Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CANARYKING

Krull

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Constructive criticism is fine but some on here and many on social media are unable to articulate that without hammering players unnecessarily and this can quickly become a pattern and turn into scapegoatism. Some of this is a lack of understanding in Krul’s case that he hadn’t played regularly for a good while and has taken a few months to get back into that groove which he had for Newcastle and Holland. 

Players can and should be praised and/or criticised for performances but too many people go way over the top which does nobody any good.

I agree but I find this board a frustrating place at times. I come on here to discuss the games, have a reasoned debate about the football and sometimes it can be found here. But all too often people are obsessed with debating hypothetical 'other people' from 'other threads' saying things at the more extreme end, than actually engaging with the points being made.

Case in point, Ian's post about people 'forcefully suggesting Krul needs to be replaced as soon as he shanks a few kicks.' I've not seen or heard anyone make this point, but rather than engage with the more reasonable points it is easier to build a strawman of nonsense from elsewhere.

I've lost count of the sheer number of players who I've seen people say have been 'scapegoated' by our fans- all too often it seems to be shorthand for 'has been criticised for not playing well.' 

Share this post


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

I agree but I find this board a frustrating place at times. I come on here to discuss the games, have a reasoned debate about the football and sometimes it can be found here. But all too often people are obsessed with debating hypothetical 'other people' from 'other threads' saying things at the more extreme end, than actually engaging with the points being made.

Case in point, Ian's post about people 'forcefully suggesting Krul needs to be replaced as soon as he shanks a few kicks.' I've not seen or heard anyone make this point, but rather than engage with the more reasonable points it is easier to build a strawman of nonsense from elsewhere.

I've lost count of the sheer number of players who I've seen people say have been 'scapegoated' by our fans- all too often it seems to be shorthand for 'has been criticised for not playing well.' 

King Canary, I don't want to start quoting other peoples' posts from other threads here, but I suggest you read the WBA Match Thread to find where someone has clearly suggested that we need a new keeper based on the "kamikaze" distribution. I've also heard similar comments at home games recently.

There's no question that some players are made scapegoats, whereas others get off very lightly, and clearly Krul is one of the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krul was awful in the first half and utterly kamikaze with playing us into trouble. He very nearly cost us with that more than once. Its all well and good to pick fault with the benefit of a storming second half and a couple of fine saves but if you took that much issue with it then maybe respond at the time instead of this sanctimonious hindsight act.

I comment based on what i see, no vendetta against Krul. If you want to play the previous posts game then get digging because ive supported and defended him in the wake of some pretty harsh criticism. Dont choose one comment i made when he'd been the worst player on the pitch by a country mile for 45 mins and then twist it into some scapegoating agenda that doesnt exist.

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my main issue is that it just seems over critical, on the back of what’s gone before, and in a game where the guy’s ultimately played well and saved us points.  

The game is all about opinions and it’s just one of those things. I never agreed with the stick Krul got, but it’s definitely true the same names get the stick: Godfrey badly lost his man for their goal but it’s not even been mentioned; Gunn was definitely far from faultless but you’d have thought he was a God from the way people talk about him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selective reading there Branston as it was discussed in the match thread about Godfrey losing Gayle.

Also without benefit of replay it was very difficult to see who was at fault for the goal from the stands so i didnt see a replay until game was over and emotion removed from the situation. From my angle low down behind the goal on the far side it looked like an easy claim for Krul that he didnt go for but with benefit of replay that clearly wasnt the case.

I dont see how it is over critical to point out that Krul had a nightmare first half but redeemed himself with the worldie saves in the second. He really was a liability in the first half and it looked a matter of time until he cost us a goal. Fortunately he got his **** together in 2nd half.

Parma Ham made an excellent post on the WBA goal and where blame lay in match thread btw so you can stop scapegoating godfrey... 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No selective reading here - I’m talking generally, about the game, and discussions since.

For their goal, Hernández should close his man down and Godfrey should stay with his. Simple in theory but that’s the sort of thing that happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2019 at 14:05, kick it off said:

but he has thrown it directly to opposition players several times this season

This comment is just wrong (unless twice = several) and an example of the exaggerated criticism that Krul has gained, for no logical reason.

Criticism is fine but the collective amount (on this board and from the stands) over the season that Krul has got is unjust when compared with others

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Krul on Saturday, in the first half especially WBA were pressing very high which meant we often couldn't play out from the back and the ball was passed back to Krul with no easy outlet.

 

He could have gone long in those cases but clearly was under instructions not to.  If he had played it out long, the chances are we'd have lost possession pretty much every time, but he wouldn't be getting criticism for that because it wouldn't appear to be his fault.

 

Instead he was trying to chip the ball out to Aarons.  Clearly this was instructed, but is a much harder technique - instead of hitting it at full strength down the field, it needs to be flighted carefully into a very narrow area.  If played short, it creates a very dangerous opening because an attacker could intercept it and run straight into the space behind Aarons.  So he had to err on the side of playing it longer rather than shorter.  Sometimes it came off, sometimes it was a yard or two over Aarons head and straight into touch.  No way was he hitting balls 10-15 yards over - that would be 30-40 feet over Aarons head ! The worst ones still weren't more than a body length over him.

