While it's normal for outfield coaches to be culled when a manager gets sacked, it was an interesting decision to remove our gk coach at the same time as Holden, someone who came in 2 years ago.
I assume Scott made the decision, based on the quality of our keeping this season.
I’m not convinced by either but I think either could do well. It makes a change for our attacking to be better than our defending. You can’t add creativity, pace and ability if you don’t have it, but you can get fitter, work harder and become more organised. If we get the right manager and coaching team we should improve defensively and that’ll benefit whichever keeper we go for.
While it's normal for outfield coaches to be culled when a manager gets sacked, it was an interesting decision to remove our gk coach at the same time as Holden, someone who came in 2 years ago.
I assume Scott made the decision, based on the quality of our keeping this season.
Perhaps not just based on this season. We've had a prolonged period where we've not had a really competent 'keeper. Normally whatever else might be going wrong, we've historically been OK in goal.
I think both are decent L1 ‘keepers, AMB the better of the two based on what I’ve seen.
I’m not sure there’s anyone we could realistically sign that’s going to make much difference whilst the defence in-front of him is so shambolic.
I think this is the nub of the issue, the defence is so shite, which in turn feeds into the goalkeepers lack of confidence and I think that’s fairly understandable.
Our problem is not goalkeepers, if you have such a dodgy defence in front the problem is the defence and the midfield, not to mention and total nut job of a club on the playing side and in the board room.
Lets not waste resources on new keepers, but sort out the defence.
I think Isted was a strange signing from the point of view that he seemed to be on a similar level to Maynard-Brewer. Decent enough to expect full time football, but not sufficiently good to displace AMB (indeed from what I've seen, I think AMB is marginally better). I think we might have a situation where poor recruitment decisions have left us with two keepers with expectations of first team football and only one job to do. I think that having let Wollacott go, this itself a mistake, we should have either recruited a significantly better keeper than AMB or got in a bench-warmer and used our resources elsewhere in the squad where they'd have more impact.
Need to decide upon Maynard-Brewer OR Isted and stick with them, if you chop and change the Goalkeeper then the defence have no confidence in the bloke behind them.
Same for the Goalkeeper, if the defence is chopped and changed, then how does he develop trust and understanding with those in front of him.
Probably the most vital areas of the pitch, to get familiar.
Our problem is not goalkeepers, if you have such a dodgy defence in front the problem is the defence and the midfield, not to mention and total nut job of a club on the playing side and in the board room.
Let’s not waste resources on new keepers, but sort out the defence.
I'm somewhat biased because I really like AMB, but I'll try to be as objective as I can on this.
It's easy to put more weight into either of our two keepers being a major problem for our defensive problems. They contribute to it as a unit, but on the balance, the other defenders should shoulder a lot more of the blame here. We've not had a settled back 3, 4 or 5 and this all contributes.
AMB has a higher ceiling than Isted imo, and will be better long-term. However, he's young and relatively inexperienced, and will make mistakes. People point at the Bristol game, but the save for the initial free kick was good and he got let down by his defenders no reacting quick enough. He will continue to make and learn from errors - but nothing I've seen from Isted so far suggests he is an upgrade. I agree that we should have kept Wollacott as a number 1, but that's the past now and we have what we have.
Like all things related to our defense, we just need to commit to building some consistency.
Our problem is not goalkeepers, if you have such a dodgy defence in front the problem is the defence and the midfield, not to mention and total nut job of a club on the playing side and in the board room.
Lets not waste resources on new keepers, but sort out the defence.
Scott Carson was our POTY when we went down in 2006/7, the defence was shabby then.
I'm somewhat biased because I really like AMB, but I'll try to be as objective as I can on this.
It's easy to put more weight into either of our two keepers being a major problem for our defensive problems. They contribute to it as a unit, but on the balance, the other defenders should shoulder a lot more of the blame here. We've not had a settled back 3, 4 or 5 and this all contributes.
