David de Gea | 2011-14 Performances

[Nate Dogg]

Are we all being blinkered in our support for DDG?

Yes he is a good stopper but to play in the PL you need to be decent in the air and it is obvious he is not and not likely to improve in the area, so the question is do we keep him or get someone more experienced?

 

[Mockney]

Anyone watching that game who thought De Gea cost us 2 points IS a fecking idiot though tbf. We were about 20 seconds away from it being praised as the kind of performance that wins titles, let alone games.

Gimps.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Ok, you've based it on one sentence then. He offered more analysis on the television, which is what you criticised, which is what you didn't watch.

I've told you that he complimented him as well, is that going to be ignored?

As far as his comment in the Telegraph goes, he does have a weakness in the air and the manager has repeatedly taken him out and put Lindegaard in. What's the big controversy?

KttW did the job for me, there's not a jot of compliment in that article apart from the customary 'he's a decent shot stopper' because even the most OTT criticism of him can't deny him that.

Another problem in this thread - people taking one line from a pundit and rather than accepting that the pundit has a different, but valid, view, deciding that it means he must be biased or have an anti United agenda if it's critical of De Gea or that he is an idiot and him saying De Gea didn't do very well proves he actually did. This has gone as far as accusing Gary Neville of having an anti-United agenda.

When somebody praises De Gea though, even if they're employed by Manchester United, that means they must be listened to, in the case of Peter Schmeichel it meant he was only pundit we should listen to. Further, pundits widely regarded as idiots praising De Gea proves he did extremely well because even that idiotic pundit was able to see it, and the people who are criticising him must be even more stupid than the pundit.

Hansen's article is completely fair by the way
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...to-axe-David-de-Gea-after-latest-mistake.html

The first sentence is nonsense and it sets the tone for the rest of the article. And Schmeichel wasn't listened too because he used to play, or is employed by, United but because he used to play in goal. Jesus wept.

 

[MrMojo]

Not when it's not really possible to catch and punching is the only option. It's not customary for them to catch every single cross no matter how much you will hear people bang on about it. Watch other continental keepers, who are much more comfortable with punching. We dont know what they are working on in training but with de Gea's tendancy to punch every now and then i'm assuming the coaches are totally fine with it.

Nobody's saying he should catch every single cross, why do you and others keep doing that.

Hansen highlighted a punch before the goal incident. It was a lofted ball into the box, there was nobody near De Gea, a simple catch, but he punched it. Hansen didn't go crazy with criticism, but said it showed there is a weakness there and if you're the opposition you'd jump on it. It seemed reasonable to me.

 

[ForeverUnited19]

So is no one else of the opinion Vidic was nowhere near it and only got in de Gea's way?

Spoiler

 

[MrMojo]

KttW did the job for me, there's not a jot of compliment in that article apart from the customary 'he's a decent shot stopper' because even the most OTT criticism of him can't deny him that..

well if you refuse to accept a pundits compliments and only listen to the criticism I'm not surprised you think there's an anti De Gea agenda..

 

[Orton]

Nobody's saying he should catch every single cross, why do you and others keep doing that.

Hansen highlighted a punch before the goal incident. It was a lofted ball into the box, there was nobody near De Gea, a simple catch, but he punched it. Hansen didn't go crazy with criticism, but said it showed there is a weakness there and if you're the opposition you'd jump on it. It seemed reasonable to me.

He punched because he is obviously more comfortable in doing so at times. I told you it's a continental thing which he had obviously done since he started playing football. He highlighted it, but it meant nothing. The punch was fine and had plenty of distance on it. De Gea had a few great punches against Villa too, and City. There is no need to highlight something which isn't really there. He made a mess of the punch at the end but it's not going to stop him doing it.

 

[NinjaFletch]

well if you refuse to accept a pundits compliments and only listen to the criticism I'm not surprised you think there's an anti De Gea agenda..

It's not a compliment.

