Krul

[lake district canary 4,562]

I'm getting a bit irritated about persistent posting by people on different threads how Krul was at fault for the third goal yesterday. He was not at fault. There was a big deflection on the shot - he set himself for the initial shot and was wrong footed by the deflection.

I'm sorry if the facts don't fit your thoughts on it, but he was unlucky, not at fault. 

The second goal was more of a general c0ck up, partly him, partly Aarons and Nunez not reacting. 

So this "he gifted them two goals" yesterday stuff just isn't right.

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by lake district canary

[Crafty Canary 511]

He certainly could have done better with Reading’s equaliser last Tuesday. 

[PurpleCanary 5,605]

35 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I'm getting a bit irritated about persistent posting by people on different threads how Krul was at fault for the third goal yesterday. He was not at fault. There was a big deflection on the shot - he set himself for the initial shot and was wrong footed by the deflection.

I'm sorry if the facts don't fit your thoughts on it, but he was unlucky, not at fault. 

The second goal was more of a general c0ck up, partly him, partly Aarons and Nunez not reacting. 

So this "he gifted them two goals" yesterday stuff just isn't right.

 

His positioning was at fault. Even with the deflection, which I don't think that much altered the trajectory of the ball much anyway, he got his hands to the ball. But he was stuck back right on his goal-line so he just palmed the ball into the net. Just two or three feet further forward and he would palmed it for a corner. And I noticed that when Smith was asked if Krul was at fault he fell back on the "I would need to see a replay" prevarication.

[KeiranShikari 1,487]

Not at fault for that goal but hasn't been on form for a long time. Gunn would have been starting a long time ago if Smith had balls.

[shefcanary 2,503]

Sorry LDC but I'm siding with Purple on this. Poor from Krul all game yesterday, poor positioning on the third, the **** up in direction of his pass for their second and his non-communication with Omo for their first. His focus is not there, you do wonder if Van Gaal's snub has got to him.

[Ken Hairy 3,806]

Sorry Lakey, but you'll just have to continue with being irritated, Krul had a shocker yesterday and it's not the first time. As much as I love the bloke, he is starting to show rapid declines in his performances. 

[hogesar 9,818]

I think Krul made it difficult to save because of his positioning. He should have been covering that corner which had he been a yard higher he likely wouldn't have had a problem.. 

[lake district canary 4,562]

Nope, not having it - his positioning was fine - he simply started moving to save the original shot so his weight was on the wrong foot when he had to suddenly switch to get back to his right - one of the hardest things to do as a goalkeeper, especially as the ball was redirected. Yes, he got his hands to it, but because his weight was not behind them due to having to change direction, he could not keep it out.  Had the ball been heading inside the post without a deflection he would have had an easier save to make. The deflection is what did for him.

[Move Klose 303]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

Nope, not having it - his positioning was fine - he simply started moving to save the original shot so his weight was on the wrong foot when he had to suddenly switch to get back to his right - one of the hardest things to do as a goalkeeper, especially as the ball was redirected. Yes, he got his hands to it, but because his weight was not behind them due to having to change direction, he could not keep it out.  Had the ball been heading inside the post without a deflection he would have had an easier save to make. The deflection is what did for him.

If any of that is actually true that doesn't make up how awfull his distribution has been this season. Gunn deserves a go now. 

[shefcanary 2,503]

7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Nope, not having it - his positioning was fine - he simply started moving to save the original shot so his weight was on the wrong foot when he had to suddenly switch to get back to his right - one of the hardest things to do as a goalkeeper, especially as the ball was redirected. Yes, he got his hands to it, but because his weight was not behind them due to having to change direction, he could not keep it out.  Had the ball been heading inside the post without a deflection he would have had an easier save to make. The deflection is what did for him.

All we have said is his actual first position was wrong! He wouldn't have had to change direction, even for the deflection, if he was in the right starting position. Sometimes you do argue against yourself LDC. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

Where Tim's concerned, we have to be Krul to be kind on this occasion. 

[alex_ncfc 667]

I think what makes it funnier is that people seem to think that Gunn is the answer.

