Shay Given

[Thenumber1blue]

Given is overrated always has been,decent shot stopper but parries it out to his 6 yard box to much and rooted to his line far too often.By the way I thought this when he was our number 1.

 

[Gazza]

No, Hart's the same weaknesses as Given, but Given is a better shot stopper, he controls the defense better and he's a better level of concentration.

Just because he's taller doesn't make Hart better.

If Given was the better keeper he'd still be in goal for City.

No if Given was a 24 year old English keeper he'd still be in goals for City.

Given for me is the better keeper, but Hart is a better investment.

Football is now, do you really think Mancini/the club would jeopardise the team by playing an inferior goalkeeper and selling a better one. We would have Given still in goal and Hart on loan again if this was the case.
Don't forget we could buy any keeper we want, but still choose Hart, yes he has his faults but he is still a lot better than Given, even at this stage of his career.

 

[ellspark]

If Given was the better keeper he'd still be in goal for City.

No if Given was a 24 year old English keeper he'd still be in goals for City.

Given for me is the better keeper, but Hart is a better investment.

Football is now, do you really think Mancini/the club would jeopardise the team by playing an inferior goalkeeper and selling a better one. We would have Given still in goal and Hart on loan again if this was the case.
Don't forget we could buy any keeper we want, but still choose Hart, yes he has his faults but he is still a lot better than Given, even at this stage of his career.

Hart isn't that much an inferior keeper than Given, Hart would have left if Given had been named no.1. He wanted to leave and stay with Birmingham. We would have only gotten a handful of years out of Given, Hart we have for another 10 years maybe. And Mancini rightfully believed it was worth keeping Hart. You build as much stability in the goals and back 4 as possible and do you're best not to change it over the years.

There really aren't that many top keepers going willing to leave clubs. Just because we have the money, we need players to spend it on.
But then again, Hart's a good keeper, he's also 24 and the only English keeper who has the ability to play to a respectable level. And Mancini mentioned before how important it was to have English players on his team.

I'm glad we have Hart, we were blessed to have both, I just think Given is better simple as. That's just my opinion.

 

[Gazza]

No if Given was a 24 year old English keeper he'd still be in goals for City.

Given for me is the better keeper, but Hart is a better investment.

Football is now, do you really think Mancini/the club would jeopardise the team by playing an inferior goalkeeper and selling a better one. We would have Given still in goal and Hart on loan again if this was the case.
Don't forget we could buy any keeper we want, but still choose Hart, yes he has his faults but he is still a lot better than Given, even at this stage of his career.

Hart isn't that much an inferior keeper than Given, Hart would have left if Given had been named no.1. He wanted to leave and stay with Birmingham. We would have only gotten a handful of years out of Given, Hart we have for another 10 years maybe. And Mancini rightfully believed it was worth keeping Hart. You build as much stability in the goals and back 4 as possible and do you're best not to change it over the years.

There really aren't that many top keepers going willing to leave clubs. Just because we have the money, we need players to spend it on.
But then again, Hart's a good keeper, he's also 24 and the only English keeper who has the ability to play to a respectable level. And Mancini mentioned before how important it was to have English players on his team.

I'm glad we have Hart, we were blessed to have both, I just think Given is better simple as. That's just my opinion.

Given played for Newcastle for umpteen years and in all those years no top club came in for him until City got a few quid. Even when we sold him, with all due respect, he 'only' went to Villa.

 

[ellspark]

Football is now, do you really think Mancini/the club would jeopardise the team by playing an inferior goalkeeper and selling a better one. We would have Given still in goal and Hart on loan again if this was the case.
Don't forget we could buy any keeper we want, but still choose Hart, yes he has his faults but he is still a lot better than Given, even at this stage of his career.

Hart isn't that much an inferior keeper than Given, Hart would have left if Given had been named no.1. He wanted to leave and stay with Birmingham. We would have only gotten a handful of years out of Given, Hart we have for another 10 years maybe. And Mancini rightfully believed it was worth keeping Hart. You build as much stability in the goals and back 4 as possible and do you're best not to change it over the years.

