Sooper Steve's shin Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 How did Martin play on Tuesday? Reports I have ssen suggest he didn't have much to do, but does he look a better bet than Henderson? I assume he was brought in to play rather than as a sub, so would have thought Pearson would have been using the League Cup game to make sure he was up to standard. If he's in any way more commanding than Henderson then I'd throw him in - I am not convinced that Hendo gives us the assurance at the back that we need for a strong promotion challenge.
Simi Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 How did Martin play on Tuesday? Reports I have ssen suggest he didn't have much to do, but does he look a better bet than Henderson? I assume he was brought in to play rather than as a sub, so would have thought Pearson would have been using the League Cup game to make sure he was up to standard.If he's in any way more commanding than Henderson then I'd throw him in - I am not convinced that Hendo gives us the assurance at the back that we need for a strong promotion challenge. I think you've answered your own question really, Martin didn't really have much to do so it'd be unfair to push him infront of Henderson just yet, especially after Henderson kept a clean sheet at the weekend. At the moment, more than adequate cover.
lcfcrinaldi Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 How did Martin play on Tuesday? Reports I have ssen suggest he didn't have much to do, but does he look a better bet than Henderson? I assume he was brought in to play rather than as a sub, so would have thought Pearson would have been using the League Cup game to make sure he was up to standard.If he's in any way more commanding than Henderson then I'd throw him in - I am not convinced that Hendo gives us the assurance at the back that we need for a strong promotion challenge. to be honest he had nothing to do most of the game, I wasnt watching the game I listend to it on the radio but by the sound of it he had a couple of could do better moments.
Thracian Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 I'm amazed people say Martin had little to do. He might have only had to make one save of signiicance, tipping a free-kick around the post, but he was pressured well enough by some high and quite viciously swerving corners and free-kicks as well as a fair number of dangerous crosses. Indeed he was so stretched I can rarely remember a goalkeeper having to punch the ball clear so often. For me he coped well. When he did punch he was decisive and made good contact. But if he'd cocked up there'd have been people notice these occasions. Better than Henderson? I've not seen either of them do much wrong so far - and that includes Hendeson's performances at the back end of last season and in the friendlies. He's no Peter Shilton but I don't feel any great apprehension about his presence. All keepers drop the odd landmine and you can bet the next one Henderson drops will provoke a cacophony of voices demanding our new toy gets his chance to shine. But isn't that always the case? This time last year it was Nielson they wanted and I cannot imagine that would been a bright idea. I've nothing against either goalkeeper, but reckon we've got far more important things to worry about. Like a left-back.
Sooper Steve's shin Posted 14 August 2008 Author Posted 14 August 2008 .... but reckon we've got far more impotant things to worry about. Like a left-back. True. Is Martin left-footed?
sdb Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 time for a change? i don't get it. not only have we had 2 keepers in 2 games, but we've also had 2 clean sheets!! i'm confused!??! both keepers look fine for this league.
JoeyB Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 HE didnt have much to do, but i was sat in the east stand, and i heard him being very vocal in the first half, encouraging everyone etc
Thracian Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 True. Is Martin left-footed? :D Many a true word....
FleckneyFox Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 I was thinking last night when i was watching Wycombe v Birmingham on Sky if we sign a Keeper permanently we should get Colin Doyle from Birmingham, he's second choice there and he's easily Championship quality.
20mj08 Posted 14 August 2008 Posted 14 August 2008 get keller back haha. on a more serious note i agree with sticking by hendo maybe not all games all season but in at the moment hendo all the way
demon_dog Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Personally, was not to happy Tuesday night seeing the ball punched away as it was, also on one or two occasions the ball was there to be caught, what did we get, a punch. Sorry I'm not convinced, I'd rather keep Hendo.
Nod.E Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Personally, was not to happy Tuesday night seeing the ball punched away as it was, also on one or two occasions the ball was there to be caught, what did we get, a punch.Sorry I'm not convinced, I'd rather keep Hendo. I can't remember him punching any catchable crosses. Each one he was under pressure and i'm sure that the ball was swerving. All it needs is a slight touch from a player or a last minute swerve and you have doubt in your mind. When you have doubt, you lose concentration, and you drop the ball into the path of their strikers, or as I found the hard way once, into your own goal. Basically, if in doubt - Punch it out. Especially when you've got a punch as good as him. As regards who should play, I think it would be harsh to replace Hendo at this point and there's no need. He's more than capable. Martin provides solid cover.
lildave3 Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 The only thing I could pick fault with Martin on Tuesday was that he came out a long way from a free kick. That's it. Can't criticise him for punching I don't think, all of his punches he connected with solidly.
