Keiren Westwood G Crewe Alexandra b.1984

[DannyInvincible]

• Not attempting to play the ball, or where there is no possibility to play the ball

Under this criteria I think Westwood was definitely guilty. That said, do they actually know why the referee didn't send him off? Maybe my previous conclusion was the correct one but Westwood just assumes it was because of the new rules.

It did look as if Westwood made an impulsive last-minute or heat-of-the-moment-style attempt to take the attacker out once contact with the attacker became inevitable. Obviously, it is extremely likely that the attacker would have run around him and scored otherwise. Westwood probably knew that's how the incident had looked as soon as he brought the attacker down and, from observing his immediate (and pained) reaction, he clearly regretted his rashness; he's cringing with his head in his hands, in the shape of a human ball, desperately wanting the ground to swallow him up. He's probably expecting a red card to be waving in his face when he decides he's able to return to reality and face the expected consequences. As it turned out, he was only given a booking, probably much to his surprise and relief. This may well have given him the impetus and motivation to make that extra effort and save the penalty.

To try and work out why the ref decided that a yellow was appropriate in spite of how the challenge appeared; Westwood was already committed to a challenge or engagement of some sort and it's probably fair to say his original intent was to win the ball or to at least cover the goal from it (both of which could surely be construed as "attempting to play the ball" rather than the man). As a result, the momentum caused by this inevitably drew him in, so maybe the referee felt he was trying to play the ball on that basis. That's pure speculation (with a healthy dollop of amateur psychology too) on my part though!

[DeLorean]

Westwood very poor for Newcastle's consolation goal this evening as he spilled a Mitrovic shot straight to Jonjo Shelvey, who tucked it away. He was almost beaten by a shot from the same player when Shelvey attempted to lob him from inside his own half. It was a brilliant attempt but it came back off the crossbar. To be fair I think Westwood would have touched it over had it been any lower. Huge (and well deserved by all accounts) win for Wednesday though as they creep back into the playoff positions.

Highlights here- http://www.skysports.com/football/sh...wcastle/358600

[OwlsFan]

Westwood very poor for Newcastle's consolation goal this evening as he spilled a Mitrovic shot straight to Jonjo Shelvey, who tucked it away. He was almost beaten by a shot from the same player when Shelvey attempted to lob him from inside his own half. It was a brilliant attempt but it came back off the crossbar. To be fair I think Westwood would have touched it over had it been any lower. Huge (and well deserved by all accounts) win for Wednesday though as they creep back into the playoff positions.

Highlights here- http://www.skysports.com/football/sh...wcastle/358600

Yes, wasn't his finest hour for the goal but up to that he had pulled off a number of very good saves, including at least one from a Shelvey free kick, albeit on his side of the goal, unlike the Iceland one. I think the positives outweighed the one minus.

Newcastle missed Clarke at the back with Wednesday scoring with two headers. Murphy came on as a sub but was ineffective.

[tetsujin1979]

Voted player of the season at Sheffield Wednesday: https://twitter.com/swfc/status/860782006459932672

A big congratulations to @WestwoodKeiren, who has been voted as the #swfc Player of the Year!

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

http://m.independent.ie/sport/soccer...-35737536.html

Interesting comments about Westwood from MON.

[OwlsFan]

To save people going down to the bottom of the article:

"One player O'Neill is glad to see belatedly work on aspects of his game is Keiren Westwood. The Sheffield Wednesday keeper's mission of making a Premier League return was ended by the Owls' play-off defeat to Huddersfield Town, but his former Sunderland boss suggested he'll be challenging Darren Randolph for the No 1 spot against Austria. "I've known Keiren for a long time and I think, as talent goes, he has enough to play in the Premier League," said O'Neill. "However, I want him to have the enthusiasm and ambition to do so. Maybe it has taken Keiren a bit of time to realise that, because he can be in a wee world of his own."

I am not sure what he means by that. He has been in the EPL and it didn't work out there, primarily due to injuries and he has certainly done his best to get SW back there.

[Diggs246]

Randy is lucky we have two friendlies for him to get sharp, otherwise he might well have lost his place to Westwood

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

There's not much between them, but there's no point dropping Randolph and having Westwood make a blunder against Austria, because we would find ourselves in the exact same position.

Randolph's club circumstances should have little bearing on MON's decision.

The lad has been consistently good for us, so why drop him.

[Diggs246]

Goal keeper is the one position where I think you have to be playing for your club or errors will come.

[Olé Olé]

There's not much between them, but there's no point dropping Randolph and having Westwood make a blunder against Austria, because we would find ourselves in the exact same position.

Randolph's club circumstances should have little bearing on MON's decision.

The lad has been consistently good for us, so why drop him.

