Pantilimon

[Whitefield Blue]

Agree with both of you in some ways. Hart is a top class keeper and is proving now he's been bought back into the first team and clearly should be our first choice. However you couldn't ask more of Pantilimon as a second keeper. Always does an alright job when required

But he doesn't "always do an alright job" does he?? Once again, plenty of evidence presented above being ignored completely!! It's like there's a parallel universe where those cock ups didn't happen!! They did!!

he is not a poor keeper whatever fucking evidence you put up so jog on and do us all a favour

A very intelligent response, well done.

I like the way that you intelligently argued your point using evidence (or 'fucking evidence' as you put it) and not just barked something meaningless and unintelligible.

Thanks again Professor Hawking.

 

[Whitefield Blue]

This "he's never done anything wrong" thing rears it's ugly head again. Quite unbelievable.

I must have dreamt his extraordinary fumble at Blackburn. I must have imagined his pathetic attempt to gather Watford's second goal in the next round.I must have made up his non dive at Walcott's powder puff shot in the 6-3. I must have been watching a different match when I saw us lose to Villa in last years Capital One Cup as he fumbled for 2 goals in our 4-2 defeat. I must have imagined it was a different keeper who gifted Chelsea a goal in the Community Shield.

Hart is a top keeper who had a poor run of form that led to him being deservedly dropped.

Pantilimon is a poor keeper, who makes countless errors but bizarrely has a stream of apologists who pretend they never happened. If I had a penny for every person on here who writes "he's never let us down" (despite the overwhelming evidence above) I'd be a happy man. It's quite incredible.

As 2nd choice keeper I think he does as good a job as can be expected, as it's a more difficult role coming in without regular match-time. I think your slight bias is exposed when you label Pants errors as 'poor keeping' but Harts errors as 'poor run of form'. Can you tell me the difference please, as I'm sure poor run of form doesn't mean that Joe was dropped because he looked disinterested between the sticks?

I wouldn't call it a 'bias' . I've already said that Hart was DESERVEDLY dropped due to a run of poor mistakes. IMO though this is a good goalkeeper in a bad run of form, rather than a bad goalkeeper.

The difference additionally is that the Pants lovers won't even admit that he's made mistakes. "He's never let us down" is THE stock phrase when discussing him which is plainly ludicrous.

There are at least half a dozen goals that he's been responsible for in what, 20 starts for the club? (I'm guessing the number here). It is beyond bizarre that he is still regarded by many as having "never let us down".

But hey, he ran to celebrate a goal and he looks like a jolly chap so let's pretend he's a great keeper.

 

[steviemc]

This "he's never done anything wrong" thing rears it's ugly head again. Quite unbelievable.

I must have dreamt his extraordinary fumble at Blackburn. I must have imagined his pathetic attempt to gather Watford's second goal in the next round.I must have made up his non dive at Walcott's powder puff shot in the 6-3. I must have been watching a different match when I saw us lose to Villa in last years Capital One Cup as he fumbled for 2 goals in our 4-2 defeat. I must have imagined it was a different keeper who gifted Chelsea a goal in the Community Shield.

Hart is a top keeper who had a poor run of form that led to him being deservedly dropped.

Pantilimon is a poor keeper, who makes countless errors but bizarrely has a stream of apologists who pretend they never happened. If I had a penny for every person on here who writes "he's never let us down" (despite the overwhelming evidence above) I'd be a happy man. It's quite incredible.

As 2nd choice keeper I think he does as good a job as can be expected, as it's a more difficult role coming in without regular match-time. I think your slight bias is exposed when you label Pants errors as 'poor keeping' but Harts errors as 'poor run of form'. Can you tell me the difference please, as I'm sure poor run of form doesn't mean that Joe was dropped because he looked disinterested between the sticks?

I wouldn't call it a 'bias' . I've already said that Hart was DESERVEDLY dropped due to a run of poor mistakes. IMO though this is a good goalkeeper in a bad run of form, rather than a bad goalkeeper.

The difference additionally is that the Pants lovers won't even admit that he's made mistakes. "He's never let us down" is THE stock phrase when discussing him which is plainly ludicrous.

There are at least half a dozen goals that he's been responsible for in what, 20 starts for the club? (I'm guessing the number here). It is beyond bizarre that he is still regarded by many as having "never let us down".

But hey, he ran to celebrate a goal and he looks like a jolly chap so let's pretend he's a great keeper.

I wouldn't suggest that he's never let us down, and I feel that Joe is the better keeper, but what I would say is that when Pants is picked I never feel that we are going to struggle any worse than with Joe. It's just not something that worries me at all.