Ultra Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Personally, was not to happy Tuesday night seeing the ball punched away as it was, also on one or two occasions the ball was there to be caught, what did we get, a punch.Sorry I'm not convinced, I'd rather keep Hendo. Too right. Martin never looked confident with crosses all night. He's adequate back-up for Henderson, nothing more.
Smudge Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Marton Fulop ............. possibly on his way to Stoke for over 3 million. Should we have signed him when we had the chance?
Simi Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Marton Fulop ............. probably on his way to Stoke for over 3 million. Should we have signed him when we had the chance? The only chance we had was for £3 million, don't blame Mandaric for not paying it.
Fatbloke Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Martin`s distribution was better than Hendo`s, threw the ball a lot more and quicker, I much prefer us to keep posession from the keeper than hoof it up field for a 50 / 50 situation, Hendo often feigns to throw but then waves the players up field for a hoof.
Father Ted Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 The only chance we had was for £3 million, don't blame Mandaric for not paying it. I blame Holloway for not paying it and spent £1.5mil on donkey Howard plus others and what have you. That's another thing Holloway messed up - not signing Fulop when he had the chance because he thought he had a 'better' alternative called Ben Alnwick
davieG Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 I thought he looked more confident on crosses that Hendo has ever done, there's nothing wrong with punching if you perform it correctly, it's certainly better than missing it or not coming for a gettable ball and better than catching and then hoofing it to the opposition. The big difference was that Martin rarely kicked it out aimlessly something that Hendo does virtually without exception even when he has clear opportunities to pass to someone. I'm not usually keen on picking loanees above permanent signings but Martin plays a modern intelligent game and with the players we've got now we can't afford Hendo's continually hoofing.
shiv Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 I'm amazed people say Martin had little to do. He might have only had to make one save of signiicance, tipping a free-kick around the post, but he was pressured well enough by some high and quite viciously swerving corners and free-kicks as well as a fair number of dangerous crosses.Indeed he was so stretched I can rarely remember a goalkeeper having to punch the ball clear so often. For me he coped well. When he did punch he was decisive and made good contact. But if he'd cocked up there'd have been people notice these occasions. Better than Henderson? I've not seen either of them do much wrong so far - and that includes Hendeson's performances at the back end of last season and in the friendlies. He's no Peter Shilton but I don't feel any great apprehension about his presence. All keepers drop the odd landmine and you can bet the next one Henderson drops will provoke a cacophony of voices demanding our new toy gets his chance to shine. But isn't that always the case? This time last year it was Nielson they wanted and I cannot imagine that would been a bright idea. I've nothing against either goalkeeper, but reckon we've got far more important things to worry about. Like a left-back. they probable weren't at the match to be fair judging how much he had to do by listening to the radio isn't the greatest idea
Alexikokopops Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 I blame Holloway for not paying it and spent £1.5mil on donkey Howard plus others and what have you. That's another thing Holloway messed up - not signing Fulop when he had the chance because he thought he had a 'better' alternative called Ben Alnwick How do you know it was entirely Holloway's choice? Milan could quite easily have refused to sanction £3million on one player. Why not blame Allen for negotiating a recall clause? And how do you know Holloway didn't sign Fulop because he had Alnwick lined up? Your anger seems to be based entirely on speculation and conjecture.
Koke Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Even Fulop's distribution was piss poor at times, but he made it up by being an all-round quality keeper. I haven't seen Martin play, but if his handling of crosses and distribution is better than Hendo's, which can't be that hard, then we are better off with him in goal.
Jimmy2Drags Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 I thought he looked more confident on crosses that Hendo has ever done, there's nothing wrong with punching if you perform it correctly, it's certainly better than missing it or not coming for a gettable ball and better than catching and then hoofing it to the opposition.The big difference was that Martin rarely kicked it out aimlessly something that Hendo does virtually without exception even when he has clear opportunities to pass to someone. I'm not usually keen on picking loanees above permanent signings but Martin plays a modern intelligent game and with the players we've got now we can't afford Hendo's continually hoofing. Here, here. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Unabomber Posted 15 August 2008 Posted 15 August 2008 Hendo's distribution was poor against MKD, and it seems clear that Pearson wants them to play from the back and not just lump it up aimlessly. Pearson said that he only loans players if he is going to be playing them in the first team, same with loaning players out, so I think he will probably start with Martin. He was much more confident from crosses and he punched quite well, his distribution also seemed much better.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.