Bang-average keeper who is literally only here because of his dad.

Barden needs to be fast tracked through ahead of him.

Edited October 9, 2022 by alex_ncfc

[Branston Pickle 3,742]

10 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

I think what makes it funnier is that people seem to think that Gunn is the answer.

Bang-average keeper who is literally only here because of his dad.

Barden needs to be fast tracked through ahead of him.

 

10 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

I think what makes it funnier is that people seem to think that Gunn is the answer.

Bang-average keeper who is literally only here because of his dad.

Barden needs to be fast tracked through ahead of him.

That’s rubbish about Gunn.

Barden is definitely a good shout for the longer term

edit: I clearly disagree so strongly I quoted you twice🤔🙂!

Edited October 9, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[lake district canary 4,562]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

I think Krul made it difficult to save because of his positioning. He should have been covering that corner which had he been a yard higher he likely wouldn't have had a problem.. 

His positioning was absolutely fine, so he could cover the post and/or a cross shot. The original shot was going across him to his left which is why he started to go that way, the deflection changed the direction of the ball to his right and he had to dive to his right off his left foot, a difficult feat for anyone. Try it for yourself.  The goal was totally down to the deflection, not to any shortcomings of the goalie. 

[hogesar 9,818]

4 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

His positioning was absolutely fine, so he could cover the post and/or a cross shot. The original shot was going across him to his left which is why he started to go that way, the deflection changed the direction of the ball to his right and he had to dive to his right off his left foot, a difficult feat for anyone. Try it for yourself.  The goal was totally down to the deflection, not to any shortcomings of the goalie. 

I'll have to re-watch it as I have only seen it live but I'm behind the goal lower barclay and when it went in I thought he was too close to his goal-line.

Obviously the deflection caused a problem.

[Branston Pickle 3,742]

6 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

His positioning was absolutely fine, so he could cover the post and/or a cross shot. The original shot was going across him to his left which is why he started to go that way, the deflection changed the direction of the ball to his right and he had to dive to his right off his left foot, a difficult feat for anyone. Try it for yourself.  The goal was totally down to the deflection, not to any shortcomings of the goalie. 

In your opinion. The guy I sit next to is an ex keeper, he said Krul should have saved it. I’ll trust his judgement more, thanks.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

LDC, ask Krul if he thought he should save it and I bet he says ‘yes’. He will be disappointed because he knows it was there to be saved and he got hand on it. They train for occasions where they have to suddenly shift their weight, the fact he got to it will tell you he did this well enough and his wrists and arms should be strong enough without needing to have his full body weight to stop a football. 

However, as neither of us have evidence either way we can’t claim to be ‘right’ enough to say ‘not having that’ 

[Virtual reality 761]

What we really need is for some statistical wizard to create Xs ‘expected saves’ Then, and only then can the debate on if Krul should have saved it be settled.

[lake district canary 4,562]

11 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

LDC, ask Krul if he thought he should save it and I bet he says ‘yes’. He will be disappointed because he knows it was there to be saved and he got hand on it. They train for occasions where they have to suddenly shift their weight, the fact he got to it will tell you he did this well enough and his wrists and arms should be strong enough without needing to have his full body weight to stop a football. 

However, as neither of us have evidence either way we can’t claim to be ‘right’ enough to say ‘not having that’ 

The evidence is clear. It got a deflection that made it a very difficult for him. Look at how many times goalkeepers get wrong footed by deflections. He did well to get anything on it the way he had to contort his body from going left to get the original shot, then having to go to his right.

[Mason 47 1,421]

Generally keepers are disappointed to concede at their front post. Between this and the Reading goal, which really didn't have much venom to it, its definitely disappointing IMO. It's the fact he does reach it but rather shovels it into the net.

Its not as egregious as allowing Riis such a free header or the general ****-up-cascade of the second goal. But Krul has been a little weak this year (perhaps only against his previously good standards)

 

[Canary Jedi 590]

Anyone watch match of the day? I only watch a few minutes of Chelski vs Wolves. The Wolves keeper pulled off some amazing saves, shots going into the corners at pace. I doubt any of our keepers would have saved them. 

