Was asked today why should we be allowed to sign another keeper. What makes it's so exceptional in circumstance that we should be allowed to sign one. Sure we're fucked without him, we've no one available to us with enough experience or who's good enough at that level, no one that compares to Given, and he made that Rooney's injured and they've no one in the same league, they don't get to sign anyone else.
I mean to be fair, it's not exactly the same, I mean, the second choice is on loan and our 3rd is injured I said, he made the point that we had an international goalkeeper who could fill in, and he kept going on. But in a way, I can see why people would be pissed off.
Players get injured all the time and we sent Hart off on loan, that was our decision.
But sure hopefully now we'll have good cover, but imo doesn't solve the problem. It takes time for backs and keepers to click. To understand their communcation, what they'll do, what they're more likely to do, what they want, their calls.etc. And to most importantly build trust and confidence, we've little time for that.
That's something you can't learn one day on the pitch. I mean our lad Gunnar or whatever his name is, will have a hard enough time settling in, and he's with the team, no matter how much effort they put into it, what's the point in buying a complete stranger of a keeper, I mean what's the point? In case the other lad gets injured? Or will he start? Because it's bad enough putting in a cold sub keeper right in the thick of things, with a handful of games left, it's worse putting in a new player completely.
At the end of the day it takes a while for teams to click and they'll need to be clear in communcation, and they'll need to trust eachother, and if we bring a lad in and he starts, they'd want to learn pretty damn fast or pray for a miracle.
