his time there, and basically since 2016 he’s barely played any competitive football. 

At thirty he should be in his prime. But clearly confidence is an issue, probably due to previous injuries.

However, his link up and organisational play is a key part in Farkes tactical game. He does make plenty of saves too, although none that really stand out as anything more than routine. 

I wouldn’t look to change Krul, and I don’t think Farke will. Despite a few clangers, he’s part of a winning formula. But that could change the second one costs points. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

No team can afford to keep relying on its goalkeeper to make up for weaknesses elsewhere in defence. Mark Walton's second and third criticisms have applied equally in several previous games, and account to a considerable degree for our vulnerability at corners and other set pieces. And to describe Naughton's strike as "a 25 yard shot that is struck straight at him" involves a quite ludicrous economy with the truth in ignoring everything about the strike which actually contributed to Krul's so-called "spill".

"involves a quite ludicrous economy with the truth"

This sums it up westcoast, and to think some on here wanted Farke out not so long ago, I bet a £ to a piece of 💩 that some of those are now criticising Krul. Looking at the quality of goalkeepers in general in the Champs, I am happy with what he have, all things considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

No team can afford to keep relying on its goalkeeper to make up for weaknesses elsewhere in defence. Mark Walton's second and third criticisms have applied equally in several previous games, and account to a considerable degree for our vulnerability at corners and other set pieces. And to describe Naughton's strike as "a 25 yard shot that is struck straight at him" involves a quite ludicrous economy with the truth in ignoring everything about the strike which actually contributed to Krul's so-called "spill".

It literally hits him in the chest. It's bad keeping, it really isn't tough to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

It literally hits him in the chest. It's bad keeping, it really isn't tough to see.

I wouldn’t label it a clanger, but he should have done better with it. 

Krul does have a habbit of pushing the ball back into dangerous areas after a save. Though in this case it was a spill not a save. 

Still, to reiterate my point, I wouldn’t change him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d say Krul spilling the free kick earlier straight in front of the goal was actually a worse mistake for the one he was punished for eventually. 

It doesn’t take much to see that he does struggle on long, low shots. However, Norwich were never going to be able to get a faultless keeper and Krul does bring great experience, leadership in the defence and has been very good on crosses. The last strength is probably the most important for Norwich who stuggled to defend crosses last season with neither Klose or Zimmermamn particularly strong in that part of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Krul saved straight into the path of their player to score, but quite equally no Norwich defenders reacted or were marking said player to stop him scoring. That cannot all be blamed on Krull, he certainly wasn't solely at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Angus Gunn and Danny Ward went for £10+ million this summer and neither is getting a game for their new club, just goes to shows the price of the goalkeeping market.

Krul's doing pretty well for a freebie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Mark Walton, who as those listening to the Radio Norfolk commentary will know, was summarising yesterday, highlighted three defensive errors leading up to the Swansea goal, none of which was down to Krul:
1. The initial header from the corner should have been directed back towards the touchline, not straight out centrally
2. Following the initial clearing header, City defenders were static instead of quickly moving further forward en bloc 
3. No Norwich player attempted to close down Naughton as he collected the cleared ball and advanced towards the penalty area

Attributing fault for the goal to Krul is simply ignoring the shortcomings on this occasion of those in front of him.

All three points very harsh on the defence.

 

1- The first header is a bit of a scramble, on the six yard line, and just misses the head of an attacker. He hasn’t got time to pick where the defensive header goes, just get your head to it and get it out.

2- By the time the ball is back in the box, we’ve got out to roughly the edge of the 18 yard box. We don’t need to get much further out than that, nor would we have been able to in the short time frame.

3- I think it’s Zimmerman who is there. He’s within five yards of him by the time he hits it. That far out, you’re not too worried about getting close enough to stop the shot, you’re more concerned about stopping the attacker drive forward. He doesn’t drive forward, he has one touch then hits it because he is being closed down too quickly to take it further in.

The shape defensively is pretty good. Even if Krul sees it late, he’s got a good 15 yards or more before the ball reaches him after going through the defence. It’s a simple save and, had he kept hold of it, I think as a defence you’re pretty happy with that passage of play. The defence wouldn’t be dwelling on any of those three points if Krul keeps hold of it.

The only criticism of the defence is that it’s not quick enough to react and should be following the initial shot in after it goes past them. That way, they might get to one of the rebounds. The defence should be disappointed with that.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone who thinks this was a "clanger" actually looked closely at the shot that was made?   From a long way out, but through a crowd of players making it difficult to see it coming,  to compound the difficulty it bounces a a few feet in front of him.  Could he have done better? Maybe, but to make a big deal of it is ridiculous in a match we won 4-1.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

I’d say Krul spilling the free kick earlier straight in front of the goal was actually a worse mistake for the one he was punished for eventually. 

"Spilling" implies he tried to catch it rather than push it wide. Did he? I don't think so. Should he have done? The very best keepers might have done; the majority would surely, like the current Krul, settle for pushing it wide. Krul's issue at the moment is timing; in this, as in one or two other earlier instances, he is too quick rather than too slow. Perfect timing is probably the hardest thing of all to recover after the kind of disruption Krul has gone through. Can he recover it? We'll see as the season progresses. But I'd far rather have the current Krul between the sticks for us than e.g. John Ruddy or any realistic alternative we could afford. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, River End Canary said:

He is the only weak link in the team, the likes of Lee Camp etc wouldn’t cost a fortune and would do the business 

Lee Camp are you serious? The perpetual nearly man who has certainly been around and must be hitting 34 at the moment and seems to have a settled spot at the mighty Birmingham City at the moment.

However, you mentioned the "likes" of. Who else then if it's as easy to fill this spot adequately, as you clearly seem to think?

The 'Pickle' down the road might be available. Would he "do the business" as you so succinctly put it?

I note that the perpetual negative nancies, doom mongers, critics, attention seekers and even binners, not likely to miss the chance of scapegoating, are out in force over this one.

Norwich City must be doing too well nowadays for their liking so, as with the above twerp, they employ criticism for criticism's sake.

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

Read his post again, and see if you can’t answer your own question 😋

Eh?

Perhaps you should read his post again he is suggesting that Camp wouldn't cost a fortune and would "do the business."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×