He was dropped before the Wales game so, in the context of this particular point, that's totally irrelevant.Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
O'Dea only played when others were absent though, Keogh had gone ahead of Clark mid-Euros and at the start of this campaign. Clark was available but Keogh got in the side ahead of him. Then he was dropped, this is a fact, not sure how it can even be disputed to be honest.
Randolph's blunder against Serbia could have been just as costly as Keogh's against Wales though?
If Randolph's performances were declining for us I would be all for Westwood or Elliot coming in, but they aren't.
I think he is a good organiser.
If Westwood was to come in against Austria and be at fault for a goal (and I am speaking hypothetically here) then we would be back to square one.
We would have two goalkeepers dealt a blow to their confidence at a crucial juncture.
Stick with Randolph for now and if his circumstances don't change in August, reconsider.
This has to be a wind up. And I'm actually giving you some credit by saying that.
Because I asked you to. But nevermind.
Did I not say that Keogh's lapse against Wales was symptomatic of his lack of composure?
He was only in the team because Clark and Duffy were unavailable.
Fair enough. He was dropped but he never made the position his own like a Marc Wilson.
He came in to the team in strange circumstances on the back of that Belgium game.
It's rather churlish IMO to keep going back to the well re: his Serbia mistake.
The reason Randz is in the team is because his intl performances have excelled those of Westwood, though Keiren has edged him at club level this season - at a lower level albeit.
That's disappointing.
I wouldn't discuss it because it would be petty of me to discuss mistakes Westwood has made that are on a caliber with the ones Darren has, particularly at Intl level.
If Randolph is to be dropped strictly because of his club circumstances, then fair enough, but it would be extremely harsh to drop him based on what he's done for us.
Looks like O'Neill still has reservations about Westwood any way.
As you observantly pointed out back in the Iceland game thread as well, Randolph (whilst playing for West Ham against Liverpool) similarly conceded a goal from a free-kick that was placed in the opposite side of the goal to the side on which he had positioned himself due to his wall jumping prematurely and failing to do their job properly (i.e. to block the other side of the goal for him):
If it's a goalkeeper's responsibility to actually control the movements of his wall after he's set them up in position - as would appear to be the bizarre implication of holding Westwood responsible for Hourihane having ducked out of the way - then wouldn't that make Randolph similarly responsible for those West Ham players in Randolph's wall against Liverpool who jumped too early and allowed Coutinho's free-kick to pass under them? One cannot apply one standard to Westwood and hold him responsible for the actions of his wall against Iceland, but apply another standard to Randolph and give him a pass despite the similar unsatisfactory actions of his wall against Liverpool.
Of course, as you say, Randolph didn't stand a chance in stopping that free-kick, just as Westwood had no chance in stopping the free-kick Iceland scored against us. Both free-kicks were well-directed in that they were placed beyond both keepers' reach, but they also could have been blocked had both walls not let their keepers down.
O'Neill speaks in riddles when he discusses Westwood. It's difficult to interpret exactly what he means in this instance, just as previous comments he'd made about Westwood were similarly difficult to decipher.
More on Westwood.
Paul Rowan thinks that pulling out of five squads, while remaining an ever-present for Sheffield Wednesday during the previous campaign, may factor in O'Neill's thinking re: Westwood.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/i...eill-rbwfbq930
I think all of our players make blunders. Given we're more a 'sum of our parts' team than outstanding individuals, I think we're very good at keeping the number as low as possible, and Randolph is one of the guys who seems to make the team more solid for me. For what it's worth, I think he's a better goalkeeper than Westwood. I don't know enough about Elliot to judge.
Despite seemingly building a case against him, I'd agree with this bit. Randolph has done more to calm my nerves in an Irish jersey than intensify them. Hopefully that continues assuming he does retain his place.
My suspicion is that Paul Rowan is right.
Anyway, Groundhog Day. I think Westwood is the better keeper but Randolph brings a calmness I like. I loved how he just nonchalantly caught a Bale inswinger in the Wales match. As TOWK says keep Randolph in for now, but review later. I actually think that if he's not getting first team football by September he may well keep his spot anyway. It'll still be early season and the "match sharp' rationale is weaker then.
