Joe Hart (continued)

[George Hannah]

Past achievements are what constitutes current form. Keepers have to be evaluated over a longer period than outfield players and being displaced by Pants is a serious judgement about Joe's long term potential. Nobody including me is pretending that his costly errors aren't more frequent but they have to be taken in context. Although Hart is in a bad "two year moment" the crucial point is that after allowing for the decline he is still the best we have. I would not complain if we get someone in who is better, and there aren't many of those about, but right now the brave and smart thing would have been to back him during his bad patch. This is about what is best for the club and not just showing our contempt for the rag media hatefest. I also reject the idea that out of form players should be dropped for the encouragement of the others together with the even odder one that dropping somebody improves their confidence, decision making and performance. The only good reason for replacing a player is that there is a better one available.

I think Joe has been evaluated over a longer period than outfield players would. You say yourself later in your post he's in a two year bad patch. That's a long fucking bad patch and certainly if at the end of it the manager chooses to drop him he's entitled to do that without having his decision questioned - and honestly so far it hasn't been, even from the most cynical observer of the Chilean.
It's a pretty subjective argument to say the "brave and smart" thing would be to back him. It's also easy to say whilst he cools his heels on the bench. However I could just as easily argue that backing him post Bayern was neither brave nor smart because his errors in that game were costly and he subsequently cost us league points as well. It's a judgement call the manager makes and making one to take out a viciously under performing player, even if the replacement is "inferior", isn't particularly controversia.

It's also worth baring in mind that as you say, you can't judge outfield players and gk's in the same way. An "inferior" gk isn't like playing an inferior centre half or centre forward. In our team the keeper sees the ball very little, and as we've seen, Pants has played with not too many problems even if he isn't seen as as good as Joe. That's because it's not the same as an outfield players and you can use a reserve g/k when required without having to panic about it's effects. Especially when the keeper's as good as Pants is.
Your last sentence is simply not true. Players are dropped for a myriad of reasons. Just because history suggests players A is better than player B, it doesn't stand to reason that when both are fit player A automatically plays. The manager and coaching team make the call taking into account everything they see on a daily basis as well as what history tells them.

three quick points Billy - I will expand on them if necessary when I return from walking the dog

The decisions of Manuel and his cohorts are not exempt from being questioned
There are many on here and elsewhere who disagree with Pellegrini about his decision to drop Joe in favour of Pants
You have a strangely restricted understanding of the meaning of "better"

 

[Anonymous]

three quick points Billy - I will expand on them if necessary when I return from walking the dog

The decisions of Manuel and his cohorts are not exempt from being questioned

Of course they're not exempt from being questioned. Fuck, this forum is a pretty strong testament to that. However, to question a decision he's made which has had no discernible negative impact, and one which a lot of supporters were in favour of, and one which ultimately was about resting a player who's severely out of forum, seems incredibly churlish.

There are many on here and elsewhere who disagree with Pellegrini about his decision to drop Joe in favour of Pants

As there are many who agree. It's hardly on a par with saying "he'll never play for this club again" which is a pretty definitive statement. Pellegrini has been very careful to speak of Joe's benching as a "rest" which he has needed after playing two years non stop for club and country.

Once again my point is simply that it's a decision the manager made and some agree, and some don't, but it's neither permanent nor controversial considering Joe's form. What's more, the way it's been handled, certainly publicly, has been excellent and without drama or fuss. Right down to Tuesday's press conference where Pellegrini said it was "impossible" that City would sign a keeper in January or let Joe leave in January.

You have a strangely restricted understanding of the meaning of "better"

That part you will have to explain because i'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Phil1]

Past achievements are what constitutes current form. Keepers have to be evaluated over a longer period than outfield players and being displaced by Pants is a serious judgement about Joe's long term potential. Nobody including me is pretending that his costly errors aren't more frequent but they have to be taken in context. Although Hart is in a bad "two year moment" the crucial point is that after allowing for the decline he is still the best we have. I would not complain if we get someone in who is better, and there aren't many of those about, but right now the brave and smart thing would have been to back him during his bad patch. This is about what is best for the club and not just showing our contempt for the rag media hatefest. I also reject the idea that out of form players should be dropped for the encouragement of the others together with the even odder one that dropping somebody improves their confidence, decision making and performance. The only good reason for replacing a player is that there is a better one available.

