McGovern

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

33 minutes ago, Billyboybunters said:

I agree his positioning seemed out. Had he been more central, I still don’t think it would have been saved. But like you say everyone sees it differently. The defending by Hanley and Gibson was poor though.

Yes. He is too far towards the back post but he probably would not  have saved it had he been properly positioned.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

As I said in the match thread, I haven't been convinced by him of late but I thought he did well today. His distribution was fine throughout, his handling was good and he dealt with crosses well. I'm probably still going to panic when he receives a backpass or faces a cross on Wednesday, but I'll be slightly less uncomfortable going into the game than I have been recently.

[Gordon Bennett 780]

I think the idea that a player who hasn’t played regularly for several seasons whatever their position is going to slot straight into the side and hit the ground running is pretty hopeful, especially is such an exposed spot as a keeper. Won’t be in for too much longer I’d imagine but he’s doing ok.

[hogesar 9,618]

I was pleased for him. He's had some unnecessary stick on here for not being Krul but that's not really his fault. He didn't have much to do but his distribution was fine and my perception was of a player feeling a bit more confident and match fit. Was good to see him shouting at the defence etc at times too.

For the goal, his positioning looks poor but I dont see how that makes any difference to the goal being scored.

[Red Rufus 56]

Too many people on here are getting like MOTD pundits and looking to criticise somebody when they concede a goal. You should hold your hands up and say it was a class goal. It was a superb early cross into the box which is quite rare in today's tippy tippy football and caught our defence out. Expecting a keeper to stop a free header from a few yards out is ridiculous. Goals are more often that not scored from excellent play not defensive errors although of course in hindsight we can all say the conceding team could have done something to prevent the goal!

[Petriix 2,834]

I think it's totally valid to question and maybe criticise and specific piece of play; it doesn't have to be a character assassination of everything about that player.

McGovern was clearly well out of position and consequently had no chance of saving a header which ultimately went pretty close to the centre of the goal. Obviously Gibson shouldn't have lost his man like that. I don't think you can blame Hanley.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

I haven’t seen many people say it, so may be in the minority; but I really thought he should’ve come for the cross for the goal. He peddled half way there then stops at the last second, I’m sure if he committed he could’ve got a hand to the cross and punched it away. 

But once he made the decision to stop and back pedal he was in no man’s land, no way would he have saved it had he stayed in a better position though. Just question for me of whether or not he should’ve came for it.

In the end the guy gets a header from about 5 yards out. Hanley also appeared to give him a bit of a look after the goal so I think he was maybe wondering the same thing. 

Otherwise though he didn’t blunder any routine catches and looked a bit more comfortable in possession, which is good as he had been making easy things look extremely difficult in the previous games, despite having little to do. Let’s hope he stays a bit more comfortable now.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

13 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I haven’t seen many people say it, so may be in the minority; but I really thought he should’ve come for the cross for the goal. He peddled half way there then stops at the last second, I’m sure if he committed he could’ve got a hand to the cross and punched it away. 

But once he made the decision to stop and back pedal he was in no man’s land, no way would he have saved it had he stayed in a better position though. Just question for me of whether or not he should’ve came for it.

In the end the guy gets a header from about 5 yards out. Hanley also appeared to give him a bit of a look after the goal so I think he was maybe wondering the same thing. 

Otherwise though he didn’t blunder any routine catches and looked a bit more comfortable in possession, which is good as he had been making easy things look extremely difficult in the previous games, despite having little to do. Let’s hope he stays a bit more comfortable now.

Can't agree with that top bit, that cross was one of those that looked tempting for a keeper to start with as it pretty much started out going just towards the back stick, but then had a lot of swerve on it. 

Another thing people aren't remembering (I don't think many goalies have commented on the thread) is that as a keeper in those positions, you're better off starting from near your back stick simply as it's far easier to run fast going forwards than backwards! There was an error in there, but it was Gibson who made it by losing his man. 

Still got to say, it was one heck of a cross.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Can't agree with that top bit, that cross was one of those that looked tempting for a keeper to start with as it pretty much started out going just towards the back stick, but then had a lot of swerve on it. 

Another thing people aren't remembering (I don't think many goalies have commented on the thread) is that as a keeper in those positions, you're better off starting from near your back stick simply as it's far easier to run fast going forwards than backwards! There was an error in there, but it was Gibson who made it by losing his man. 

Still got to say, it was one heck of a cross.

