Wildsmith

[roboto]

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

"Unsavable"? You've never seen keepers stop similar shots before?

Goal 1 - Vickers' positioning was very good, but was too slow to get down

Goal 2 - He was hesitant at closing the attacker down, then too slow when he did. He needed to delay the closing down a bit longer, timing it so that he could instantly be at the attacker's feet as he arrived in the area. He gave far too much space to his right hand side then dived to his left. Both were contributory factors towards making an easy chance even easier.

I was quoting from the poster before me 🙂 

I'm happy with the quality of both keepers, but I laughed at the thought that the other teams were seemingly being able to take shots that no keeper could save.

Edited January 17 by roboto

[ram59]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

"Unsavable"? You've never seen keepers stop similar shots before?

Goal 1 - Vickers' positioning was very good, but was too slow to get down

Goal 2 - He was hesitant at closing the attacker down, then too slow when he did. He needed to delay the closing down a bit longer, timing it so that he could instantly be at the attacker's feet as he arrived in the area. He gave far too much space to his right hand side then dived to his left. Both were contributory factors towards making an easy chance even easier.

Unsavable, probably not the correct term, but I've seen world class goalies let in easier chances, frequently.

It's easy to criticise a goalkeeper's actions after a goal, but quite often the different actions would have resulted in a different goal. I know from personal experience, whenever I let a goal in, I'm forever asking myself 'if I'd done this or that, they wouldn't have scored', but then the following week when I did do this or that, they scored anyway, just in a different manner. 

That's a great big goal to protect and if a striker does his job properly, there are occasions when it can't be stopped by the goalkeeper alone. There are obvious goalkeeper errors then there's the ones where you think what if? Those what if ones could have probably resulted in a goal scored in a different way.

The 3 goals that Vickers has conceded have all been amongst the most difficult attempts that needed saving this season. He hasn't been given the chance to show whether he is up to Wildsmith's shot stopping ability yet.

[Carl Sagan]

4 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Unsavable, probably not the correct term, but I've seen world class goalies let in easier chances, frequently.

It's easy to criticise a goalkeeper's actions after a goal, but quite often the different actions would have resulted in a different goal. I know from personal experience, whenever I let a goal in, I'm forever asking myself 'if I'd done this or that, they wouldn't have scored', but then the following week when I did do this or that, they scored anyway, just in a different manner. 

That's a great big goal to protect and if a striker does his job properly, there are occasions when it can't be stopped by the goalkeeper alone. There are obvious goalkeeper errors then there's the ones where you think what if? Those what if ones could have probably resulted in a goal scored in a different way.

The 3 goals that Vickers has conceded have all been amongst the most difficult attempts that needed saving this season. He hasn't been given the chance to show whether he is up to Wildsmith's shot stopping ability yet.

Going into the Spain World Cup in 1982, Peter Shilton was so imperious I thought he was practically unbeatable. Then the unthinkable happened and after Bryan Robson's 27 second opener in our first match, the French equalized. But it was a truly unsavable goal. We still won 3-1, and that was the only goal we conceded in the entire tournament, which we remained unbeaten in throughout. Yet somehow, through the way the rounds were organized, that meant we still missed out on the semifinals!

[ram59]

38 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Going into the Spain World Cup in 1982, Peter Shilton was so imperious I thought he was practically unbeatable. Then the unthinkable happened and after Bryan Robson's 27 second opener in our first match, the French equalized. But it was a truly unsavable goal. We still won 3-1, and that was the only goal we conceded in the entire tournament, which we remained unbeaten in throughout. Yet somehow, through the way the rounds were organized, that meant we still missed out on the semifinals!

Are yes, because of the infamous Germany v Austria fixed result, we ended up playing Germany in the second round group games. Because of this match, all following world cup tournaments had final group games played at the same time. I saw this game live on tv in Crete whilst England's final game was on over here. I walked out of the tv lounge in disgust after about 30 minutes, telling the German tourists that they were a bunch of cheating bar tenders. A low scoring win for Germany was required, for both teams to qualify and after they scored in 10 minutes, neither team went any where near the other's penalty area.

I'm still bitter about it, just in case you hadn't noticed.

[On the Ram Page]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

"Unsavable"? You've never seen keepers stop similar shots before?

Goal 1 - Vickers' positioning was very good, but was too slow to get down

Goal 2 - He was hesitant at closing the attacker down, then too slow when he did. He needed to delay the closing down a bit longer, timing it so that he could instantly be at the attacker's feet as he arrived in the area. He gave far too much space to his right hand side then dived to his left. Both were contributory factors towards making an easy chance even easier.

Entitled to your opinion but I think you are totally wrong, being an ex-goalkeeper.

Goal 1 - agree he may have been slightly slow to get down but I think he had the ball covered and would have got something on the ball but for the deflection.

Goal 2 - did everything right. Come out too quickly and too far and the player will chip it over you. If you look at the goal from the camera in the South Stand, he actually gives the attacker more space on his left had side (not the right as you say) , anticipating the attacker will place the ball that side, hence why he went to the left with his feet. Hugill was actually brilliant and placed it to the goalkeepers right. No blame attached at all to the goalkeeper.

I am not sure Derby have a player who could have scored more clinically than Hugill. We do not score very easily from that type of chance. NML chance against Fleetwood was much easier.

[Ghost of Clough]

31 minutes ago, On the Ram Page said:

Entitled to your opinion but I think you are totally wrong, being an ex-goalkeeper.

Goal 1 - agree he may have been slightly slow to get down but I think he had the ball covered and would have got something on the ball but for the deflection.

