• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Guglielmo Vicario

Gazza said:
Don’t rate him out hate him … could be upgraded
Click to expand...

With who? you might have 2 keepers in the PL better (both statistically and eye test)

The narrative against Vicario has worked, yes, he could improve on coming for crosses (and he has been, even in the Brighton game, caught stuff that earlier in season would have punched/parried), but most importantly he makes the big saves.

Statistically bad keepers (errors leading to goals in 24/25) -> Muric & Sanchez with 5, Verbruggen with 4, Onana with 3, Pope, Ariola, Ederson, McCarthy all with 2.

Both seasons Vic has been with us, he statistically is one of the better keepers in the league.
 
Raziel said:
With who? you might have 2 keepers in the PL better (both statistically and eye test)

The narrative against Vicario has worked, yes, he could improve on coming for crosses (and he has been, even in the Brighton game, caught stuff that earlier in season would have punched/parried), but most importantly he makes the big saves.

Statistically bad keepers (errors leading to goals in 24/25) -> Muric & Sanchez with 5, Verbruggen with 4, Onana with 3, Pope, Ariola, Ederson, McCarthy all with 2.

Both seasons Vic has been with us, he statistically is one of the better keepers in the league.
Click to expand...

It's less of a 'blunder leading to goal', and more 'defense can't fully trust him, so they compensate, and that has tradeoffs elsewhere'. Like, Van de Ven felt enough uncertainty about Vicario catching a straightforward ball that he had already started to head for the goalline before the ball bounced off Vicario's neck/shoulder and led to a header at an open goal by Hojlund.

If he hadn't done that, in all likelihood, we wouldn't be sat here now with the trophy. But by doing that, he wasn't elsewhere in the box, and if that situation had turned out differently and the ball fell to someone unmarked because VdV was on the line covering for a potential Vicario fumble...

If defenders feel you have a bit of a 'mare in you, they'll compensate. And while that means your fumble might not lead to a goal because they're covering for you, it has tradeoffs elsewhere in terms of whom they leave unmarked, etc.

I'm a bit hyperspecific about keepers because I am one - at least, was enough of one to play for my uni team, which is a million levels below the Prem but still had these dynamics to think about. I was a very thin keeper, and could be pushed around at set pieces. My defenders had to compensate for that by trying to prevent me being crowded.

But that meant opposition teams switched tactics to sending corners to the middle, where more men were left unmarked because the defenders wee near the goalline protecting me. And then meant more than the usual share of free headers at goal.

The team accepted this because I was very quick and could sweep up behind them easily, which meant they could play a high line. But these tradeoffs exist, beneath the surface statistics.

And to clarify, I don't mind Vic. I think him and Kinsky are a good goalkeeping pair that I am fully comfortable trusting for the future. But he has flaws, is all.
 
DubaiSpur said:
It's less of a 'blunder leading to goal', and more 'defense can't fully trust him, so they compensate, and that has tradeoffs elsewhere'. Like, Van de Ven felt enough uncertainty about Vicario catching a straightforward ball that he had already started to head for the goalline before the ball bounced off Vicario's neck/shoulder and led to a header at an open goal by Hojlund.

If he hadn't done that, in all likelihood, we wouldn't be sat here now with the trophy. But by doing that, he wasn't elsewhere in the box, and if that situation had turned out differently and the ball fell to someone unmarked because VdV was on the line covering for a potential Vicario fumble...

If defenders feel you have a bit of a 'mare in you, they'll compensate. And while that means your fumble might not lead to a goal because they're covering for you, it has tradeoffs elsewhere in terms of whom they leave unmarked, etc.

I'm a bit hyperspecific about keepers because I am one - at least, was enough of one to play for my uni team, which is a million levels below the Prem but still had these dynamics to think about. I was a very thin keeper, and could be pushed around at set pieces. My defenders had to compensate for that by trying to prevent me being crowded.

But that meant opposition teams switched tactics to sending corners to the middle, where more men were left unmarked because the defenders wee near the goalline protecting me. And then meant more than the usual share of free headers at goal.

The team accepted this because I was very quick and could sweep up behind them easily, which meant they could play a high line. But these tradeoffs exist, beneath the surface statistics.

And to clarify, I don't mind Vic. I think him and Kinsky are a good goalkeeping pair that I am fully comfortable trusting for the future. But he has flaws, is all.
Click to expand...

So 100%, but the attitude by our fans, largely driven by the media is no other keeper has flaws, that there is some list of easy upgrades.

Raya, Ederson, Sanchez, even Martinez have multiple fudge ups in them, yet, you don't start every game with the first commentary being "keeper is shaky". One of the key games City lost on the back end of season, Ederson was just blocked off on a set piece, got no fudging where near the ball ... nothing, if that was Vic, would have been a fudging witch hunt. I can also remember multiple games against City where we (just Spurs) have caught Ederson off his line. And all of this started as justification for the fact he was fouled in that FA cup game two seasons ago that VAR refused to rule out the goal, so it was justified by "Vic was weak"

Even your interpretation of the VDV clearance to me is bit biased (but tell me as a keeper), I saw that as Vic came for the ball (as he should), he called it, and Solanke didn't get out of the way, Solanke needed to either get the ball himself or get out the way, what he did was actually back into the oncoming Vic, influencing the fumble. Brilliant reading of the play by VDV btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back