And did he scare the living daylights out of us or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
Printable View
And did he scare the living daylights out of us or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
The perception is that Randolph had a great tournament and most of what he did, he did well and he made perhaps one outstanding save but does anyone else think that for the Griezmann header, he could have done better and there was another goal (can't remember which) he also got a hand to ? These are the sort of saves which could turn matches and if that header had been saved.....but perhaps I am just wearing my Westwood tinted glasses again.
Ya I am still not sold, he made some great saves no doubt, but there were otehres he should have.
Plus against the sweden goal what was he doing the far side of the post when IBRA was pushed out so far, it was impossible for him to get a shot in at goal, had he stayed at the post or near the post he would have covered Clarks header.
We need someone who 100% of the time makes the consistent saves. He doesn't do that, granted he made some good reactionary saves versus France, he could have done better for some of the goals.
Yeah, he's a decent keeper and had a reasonably good tournament. Unfortunately I don't think he'll win you a game you have no right to win, the way I believe Westwood could.
I think he was too far forward for the Clark OG but it's a stretch to say it wouldn't have been a goal if he'd been two or three feet further back. He might - just might - have saved the second Belgian goal.
Utterly blameless for the French goals. I think the Griezmann header was near perfection, beautifully met & curling slightly away. It was sufficiently high and far away to require a leap rather than just a dive and he did as well as could be expected.
I think he handled tricky in-swinging free kicks against France brilliantly. This is one area I look to judge a keeper on. Hart isn't good at it, Paul Robsinson was atrocious and Petr Cech a bit iffy.
I agree with DeLorean's final comment but the key word is "could". I think Randolph had a fine tournament.
If he was three feet further back for the OG, it would have given Zlatan something to aim at, instead of forcing him to cross.
zlatan was right at the bye-line aiming at him would have been fine, a decent keeper would be able control that, and no swedish attacker would have been close enough.
If he dropped a zlatan cross aimed at him? Well he isn't up to it.
The execution of the header was good alright he pulled it away, but thats a defensive problem rather than randolphs.
Can't see how he's culpable for any goals myself.
Thought his coolness radiated through the defense.
Absolutely. Was in our top 3 or 4 performers during the tournament? Has only solidified his starting berth in my opinion. Its for Westwood et al to do all they can to displace him.
I think for the Sweden goal Randolph ruled out any chance of a near post shot and he also brought into play a possible tackle (dive at feet) on Zlatan had he decided to take an extra touch. Even if he'd been further back Clark's header would probably have been an OG but for an act of God where it just hit Randolph. Randolph may have dived sideways to get a touch but he'd never have held it and for all we know it'd have gone to a Swede for a tap in. We'd then be calling him rash and pointing out how Clark was better placed!
Randolph's first job is to protect his goal.
I'm with TOWK. Randolph radiated calmness. This calmness was crucial, particularly in the first half against France.
Clark on the other hand, despite winning many important duels, radiated "slice!". So too did Pique (or was it Ramos?) on Monday let it be said.
I think there's a distinct lack of magnanimity is some of the post-Euro appraisals. I held my hand up with regard to Murphy and McGeady, I think others should with regard to Randolph.
He needs to play first team football regularly .
There are clubs that need Goalkeepers e.g. Everton and probably some others . It will be interesting to see if he is considered by these clubs as a first choice.
Westwood can't do much more at this stage, just continue what he's been doing consistently for two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior
I think Griezmann's header was pretty much unstoppable, it would have been a truly world class save if he had kept it out. Witsel's was a different story, it was very close to him. I don't even think it would have been a particularly brilliant save had he kept it out.
There wasn't much coolness radiating through our defence in the second halves against Sweden or France, or pretty much the full ninety against Belgium. Not that I blame Randolph for this, he is a cool character in fairness when it comes to certain stuff. He's just not (as) brilliant at keeping the ball out of the net in my opinion. He saves most of the things you'd expect him to save, same as Forde, but he doesn't make the really top class saves that Westwood does.