I used to be a keeper and I agree with the starting nearer the back stick to move on to it, but this situation wasn't one that merited that. The cross was way out wide and deep. What I said earlier was that McGovern should have been nearer the edge of the 6 yard box (Why do we still call it the 6 yard box, and 18 yard box, should we convert to metreage?- Anyway I digress) to close the gap down between him and his Centre Halves. Reach was never going to score from there, so a keepers priorities change. McGovern could have then attacked a potential cross to Windass (as he was the only attacker in the picture) and Windass is no Mick Harford

Snap decision, that just didn't go McGovern's way. A slight defence of McGovern's thinking was that he hadn't had much to do , in real terms, so a very minor lapse of thinking, but nothing to stand outside his house with pitchforks for. He had a decent game.

Superb cross.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

9 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

I used to be a keeper and I agree with the starting nearer the back stick to move on to it, but this situation wasn't one that merited that. The cross was way out wide and deep. What I said earlier was that McGovern should have been nearer the edge of the 6 yard box (Why do we still call it the 6 yard box, and 18 yard box, should we convert to metreage?- Anyway I digress) to close the gap down between him and his Centre Halves. Reach was never going to score from there, so a keepers priorities change. McGovern could have then attacked a potential cross to Windass (as he was the only attacker in the picture) and Windass is no Mick Harford

Snap decision, that just didn't go McGovern's way. A slight defence of McGovern's thinking was that he hadn't had much to do , in real terms, so a very minor lapse of thinking, but nothing to stand outside his house with pitchforks for. He had a decent game.

Superb cross.

That's a fair enough comment, being further out of the goal to start with, absolutely. My comment was very much aimed at those who thought he started too far towards the back stick though, as opposed to being more in the centre, so when the header went in they were criticising his position on that basis.

The real error was still by Gibson though.

Edited December 6, 2020 by TheGunnShow

[Jersey Canary 143]

As a McGovern worrier, I have to be fair and say he played well yesterday. But this goes back to my original point that if you bombard Norwich McGovern struggles. Sheff Weds surprisingly didn’t bombard us as much as I was expecting which played into ours and McGovern’s hands. 

[Nuff Said 5,092]

1 hour ago, Red Rufus said:

Too many people on here are getting like MOTD pundits and looking to criticise somebody when they concede a goal. You should hold your hands up and say it was a class goal. It was a superb early cross into the box which is quite rare in today's tippy tippy football and caught our defence out. Expecting a keeper to stop a free header from a few yards out is ridiculous. Goals are more often that not scored from excellent play not defensive errors although of course in hindsight we can all say the conceding team could have done something to prevent the goal!

This, every time. We would have been delighted if we’d scored like that, but it’s pretty much the polar opposite to how we play, an early cross into someone’s head.

It’s easy to forensically dissect play after the event, but to blame players for not anticipating the best possible play by the opposition is harsh in the extreme.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Nuff Said

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

24 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

This, every time. We would have been delighted if we’d scored like that, but it’s pretty much the polar opposite to how we play, an early cross into someone’s head.

It’s easy to forensically dissect play after the event, but to blame players for not anticipating the best possible play by the opposition is harsh in the extreme.

Yeah I think that’s natural of all fans though, we scored two top class goals but I’m sure the Sheff Weds fans are fuming at their defence for letting Aarons through like that. There’s was a good goal, but to me if Krul was in goal that ball never reaches that player’s head. And that’s not to moan necessarily at the fact that McGovern isn’t Krul, we know this, moreover that I think a backup keeper who is more comfortable coming for crosses may have been more positive in that situation.

It was by no means a howler at all, but it would be interesting to know if McGovern would want to handle the situation differently in retrospect. 

 

[kick it off 1,948]

15 hours ago, Krul Mistress said:

Genuine question, what did you think of his positioning for the goal? It appeared to me that he was stood at the back post...

For me, while today he was improved in general, a competent GK is saving that.

That was what I noticed when watching the highlights back this morning. To be fair to him, I don't think he'd have kept it out regardless, it was a wonderful ball in and a bullet header but I didn't understand his positioning for it.

I don't profess to be much of an expert but I played in goal for about 5 years and I don't get why he was where he was. The reason strikers usually head the ball back to the near post off those kind of balls (crosses from deep) is specifically to wrong foot the keeper who should be at his near post and then moving across his line/six yard box following the flight of the ball.

McGovern is not at the back post, that's the camera angle, he is about a step off centre (the step being to his left towards the far post) and coming back towards the near post. He's initially central, then comes out to claim the cross before realising he won't get there and the back pedal puts him slightly off centre. My guess is the ball came in so early, he wasn't really expecting the cross. Slight lapse in concentration maybe, but not criminal as you'd almost always have time to adjust position before the ball came in, it was just fizzed across really early which doesn't normally happen. The striker isn't 5 yards out when he heads it as some have claimed - he's roughly in the middle of the penalty spot and 6 yard box, so maybe 8 yards out. Doesn't sound like much but it's a big difference at the speed the ball came in at.