I think Joe has been evaluated over a longer period than outfield players would. You say yourself later in your post he's in a two year bad patch. That's a long fucking bad patch and certainly if at the end of it the manager chooses to drop him he's entitled to do that without having his decision questioned - and honestly so far it hasn't been, even from the most cynical observer of the Chilean.
It's a pretty subjective argument to say the "brave and smart" thing would be to back him. It's also easy to say whilst he cools his heels on the bench. However I could just as easily argue that backing him post Bayern was neither brave nor smart because his errors in that game were costly and he subsequently cost us league points as well. It's a judgement call the manager makes and making one to take out a viciously under performing player, even if the replacement is "inferior", isn't particularly controversia.

It's also worth baring in mind that as you say, you can't judge outfield players and gk's in the same way. An "inferior" gk isn't like playing an inferior centre half or centre forward. In our team the keeper sees the ball very little, and as we've seen, Pants has played with not too many problems even if he isn't seen as as good as Joe. That's because it's not the same as an outfield players and you can use a reserve g/k when required without having to panic about it's effects. Especially when the keeper's as good as Pants is.
Your last sentence is simply not true. Players are dropped for a myriad of reasons. Just because history suggests players A is better than player B, it doesn't stand to reason that when both are fit player A automatically plays. The manager and coaching team make the call taking into account everything they see on a daily basis as well as what history tells them.

three quick points Billy - I will expand on them if necessary when I return from walking the dog

The decisions of Manuel and his cohorts are not exempt from being questioned
There are many on here and elsewhere who disagree with Pellegrini about his decision to drop Joe in favour of Pants
You have a strangely restricted understanding of the meaning of "better"

There are an awful lot more who agree with the decision than don't. Those who don't seem to be doing so out of blind loyalty which has no place in football, certainly not when it comes to a position as important as your goalkeeper.

 

[Eccles Blue]

I think Joe has been evaluated over a longer period than outfield players would. You say yourself later in your post he's in a two year bad patch. That's a long fucking bad patch and certainly if at the end of it the manager chooses to drop him he's entitled to do that without having his decision questioned - and honestly so far it hasn't been, even from the most cynical observer of the Chilean.
It's a pretty subjective argument to say the "brave and smart" thing would be to back him. It's also easy to say whilst he cools his heels on the bench. However I could just as easily argue that backing him post Bayern was neither brave nor smart because his errors in that game were costly and he subsequently cost us league points as well. It's a judgement call the manager makes and making one to take out a viciously under performing player, even if the replacement is "inferior", isn't particularly controversia.

It's also worth baring in mind that as you say, you can't judge outfield players and gk's in the same way. An "inferior" gk isn't like playing an inferior centre half or centre forward. In our team the keeper sees the ball very little, and as we've seen, Pants has played with not too many problems even if he isn't seen as as good as Joe. That's because it's not the same as an outfield players and you can use a reserve g/k when required without having to panic about it's effects. Especially when the keeper's as good as Pants is.
Your last sentence is simply not true. Players are dropped for a myriad of reasons. Just because history suggests players A is better than player B, it doesn't stand to reason that when both are fit player A automatically plays. The manager and coaching team make the call taking into account everything they see on a daily basis as well as what history tells them.

three quick points Billy - I will expand on them if necessary when I return from walking the dog

The decisions of Manuel and his cohorts are not exempt from being questioned
There are many on here and elsewhere who disagree with Pellegrini about his decision to drop Joe in favour of Pants
You have a strangely restricted understanding of the meaning of "better"

There are an awful lot more who agree with the decision than don't. Those who don't seem to be doing so out of blind loyalty which has no place in football, certainly not when it comes to a position as important as your goalkeeper.

And you have canvassed all these people to find out that their reasoning is just blind loyalty? I didn't agree with the decision but it had nothing to do with blind loyalty, it was because I felt it was a reaction to the media speculation and hysteria. OK Joe made a few mistakes, but so do other goalkeepers and they didn't get the slating in the media that Joe got/gets. The Spurs goalkeeper last weekend let 7 goals in, didn't see any explosion of media attention to drop him (although I did note that he didn't play last night) the Norwich goalkeeper let in 6 goals again no media explosion.

So, no, not everyone who thought it was the wrong decision did so because they had blind loyalty, it was based on the fact that, although the goalkeepers position is important there are 11 players on that field. If Joe was dropped for 'bad' playing then there are other players who have not played very well and not been dropped, YaYa's performance at Sunderland and other places being one case in point. Why was he not dropped then?

 

[Bobbins]

Past achievements are what constitutes current form. Keepers have to be evaluated over a longer period than outfield players and being displaced by Pants is a serious judgement about Joe's long term potential. Nobody including me is pretending that his costly errors aren't more frequent but they have to be taken in context. Although Hart is in a bad "two year moment" the crucial point is that after allowing for the decline he is still the best we have. I would not complain if we get someone in who is better, and there aren't many of those about, but right now the brave and smart thing would have been to back him during his bad patch. This is about what is best for the club and not just showing our contempt for the rag media hatefest. I also reject the idea that out of form players should be dropped for the encouragement of the others together with the even odder one that dropping somebody improves their confidence, decision making and performance. The only good reason for replacing a player is that there is a better one available.