Besides, I didn't say there was an agenda, I said that Hansen is a shocking pundit and that he's incompetent.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[MrMojo]

He punched because he is obviously more comfortable in doing so at times. I told you it's a continental thing which he had obviously done since he started playing football. He highlighted it, but it meant nothing. The punch was fine and had plenty of distance on it. De Gea had a few great punches against Villa too, and City. There is no need to highlight something which isn't really there. He made a mess of the punch at the end but it's not going to stop him doing it.

A) We play in England, not the continent, so who cares what 'continental' keepers do.

B) just because he's more comfortable punching doesn't mean that's what he should do, especially in the situation we've discussed.

 

[Mockney]

It seemed reasonable to me.

An article about a keeper who kept us in the game for 89 minutes, with a headline suggesting SAF needs to axe him if we're to win the title, and starts with the sentence "Without a doubt he cost them three points and this is a crucial stage of the season" is very, very clearly a highly critical article that isn't remotely balanced.

You're a loon if you think that's a fair piece.

 

[MrMojo]

It's not a compliment.

Besides, I didn't say there was an agenda, I said that Hansen is a shocking pundit and that he's incompetent.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Tell you what, actually watch what he said and then come back.

 

[MrMojo]

An article about a keeper who kept us in the game for 89 minutes, with a headline suggesting SAF needs to axe him if we're to win the title, and starts with the sentence "Without a doubt he cost them three points and this is a crucial stage of the season" is very, very clearly a highly critical article that isn't remotely balanced.

You're a loon if you think that's a fair piece.

Given I'm talking about what he said on MOTD the above seems pretty irrelevant to me.

 

[Mockney]

Given I'm talking about what he said on MOTD the above seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Well it is, because you lambasted someone for criticising what he said in the article by defending what he said on MOTD.

So basically you're putting down someone for paying heed to one source, rather than the other, whilst doing exactly the same thing.

Hansen could've dressed up as DDG and sung I'm Every Woman for all I care, he still wrote a ridiculously OTT piece in the Telegraph, that people are well within their rights to pick at. Unless he caveated it with "For my real thoughts on De Gea, ignore this detailed 800 word article I've written today, and watch the 20 second piece of pop punditry I did last night."

 

[hp88]

Are we all being blinkered in our support for DDG?

Yes he is a good stopper but to play in the PL you need to be decent in the air and it is obvious he is not and not likely to improve in the area, so the question is do we keep him or get someone more experienced?

I am sure it's something they're concentrating on in training but the best way to teach him is by playing him on a regular basis, a professional at that age will get better over the years.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Tell you what, actually watch what he said and then come back.

So now we're discussing, and always have been, quotes from an article he wrote. An article you can read yourself, if you had the inclination, what am I supposed to be watching?

 

[100]

So is no one else of the opinion Vidic was nowhere near it and only got in de Gea's way?

Spoiler

That was my main point yesterday, people seemed to think he could leave it to Vidic despite Caulker being well above him. De Gea takes it right away from Caulkers head while being at full stretch. There needs to be more focus on Evra being sucked into the ball while leaving Lennon free and the fact that Spurs were able to put an unchallenged cross into the box in the 93rd minute.

 

[kietotheworld]

The first line of the article is this

Manchester United’s hopes of regaining the Premier League title will always be in jeopardy if David de Gea keeps making mistakes like the one against Spurs and he must surely be on his last chance now.

The second line makes more sense in that context.

Without a doubt he cost them three points and this is a crucial stage of the season where Sir Alex Ferguson needs to decide whether to stick with him or take him out the firing line.

He's referring specifically to that mistake, even if the phrasing is a bit awkward.

The article also has praise for him

De Gea is only 22 and there is no doubt that he made two or three great saves against Spurs. He is an excellent shot-stopper but he has that weakness coming for the ball and it is always going to end up costing them.

It's a fair article.

