Number 1

[AndyinLiverpool]

Start with Grant, first major error bring in Carson and see how he gets on.  

​Good way to make your goalkeeper terrified every time he walks onto the pitch. Make a mistake and you're out.

[Pearl Ram]

I see where you're coming from there Andy but we saw the difference one or two points can make come May time so I'm in the give Grant a chance camp but if it becomes apparent he hasn't put last end of season howlers behind him, he'll have to be benched for me.

We can't be waiting weeks for him to regain his form. Why not go straight for Carson then you may be asking and my reply to that would be because for the first six months of last season Grant was fine, I'd just like to give the bloke a chance to redeem himself before benching him.

[craic dispenser]

Grant. 

Could pick out big mess ups in every player.

Thought he was faultless for months and months. Then he lost the plot at Bournemouth and never recovered but for every punch in the net there's a top save at point blank v Cardiff. How come people only remember the bad? 

In what? 20 months he's had 16/17 where hes been mostly excellent. I think he's earned a few howlers

If Carson wants his place then he'll have to hope Grant doesn't recover imo. 

​Because Keepers are paid to make saves. Of course they make mistakes, it's normal, but Grant seemed to lose the plot spectacularly. He's never had the best pair of hands and he has this dangerous habit of punching across the line of the ball rather than meeting it head on. Hence why he flapped so badly at Barnsley (and somewhere else? maybe Milwall?)

[craic dispenser]

I'd go for Lee Grant all the way. Clearly something happened to him at the end of last season, but for the full season and a half before that for us he played very well for us, and I think he can recapture that form.

Carson I think is too error prone generally, and his signing confuses me a bit. I'd only sign a new goalkeeper if we were looking for a long term replacement for Lee Grant for the Premier League. Scott Carson is not a Premier League first choice goalkeeper.

 

​I heard his knee injury he had last summer didn't respond to treatment and he was having injections to play. He didn't look right a lot of the season

[Ambitious]

Scott Carson started this season as Wigan's number one after being their second choice last season.

He went on to lose his place before partly  regaining it at the end of the season before he was once again dropped for the last game of the season.

He was outperformed in every way by Grant last season; Grant made a lot more saves, conceded less, was far more commanding of his area...etc

I think people are in for shock. 

[TheDeadlySaul]

Scott Carson started this season as Wigan's number one after being their second choice last season.

He went on to lose his place before partly  regaining it at the end of the season before he was once again dropped for the last game of the season.

He was outperformed in every way by Grant last season; Grant made a lot more saves, conceded less, was far more commanding of his area...etc

I think people are in for shock. 

​Surely that is what we should be having. 

If Grant has a poor run put Carson in and if Carson starts playing poor put Grant in. 

Nothing wrong with some added competition, the staff obviously don't think that Roos is good enough for first team football as they loaned in Butland when Grant was injured. 

 

[TroyDyer]

Roos on loan to a league 1/2 side, and Grant and Carson to fight it out. 

I liked when Legzdins and Fielding were genuinely battling for the number one jersey. It's healthy. 

We now have the same scenario but with two far superior keepers. 

[robglosta]

​Good way to make your goalkeeper terrified every time he walks onto the pitch. Make a mistake and you're out.

​Hardly, otherwise what's the point in competition throughout the squad? 

[AndyinLiverpool]

​Hardly, otherwise what's the point in competition throughout the squad? 

​It would be poor management to set those parameters. You can't get the best out of people by making them scared of making mistakes. See also the England one-day cricket team.

Competition in the squad is not (or at least should not be) there to force mistakes out of players. It's there to push others to excellence. It's also there to cover injuries with someone of a similar standard.

[robglosta]

​It would be poor management to set those parameters. You can't get the best out of people by making them scared of making mistakes. See also the England one-day cricket team.

Competition in the squad is not (or at least should not be) there to force mistakes out of players. It's there to push others to excellence. It's also there to cover injuries with someone of a similar standard.

​So is your threshold for replacing Grant not error-dependent? I'd strongly disagree if so, as you would essentially be rewarding poor performance and/or penalising good performances with changes. 

[Ambitious]

​Surely that is what we should be having. 

If Grant has a poor run put Carson in and if Carson starts playing poor put Grant in. 

Nothing wrong with some added competition, the staff obviously don't think that Roos is good enough for first team football as they loaned in Butland when Grant was injured. 

 

That's what Wigan did with Al Habsi and Carson. 

When we did it with Legzdins and Fielding, we ended up getting rid of both of them.

Fielding has just won the league one goalkeeper of the year award too. 

I'm not saying competition is a bad thing, I just don't think Carson signing benefits us in anyway. We've just signed a slightly worse Lee Grant. Is he going to have the same patience or desire a younger, up-and-coming keeper would have? 

That's my argument. This is similar to the Stephen Warnock signing - imo. 

[CheltenhamRam]

Grant. 

Could pick out big mess ups in every player.

Thought he was faultless for months and months. Then he lost the plot at Bournemouth and never recovered but for every punch in the net there's a top save at point blank v Cardiff. How come people only remember the bad? 

In what? 20 months he's had 16/17 where hes been mostly excellent. I think he's earned a few howlers

If Carson wants his place then he'll have to hope Grant doesn't recover imo. 

He was absolutely amazing when we were right up there. Good post. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

​So is your threshold for replacing Grant not error-dependent? I'd strongly disagree if so, as you would essentially be rewarding poor performance and/or penalising good performances with changes. 

​No, it's quality dependent which is nowhere near the same thing. If he knows he's going to be dropped after he makes a big mistake, there is no incentive for him to improve once he's made that mistake. All he has to do is wait for his competition to similarly be affected by the same policy. Soon enough, instead of 2 people pushing each other and helping each other, you have mediocrity.

Moreover, what does it say to a forward who misses an easy chance? Or a defender who concedes a penalty.

Threat rarely has a positive effect. It doesn't make for a happy team.

[robglosta]

​No, it's quality dependent which is nowhere near the same thing. If he knows he's going to be dropped after he makes a big mistake, there is no incentive for him to improve once he's made that mistake. All he has to do is wait for his competition to similarly be affected by the same policy. Soon enough, instead of 2 people pushing each other and helping each other, you have mediocrity.

Moreover, what does it say to a forward who misses an easy chance? Or a defender who concedes a penalty.

Threat rarely has a positive effect. It doesn't make for a happy team.

​Okay, so Grant makes a howler - match costing - in the fifth game of the season.  You keep him in the team? Until he has displayed enough quality to then be dropped? You keep the harmony in the team by starting off with Grant, but the reason you have another keeper hot on his heels is that as soon as those performance levels drop he loses his place.  What you propose is an idealistic fallacy.  

[AndyinLiverpool]

​Okay, so Grant makes a howler - match costing - in the fifth game of the season.  You keep him in the team? Until he has displayed enough quality to then be dropped? You keep the harmony in the team by starting off with Grant, but the reason you have another keeper hot on his heels is that as soon as those performance levels drop he loses his place.  What you propose is an idealistic fallacy.  

​A good manager would speak to the person, establish how and why they made the 'howler', then work with them to address that. If the manager thought the best way to deal with it was to take him out of the team, this would form part of the improvement plan. This way, they have a better chance of believing that their contributions are valued and that their development to paramount.

Telling a team 'one bad mistake and you're out' is rank bad management. For starters, the criterion 'match costing' is subjective and unlikely to either make the player clear about the reasons for his dropping or do anything for team cohesion. How is 'match costing' to be defined? Wouldn't any player dropped under such circumstances be justified in outlining the mistakes made by others that were equally 'match costing'? Any mistake is, in fact, potentially match costing. A player giving away possession, hitting the post, giving away a throw in - anything could lead to the opposition scoring etc.

There is nothing fallacious about any of this. It's standard management practise. The recognition that you are managing human beings, who make mistakes. What is important is how things are learnt, how individuals can develop (and how the manager drives that development). Telling them that mistakes are going to be punished is likely to have an entirely negative effect.

That said, it's what got the pyramids built, so you never know.

[robglosta]

​A good manager would speak to the person, establish how and why they made the 'howler', then work with them to address that. If the manager thought the best way to deal with it was to take him out of the team, this would form part of the improvement plan. This way, they have a better chance of believing that their contributions are valued and that their development to paramount.

Telling a team 'one bad mistake and you're out' is rank bad management. For starters, the criterion 'match costing' is subjective and unlikely to either make the player clear about the reasons for his dropping or do anything for team cohesion. How is 'match costing' to be defined? Wouldn't any player dropped under such circumstances be justified in outlining the mistakes made by others that were equally 'match costing'? Any mistake is, in fact, potentially match costing. A player giving away possession, hitting the post, giving away a throw in - anything could lead to the opposition scoring etc.

There is nothing fallacious about any of this. It's standard management practise. The recognition that you are managing human beings, who make mistakes. What is important is how things are learnt, how individuals can develop (and how the manager drives that development). Telling them that mistakes are going to be punished is likely to have an entirely negative effect.

That said, it's what got the pyramids built, so you never know.

​So drop him then? With less fancy words, obviously, but that's my point. I'm not saying call him a c**t and throw him on the scrap heap. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

​So drop him then? With less fancy words, obviously, but that's my point. I'm not saying call him a c**t and throw him on the scrap heap. 

​No, as a manager, you judge each case individually. What you are suggesting is creating a one size fits all policy of make a howler and you're dropped. That would lose you the dressing room as soon as you can say 'mismanagement'.

As a leader, your team needs to know they have your support. Your suggestion would not do this. Neither would it make them better at their jobs.

[Brammie Steve]

The four defenders in front of a goalie are there to ensure that the goalie does not have to constantly pull off fantastic saves. They have to be confident that he can be depended upon on those occasions when they fail to do their job properly.

the goalie has to know that he will not be blamed for every goal the opposition score.

Management has to accept that a goalie is human and therefore fallible.

I was once made to stand twixt the sticks. We lost 6-1 but only one was put down to my error.

Once we went behind the entire team (bar me!) went and camped in the other teams half. I managed to save about half the breakaway attacks but at 6-1 I asked to be allowed at least one defender in my half and kept a clean sheet for the rest of the game.

any goalie behind a non-existent defence has an impossible task.

it can be a thankless position!

[Mostyn6]

Dinoflagellate (no, I'm leaving it,  I tried to type "simply")

Simply, pick your best team, and if your best team doesn't include a specific plague (no, I'm leaving it), player cos you've lost faith in him,  so be it.  

[robglosta]

Dinoflagellate (no, I'm leaving it,  I tried to type "simply")

Simply, pick your best team, and if your best team doesn't include a specific plague (no, I'm leaving it), player cos you've lost faith in him,  so be it.  

​Don't be daft, they need weekly 1-2-1's and business coaching apparently (and to be left in the team).