Agree entirely with the above. It's Randolph's to lose and not Westwood's to win and it'll be that way until Randolph makes at least one big blunder.

[DeLorean]

Does the big blunder have to lead to a goal? He nearly cost us dearly with a howler in Serbia but we escaped when Pavlovic somehow managed to hit the crossbar instead of making it 3-1. He was poor for the Dutch equaliser in the friendly pre-Euros. He was poor for the first Poland goal in the final game of the last campaign. There were other goals with question marks but they're the three obvious ones I think. He hasn't held the jersey for that long so I think that's a reasonably big list.

The more games he played for West Ham, the more obvious it became that he's not really a top goalkeeper that you can fully trust I think.

Richard Keogh has been dropped a couple of times despite doing nothing wrong for us, why should Randolph (or any goalkeeper) be treated any differently? If you can improve the team one per cent by making a change then you should do it. Fair enough if O'Neill sees Randolph as a better option though, that's what he gets paid for.

Personally I don't think there's any comparison between the form of the two goalkeepers over the past three seasons. Westwood has been getting accolade after accolade while Randolph has been either warming the bench or failing to make the most of his extended run in the side. Obviously it has to be noted that Randolph is 'playing' at a higher level but I'm not sure that makes as much a difference when it comes to goalkeeping errors, etc. and we know he didn't pull up any trees at Championship level when he was there anyway.

[DannyInvincible]

Why would anyone just assume that selecting Westwood against Austria would lead to him making a blunder? Nobody knows for certain what will happen before a game, which is why the manager should make a judgment in advance based on form and ability. That's what team selections are all about; making educated and informed calls based on prior knowledge or experience and weighing up any potential risks and benefits. Westwood's form and ability would suggest (to me anyway) that the probability of him blundering against Austria is low, or is at least lower than the probability of Randolph blundering anyway (in my opinion).

Whilst Randolph hasn't committed any outright clangers that have drawn widespread ire or exasperation from media/supporters, I've often gotten the sense that another superior keeper might have done better at keeping out some of the goals he's conceded. I think Westwood is a superior, sharper and more agile keeper. I also happen to think the same of Rob Elliot actually. I rank our options as follows: Westwood, Elliot and then Randolph. Unfortunately, injuries have limited and held back our better two options, but we should make use of them when available.

I fully agree with Del; you select the best team (including your keeper) that is available to you. Perhaps O'Neill does see Randolph as his most talented and able keeper. I'd have to wonder how he came to such a conclusion if that's the case, but fair enough, if so; I could at least accept that reasoning. If not, however, he shouldn't be sitting around waiting for someone he might regard as an inferior keeper to commit a blunder before he feels justified in dropping him for a better keeper.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I think people are really reaching with Randolph's alleged mistakes.

The same people turned a blind eye when Westwood was culpable for the Iceland goal the last time he was given the jersey.

I'm sure if I looked back at all of Keiren's performances for us, I could find several errors just as egregious as the ones listed pertaining to Randolph I.e. Germany in Dublin.

As for Richard Keogh. I don't have a problem with any two of O'Shea, Clark, Duffy and Keogh starting for us.

But he hasn't been dropped for "no reason".

He almost cost us the Wales match with a late clanger, and that was his last start.

Perhaps MON sees that mistake as symptomatic of his lack of composure and poise?

[OwlsFan]

Richard Keogh has been dropped a couple of times despite doing nothing wrong for us, why should Randolph (or any goalkeeper) be treated any differently? If you can improve the team one per cent by making a change then you should do it. Fair enough if O'Neill sees Randolph as a better option though, that's what he gets paid for.

Forde was also dropped without making a blunder.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Forde is 37 years old, his club career has declined rapidly and he was a transitional goalkeeper; it was Trapattoni who named him #1. He only played a couple of competitive games under his successor.

Saying Keogh was dropped is akin to saying Darren O'Dea was dropped.

The only reason Keogh has ever been in the team is because of injuries to other players.

Clark was selected as first choice defender, when everyone was fit, at the Euros and he was dropped for the third game.

Keogh has not made the position his own.

[DeLorean]

I think people are really reaching with Randolph's alleged mistakes.

Do you mind being more specific? Of the examples I listed above, which do you disagree with? There are also numerous examples from his appearances with West Ham... Martial catching him at his near post, the howler at Anfield, the late winner for Spurs, the recent game before he was dropped, Sunderland I think.

No goalkeeper is perfect, of course, and I've always pointed out where I thought Westwood could have done better, to the point of nitpicking at times. I think he's safer and generally better than Randolph though, but to each their own.

The same people turned a blind eye when Westwood was culpable for the Iceland goal the last time he was given the jersey.