AMB has a higher ceiling than Isted imo, and will be better long-term. However, he's young and relatively inexperienced, and will make mistakes. People point at the Bristol game, but the save for the initial free kick was good and he got let down by his defenders no reacting quick enough. He will continue to make and learn from errors - but nothing I've seen from Isted so far suggests he is an upgrade. I agree that we should have kept Wollacott as a number 1, but that's the past now and we have what we have.
Like all things related to our defense, we just need to commit to building some consistency.
Largely agree with this. One thing to add. When you have a inexperienced keeper its even more important for the CB's to be experienced/leaders/talkers and do a bit more of the organising of the defence and the spaces in front of them. We need Hector and Jones to step up in this manner whoever is in goal. Its an area we are probably lacking a bit of experience to go with the talented but raw youngsters. Our right hand side on saturday was another area where this showed at times with Tyreece on the right wing, Anderson RCM and Assimwe at RB.
A good keeper can bail out a poor team. Indeed it's the perfect opportunity for a keeper to shine.
The relevant stat might be the xG against us this season, and whether it's higher or lower than the actual goals conceded.
just had a quick look and can’t find an xS (expected saves) stat which isn’t surprising for L1 but what is interesting is that FBref has them down as having exactly the same save % and goals against per 90. No idea how accurate FBref is for L1 but that’s pretty astonishing if true
First thing I'd look for in a keeper at this level is ability to come for crosses, Amos had it in abundance and we've not suitably replaced him. Our defence may be poor but the keepers very rarely take any pressure off it.
Our problem is not goalkeepers, if you have such a dodgy defence in front the problem is the defence and the midfield, not to mention and total nut job of a club on the playing side and in the board room.
Lets not waste resources on new keepers, but sort out the defence.
Scott Carson was our POTY when we went down in 2006/7, the defence was Shabby then.
I felt Woolacott was the better keeper compared to AMB and I had doubts about Isted based on his lack of any substantial track record. It felt like he could be a flash in the pan.
Little to choose between them really and I can't see another keeper coming in. I think we just need to pick the same GK and defence consistently and follow the old Graham/Hodgson approach of making them do defensive drills until they're bored with it. And then do some more. I'm a bit old-school in believing everything is built on a solid defensive unit, especially at this level, and until we sort that, we're only heading one way.
Neither keeper really inspires confidence in me tbh. For years we were lucky to have very decent keepers now I think both are weak. Out of the 2 AMB is my starter because he does make a few saves. Both terrifying me when under a high ball
Comments
I can't see us bringing in a third keeper of any substance unless there is an injury given that we already have two in situ.
We definitely won't be getting another one in though, so we are stuck with one of them - personally I'd go Isted
I assume Scott made the decision, based on the quality of our keeping this season.
Lets not waste resources on new keepers, but sort out the defence.
Need to decide upon Maynard-Brewer OR Isted and stick with them, if you chop and change the Goalkeeper then the defence have no confidence in the bloke behind them.
Same for the Goalkeeper, if the defence is chopped and changed, then how does he develop trust and understanding with those in front of him.
Probably the most vital areas of the pitch, to get familiar.
It's easy to put more weight into either of our two keepers being a major problem for our defensive problems. They contribute to it as a unit, but on the balance, the other defenders should shoulder a lot more of the blame here. We've not had a settled back 3, 4 or 5 and this all contributes.
AMB has a higher ceiling than Isted imo, and will be better long-term. However, he's young and relatively inexperienced, and will make mistakes. People point at the Bristol game, but the save for the initial free kick was good and he got let down by his defenders no reacting quick enough. He will continue to make and learn from errors - but nothing I've seen from Isted so far suggests he is an upgrade. I agree that we should have kept Wollacott as a number 1, but that's the past now and we have what we have.
Like all things related to our defense, we just need to commit to building some consistency.
The relevant stat might be the xG against us this season, and whether it's higher or lower than the actual goals conceded.