 

The effect when he over hit them was that the possession went to WBA, which is the same as if he'd played it long most of the time.  Did the tactic succeed, in the sense that we retained possession more often ?  I'm not sure, I expect DF and the team will review the highlights and assess that.  But I wouldn't be surprised if they conclude it was successful, and I think the criticism is simply misconceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get my head around the idea that giving the opposition the ball in our own half for a throw could be considered a successful tactic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if you think of it as retaining possession some of the time, as opposed to going long and losing possession virtually every time ?

 

I think we can all agree that the intention was not simply to kick the ball into touch every time, nor did that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect it is because he was pulling off some top saves, some people were looking for a reason to have a go at him. We have seen some howlers from so many keepers this season and Tim has had his share. But if anyone assumes that we would be in a better place without him or with someone else are not being fair to him or the club.

The tactic we use is becoming more popular with many teams and to counteract that, some teams are pressing higher up the pitch and forcing keepers to hit the ball wide. And to be honest, I would rather see that than passing it short to Tettey or Vrancic. Leitner yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Maybe if you think of it as retaining possession some of the time, as opposed to going long and losing possession virtually every time ?

 

I think we can all agree that the intention was not simply to kick the ball into touch every time, nor did that happen.

The tactic was to go to the fullbacks- this is fine and if executed properly would probably have caused West Brom to rethink putting people on the central defenders. However if Krul isn't capable of executing it properly then I imagine we won't do it again though.

I also think it is a bit of a misnomer to assume we'd win nothing going long- Pukki can be a nuisance and it does always give the chance of picking up the second ball.

Share this post


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

The tactic was to go to the fullbacks- this is fine and if executed properly would probably have caused West Brom to rethink putting people on the central defenders. However if Krul isn't capable of executing it properly then I imagine we won't do it again though.

I also think it is a bit of a misnomer to assume we'd win nothing going long- Pukki can be a nuisance and it does always give the chance of picking up the second ball.

I agree with all of that, it'll be interesting to see how this approach develops especially when we have Stiep back.

 

All round we're much stronger when we have Leitner back as it makes it much harder for opposition to close us down completely at the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

I agree with all of that, it'll be interesting to see how this approach develops especially when we have Stiep back.

 

All round we're much stronger when we have Leitner back as it makes it much harder for opposition to close us down completely at the back.

Yes- he's the guy who can drop in and pick the ball up deep.

We are a remarkably small team in a lot of ways and generally aren't going to win much in the air so we need to be creative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he struggles with his distribution at times tbh. I think if we were to go up it’s an area of the team the coaching staff would be looking at. Krul’s made a few **** ups this season, but overall he’s been pretty decent, with some very impressive (and important) saves in recent matches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually attended the Baggies game and therefore I'm so bl00dy ace, so my opinion is actually more valid......I was disappointed and quietly critical on occasion when our keeper's distribution fell below the required standard expected of a Championship goal stopper......Although then some of his saves were actually top drawer......(so I therefore forgives him)......One can make a shirtload of errors as an outfield player.....but as a keeper, 'thou shalt not make, but one tiny error'.......I was pleased with a point, and seeing the sickened expressions of the baggies support after our Jordan equalised - and following our goal, I was rather infantile in my kindergarten behaviour by displaying vocal and physical immature gestures of gesticulating joy - directed toward them baggies and their solemn and gloomy expressions......Scrummy.......

 

I also enjoyed for an hour or so at the outdoor WBA fanzone pre-match.....although I did have to go for a couple of wee wee's - as it was a bit chilly.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, king canary said:

I can't get my head around the idea that giving the opposition the ball in our own half for a throw could be considered a successful tactic.

It creates another break in play, requires the opposition to readjust again, and increases the likelihood of our quickly winning back possession?

Share this post


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

It creates another break in play, requires the opposition to readjust again, and increases the likelihood of our quickly winning back possession?

Riiiiiight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve also noticed that this season we seem to employ a tactic of kicking a goal kick out to a defender who then steps into the area to receive therefore requiring it to be retaken. This only seems to be done when the opposition are employing a high press on us, never seen anyone ne else use this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rivvo said:

I’ve also noticed that this season we seem to employ a tactic of kicking a goal kick out to a defender who then steps into the area to receive therefore requiring it to be retaken. This only seems to be done when the opposition are employing a high press on us, never seen anyone ne else use this.

It’s a crafty way of making sure you don’t lose possession near your own penalty area. All the ref does is make you take it again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

It’s a crafty way of making sure you don’t lose possession near your own penalty area. All the ref does is make you take it again. 

Yes, I assumed that, I was just wondering that I haven’t seen other teams deliberately using the same tactic.

Share this post


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

Riiiiiight.

Which team was it, think in the Championship, about 5 or 6 years ago who purposefully played goal kicks out to touch just over the half way line as they felt more comfortable winning it back from the throw in as opposed to from the goal kick directly? It might have been League One but I read a manager talking about it in a book. 

Just realised how vague that is from me so im gonna go check my bookcase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rivvo said:

Yes, I assumed that, I was just wondering that I haven’t seen other teams deliberately using the same tactic.

I would think that Swansea wish they had when Buendia scored 😁

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  

×
×
  • Create New...