Nonsense. Nobody turned a blind eye to anything. That goal was forensically analysed to death. Some people felt Westwood could have done better, others think the wall hung him out to dry. People having a different opinion to you doesn't mean they're turning a blind eye.

I'm sure if I looked back at all of Keiren's performances for us, I could find several errors just as egregious as the ones listed pertaining to Randolph I.e. Germany in Dublin.

Work away. Maybe he could have done better for one or two in that match, I don't think there's anything overly incriminating though. I don't think there's anything on a par with some of the Randolph errors I've mentioned, bar maybe the Poland one at a push. And even if he was badly at fault for all six, that's a long time ago and hardly reflective of Westwood's current form.

As for Richard Keogh. I don't have a problem with any two of O'Shea, Clark, Duffy and Keogh starting for us.

But he hasn't been dropped for "no reason".

I didn't say he has been dropped for no reason, I said he was dropped despite doing nothing obviously wrong, in terms of a costly blunder. It was in the context of Randolph needing to make a error before he could be replaced. I'd prefer Clark and Duffy myself, but that's neither here nor there.

He almost cost us the Wales match with a late clanger, and that was his last start

No idea how that's relevant to anything.

Saying Keogh was dropped is akin to saying Darren O'Dea was dropped.

The only reason Keogh has ever been in the team is because of injuries to other players.

Clark was selected as first choice defender, when everyone was fit, at the Euros and he was dropped for the third game.

Keogh has not made the position his own.

Clark and O'Shea were dropped after the Belgium game in the Euros. Keogh took his chance against Italy and was retained for the France game, where he did okay also. He then held his place in the team ahead of Clark for the start of this campaign but was 'dropped' for the Georgia/Moldova double header, with Clark getting back in.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I don't know why you are bringing up his mistakes at club level. The mistakes I was referring to were the ones that happened at Intl level. Again, my overriding point is that his club form has little relevance to his Intl situation. He hasn't done anything to deserve to be dropped.

The wall hung him out to dry? Funny you say that, because I remember West Ham defenders getting a fair amount of criticism for some of those Randolph clangers you mentioned, but Randolph doesn't get an implied benefit of the doubt.

All you have to is go back on this thread to see Westwood's form hasn't been perfect this season, and there is a link I posted from The Star that may shed more light on why O'Neill has preferred Randolph.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I apologise for double posting but I am having problems with my phone.

You said Keogh has been dropped despite doing nothing wrong for us, but that isn't quite true. I mentioned the Wales mistake which could have been costly. Even in the France game in particular at the Euros, and several others, his inability to clear his lines under pressure has made things harder for us; I do think he looks more assured by having O'Shea alongside him.

Okay, so he was in for three consecutive games. I don't think that is nailing down a position.

O'Dea came in for several games but was never anything other than a deputy.

The relevance is that Keogh's blunder could have been costly and that his lack of composure may be why others have been preferred this campaign.

Whereas Randolph, despite his club circumstances, can take solace in the fact he hasn't done us wrong.

[DeLorean]

I don't know why you are bringing up his mistakes at club level. The mistakes I was referring to were the ones that happened at Intl level. Again, my overriding point is that his club form has little relevance to his Intl situation. He hasn't done anything to deserve to be dropped.

I think his club form is relevant. International games are few and far between but I have listed a number of goals/instances where I think he could have done better for us too. Again, you've just decided not to discuss those, despite my specific request for you to elaborate on where you think I am "reaching".

The wall hung him out to dry? Funny you say that, because I remember West Ham defenders getting a fair amount of criticism for some of those Randolph clangers you mentioned, but Randolph doesn't get an implied benefit of the doubt.

Here's me defending Randolph last season when his wall hung him out to dry against Liverpool. I'm not selective with my praise/criticism like you are.

[Randolph was]Excellent again last night, a string of fine saves. His wall let him down badly for the goal. CD might be vindicated yet although the Adrian still holds the jersey for now. The West Ham fans are starting to ask the question though.

Anyway, there's no point in discussing the short-comings of the West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday defenders, we're obviously going to try to establish if our keepers could have done better regardless. The point about the Iceland goal is that some of us think the wall ducking absolved Westwood of blame completely, just as the West Ham wall jumping was responsible for the goal Randolph conceded above.

All you have to is go back on this thread to see Westwood's form hasn't been perfect this season, and there is a link I posted from The Star that may shed more light on why O'Neill has preferred Randolph.

Who said it's been perfect? I think it's generally accepted that he's been pretty much outstanding for three seasons now though.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Is it not a goalkeeper's responsibility to organise a wall?

Randolph has been outstanding for us, so I will place more stock in that.

Why would I discuss them. I am struggling to think of one instance where Randolph was the sole culprit of us conceding a goal. Hence "reaching".