I think Joe has been evaluated over a longer period than outfield players would. You say yourself later in your post he's in a two year bad patch. That's a long fucking bad patch and certainly if at the end of it the manager chooses to drop him he's entitled to do that without having his decision questioned - and honestly so far it hasn't been, even from the most cynical observer of the Chilean.
It's a pretty subjective argument to say the "brave and smart" thing would be to back him. It's also easy to say whilst he cools his heels on the bench. However I could just as easily argue that backing him post Bayern was neither brave nor smart because his errors in that game were costly and he subsequently cost us league points as well. It's a judgement call the manager makes and making one to take out a viciously under performing player, even if the replacement is "inferior", isn't particularly controversia.

It's also worth baring in mind that as you say, you can't judge outfield players and gk's in the same way. An "inferior" gk isn't like playing an inferior centre half or centre forward. In our team the keeper sees the ball very little, and as we've seen, Pants has played with not too many problems even if he isn't seen as as good as Joe. That's because it's not the same as an outfield players and you can use a reserve g/k when required without having to panic about it's effects. Especially when the keeper's as good as Pants is.
Your last sentence is simply not true. Players are dropped for a myriad of reasons. Just because history suggests players A is better than player B, it doesn't stand to reason that when both are fit player A automatically plays. The manager and coaching team make the call taking into account everything they see on a daily basis as well as what history tells them.

three quick points Billy - I will expand on them if necessary when I return from walking the dog

The decisions of Manuel and his cohorts are not exempt from being questioned
There are many on here and elsewhere who disagree with Pellegrini about his decision to drop Joe in favour of Pants
You have a strangely restricted understanding of the meaning of "better"

Fuck me this thread is tedious, Joe got dropped because he was playing shite and needed a wake up call, MP called on Pants as the clubs No2 keeper to fill as long as he deemed it necessary and to take some of the press heat off Joe !! Why do people have a hard time understanding that ?? It doesn't matter if Joe is historically a better keeper in his current form he has been shit and shipping vital points. What was Mp supposed to do? leave Joe in until we were out of the title race and then rest him ??

 

[Phil1]

three quick points Billy - I will expand on them if necessary when I return from walking the dog

The decisions of Manuel and his cohorts are not exempt from being questioned
There are many on here and elsewhere who disagree with Pellegrini about his decision to drop Joe in favour of Pants
You have a strangely restricted understanding of the meaning of "better"

There are an awful lot more who agree with the decision than don't. Those who don't seem to be doing so out of blind loyalty which has no place in football, certainly not when it comes to a position as important as your goalkeeper.

And you have canvassed all these people to find out that their reasoning is just blind loyalty? I didn't agree with the decision but it had nothing to do with blind loyalty, it was because I felt it was a reaction to the media speculation and hysteria. OK Joe made a few mistakes, but so do other goalkeepers and they didn't get the slating in the media that Joe got/gets. The Spurs goalkeeper last weekend let 7 goals in, didn't see any explosion of media attention to drop him (although I did note that he didn't play last night) the Norwich goalkeeper let in 6 goals again no media explosion.

So, no, not everyone who thought it was the wrong decision did so because they had blind loyalty, it was based on the fact that, although the goalkeepers position is important there are 11 players on that field. If Joe was dropped for 'bad' playing then there are other players who have not played very well and not been dropped, YaYa's performance at Sunderland and other places being one case in point. Why was he not dropped then?

He hasn't just made a few mistakes though. Over the last 12 months his game has gradually suffered. I haven't needed the media to tell me that, I've watched it happen.
Unfortunately for Joe, being England's number 1 automatically means he's under more scrutiny than any other keeper from our press. It's always been that way and always will. It's a testament to his ability that for a couple of seasons he was more or less flawless, that doesn't mean that eventually the pressure doesn't tell.
He needed to be taken out of the firing line, he really did. His concentration levels have slipped, his decision making is haphazard and although not helped with the constant change of personnel in front of him, there's no cohesion between him and his back four. All that comes from a loss of confidence and he isn't going to recover that until there's a settled defence in front of him, one which has gotten used to our new way of playing.
I want Joe to return, the sooner the better. There's no way anyone can tell me he didn't need to be dropped though, it was a no brainer.