I do wonder if breaking into the team at West Ham has done more harm than good though. I think he may have shown that the more he plays, the more cracks begin to appear.
I also find O'Neill's recent comments about Westwood interesting. I don't think I've heard him speak so glowingly about Westwood's natural ability before, maybe isolated comments but nothing as emphatic as the quotes in the piece above. He also seems more affectionate towards him, despite questioning his scattered/laid back personality and ambition. For the first time since Randolph got the jersey, I'm beginning to think a change is possible, probably not for Austria though.
I'm not sure I'd agree with his black and white assessment that Westwood needs a move though, we have to be a little careful what we wish for there with Randolph unlikely to get back in at West Ham.
Elliot shouldn't be forgotten too of course. As things stand, he's quite likely to be our only starting Premier League goalkeeper next season.
Last edited by DeLorean; 23/05/2017 at 8:57 AM.
I think there is no doubt that Westwood got fed up travelling around Europe as third string keeper for Ireland when he was in the form of his life. And when Given came back at 102 to claim the top spot, that was the final straw. Some of his injuries were genuine and he did miss a number of games for Wednesday.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Yes, he missed twelve league games for Wednesday last season (2015/16) - https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/keir.../0?saison=2015
That's over a quarter of the season so "virtually ever present" is a bit loose in that article.
He was definitely managing injuries at various stages as well, as he clarified himself.
Last edited by DeLorean; 23/05/2017 at 9:22 AM.
He missed 12 league games and 5 Intl squads. It doesn't look good.
You can't justify the decisions he made because he was third choice and he deserved better.
If all of our players had an attitude like that where would we be?
As CD said we are the sum of our parts.
Andy Keogh travelled all over the world for us and barely got on the pitch; he played for us the same day his wife miscarried.
We are on a slippery slope if some players arbitrarily decide the conditions of playing for us.
I didn't justify it but I can understand it. Goalkeepers are also in a different position to the rest of the team. They never get called on to play for tactical reasons and because someone is tiring. They have to rely on an injury which is rare for a keeper and when the two keepers ahead of you are in your own mind, and the minds of many others (but not the manager) inferior, I can well UNDERSTAND him not wanting to travel to Georgia or wherever he allegedly cried off from.
I don't remember him feigning an injury though. Some of those games he's down as playing in, he came off injured. Joe Wildsmith, his sub, is down as playing 14 games. It's all smoke and mirrors from O'Neill. He preferred Simon Mignolet to Westwood at Sunderland and there is probably some history there and Trapp preferred Forde because Westwood wasn't getting his game at Sunderland. The irony is that when he was getting his game and playing out of his skin for Wednesday, a Division Two goalkeeper and two keepers languishing on the bench in the EPL were chosen ahead of him. I can UNDERSTAND his frustration.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Goalkeepers are only as good as their last one or two mistakes .
You need big cojones to be a goalkeeper and they may even be useful in goal...........
I don't know if it's been posted already but Neil O'Riordan said that when MON said Randolph has a fight on his hands, he was referring strictly to his club situation.
O'Neill still sounding ambiguous, but at least positive too, on "Westy" (Westwood): http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/s...ne-451805.html
O'Neill seems to be implying his "head" wasn't right at some point. What does that mean exactly? He wasn't committed? Wasn't bothered? Wasn't content being second or third choice? Or went through a spell where he was lacking confidence in his own abilities? Or was O'Neill merely suggesting Westwood was mentally down a bit as a result of Sheffield Wednesday losing out in the play-off semis on penalties? That'd be entirely understandable, but I get the impression O'Neill is speaking more generally/long-term.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 06/06/2017 at 11:30 AM.
It's long term. He's made those comments before. I wasn't impressed with Westwood's first save I have to admit where the ball bounced off his chest. On another day that could have been a gimme to the opposition but otherwise he did well.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
MON: "And is his head right. He’s really fine now. He’s got over the team losing out in the play-offs". I think that's all he means. This site has become a home for conspiracy theorists lately
(FWIW, I do actually think MON got peed off with KW's attendance record and maybe with a bit of justification)
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks