Weakly pushing the ball straight to the feet of the everton player? Under fecking no pressure.
Catch it, or punch the ball harder and further away.
Honestly, DDG was the best thing we had for the period after SAF retired till him going to the World Cup.
Now this keeper is a shadow of that guy and has cost us top 4 in Ole's first season in charge. Almost cost us top 4 last season, and made a high profile mistake in the FACup final. Now he is making any hope of a title challenge evaporate.
It's time to call a spade a spade and replace him in the first XI. We can bring him back in if Hendo is not up to it. But given how many points DDG is costing us, Dean will have some leeway!
Ehm, yeah, it's not close enough for him to catch it or get more power behind it.
The alternative would be allowing the cross to go past him, for which he rightly would've been slaughtered for if it had ended up in the back of the net.
It's bad luck, not a mistake.
erik thorstvedt agrees.
Correct.The first one isn't a mistake, third one is.
The cross is just far enough out that he can't get a proper punch on it, and he can't just let the cross go as he can't know if Doucoure gets in behind and scores, which would've been a mistake.
He does the only thing he can do in that situation. It's pure coincidence and luck on Evertons part that it ends up in the legs of Doucoure
Shaw hardly covers himself in glory in that situation, ends up ballwatching when he knows where Doucoure is, all he should do is block his path instead of worrying where the ball might go
Ehm, yeah, it's not close enough for him to catch it or get more power behind it.
The alternative would be allowing the cross to go past him, for which he rightly would've been slaughtered for if it had ended up in the back of the net.
It's bad luck, not a mistake.
erik thorstvedt agrees.
Seriously mate, my mum would've caught that ball with marigolds on.Ehm, yeah, it's not close enough for him to catch it or get more power behind it.
The alternative would be allowing the cross to go past him, for which he rightly would've been slaughtered for if it had ended up in the back of the net.
It's bad luck, not a mistake.
erik thorstvedt agrees.
Who?
You have to be on the wind up.
How the feck can you watch that first goal and say it's not an error?
It absolutely is close enough to catch or punch harder. You're saying his only option was to hit a limp wristed weak slap straight to the Everton player?
come off it.
GOALKEEPER | SHOTS FACED | SAVED | GA | % SAVES |
LLORIS | 89 | 67 | 22 | 75 |
EDERSON | 44 | 32 | 12 | 73 |
ALISSON | 52 | 37 | 15 | 71 |
SCHMEICHEL | 86 | 61 | 25 | 71 |
MENDY | 45 | 31 | 14 | 69 |
PICKFORD | 70 | 48 | 22 | 69 |
DE GEA | 69 | 42 | 27 | 61 |
IF DEA PLAYED FOR… | SHOTS FACED | SAVED | GA | DIFF +/- |
TOTTENHAM | 89 | 54 | 35 | 13 |
MAN CITY | 44 | 27 | 17 | 5 |
LIVERPOOL | 52 | 32 | 20 | 5 |
LEICESTER | 86 | 52 | 34 | 9 |
CHELSEA | 45 | 27 | 18 | 4 |
EVERTON | 70 | 43 | 27 | 5 |
Who?
You have to be on the wind up.
How the feck can you watch that first goal and say it's not an error?
It absolutely is close enough to catch or punch harder. You're saying his only option was to hit a limp wristed weak slap straight to the Everton player?
come off it.
Seriously mate, my mum would've caught that ball with marigolds on.
I’d gladly have my nose smashed to pieces every week to play for United, for free.Third time I can think of where he’s worried about facing contact that’s lead to a goal. He’s on £300K a week if that happens in a Sunday League game the players destroy him for it and the manager immediately drops him . You can’t have a coward behind your centre backs protecting the goal.
Man up Ole and drop him for it , needs to be shown you have to be punished for been a fecking coward.
You don't know who Erik Thorstvedt is? He had like what, 200 apps for Tottenham as their first team goalkeeper in the 90's.
Third one is a mistake, he should be rushing out desperate to get on it before Lewin. First one, nah, bad luck but he does the only thing he can do.
Sadly will not make Maguire and co in defence any better. Maybe drop both ?Honestly, DDG was the best thing we had for the period after SAF retired till him going to the World Cup.
Now this keeper is a shadow of that guy and has cost us top 4 in Ole's first season in charge. Almost cost us top 4 last season, and made a high profile mistake in the FACup semi final. Now he is making any hope of a title challenge evaporate.
It's time to call a spade a spade and replace him in the first XI. We can bring him back in if Hendo is not up to it. But given how many points DDG is costing us, Dean will have some leeway!
What he really need to do to get drop?
With a good centre back and not with a pace of a snail, he would never had been able to cross. Both were terrible today and both need to be dropped.If you don't think that first one is a GK error mate I'm not sure football is for you! How anybody in their right mind can claim any other than that being an absolute howler is beyond me.