In my opinion, I don't think he was in the right spot, he should have started nearer to the near post but I think it made zero difference to the outcome. Would have beaten 99/100 keepers. It was one of those that you just have to hold your hands up and accept it was a wonderful goal. I'm not a McGovern apologist, and thought we needed a better back up before the season started, and still do now, but he's not accountable for that goal (and to be fair to him, I don't think he's been massively at fault for any of the ones he's conceded). He did well yesterday.

For those saying Krul would have got there, I don't think he would have if I'm honest, it was a wicked ball across and a nightmare for keepers with the swerve on it. I rate Tim hugely but he's not superhuman and I think if he does get there he's having a massive ugly collision with the striker which quite possibly gets given as a pen or results in injury.

Edited December 6, 2020 by kick it off

[Upo 91]

He's clearly growing into his role and fans could help him by being more supportive.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

10 minutes ago, kick it off said:

That was what I noticed when watching the highlights back this morning. To be fair to him, I don't think he'd have kept it out regardless, it was a wonderful ball in and a bullet header but I didn't understand his positioning for it.

I don't profess to be much of an expert but I played in goal for about 5 years and I don't get why he was where he was. The reason strikers usually head the ball back to the near post off those kind of balls (crosses from deep) is specifically to wrong foot the keeper who should be at his near post and then moving across his line/six yard box following the flight of the ball.

McGovern is not at the back post, that's the camera angle, he is about a step off centre (the step being to his left towards the far post) and coming back towards the near post. He's initially central, then comes out to claim the cross before realising he won't get there and the back pedal puts him slightly off centre. My guess is the ball came in so early, he wasn't really expecting the cross. Slight lapse in concentration maybe, but not criminal as you'd almost always have time to adjust position before the ball came in, it was just fizzed across really early which doesn't normally happen.

In my opinion, I don't think he was in the right spot, he should have started nearer to the near post but I think it made zero difference to the outcome. Would have beaten 99/100 keepers. It was one of those that you just have to hold your hands up and accept it was a wonderful goal. I'm not a McGovern apologist, and thought we needed a better back up before the season started, and still do now, but he's not accountable for that goal (and to be fair to him, I don't think he's been massively at fault for any of the ones he's conceded). He did well yesterday.

For those saying Krul would have got there, I don't think he would have if I'm honest, it was a wicked ball across and a nightmare for keepers. I rate Tim hugely but he's not superhuman and I think if he does get there he's having a massive ugly collision with the striker which quite possibly gets given as a pen or results in injury.

That’s the tricky thing with keepers, it’s easy to isolate a goal and say that’s a nice finish, but there are a few more variables to a save which make it harder to judge the keeper (I.e positioning and reflexes). So a worse keeper may make a good save like a great save, or a great keeper may make a great save look more comfortable.

We’ll never truly know if Krul would’ve got that, perhaps I’m being harsh on McGovern and I should probably take another look at it. But I felt at the time more so he should’ve come for that one than the Luton freekick, which happened from closer to the penalty area.

Sure it was a wicked delivery yesterday, but the fact he saw it and bombed out halfway before changing his mind - suggests to me that a more confident keeper would’ve come the whole way. Given as well that McGovern’s ‘go to’ position for crosses in that area is to pedal all the way back to the goal line, the fact he actually felt he could come for this one (even for a brief second) makes me it was a stoppable cross.

Just how I saw it anyway! As I said though generally he looked a bit more comfortable, even with his feet and he helped us play out the back a couple of times in the second half with some tighter passing which was good to see.

[Petriix 2,834]

There's some imaginative analysis going on in this thread. The ball went in about a yard from the centre of the goal at head height. Any keeper standing in the centre on the goal line will have a good chance to save that. It's one of those headers which went 'straight at the keeper' except he'd gone walkabout. It wouldn't have beaten most keepers. At best you could call it 50/50 but I think that's generous. He made a mistake.

That doesn't make him a terrible keeper. He otherwise had a good game. He's looking much better with his feet and is doing well in our system, which isn't easy to adapt to.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Sorry but saying a goalkeeper should save a point blank bullet header from six yards is barking up the wrong tree. The problem was that Aarons didn't pressurise the winger to make his crossing more difficult and Gibson and Hanley did nothing to get in the way of the forward. In other words the whole goal was down to the defence as a whole not being pro-active enough, Aarons particularly.   Once the winger was allowed to make his cross unpressurised and the forward not picked up well enough, the goal was inevitable. Good goal from Sheff Weds point of view but slack from us defensively. Blaming McGovern is like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. 