 

[blueandy1mac]

And you have canvassed all these people to find out that their reasoning is just blind loyalty? I didn't agree with the decision but it had nothing to do with blind loyalty, it was because I felt it was a reaction to the media speculation and hysteria. OK Joe made a few mistakes, but so do other goalkeepers and they didn't get the slating in the media that Joe got/gets. The Spurs goalkeeper last weekend let 7 goals in, didn't see any explosion of media attention to drop him (although I did note that he didn't play last night) the Norwich goalkeeper let in 6 goals again no media explosion.

So, no, not everyone who thought it was the wrong decision did so because they had blind loyalty, it was based on the fact that, although the goalkeepers position is important there are 11 players on that field. If Joe was dropped for 'bad' playing then there are other players who have not played very well and not been dropped, YaYa's performance at Sunderland and other places being one case in point. Why was he not dropped then?

Your argument might have been more persuasive if you had actually gotten the scores of the respective games correct.

1. Joe has been poor for at last a season.
2. The manager is paid to make the decisions, some of them hard and unpopular, thus the high salaries and turnover.
3. We, the supporters all have opinions, they are mostly irrelevant due to point 2.
4. The vast majority of people I have spoken to agree with the managers decision, albeit it was a little too late.
5. Joe will be back.

 

[George Hannah]

Fuck me this thread is tedious, Joe got dropped because he was playing shite and needed a wake up call, MP called on Pants as the clubs No2 keeper to fill as long as he deemed it necessary and to take some of the press heat off Joe !! Why do people have a hard time understanding that ?? It doesn't matter if Joe is historically a better keeper in his current form he has been shit and shipping vital points. What was Mp supposed to do? leave Joe in until we were out of the title race and then rest him ??

Very straightforward then but I wonder if Joe finds his situation tedious and, as others have pointed out, if this " wake up call" treatment would also apply to Yaya being replaced by Garcia after an indifferent spell of form or Kompany with Boyata or Silva with Milner. What Manuel should have 'deemed necessary' was to back his best player to come good and refrain from drivel about him needing a rest because he's been first choice for a long time. Did they ask Trautmann or Banks or Jennings or Schmeichel etc if they found being picked as number one long term rather wearing and whether they needed replacing with an inferior player to improve their performance?

This was definitely not an easy decision for the club and I appreciate the argument about the wider responsibilities of the management to give reserves a meaningful chance when the first choice is underperforming. The key test as to whether dropping an established player is correct is whether the team will be improved specifically as a result of his replacement with someone else.

 

[Eccles Blue]

And you have canvassed all these people to find out that their reasoning is just blind loyalty? I didn't agree with the decision but it had nothing to do with blind loyalty, it was because I felt it was a reaction to the media speculation and hysteria. OK Joe made a few mistakes, but so do other goalkeepers and they didn't get the slating in the media that Joe got/gets. The Spurs goalkeeper last weekend let 7 goals in, didn't see any explosion of media attention to drop him (although I did note that he didn't play last night) the Norwich goalkeeper let in 6 goals again no media explosion.

So, no, not everyone who thought it was the wrong decision did so because they had blind loyalty, it was based on the fact that, although the goalkeepers position is important there are 11 players on that field. If Joe was dropped for 'bad' playing then there are other players who have not played very well and not been dropped, YaYa's performance at Sunderland and other places being one case in point. Why was he not dropped then?

Your argument might have been more persuasive if you had actually gotten the scores of the respective games correct.
1. Joe has been poor for at last a season.
2. The manager is paid to make the decisions, some of them hard and unpopular, thus the high salaries and turnover.
3. We, the supporters all have opinions, they are mostly irrelevant due to point 2.
4. The vast majority of people I have spoken to agree with the managers decision, albeit it was a little too late.
5. Joe will be back.

True, but at least it proves you read the whole post!! I transposed the numbers of course, could have been a deliberate mistake? ;-)

However:
a) I don't agree, Joe has not been poor for at least a season ............ if he was heaven help the rest of the PL goalkeepers because Joe won the Golden Glove.
2) Yes he does which is why about 15 pages or so ago I said this thread is becoming a yawn a minute (& yes I see the irony of posting again after making that statement)
3) Exactly
4) Obviously we have been speaking to different sets of people because the ones I've spoken to don't agree with the manager's decision but I would say it was about 30% with the manager and 70% against his decision.
5) Of course Joe will be back
and I will add
6) You didn't answer my point about why only Joe was dropped when YaYa has been having a poor season based on his usual standard

 

[FantasyIreland]

You didn't answer my point about why only Joe was dropped when YaYa has been having a poor season based on his usual standard

Who would the manager replace him with?