Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
46 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

Was there something about him that in 4 seasons he hasn’t kept a clean sheet? 
He will fit in well here. 
We do well if we keep a clean sheet for 4 mins. 

That's unfair, he had a poor defence in front of him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh! Hang on......

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

Stolarcyck's injury is a clear as day example of why this sort of signing is needed.

 

All it takes is another oaf barging into McCarthy and we're down to one senior keeper with us needing to keep French and Bausor around every Saturday and Tuesday.

 

Rather spend £50k to ensure they can keep playing youth football.

 

Like I say, if the crux of the justification signing him is that he won't be needed, then it is a pointless signing.

Posted
1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Like I say, if the crux of the justification signing him is that he won't be needed, then it is a pointless signing.

But the point of signing him is that he might be needed.

 

Like saying it's pointless to insure your phone for damage. Easy to say it's needless until you drop it and it's smashed up.

Posted
4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

But the point of signing him is that he might be needed.

 

Like saying it's pointless to insure your phone for damage. Easy to say it's needless until you drop it and it's smashed up.

At the moment he can be considered both necessary and unnecessary, a Schrodinger's goalkeeper situation 

Posted
2 hours ago, AKCJ said:

But the point of signing him is that he might be needed.

 

Like saying it's pointless to insure your phone for damage. Easy to say it's needless until you drop it and it's smashed up.

and how far do you take that? why don't we have a 5th choice senior keeper, because it McCarthy gets injured as well then this lad becomes back up to Ravizzoli, and then what if Ravizzoli gets injured...

 

at some point you have to say "the u21s can cover from here" and frankly we've already passed it. One senior keeper who is meant to never make a squad is a PL idea which feels foolish down here, but you can justify it as something that is done at most clubs. Having 4 senior keepers on your books because one got injured is utterly stupid. Like if we're taking the "it's commonplace" argument for the Ravizzoli signing not being a waste of resources - you don't see Prem clubs going out and signing a 4th choice goalkeeper if they get an injury.

Posted
2 hours ago, sphericalfox said:

We're starting a GK farm.

I think you mean a goalkeeper sanctuary:)

Three out of contract goalkeepers signed with a combined age of 100, and a total of 18 starts last season between them. No doubt McCarthy sets the standard for passing out from the back, a prerequisite for a RM goalkeeper, and I assume Cornell will approach that standard if he ever plays.

 I note last season Cornell is so good he one of back ups behind Daniel Iversen  - remember him!

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...