I'm not sure if that's partially aimed at me (I presume it's more heavily aimed at Paul) but there's no lack of magnanimity (as far as I'm concerned). Randolph performed to pretty much the maximum I would have felt he was capable of, he probably would have even exceeded my expectations had he saved the Witsel header. I still don't think he's a better goalkeeper than Westwood though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
And I'd still prefer if Westwood was our number one, that's not just digging my heels in. Randolph did well, but I always knew he was capable of doing well. It's not like anybody said he was awful beforehand, just a few too many goals conceded with question marks for my liking. If he was only keeping Given and Forde out of the side I would be delighted to have him, but that's not the case.
Having seen Westwood make these sort of saves for the past two seasons, I would disagree with you on the headed goal. Randolph's reactions are just a fraction slower than I believe Westwood's would have been and since he did get a hand to it, all the more reason I believe a top-class keeper would have saved it but I appreciate that this is only speculationQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Attachment 2431
I was right behind him for the griessman goal, and though he couldn't have been expected to save it(given his ability), he still reacted well after it was off griessmans head, I don tknow if thats agility and weight or just agility but he is always slower than you expect him to be.
Im with Delorean on this, he did what we thought he was capable but nothing world class that I would think westwood can do.
You can see from Owlsfan image that from there regardless of the power he should be closer to the ball. However what the image doesnt tell is where randolph was for the cross, i was behind the goal, you could see the danger before the cross, they had all the time to cross it and yet it was 4 against 2 but they found space between our 2 central defenders, by the time randolph repositioned himself, griessman was already aiming. When he dived it was well after he had headed the ball. Trust me if you were there you would see it but you wont catch that on the camera. Sometimes you need to anticipate, rather than react, and I feel he always reacts rather than anticipates, and when he reacts he is just a fraction slower.
yep, I see where you're coming from and KW does pull off remarkably good saves.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
I do think that had the header been a foot lower he'd have got it. The extra height meant he had to jump up not just across, requiring extra spring which requires a keeper to bend his knee before jumping, delaying his dive by a fraction. I also think the fact that Griezman arrived late into space gave him less time to react. KW might have got it and other things being equal I'd back him to make a save like that over Randolph.
But when Paul says he couldn't be expected to save it "given his ability" I think we're back into churlish territory. I think it's a good photo but it doesn't prove to me that Randolph at that point in time should be closer. I know many good keepers who'd simply stand there watching it go past.
I'd like to see Randolph's reach compared to Westwood's. He looks taller and looks to have longer arms. The point is that even had KW reacted quicker he'd have had a few inches to make up on Randolph anyway.
I agree with DeLorean too in that KW is capable of that match winning piece of brilliance and I'd favour him on that basis, but I also think it's not just about the saves and I can't emphasise enough how important the non-fussy stuff he did in the first half was. When defenders line up against an inswinger, lose the first header and see the ball float into a keeper's hands as if it was catching practice everyone gets a lift. He also dealt with a Payet free very well I think, not being tempted to cover the part of the goal the wall was covering.
I think we'd have lost that game even with Westwood, but just speculation on my part.
Should Randolph have policed the second goal's situation better? Duffy's surge towards Giroud was an instantaneous thing, not something a keeper can call. I'm not even sure Keogh should have called it. It was towards him, it was his ball, not even any ambiguity. Duffy just made the wrong decision.
Shots fired! Man down!Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I've always said that you just cant trust cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Actually instead of goal line technology or a challenge system we just need to let the crowd vote on the big decisions. Only those that are there truly know and have the right to say.
https://gamerbling.files.wordpress.c...2/commodus.jpg
This Westwood bandwagon is really pulling people on-board it seems.
I'm not buying a word of it I'm afraid. We have 3 goalkeepers playing at around the same level. One is injured and of the 2 remaining Randolph is the man is possession. He has done nothing wrong and until he does he deserves the chance to continue.