Goal 2 - did everything right. Come out too quickly and too far and the player will chip it over you. If you look at the goal from the camera in the South Stand, he actually gives the attacker more space on his left had side (not the right as you say) , anticipating the attacker will place the ball that side, hence why he went to the left with his feet. Hugill was actually brilliant and placed it to the goalkeepers right. No blame attached at all to the goalkeeper.

I am not sure Derby have a player who could have scored more clinically than Hugill. We do not score very easily from that type of chance. NML chance against Fleetwood was much easier.

My general point was regarding them being 'unstoppable shots', which they weren't.

On goal 2, I was directly in line with the forward and the corner of the goal he shot at - a slightly better angle than what you see in the replays. There was far too much space on the side of the goal where Hugill shot at and I knew all along that was where he was going to place it. Vickers needed to come out to him a little bit later, but then close down the space a lot quicker. By coming out when he did, Vickers left himself in that awkward situation - close down fully and he's chipped/rounded, or stand off and give Hugill all the time in the world to place it where he wanted. He went with option 2.

[MadAmster]

As an ex keeper myself, I think JW has the better all round game. The reason given for him not playing was given as he'd had a knock. He has been criticised for going down too often. I would agree but I'm old fashioned and still think you go down when injured and for no other reason. Most times when he goes down, it's at a point in the game where the opposition is getting the upper hand. I think he does it to take their momentum away. I also think he shouldn't do it for that reason. I know other teams do it, I just don't like it.

[CapeTownRams]

Vickers looks dodgy to me. 
No needless tinkering at this stage. Get Joe back in goal . 

[On the Ram Page]

33 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

As an ex keeper myself, I think JW has the better all round game. The reason given for him not playing was given as he'd had a knock. He has been criticised for going down too often. I would agree but I'm old fashioned and still think you go down when injured and for no other reason. Most times when he goes down, it's at a point in the game where the opposition is getting the upper hand. I think he does it to take their momentum away. I also think he shouldn't do it for that reason. I know other teams do it, I just don't like it.

100% right in my opinion

[ram59]

3 hours ago, roboto said:

I was quoting from the poster before me 🙂 

I'm happy with the quality of both keepers, but I laughed at the thought that the other teams were seemingly being able to take shots that no keeper could save.

Equally laughable is that you're saying that a keeper should then be able to save every shot. There must be some top keepers out there that have never conceded goal, unless they made a mistake.

I think that you need to look at a few goal of the month or season clips, they're full of shots that no keeper could save.

[Carl Sagan]

1 hour ago, MadAmster said:

As an ex keeper myself, I think JW has the better all round game. The reason given for him not playing was given as he'd had a knock. He has been criticised for going down too often. I would agree but I'm old fashioned and still think you go down when injured and for no other reason. Most times when he goes down, it's at a point in the game where the opposition is getting the upper hand. I think he does it to take their momentum away. I also think he shouldn't do it for that reason. I know other teams do it, I just don't like it.

This is one of the reasons Wildsmith is so important and I love him for it. He is not embarrassed to take the heat out of the game and stifle our opponent's momentum this way. Even in front of the baying cop at Anfield. It might make the difference between promotion or not come the end of the season. I do not want Derby to be the Corinthian Casuals of League One, glorious failures, playing honorably while the teams around us scheme to earn promotion at our expense.

[ram59]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

This is one of the reasons Wildsmith is so important and I love him for it. He is not embarrassed to take the heat out of the game and stifle our opponent's momentum this way. Even in front of the baying cop at Anfield. It might make the difference between promotion or not come the end of the season. I do not want Derby to be the Corinthian Casuals of League One, glorious failures, playing honorably while the teams around us scheme to earn promotion at our expense.

Teams were always doing this against us last season and I hated it, but if you can't beat them, join them.

Personally, whenever there is an 'injury' and the physio comes on to treat the player, I would make the rest of the players go to the centre circle and allow a young 'waterboy' on to the pitch with bottles of water. Although, it wouldn't stop the break up of play, it would help to stop the tactical team talks with the manager.

[Dimmu]

I don't see the problem here. If a player has two poor games, I expect him to be dropped. 

On the other hand, outfield players get substituted after one bad game. Except for Sibbo, who has about 15 minutes to shine.

[RodleyRam]

I heard he has been dropped because he ridiculed Warne's bobble hat / why wall / David Brent impression*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Insert completely made up fact here

[Archied]

Think warne will put wildsmith back in at Mansfield , he looks the better of the two all round though I believe the little spell out will be good for both keepers 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Think warne will put wildsmith back in at Mansfield , he looks the better of the two all round though I believe the little spell out will be good for both keepers 

The good news is he's signed an extension, and we know we have Mansfield in the cup next season. The bad news is he doesn't play for the rest of this season. How long have you been able to tell the future?

[Archied]

35 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The good news is he's signed an extension, and we know we have Mansfield in the cup next season. The bad news is he doesn't play for the rest of this season. How long have you been able to tell the future?

Just my gut feeling on what warne will choose on Saturday( hence the word think ), of course I could be totally wrong🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited January 18 by Archied

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Archied said:

Just my gut feeling on what warne will choose on Saturday( hence the word think ), of course I could be totally wrong🤷🏻‍♂️

We don't play Mansfield on Saturday 😉

[Archied]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

We don't play Mansfield on Saturday 😉

😂😂😂 ah sorry , my mistake , meant Lincoln of course 

[Tamworthram]

2 minutes ago, Archied said:

Just my gut feeling on what warne will choose on Saturday( hence the word think ), of course I could be totally wrong🤷🏻‍♂️

I’m confused. Are we playing Mansfield on Saturday then? I hope not as I’m driving up to Lincoln.😀