Let me ask you a question - if we had a traffic cone in our goal today, would that DCL "cross" have resulted in a goal?
I'll answer that one for you....no it would not. It would have drifted harmlessly across goal and Shaw would have cleared it easily.
Some statistics for all the 'it woz the defence' posters who are once again hammering our CBs for being so terrible that they conceded three shots on target (arguably two if you excuse the one the GK directly causes) in a game against top six opposition.
These are the statistics for the shots on target faced by the GKs currently playing for our main rivals
GOALKEEPER SHOTS FACED SAVED GA % SAVES LLORIS 89 67 22 75 EDERSON 44 32 12 73 ALISSON 52 37 15 71 SCHMEICHEL 86 61 25 71 MENDY 45 31 14 69 PICKFORD 70 48 22 69 DE GEA 69 42 27 61
As you can all clearly see, De Gea is BY FAR the worst GK, in terms of actually saving shots (his job). That's before you even get into the fact that most, if not all, of the GKs above have other standout attributes beyond shot-stopping i.e. Schmeichel = command of area, Ederson = passing out from the back, Alisson = playing as a sweeper-keeper.
Then, I have tried to break that down into something meaningful to show you how big of an impact those numbers have, because on their own I understand it's quite hard to quantify what the difference is between 61% save rate and 71% save rate, for example.
Here is what would happen if a GK with the same percentage save rate as De Gea played for each of our rivals
IF DEA PLAYED FOR… SHOTS FACED SAVED GA DIFF +/- TOTTENHAM 89 54 35 13 MAN CITY 44 27 17 5 LIVERPOOL 52 32 20 5 LEICESTER 86 52 34 9 CHELSEA 45 27 18 4 EVERTON 70 43 27 5
As you can see, the difference is stark. Chelsea and Everton, neither of whom have good GKs, are both 4 and 5 goals better off respectively. Man City and Liverpool, despite facing a relatively small number of shots, are still five goals worse off. In the case of Man City, that is nearly a 50% increase on their TOTAL goals conceded this year.
Imagine what would happen if De Gea were in goal at Spurs or Leicester! The stats tell you those teams wouldn't even be in a top four race, having conceded 13 and 9 more goals.
See, this is the difference between the good posters (like me) and the bad ones. Many come on here bleating about stuff, mainly influenced by simple narratives pushed by sh**e pundits who don't know their arse from their elbow.
Some of us take the time to dig a bit deeper. The FACT is that United don't concede an unusual number of shots on target and we don't give away an unusual number of good chances. The FACT (sorry to get a Rafa) is that De Gea saves significantly LESS of these shots than his counterparts at our main rivals.
Again, I repeat, this is even before you consider his other major flaws as a GK, compared with the more aggressive, pro-active goalkeeping styles of players like Alisson, Ederson or Schemeichel.
The FACT is people....you can bleat about the defence all you like but football teams will always concede shots on target. No manager yet has worked out how to stop the opposition having ANY shots. No defence yet has been good enough to go an entire PL season without conceding shots on target (FACT).
Therefore, when teams inevitably DO have shots on target, like the three they had on target tonight (I repeat, one as a result of a direct goalkeeping error), it would be quite nice if the t**t between the sticks would have the good grace not to move out the way of at least one for his £350K per week.
If any of you want to seriously argue with me that our defence is poor because a top six team had three (arguably two) shots on our goal then go for it, I'm all ears....
Yeah. At the very least he would have come right out on top of Calvert lewin at the end, and probably would have caught the cross for their first.We would absolutely never have lost this game with him in goal for a start.
True. Scum was targeted at De Gea though. I gotta be honest. But the killing thing was genuinely a turn of phrase about what he should have done. I have a personal and profound dislike for players who lack bravery.Fair enough, buddy.
If you don't think that first one is a GK error mate I'm not sure football is for you! How anybody in their right mind can claim any other than that being an absolute howler is beyond me.
Let me ask you a question - if we had a traffic cone in our goal today, would that DCL "cross" have resulted in a goal?
I'll answer that one for you....no it would not. It would have drifted harmlessly across goal and Shaw would have cleared it easily.
With a good centre back and not with a pace of a snail, he would never had been able to cross. Both were terrible today and both need to be dropped.
Never understand Maguire hype. Fee says me nothing. Was not impressed by him at Leicester. Never won anything. Too slow for top team unless you play under MourinhoIt's got nothing to do with Maguire! You're being brainwashed by the media and the fee!
Maguire dealt with that situation 100% correctly and snuffed out the danger, that is, until a calamitous error by De Gea presents the ONLY Everton player within 30 yards with an open goal
It's not a mistake, i've explained why.