Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
curious yellow

Goalkeeper Cover

Recommended Posts

The report in EDP says that Oxborough is injured and out for some time which has stopped him from going out on loan. 

It also says that we are not looking to bring in a second or third choice goalkeeper. I really hope this is not true. 

I totally support what Webber has done but now when are financially stable and turning down multi million offers, why are we taking risks in such an important position?

After the break last season we had to play with only one player as cover for all the defensive positions and that was a goalkeeper. Amadou had been sent back for presumably financial reasons, but was part of the team that beat Man. City. Famewo was sent out on loan. Would extra cover been that costly? 

I don't like to critisize McGovern but we don't have much success when he plays and usually concede in the last quarter of the game. We need a good second choice keeper. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can see both sides to the argument. McGovern doesn’t fill me with confidence and a long Krul injury would be big blow. 

However, back up keepers tend to demand large wages in order to sit on the bench and not play. This could obviously be spent elsewhere on players who actually contribute to the team. 

Also, there is a good chance if Krul got injured that Norwich would be permitted to make an emergency loan to cover the position. 

The main thing that bugs me is using an non-homegrown slot on McGovern. 

 

Edited by Bethnal Yellow and Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, capricorn1 said:

I thought McGovern counted as home grown? 

No. I'm not even sure that he counts as a goalkeeper.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, capricorn1 said:

I thought McGovern counted as home grown? 

He doesn't.

Also, relying on emergency loan cover would be incredibly ridiculous.

Firstly, in order to sign an emergency loan goalkeeper, ALL senior goalkeepers must be unavailable, so if Krul gets injured and McGovern is fit then we can't get one. 

Secondly, emergency loan goalkeepers can only be signed for seven days at a time (which can be renewed if all contracted goalkeepers are still unavailable) and the Premier League does not allow its clubs to send goalkeepers on these emergency seven-day loans, so we'd be looking at a number three from an EFL club, who would no doubt be even worse than McGovern.

I'd be extremely concerned if we went into the season with just Krul and McGovern as the only senior goalkeepers. Even if it takes decent money out of our budget, it's a very important area that cannot be left to chance for a club at our level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

He doesn't.

Also, relying on emergency loan cover would be incredibly ridiculous.

Firstly, in order to sign an emergency loan goalkeeper, ALL senior goalkeepers must be unavailable, so if Krul gets injured and McGovern is fit then we can't get one. 

Secondly, emergency loan goalkeepers can only be signed for seven days at a time (which can be renewed if all contracted goalkeepers are still unavailable) and the Premier League does not allow its clubs to send goalkeepers on these emergency seven-day loans, so we'd be looking at a number three from an EFL club, who would no doubt be even worse than McGovern.

I'd be extremely concerned if we went into the season with just Krul and McGovern as the only senior goalkeepers. Even if it takes decent money out of our budget, it's a very important area that cannot be left to chance for a club at our level.

The rule was changed so clubs can get an emergency loan keeper if they don’t have two fit senior keepers. So if Krul gets injured, Norwich could get one as Barden doesn’t count as a ‘senior keeper’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

The rule was changed so clubs can get an emergency loan keeper if they don’t have two fit senior keepers. So if Krul gets injured, Norwich could get one as Barden doesn’t count as a ‘senior keeper’. 

If that is the case, then the EFL haven't updated the rules on their website, because rule 57 states "all the professional goalkeepers".

But my second point still stands. Premier League clubs can't send goalkeepers on emergency loans (unless that has been changed too) and EFL clubs would not give away one of their first two choices, so we'd just end up with someone worse than McGovern to sit on the bench.

A club at Championship level relying on emergency seven-day loans, which will be a player not good enough to make the matchday squad for other EFL teams, as a transfer strategy is not only negligent, it's insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

If that is the case, then the EFL haven't updated the rules on their website, because rule 57 states "all the professional goalkeepers".

But my second point still stands. Premier League clubs can't send goalkeepers on emergency loans (unless that has been changed too) and EFL clubs would not give away one of their first two choices, so we'd just end up with someone worse than McGovern to sit on the bench.

A club at Championship level relying on emergency seven-day loans, which will be a player not good enough to make the matchday squad for other EFL teams, as a transfer strategy is not only negligent, it's insane.

I guess it depends on how McGovern is rated. It seems the club think he is good enough for a second choice in the Championship. 

Emergency loans certainly aren’t a desirable route to go down, but to cover the bench it isn’t really a huge issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not getting in a second keeper would be insane considering the lessons learned on cutting corners last season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Emergency loans certainly aren’t a desirable route to go down, but to cover the bench it isn’t really a huge issue. 

In that case, you might as well just use your Under-23 goalkeeper.

I still think Krul, McGovern and then the kids leaves us a little bit short in the goalkeeping department. Of course, Krul could stay fit and in form all season and a second choice goalkeeper would then be a waste of money, but any mid-long term injury to Krul and we're in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised if that is true. To me it seems an unnecessary risk not to have a genuine (hopefully home grown) second GK. Also one that can push Krul a bit, as he seemed to thrive off Farhmann coming in last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

In that case, you might as well just use your Under-23 goalkeeper.

I still think Krul, McGovern and then the kids leaves us a little bit short in the goalkeeping department. Of course, Krul could stay fit and in form all season and a second choice goalkeeper would then be a waste of money, but any mid-long term injury to Krul and we're in trouble.

I'm not overly convinced by McGovern either and as Bethnal says, he takes up a slot in the not homegrown category.  Without looking though, I don't know what the overall standard of backup keepers in the championship is and whether McGovern is about par in that department or not.

Edited by seanthecanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerrykerry said:

Not getting in a second keeper would be insane considering the lessons learned on cutting corners last season. 

Seems obvious to me too. Also doesn't Krul have a bit of a dodgy back that plays up from time to time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McGovern just isn't comfortable with the ball at his feet to play the way we want. For a game or two he'd be fine but an extended spell with him between the sticks could damage our season quite a bit.

Share this post


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

McGovern just isn't comfortable with the ball at his feet to play the way we want. For a game or two he'd be fine but an extended spell with him between the sticks could damage our season quite a bit.

I agree but second choice goal keepers are so awkward to get right. What would our ideal profile for this target to be? Young, talented and the natural successor to Krul, or an older experienced 'safe pair of hands' who is an upgrade on McGovern? 

If we do get another player in, are we upsetting McGovern by almost guaranteeing him zero game time? Will we be blocking the pathway of Oxborough, Mair, Barden or McCracken? 

If the club have faith in Barden (who would apparently be no. 3), then I'd trust their judgement. As you mention, it is a fine line between Krul being fit for the whole season and us potentially ruining our chances of bouncing straight back up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yellow and Green said:

I agree but second choice goal keepers are so awkward to get right. What would our ideal profile for this target to be? Young, talented and the natural successor to Krul, or an older experienced 'safe pair of hands' who is an upgrade on McGovern? 

If we do get another player in, are we upsetting McGovern by almost guaranteeing him zero game time? Will we be blocking the pathway of Oxborough, Mair, Barden or McCracken? 

If the club have faith in Barden (who would apparently be no. 3), then I'd trust their judgement. As you mention, it is a fine line between Krul being fit for the whole season and us potentially ruining our chances of bouncing straight back up.

I agree that it's tough to strike the right balance. Finding someone who isn't 'too good' to settle for being a number two but is also a capable championship goalkeeper and a noticeable upgrade on McGovern isn't easy, but I doubt it's impossible.

I doubt McGovern would be unhappy at being relegated to number three though, as he's very much in his twilight years, was already number three last year and is also coaching now as well, I believe.

I also doubt it would be blocking the pathway of our youngsters as Mair and Oxborough have either been loaned out or are to be sent out soon, and the others will be playing for the Under-23s and/or Under-18s.

Share this post


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

Cometh the hour cometh the man get what we can for Krul and bring Angus Gunn back home 

A) Krul has been one of our best players since coming in, provides experience and great communication, why on earth do you want him gone?

B) Gunn was signed for around 15mil, there's no reason they'd willingly take a financial hit on him thus making him pretty expensive

C) There's ZERO chance he's going to want to leave a PL club to drop to the champs for no reason on a permanent deal, maybe a loan at best, but even that is questionable as he's likely to want to fight for his place there

D) All that being said, I'd love to welcome him back here, but the chance of it this season is about zero squared...

Share this post


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

A) Krul has been one of our best players since coming in, provides experience and great communication, why on earth do you want him gone?

B) Gunn was signed for around 15mil, there's no reason they'd willingly take a financial hit on him thus making him pretty expensive

C) There's ZERO chance he's going to want to leave a PL club to drop to the champs for no reason on a permanent deal, maybe a loan at best, but even that is questionable as he's likely to want to fight for his place there

D) All that being said, I'd love to welcome him back here, but the chance of it this season is about zero squared...

And let's not forget:

E) It swaps one competent goalkeeper for another, leaving us in exactly the same problem that is being debated; We do not have adequate cover at GK. Other than that, it's a fine solution to our lack of cover...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy Lonergan available on a free, admittedly 36 but a better option than McGovern 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Tommo said:

Andy Lonergan available on a free, admittedly 36 but a better option than McGovern 

25 games in the last 4 years shows that he's at best a 3rd choice keeper and he hasn't played with any regularity since being at Fulham for the 15/16 season.

McGovern might not be great, but Lonergan isn't really any sort of improvement either (other than he's "homegrown"), and I maintain that we need better than this to compete with Krul or provide cover if he's injured.

What's next? Gabor Kiraly? Brian Jensen? Gunny out of retirement????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would see how much Villa would ask for Jed Steer.

Norwich boy. Norwich academy graduate. Looked good when called on by Villa. One of four goalkeepers they have on their books so likely to be agreeable to selling and would, imo, be capable of challenging Krul. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tommo said:

Andy Lonergan available on a free, admittedly 36 but a better option than McGovern 

Really ? I’m starting to think that McGovern is getting reverse Bechio syndrome, the longer he goes without playing, the worse people think he is. Yes, he makes me nervous and I’d never suggest he would be first choice, but there are other areas of the pitch that need players before we get another keeper in my opinion.

Share this post


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

I would see how much Villa would ask for Jed Steer.

Norwich boy. Norwich academy graduate. Looked good when called on by Villa. One of four goalkeepers they have on their books so likely to be agreeable to selling and would, imo, be capable of challenging Krul. 

Agreed, I'd like to see Jed Steer return as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/08/2020 at 15:57, Yellow and Green said:

If we do get another player in, are we upsetting McGovern by almost guaranteeing him zero game time?

Surely he knew the score when signing the contract, as he was third choice until we sent Ralf back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villa appear to be in the market for Ramsdale and add him to their keeper roster Reina (mabe loan expiring), Heaton and Steer.  So maybe Steer an option. 

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...