Once again, any hint of criticism provokes accusations of being negative. I rated Green 5 out of 10 at Villa today, with 6 being a rating for an average, nothing special performance. So, how do I justify that?
Well, over the course of the game Green made three "saves". The first involved him clawing out Young's cross shot. Yes he did OK but, in truth, he was too far off his line and was simply making good his initial error. Had that gone in, the blame would have been placed very much at Green's door.
The second save was very much bread and butter. It was close to Green and at a good height to save. Had that gone in, there would have been calls for Green's head.
And talking heads, it was Green's head that blocked Ivebonkedawhore when he was clean through in the last minute. This was a good block by Green but the Villa man had played the ball too far ahead of himself and so was not in control of his shot. Green saved it so no complaints from me that it was his face and not his hands that got in the vital block, but again, you would expect a Premiership keeper to save it after Ivebonkedawhore mis-controlled it.
Without any errors, that would justify a 6 or 7 performance for me. Competent, nothing special, doing the basic job well. The trouble is, there were errors - three to be precise. The first saw Green flapping at, and missing, another cross in the first half. The second saw him spill a grubbing shot in an embarrassing way. Happily the resultant "goal" was ruled offside but imagine if it hadn't been; the goal would have been down to a dreadful Green howler. And the third came with another woeful Green clearance as he dwelt on the ball too long, then panicked and kicked the ball straight to a Villa player. Again, had Villa capitalised on the chance, Green would have cost us the match.
So, in summary, Green made one good save and two easy ones, one of which was necessary due to his initial poor positioning, and made three mistakes which could have cost us the game, two of which were dreadful errors. I could add to that a number of clearances which put his players under pressure, another occasion when he left his line and collected a cross successfully but behind a Villa player who, had he climbed six inches higher would have had an empty net to head into, and three times when he only just reached crosses which a more assured keeper would have collected comfortably.
How, on the basis of that, did Green merit more than a 5?
24 comments:
Didn't see the game but from what I heard on the radio Green made some howlers and a great save.
I wouldn't be sad to see him go if the right offer comes in tbh.
Absolute nonsense and negativity from you as usual ... suppose I shouldn't be surprised. What a shame you can't just be positive for once when everyone battled for the club. You forgot to mention all the crosses he claimed giving the defence in front of him confidence.
A rating of 5?
The feeling I had watching him today, was one of dread, every time the ball came close to our goal I was winching.
And that is because over the course of the season he has made a number of mistakes and bad calls.
I think he known's he has not had a good seaon so far and it is affecting him.
But today after the winching,
I thought he did ok, mainly by luck but I am happy with that,
My Rating would have been a 6
I wouldn't argue with that Dave, what's one mark between friends? But had Villa capitalised on any one of his errors? Then he would have lost us the game!
Like you, I think there is a real confidence issue. I think it is shot to pieces personally. If we were rating players' performances over the season so far, I think Green's would put him in the bottom third of our squad. I might do a post on that next week!
2035, if you disagree, explain why. How many crosses did he take? I think three.
Fair enough HF. Green did do better than previously but he's not the kind of keeper who puts you at ease. A 5 on its own would have been ok but relative to Noble's 6 it is 1 too low I think. Noble was not better than any of our players I'm afraid.
How about using a words scale instead of a numbers one HF? It's more descriptive in the sense that people will know exactly what you mean then you wouldn't have to give them an explanation. Can go from 'useless' to 'world class' for example.
And we're bottom 5 HF. Got a pic? :)
mate u call yourself a fan more like a judge or some 1 that critsizes
wee need all the support we can get at the moment and theres you slaggin off green for a clean sheet
I've read your blog for a while now. Admittedly, at first and when you had just begun your blog, this was to read everybody having a pop at you in the comments section. Back then 90% of your comments seemed to be personal attacks on you and, in general, you deserved them. I say that because when you first started this blog you were very clearly seeking response at all costs - the practice of posting about as many other teams as possible to drive your newsnow traffic to the max, the subjects you chose were clearly just to play devils advocate, etc. But, at the end of the day, it worked as can be seen by the hit counter displayed on your page (by the way - time to drop the counter now I think, you've proved your point). When your blog first begun I admit, I thought you were just a t!t.