 

[Crabbycanary3 994]

We defend from the front, so it's Teemu's fault

No i in team

[Krul Mistress 36]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

The ball went in about a yard from the centre of the goal at head height.

My initial interpretation.

17 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Blaming McGovern is like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. 

 

I don't think you know what that expression means.

2 hours ago, kick it off said:

For those saying Krul would have got there

I agree that anyone saying 'Tim would've saved it...' etc. is pointless but I don't think many people are saying that.

 

2 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

So a worse keeper may make a good save like a great save, or a great keeper may make a great save look more comfortable.

This is basically my thought process in a nutshell. McGovern made it look unsaveable due to his position and indecision as to whether to come for the cross.

[Krul Mistress 36]

Full match highlights now available:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQiNQd9YzVo

A couple of screenshots for people to make their mind up.

 

OTBC

[seanthecanary 168]

You'd think that Championship substitutes benches were a hotbed of top goalkeeping talent that only we don't have for all the criticism of McGovern

[Red Rufus 56]

Slight change of subject but Son has just smashed in a worldy and Gary Neville has spent five minutes criticising various Arsenal players ffs, he should join this forum!

[Walcombe canary 69]

Michael McGovern has big gloves to fill

it was a very good cross. Grant Holt would have loved it. McGovern is now getting used to his defence, and they are getting used to him. He will probably think he could have done better, likewise Hanley and Gibson of themselves. We went on and won. Hopefully the defence unit improve again for Forest Home.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

4 minutes ago, Walcombe canary said:

Michael McGovern has big gloves to fill

it was a very good cross. Grant Holt would have loved it. McGovern is now getting used to his defence, and they are getting used to him. He will probably think he could have done better, likewise Hanley and Gibson of themselves. We went on and won. Hopefully the defence unit improve again for Forest Home.

This point is in need of making repeatedly.

Not every goal against us is the result of defensive mistakes. Give other sides credit where credit is due.

I include this one.

Edited December 7, 2020 by BroadstairsR

[seanthecanary 168]

2 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

This point is in need of making repeatedly.

Not every goal against us is the result of defensive mistakes. Give other sides credit where credit is due.

I include this one.

Agreed.  I don't think you'll see many better assists all season than Reach's on Saturday.

[ged in the onion bag 854]

On 06/12/2020 at 09:34, Crabbycanary3 said:

I used to be a keeper and I agree with the starting nearer the back stick to move on to it, but this situation wasn't one that merited that. The cross was way out wide and deep. What I said earlier was that McGovern should have been nearer the edge of the 6 yard box (Why do we still call it the 6 yard box, and 18 yard box, should we convert to metreage?- Anyway I digress) to close the gap down between him and his Centre Halves. Reach was never going to score from there, so a keepers priorities change. McGovern could have then attacked a potential cross to Windass (as he was the only attacker in the picture) and Windass is no Mick Harford

Snap decision, that just didn't go McGovern's way. A slight defence of McGovern's thinking was that he hadn't had much to do , in real terms, so a very minor lapse of thinking, but nothing to stand outside his house with pitchforks for. He had a decent game.

Superb cross.

Have to agree with you.. at this level concentration is key and his starting position was wrong.... that resulted in his hesitation and he ends up all over the shop!!!    Had he been more central to the goal at least he then has a chance of saving it.   Fact is, the ball has hit the net somewhere not far off centre and he’s nowhere near it..... and from that distance out, if his positioning is on point, he should save that header.   
 

It’s perhaps unfair to be too critical of him because he shouldn’t be in goal.   The good work our club does by far outweighs the bad, but the fact we haven’t got a competent second choice keeper is a failing... not sure if Oxborough was meant to challenge this year but McGovern could have cost us a point or three Saturday and hasn’t looked convincing in any of his performances.  
 

Given his ball playing skills or lack thereof, he’s never been suited to our philosophy!

[CANARYKING 634]

How long before Krul is back ?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

The team is playing a bit differently to ensure that he has limited time with the ball at his feet.

But he played an excellent quick ball up the pitch to Pukki (kicking from his hands), found him as well but Pukki's first touch too heavy as don't think he anticipated it.

Camera cut to Farke watching it on his iPad and giving an approving look, so think they've worked on him operating a little bit differently.

[ged in the onion bag 854]

23 hours ago, Krul Mistress said:

Full match highlights now available:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQiNQd9YzVo

A couple of screenshots for people to make their mind up.

 

OTBC

Top picture really exposes the problem..... given that the ball has come in from the left (right side of photo) how on earth has he got himself that far left of centre?  

Edited December 7, 2020 by ged in the onion bag