Krul is a good keeper but would be great to upgrade him. Very unlikely  I know but a better keeper would mean the difference between winning and losing some of our games. 

[canarydan23 4,137]

Maybe Krul could play left midfield. 

[By Hook or Ian crook 926]

Was right behind him for the 3rd goal he had no chance he was moving the opposite direction when the deflection happened which took it down and to his right, he did fantastic to even get a glove on it. 
 

his distribution however was at fault for one of their goals. Overall though a keeper like tim wins you more points in this league than he costs you so it’s a pretty decent trade off. 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

The evidence is clear. It got a deflection that made it a very difficult for him. Look at how many times goalkeepers get wrong footed by deflections. He did well to get anything on it the way he had to contort his body from going left to get the original shot, then having to go to his right.

Respectfully disagree. The limited evidence is not clear, but what is really clear is that he does not have to contort his body, he is leaning very slightly left. Watch the video from about 6 mins 12 secs and it’s a small gap to his near post that one strong arm is enough to stop. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,605]

4 hours ago, lake district canary said:

His positioning was absolutely fine, so he could cover the post and/or a cross shot. The original shot was going across him to his left which is why he started to go that way, the deflection changed the direction of the ball to his right and he had to dive to his right off his left foot, a difficult feat for anyone. Try it for yourself.  The goal was totally down to the deflection, not to any shortcomings of the goalie. 

It was not his positioning laterally that was at fault. It was his positioning forwards/backwards. When a goalie ends up, as Krul did, half inside the goal himself an in danger of colliding with the post, it's a sign he may well have been too far back to start with. The point is that even with the deflection Krul got to the ball.

[jaberry2 558]

15 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I'm getting a bit irritated about persistent posting by people on different threads how Krul was at fault for the third goal yesterday. He was not at fault. There was a big deflection on the shot - he set himself for the initial shot and was wrong footed by the deflection.

I'm sorry if the facts don't fit your thoughts on it, but he was unlucky, not at fault. 

The second goal was more of a general c0ck up, partly him, partly Aarons and Nunez not reacting. 

So this "he gifted them two goals" yesterday stuff just isn't right.

 

The fact is Krul is generally a good shot stopper. He is not that good or consistent at other points needed for a goalkeeper. His kicking is atrocious and we have afar better keeper sitting on the bench currently.

[Newtopia 521]

We all make mistakes, the Gunn / Krul discussion is a strange one for me.  Tim is a top quality old fashioned keeper who is a good shot stopper.  Angus does those things, and perhaps there is an argument that it he is marginally worse.  The debate is not around those attributes, Tim is experienced and shows a great positive mindset, the sort you need a few of in each team.  Angus is very comfortable with the ball at his feet, and I feel more confident when we use him as part of the team to retain the ball.

personally I would make the change to Angus because in the premier league we have to improve our collective ability to break the high press.  Being okay in the championship is fine if our eye is on improving to compete next time we go up.

[Michael Starr 523]

Yep, it's time to give Gunn an opportunity. Krul's form hasn't been great. Both are of very equal quality right now.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Michael Starr

[alex_ncfc 667]

4 hours ago, jaberry2 said:

The fact is Krul is generally a good shot stopper. He is not that good or consistent at other points needed for a goalkeeper. His kicking is atrocious and we have afar better keeper sitting on the bench currently.

Far better keeper 😂

The "far better keeper" who at almost 27 has achieved nothing in that time whilst playing a handful of games?

Face it, he wouldn't be here if it wasn't for his surname. Nothing special about him. Krul's experience and leadership will see us through just fine.

Barden, also, actually looks a good prospect.

 

 

[jaberry2 558]

4 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

Far better keeper 😂

The "far better keeper" who at almost 27 has achieved nothing in that time whilst playing a handful of games?

Face it, he wouldn't be here if it wasn't for his surname. Nothing special about him. Krul's experience and leadership will see us through just fine.

Barden, also, actually looks a good prospect.

 

 

Yes I believe his all round game is much better than Kruls.