The first sentence is nonsense and it sets the tone for the rest of the article. And Schmeichel wasn't listened too because he used to play, or is employed by, United but because he used to play in goal. Jesus wept.

The point is that Schmeichel's praise was listened to despite the fact he used to play for and is employed by United. Of all the commentators and pundits who have spoken on DDG he is the one most likely to have an agenda, but none of the people who are always speaking about other pundits being biased or having agendas spoke up to mention this. It's interesting, don't you think?

 

[MrMojo]

Well it is, because you lambasted someone for criticising what he said in the article by defending what he said on MOTD.

So basically you're putting down someone for paying heed to one source, rather than the other, whilst doing exactly the same thing.

Hansen could've dressed up as DDG and sung I'm Every Woman for all I care, he still wrote a ridiculously OTT piece in the Telegraph, that people are well within their rights to pick at.

The poster in question picked one sentence from an article, having started by moaning about his licence fee going to Hansen, despite not watching what he said on MOTD.

You've continued in the same way, highlighting the criticism from the article, but none of the positives such as:

"De Gea is only 22 and there is no doubt that he made two or three great saves against Spurs. He is an excellent shot-stopper."

He also goes on to say he should play the next game, but no more mistakes will be allowed before he gets dropped, which is exactly what the manager has done, repeatedly.

What Hansen has described is exactly what the manager had done, so again, I don't see whats so outrageous about his opinion.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The poster in question picked one sentence from an article, having started by moaning about his licence fee going to Hansen, despite not watching what he said on MOTD.

You've continued in the same way, highlighting the criticism from the article, but none of the positives such as:

"De Gea is only 22 and there is no doubt that he made two or three great saves against Spurs. He is an excellent shot-stopper."

He also goes on to say he should play the next game, but no more mistakes will be allowed before he gets dropped, which is exactly what the manager has done, repeatedly.

What Hansen has described is exactly what the manager had done, so again, I don't see whats do outrageous about his opinion.

Would you consider this a compliment or a criticism?

'Mr Mojo is capable of writing in coherent English, but often he can be an absolute fecking spacker'

It's a pretty standard English sentence where you juxtapose praise with criticism, the fact he can't even manage one sentence of praise and instead finishes it with a criticism should tell you that he's not even trying to be balanced.

He is an excellent shot-stopper but he has that weakness coming for the ball and it is always going to end up costing them.

 

[JakeC]

So much stupidity in this thread.

 

[MrMojo]

Would you consider this a compliment or a criticism?

'Mr Mojo is capable of writing in coherent English, but often he can be an absolute fecking spacker'

It's a pretty standard English sentence where you juxtapose praise with criticism, the fact he can't even manage one sentence of praise and instead finishes it with a criticism should tell you that he's not even trying to be balanced.

He is an excellent shot-stopper but he has that weakness coming for the ball and it is always going to end up costing them.

If calling someone an excellent shot stopper isn't a compliment then you're the type who is looking to be offended.

Pundits can't win with you unless they ignore such incidents, which basically means not doing their jobs.

 

[Mockney]

You've continued in the same way

Not really, as I've seen & read both things, and judged the one he's written more recently, and in greater detail as the one to give more credence too. The idea that we're also picking out merely one small bit of criticism in an article headlined "he must be dropepd" and starting with the wholely inaccurate statement that he "without a doubt" cost us the win - despite actually keeping us at 1 up until that point - is also fanciful..Especially as you're qualifying it with this one singular conciliatory sentence. I went on a fecking course telling me to do this kind of "qualifying" thing to a negative article FFS! It's tabloid practice 101.

 

[NinjaFletch]

If calling someone an excellent shot stopper isn't a compliment then you're the type who is looking to be offended.

Pundits can't win with you unless they ignore such incidents, which basically means not doing their jobs.

No, if Hansen had written a balanced piece addressing De Gea's weakness in the air, but also recognising the defensive errors in the build up to the goal, and hadn't been ridiculously sensationalist he would have 'won'.

He did none of those.