There really aren't that many top keepers going willing to leave clubs. Just because we have the money, we need players to spend it on.
But then again, Hart's a good keeper, he's also 24 and the only English keeper who has the ability to play to a respectable level. And Mancini mentioned before how important it was to have English players on his team.

I'm glad we have Hart, we were blessed to have both, I just think Given is better simple as. That's just my opinion.

Given played for Newcastle for umpteen years and in all those years no top club came in for him until City got a few quid. Even when we sold him, with all due respect, he 'only' went to Villa.

He had countless praise from some of the best players and managers out there. When he made it clear he wanted to leave we than bought him.
And we were hardly going to sell him to the Rags/Chelsea etc now were we. And nobody came looking for Hart either after he expressed a desire to leave City.

Looking at him now, at the incredible form he's shown so far this season. Thank God we didn't sell him to a better club. Can you imagine the difference he would make to the Rags/Chelsea/Arsenal?

 

[Ovo]

shay is quality end of. joe is the better investment though so the club quite rightly sticks with the better asset.
we were blessed but not fair on shay to stay as a no 2.

Summed up brilliantly.

 

[Gazza]

Hart isn't that much an inferior keeper than Given, Hart would have left if Given had been named no.1. He wanted to leave and stay with Birmingham. We would have only gotten a handful of years out of Given, Hart we have for another 10 years maybe. And Mancini rightfully believed it was worth keeping Hart. You build as much stability in the goals and back 4 as possible and do you're best not to change it over the years.

There really aren't that many top keepers going willing to leave clubs. Just because we have the money, we need players to spend it on.
But then again, Hart's a good keeper, he's also 24 and the only English keeper who has the ability to play to a respectable level. And Mancini mentioned before how important it was to have English players on his team.

I'm glad we have Hart, we were blessed to have both, I just think Given is better simple as. That's just my opinion.

Given played for Newcastle for umpteen years and in all those years no top club came in for him until City got a few quid. Even when we sold him, with all due respect, he 'only' went to Villa.

He had countless praise from some of the best players and managers out there. When he made it clear he wanted to leave we than bought him.
And we were hardly going to sell him to the Rags/Chelsea etc now were we. And nobody came looking for Hart either after he expressed a desire to leave City.

Looking at him now, at the incredible form he's shown so far this season. Thank God we didn't sell him to a better club. Can you imagine the difference he would make to the Rags/Chelsea/Arsenal?

He only looks good in a bad team.

 

[Sky Blue]

Joe is far superior. Roberto made the right decision.

Wish Given all the best though...

 

[ellspark]

Given played for Newcastle for umpteen years and in all those years no top club came in for him until City got a few quid. Even when we sold him, with all due respect, he 'only' went to Villa.

He had countless praise from some of the best players and managers out there. When he made it clear he wanted to leave we than bought him.
And we were hardly going to sell him to the Rags/Chelsea etc now were we. And nobody came looking for Hart either after he expressed a desire to leave City.

Looking at him now, at the incredible form he's shown so far this season. Thank God we didn't sell him to a better club. Can you imagine the difference he would make to the Rags/Chelsea/Arsenal?

He only looks good in a bad team.

I can't understand how people come up with this. You can look better than you are in a good team. Hart had a load of clean sheets last season, but 90% of that was down to the fact that the defense was so good, he'd very little to do.

You find out what you're made of when you're in a bad team. Look at the clean sheets he's been adding up with Villa and Ireland. We didn't buy him because he's poor, there's a reason we bought him, a reason people seem to have forgotten about.

 

[RandomJ]

Hart is easily the better keeper. He makes a mistake here and there but we're all human. I'm even going to say Hart is a better shot stopper than Given. I've seen Hart get to balls he has no right to get to, plus his longer reach allows him to reach those Given wouldn't.

Right decision was made and I do wish Given all the best as he does deserve to play.