I say this for the reasons I list above but also because of a couple of other reasons. One of them is 'the org'. The constant references to the org left me perplexed as I had no idea what it was. Whatever it was it was clearly very important to you and must have been something special. I had to find out what it was and it took a while for me to discover it. When I found the website I cannot begin to tell you what an anti-climax it was, what was all the fuss about? It's amazing that such a poorly designed, poorly written and poorly executed website is still up and running in the 21st century. Purely from a usability point of view, it's clearly an amateur attempt. I would be fired if I churned out something like that. However, your beef with 'the org' is clearly much more personal. God knows what's happened on there but, frankly, who cares. It's a website. A forum. Nothing more, nothing less. I've browsed through the content of it and I never will again - absolute drivel. In todays world content is everything and 'the org' has none of note. Speaking as someone who had no idea what 'the org' was, as I'd imagine is the case with the majority of your readers, it made me think of you as someone rather sad, rather hurt and rather childish. My advice to you is never mention 'the org' or anyone connected to it again. You don't need to. Your blog is clearly bigger than that site now. 'The org' seems to have just a handful of people that use it (seemingly just to have playground arguments with each other), a small circle, and references to them simply alienate anybody else out here in the real world reading your blog.
The other thing that put/puts me off reading your posts is your practice of replacing peoples names with 'comedy' alternative names. ivebonkedawhore being a prime example. Again, it does make you come across as somewhat childish and detracts enormously from the content of your posts. It makes it impossible to take a lot of what you say seriously. And, if I may say, comedy is not actually your strong point.
Your strong point is having an opinion that you have been able to reach on your own and standing by it and for this you should be applauded. Sure, you may get lambasted for some of your opinions but thats the beauty of free speech: you have the freedom to say what you like and everybody else has the freedom to disagree with you if they choose to (on that note - turn the moderator off, you're man enough now i'm sure).
So my advice to you is drop the references to 'the org' and anyone connected to it, including the 'i told you so' remarks around your predictions (i'd go as far as saying ban yourself from visiting the site but you are free to do as you wish of course); stop the comedy names; turn the moderator off and open the doors. Then I think your blog may just reach another level. Surely if you can get this blog taken seriously you'd have finally won your crusade against 'the org'?
I hope you take my comments in the spirit they are meant.
PS
I sense the feeling of paranoia that you and members of 'the org' possess so I must assure you that I have never posted on that or this site before and I know no one connected to them either.
I take the moderator comments back, it seems it's already off?
Thanks for the long and considered response David. Sadly, you have looked in on the Org at a time when it is on its knees. I used to contribute until I and others were banned for having views that we were willing to defend - such as the weaknesses in green's keeping. 12 months ago it was a vibrant forum with some passionate and intelligent contributors. Now, it is very poor I agree. There is no war here, I link to the site and would like to see it back to its old vibrancy but I fear that may not happen.
This site offers different things to different people. I try to be honest and as balanced as I can be. I have been highly critical of Duxbury because I think he deserves it and I take issue with those who say "support" means not criticising.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. Why not submit a main article yourself? I would be delighted to carry it, even if I disagree with the content!
PS David, I've eased back on the nicknames but I have no idea how to spell Gabbi's surname so have stuck with Ivebonkedawhore which was very well received when I first coined it.
As for the hit counter, I find it informative; it is there to tell me if I'm doing things right, not to prove a point to anybody else.
Hammers,
I apologise for my length, not for the first time in my life.
Thanks for the offer of submitting a post. However I have nothing to add to the whufc debate that's not said here or elsewhere. All I could comment on is along the lines of what you mention about support meaning not to criticise. Unfortunately people no longer realise that dissent is the act of a true patriot. I guess that's what happens when people are only used to living under our current 'labour' administration.
Anyhoo - thanks for not taking offence as none was meant.
None meant on the hit counter front either - it's just that as a designer of sites like this counters are just not the done thing anymore. Just me being a techno-snob. I'd say the volume and quality of response/debate that the site attracts would be the true measure of how well you're doing?
Sorry for veering of topic.
Think you're being a bit harsh on Green, Fanno. Probably overcritical if truth be known. I would give him a 6. Like your critisism of Green, I find it hard to fathom the constant critisism of Noble and the constant praise of Behrahmi. Today I though Behrahmi had an off day. Full of energy but he constantly played an errant pass or a stray cross and one cost us a chance to score but you saw it as a 7 performance. Please explain!. For the record this is in know way a dig at Behramhi because I refuse to be too critical of our own players, but I do remember it was yourself that said when Behrahmi started that you need more than just energy and enthusiasm.
Ps I put this comment on the other post but was unsure if you read them or were aware of them once you have a new one up.