 

[Mockney]

Even non-United fans are defending him in the comments to that article!

There are certainly more than enough United fans willing to defend anything he does. But also more than enough who'll slate anything a player does if he's playing shite. Just look in the Valencia thread.

You've got to really have a thing against De Gea though to think that's a fair and balanced piece. It's sensationalist bullshit.

 

[kietotheworld]

Not really, as I've seen & read both things, and judged the one he's written more recently, and in greater detail as the one to give more credence too. The idea that we're also picking out merely one small bit of criticism in an article headlined "he must be dropepd" and starting with the wholely inaccurate statement that he "without a doubt" cost us the win - despite actually keeping us at 1 up until that point - is also fanciful..Especially as you're qualifying it with this one singular conciliatory sentence. I went on a fecking course telling me to do this kind of "qualifying" thing to a negative article FFS! It's tabloid practice 101.

"He must be dropped" - where does it say that? The headline, which I doubt Hansen even wrote, says Ferguson must decide whether to stick with him or not and that he must be on his last chance. He only says he must be dropped if he continues to make errors like that.

No, if Hansen had written a balanced piece addressing De Gea's weakness in the air, but also recognising the defensive errors in the build up to the goal, and hadn't been ridiculously sensationalist he would have 'won'.

He did none of those.

Why would he write about the defenders in an article about whether the goalkeeper should retain his position? It's not relevant, you are just trying to deflect attention from De Gea not doing his job properly by having a pop at other players.

 

[MrMojo]

Not really, as I've seen & read both things, and judged the one he's written more recently, and in greater detail as the one to give more credence too. The idea that we're also picking out merely one small bit of criticism in an article headlined "he must be dropepd" and starting with the wholely inaccurate statement that he "without a doubt" cost us the win - despite actually keeping us at 1 up until that point - is also fanciful..Especially as you're qualifying it with this one singular conciliatory sentence. I went on a fecking course telling me to do this kind of "qualifying" thing to a negative article FFS! It's tabloid practice 101.

What would you like him to say about the punch, or would you like him to ignore it altogether? Every single pundit I've seen has said it was a poor punch, even Paddy Crerand!

He's praised his shot stopping, he's said he's only 22, he's said he should play the next game. If you want to call it conciliatory praise go ahead but you're like the neighbour who peers over the fence and then complains about what's in the back garden. You're on the lookout for purely negative comment.

 

[ForeverUnited19]

That was my main point yesterday, people seemed to think he could leave it to Vidic despite Caulker being well above him. De Gea takes it right away from Caulkers head while being at full stretch. There needs to be more focus on Evra being sucked into the ball while leaving Lennon free and the fact that Spurs were able to put an unchallenged cross into the box in the 93rd minute.

Exactly. Vidic had 99% of the crosses played in on the day, but never that one. Instead of de Gea needing to come through bodies, why not clear out and let him deal with it when he is going to get to it first. Vidic jumped into him, and made the situation worse. Collective error by the back five. A player has to be directly responsible (ie. dropping the ball into his own net) for you to say he cost you points.

 

[moses]

Why would he write about the defenders in an article about whether the goalkeeper should retain his position? It's not relevant, you are just trying to deflect attention from De Gea not doing his job properly by having a pop at other players.

How the hell is it not relevant? De Gea could have done better, but he is surrounded by and influenced by reality about him, unlike you.

We allowed them over 25 shots according to the radio commentary yesterday, how could he have done anyting about that? Not relevant indeed.

And did you really just accuse someone of having a pop at players? Well feck me.

 

[NinjaFletch]

"He must be dropped" - where does it say that? The headline, which I doubt Hansen even wrote, says Ferguson must decide whether to stick with him or not and that he must be on his last chance. He only says he must be dropped if he continues to make errors like that.



Why would he write about the defenders in an article about whether the goalkeeper should retain his position? It's not relevant, you are just trying to deflect attention from De Gea not doing his job properly by having a pop at other players.

That is all.

 

[kietotheworld]

How the hell is it not relevant? De Gea could have done better, but he is surrounded by and influenced by reality about him, unlike you.

Did you really just accuse someone of having a pop at players? Well feck me.

It's not relevant because he is evaluating De Gea's performance. It wasn't any defender who made him punch so poorly, so there's no need to bring it up when evaluating his performance or whether he should stay in the team.

 

[Mockney]

"He must be dropped" - where does it say that? The headline, which I doubt Hansen even wrote, says Ferguson must decide whether to stick with him or not and that he must be on his last chance. He only says he must be dropped if he continues to make errors like that

He's praised his shot stopping, he's said he's only 22, he's said he should play the next game. If you want to call it conciliatory praise go ahead but you're like the neighbour who peers over the fence and then complains about what's in the back garden. You're on the lookout for purely negative comment.

You're both either being deliberately belligerent about that article's intentions and theme, or you're genuinely as blinded by your dislike of De Gea than any top red is about their steadfast loyalty to him.

Hansen:

Without a doubt he cost them three points and this is a crucial stage of the season where Sir Alex Ferguson needs to decide whether to stick with him or take him out the firing line.
The result at White Hart Lane could prove a season defining moment and United cannot afford to be drawing games when they should be winning them.
I’m sure they would have taken a point before kick-off but the fact they have tossed away two points in the game through a goalkeeping mistake could be massive.
Manchester United would have been seven points clear of Manchester City if they had managed to keep a clean sheet, but the goalkeeper has flapped at the end and it has punished them after a very good away performance. A win at Tottenham Hotspur could have sent out a real message.
Sir Alex will be loath to drop him but he has got to make a decision now because this is crunch time and they are playing for big prizes. When your team is in the last 16 of the Champions League and competing for the title, the last position you want to be in is chopping and changing the goalkeeper.

t’s not like a centre-forward where you can take them out and rest them for a few games to keep them fresh, a goalkeeper is a position where you’ve got to have that continuity.
De Gea is only 22 and there is no doubt that he made two or three great saves against Spurs. He is an excellent shot-stopper but he has that weakness coming for the ball and it is always going to end up costing them.
It cannot be allowed to continue because other teams are going to play on it.They will set up their approach to games to target the goalkeeper because De Gea undoubtedly has a frailty and a weakness when the ball is in the air and it has been proven time and time again.
If Sir Alex was playing against a goalkeeper who he knew was susceptible in the air, he would be telling his players to show no mercy. Other teams will be doing exactly the same against United when De Gea is in the team.
I was actually surprised Tottenham didn’t target him more through the game. There were not that many aerial balls into the area to test him. They had players like Defoe, Bale, Lennon, Dembélé, Parker and then Huddlestone, when he came on, all trying to beat the goalkeeper from 30 yards, when the best way to test him is to get the ball out wide and chip it into the area.
The first time they did that was in injury time and look what happened – the goalkeeper has come out, completely made a mess of it and Spurs have equalised. Quite simply, when the ball is in the air in the penalty area and he has to come for it, he struggles. It is a big weakness.
I think he will get one more game to come back from this and prove himself. But if he makes one more mistake that costs them like that, Sir Alex has got NO ALTERNATIVE but to take him out and bring back Anders Lindegaard.
Not only did De Gea’s mistake cost his team two points, it also detracted from what I thought was a defensive masterclass from Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic. Michael Carrick and Phil Jones were also excellent but the two centre-halves were absolutely magnificent.
It was only the second time this season the central defenders have played back to back games and they proved there is no substitute for experience. By not having them together last year it ultimately cost them the title and you can just see the difference they have made to the team over the last two games.
Any aspiring centre-half should get a DVD of the Spurs game and watch the way those two played. You would not fail to learn the basics of defending, getting into the right positions and reading the game. They have such an intuitive understanding and when Vidic steps left, Rio will step right. United’s goal was excellent but the Spurs back four were simply pulled apart for it. In an identical situation for Spurs, they just could not find a way past Rio and Vidic.
It will be difficult to keep them playing together all season but the more Sir Alex can do it, the better United’s chances of winning the title will be. They deserved get three points – but the reason they did not is because of the goalkeeper, and its something United have got to deal with or it could end up costing them.