David, do you know how I could set up a true forum on this site or springboarding off it? The present comments format seems clumsy.
Hi Melbourne mate - good memory! Yes I got stick for that at the time didn't I? How do I justify the 7 for Behrami? I thought it was a selfless display of constant closing and springing forward as often as he could. Yes he did miss that opportunity to get in a cross, going back to Stanislas instead, and no there wasn't much in terms of creativity, but I bet he covered some miles and that's what we needed in the circumstances.
Hammers,
I don't think it's possible to create a forum on blogspot - I think this provides purely a blog framework and nothing else.
To create/run a forum I think you have 2 options:
1. Google the term 'hosted forum' and have a look at some of the sites which come up supporting this. Things like 'proboards' might be something that could help you. Similar to this site you'd have a url (eg thegamesgonecrazy.proboards.com) and they would provide you with the forum software that you can then set up and administer for yourself and for free, i think.
Alternatively, if you were willing to spend a little money (and I stress little as the costs can be kept very low) you could buy a domain name (eg thegamesgonecrazy.com if it's avaiable) and rent some webserver space to host your very own site. Then you'd have no .blogspot.com or .proboards.com. You wouldn't need that much of a technical understanding either - you can get some very good free forum software that you can customise and use for yourself.
Depends on what you want to commit and what you're technical knowledge is. I'd say if your knowledge is minimal and you dont want to spend anything go for the first option. Otherwise, go for the second which would give you total control over your site and could make you some money with advertising, etc. Google the term 'whois' and you should find places where you can check whether thegamesgonecrazy.com, or any other name you may like, is still available.
Hope that helps.
I was thinking the pass in the box behind and short of Kovac. We are trying to playing the quick one touch stuff which when it comes off can be brilliant but when it dont it looks clumsy and we the give away the ball cheaply. This is where players like Noble, Behrami and Parker just dont quite have the technique yet so can be at fault for giving the ball away too often. On another note I sometimes got confused between Kovac and Behrami, watching on telly as they must use the same hairdressers and the both run around with the same energy. Hence why Kovac gets booked all the time diving in to tackles.
Take a look at 'SocialGo'. Seems quite impressive.
If it takes off for you, I hereby claim 25% of any income for suggesting it. Alright?
You sad little git; oohh well I would give him 5.83947 based on my assessment just dug out of my anorak!
Get a life. I am a very happy Hammer after a great result. People like you are unbelievable
Fanno, I wonder how many on your counter are your other pseudonyms or alter egos chatting with yourself?
David talks a lot of sense, particularly for those people out there who are not aware of/involved with the petty squabbles that seem to make up the Org, hate the nicknames and are intelligent and well read enough to know the 'predictions' are obvious to most not some sage like outpouring from the author.
The opinion is not as balanced as you make out HF, this blog is a polemic, an antidote to Dale's blog, a war drum calling for Duxbury's head and I often find myself agreeing with the principle and disagreeing with the delivery, but still come back for debate as to your credit you welcome challenges to your posts and for that I come back no matter how frustrating I find some of your negative approach.
That said I'd give Green a 6 - you make some good points but considering he's had the Keystone Cops in front of him all season I think his own confidence is shot and a bit of stability and a clean sheet or two will hopefully see him start to regain the ability he has shown in the past.
When nobody around you seems to measure up, it's time to check your yardstick.. Bill Lemley
Clearly the reporter for the Independent has a different view of Green's performance:
Brilliance of Green keeps Villa at bay
Aston Villa 0 West Ham 0
By Phil Shaw
Monday, 18 January 2010
- - but outstanding goalkeeping by Robert Green and resolute defending earned the point that lifted them out of the relegation zone.
Furthermore The Times talks about Green approaching his best form.
No need to go overboard but I think his performance on the day merits more than a miserly 5.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. Green played well, of course there was that horrible moment in the second half, but apart from that he looked really solid. His save from Agbonlahor was brilliant. By all means attack him when he doesn't play and lets in 3 goals, but why attack him when he's had a good game and kept a clean sheet?!
Thanks David. Where are you situated? Why not drop me an email (address on right) and we could chat things through. I'm not in this for the money but...
Fonzie, Polemic? Is that what an angry Irish bird dances around in those dodgy clubs in Dublin?
Dan, three horrible moments in total, two in the second half. I bet you Capello winced three times watching the game back - if he's still even considering Green after recent performances.
Post a Comment