I mean jesus fecking christ! I'm flabbergasted!

 

[MrMojo]

How the hell is it not relevant? De Gea could have done better, but he is surrounded by and influenced by reality about him, unlike you.

Did you really just accuse someone of having a pop at players? Well feck me.

Prior to the goal, I can only remember DeGea having to deal with one cross, that's in a game against this seasons two best wingers. If its unfair to criticise De Gea in the article, I would say its crazy to criticise a defence that's performed to that standard.

 

[JayWalker]

Anyone watching that game who thought De Gea cost us 2 points IS a fecking idiot though tbf. We were about 20 seconds away from it being praised as the kind of performance that wins titles, let alone games.

Gimps.

Pretty much this. He kept us in the game for the most part. Can't see why anyone who watched would refute it AND then going on top of it to say that he cost us the game is just plain insanity.

 

[Mockney]

I'm nowhere near his biggest fan either. I'm rather indifferent to De Gea tbh, and I've rarely ever posted in this thread or looked in it that often.

But I did spend 92 minutes of that game eternally thankful he was in goal.

 

[RonaldoVII]

Lindegaard will probably come in against Fulham as it's the FA Cup and they'll all be going on about how he's been dropped.

 

[moses]

Prior to the goal, I can only remember DeGea having to deal with one cross, that's in a game against this seasons two best wingers. If its unfair to criticise De Gea in the article, I would say its crazy to criticise a defence that's performed to that standard.

You may only remember one cross but we conceded 25 shots, 8 of which were on target. So your memory is quite selective.

Who is criticising anyone? I'm happy with a point away against Spurs. I'm just saying that to isolate De Gea after that game is nonsense.

 

[MrMojo]

You're both either being deliberately belligerent about that article's intentions and theme, or you're genuinely as blinded by your dislike of De Gea than any top red is about their steadfast loyalty to him.



I mean jesus fecking christ! I'm flabbergasted!

I like De Gea and I don't want him dropped because I dont rate Lindegaard at all.I'm not particularly bothered about the punch and I'm prepared for the downsides of having a young keeper.

I'm bored though of this thread becoming a place people visit to join the gang and pretend the government's after De Gea. The De Gea Ultimatum.

You seem outraged at the suggestion that De Gea should be dropped IF he makes more mistakes. I don't get why as that's exactly what the manager has done on several occasions.

 

[Xander45]

I mean jesus fecking christ! I'm flabbergasted!

Bloody hell, what a load of bollocks.

 

[ForeverUnited19]

Pretty much this. He kept us in the game for the most part. Can't see why anyone who watched would refute it AND then going on top of it to say that he cost us the game is just plain insanity.

Probably don't rate the saves he had to make. I have seen a fair few on other sites say that the saves weren't that special.

When i went on twitter this morning, Gary was still harping on about it and sent a message to Edwin to get his take. I think Edwin answered a fan that it was a "good saves but a weak punch".

 

[Mockney]

You seem outraged at the suggestion that De Gea should be dropped IF he makes more mistakes. I don't get why as that's exactly what the manager has done on several occasions.

That's clearly not the intention of that article. That's just the premise to hang a string of criticisms and the controversial opinion he, and he alone, cost us that game on.

I'm only picking on you because you were making a rather loud point of defending Hansen as fair by picking out one banal throw away positive in an article littered with negatives, and written explicitly to have a pop at him.

I'd guarantee you that ANY hit piece article will always contain one conciliatory line of praise. It's standard practice. "Hitler was indeed very nice to his mum, but he was still an evil basterd" etc etc.