Forster or McCarthy, who's your No. 1 keeper this season?

[Whitey Grandad]

Forster for me every time. Probably 60:40 or even 70:30

[saint1977]

12 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Forster for me every time. Probably 60:40 or even 70:30

Surprisingly I voted this way as well. Fraser has limitations but Alex has gone to pieces since the second 9-0 as Angus did after the first. Fraser has worked on some of his faults eg more proactive coming off line. 

McCarthy looked decent until the new year apart from his kicking but appalling after that, barely even L1 level. It can’t be much fun being a keeper behind that defence but some keepers seemed to thrive on it eg Johnstone last season, Marshall a few years ago at Cardiff.

We needed a new keeper this summer but this is the last of the Sanatogen/Scottish midget disaster signings and contract extensions to get rid of and not quite enough recouped to do it, but only a year left on their contracts.

[Singapore Saint]

McCarthy's such a bad keeper his greatest talent is wasting time on the ball IF (and that's a very big IF) we happen to be leading late in a game. Forster for me every time (unless he has a confidence crisis).

[Lord Duckhunter]

36 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I literally cannot get my head around your view that this is on the manager. How is the goalkeepers contract situation and financial situation anything to do with Ralph?

 

Well I can’t get my head around the number of people absolving him of any blame for anything. He’s been here 2.5 seasons, it’s his job to manage the club, be proactive. This hasn’t suddenly just come over the horizon. They’ve both been shite pretty much the whole time he’s been here. He’s made choices, he decides where we need strengthening and where we’ll “get by”. He’s decided to “get by” with 2 sub standard keepers. If we go down because they’re awful and undermine the back 4, that’s down to him. Not Claude Puel, Mark Hughes, Les Reed or any other figures that have been  gone awhile. 
 

What’s Walcott on a week? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

40 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

 

But actually having a LB or a striker is more important than having neither, unless we want to go into the season with Long up top and Moussa at LB - but at least we have a new goal keeper? Wrong way round imo.

IF the left back & striker didn’t sign a new contract because they didn’t like the manager, the way he used them, or had no faith in his ability to help their career, whose fault is that? Les Reed’s. 

[Baird of the land]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

IF the left back & striker didn’t sign a new contract because they didn’t like the manager, the way he used them, or had no faith in his ability to help their career, whose fault is that? Les Reed’s. 

The striker left because the manager helped his career and enabled him to get what he wanted, a larger salary than saints could offer.

Not sure I see us not wanting to sign an ageing left back to a long term contract as a fault.

[S-Clarke]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

IF the left back & striker didn’t sign a new contract because they didn’t like the manager, the way he used them, or had no faith in his ability to help their career, whose fault is that? Les Reed’s. 

I don't know what that has to do with the point I was making.

Fair enough you think I stick up for Ralph a lot, maybe I do because I think he's a good manager who has been afforded a bit of a shit deal on the squad he inherited - but on the flip side you seemingly look for anything and everything to throw his way. The point above is irrelevant in this context and speculative at best.

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I don't know what that has to do with the point I was making.

 

The point I’m making is that after 2.5 years the manager has to take responsibility for the team he picks and the fact we have substandard first and second picks in a position. It sums up the whole “nearly good enough” attitude that seems to run through the club. I’d expect a manager to have identified that there’s a weakness in that position, and dealt with it by now. It didn’t happen overnight, they weren’t good enough this time last year and the year before. 

How much is Walcott on a week?  

Edited 11 August, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[S-Clarke]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The point I’m making is that after 2.5 years the manager has to take responsibility for the team he picks and the fact we have substandard first and second picks in a position. It sums up the whole “nearly good enough” attitude that seems to run through the club. I’d expect a manager to have identified that there’s a weakness in that position, and dealt with it by now. It didn’t happen overnight, they weren’t good enough this time last year and the year before. 

How much is Walcott on a week?  

It comes down to priorities though doesn't it.

Do you ignore left back to sign a keeper? Do you ignore a striker to sign a keeper? Do you ignore midfield to sign a keeper? 

We had clear gaps we needed to fill over the last couple of years - RB, no question - KWP. Midfield with Hoj out - got Diallo. Needed another CB, as we only had 3...Salisu came in.

This year, lost our only left back - got a left back. Lost our main striker, got two new strikers. 

Those were priorities before a goalkeeper. I'm not denying it's a 'problem position' but we had/have a lot of problem positions which come before goal keeper for me.

There is also the added issue in that no one wants either Fraser or McCarthy, we're not going to sign another goal keeper on 50k upwards when we still have two keepers on 50k upwards. It would be daft. We learnt that lesson with Angus. In fact when Ralph came in he had two £10m goalkeepers (Fraser and Angus) and a £5m goalie in McCarthy, the club would have wanted him to try and get the best out of the existing investments.

Next summer is the summer for the goalkeepers as we will have some flexibility due to their contracts expiring, in fact some of the links in this window are probably pre-scouting options in advance of next summer. When you have as strict a budget as we have both the club and the coaching staff need to prioritise and I think they've got it right.

[JibMcdo]

10 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

There is also the added issue in that no one wants either Fraser or McCarthy, we're not going to sign another goal keeper on 50k upwards when we still have two keepers on 50k upwards. It would be daft. We learnt that lesson with Angus. In fact when Ralph came in he had two £10m goalkeepers (Fraser and Angus) and a £5m goalie in McCarthy, the club would have wanted him to try and get the best out of the existing investments.

Next summer is the summer for the goalkeepers as we will have some flexibility due to their contracts expiring, in fact some of the links in this window are probably pre-scouting options in advance of next summer. When you have as strict a budget as we have both the club and the coaching staff need to prioritise and I think they've got it right.

It’s a shame you have to spend your time typing out the bleeding obvious, anyone with a brain knows the above two paragraphs sums up the keeping situation. We are spending £130k+ a week on two goalkeepers and won’t shift them before their contracts expire.

Those trying to argue points about Ralph being responsible blah blah are arguing for the sake of 1) an agenda, or 2) being an arse.

[Whitey Grandad]

27 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The point I’m making is that after 2.5 years the manager has to take responsibility for the team he picks and the fact we have substandard first and second picks in a position. It sums up the whole “nearly good enough” attitude that seems to run through the club. I’d expect a manager to have identified that there’s a weakness in that position, and dealt with it by now. It didn’t happen overnight, they weren’t good enough this time last year and the year before. 

How much is Walcott on a week?  

When he arrived players were on 3, 4 or 5 year contracts and it takes a while to offload them. If these players had been any good then Ralph would not heed to have been taken on. We are only just starting to get to the point where he can use players that he has had a part in choosing.

[davefizzy14]

Fraser for me. Hes our undisputed number one, top goalkeeper

Edited 11 August, 2021 by davefizzy14

[Greenridge]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Well I can’t get my head around the number of people absolving him of any blame for anything. He’s been here 2.5 seasons, it’s his job to manage the club, be proactive. This hasn’t suddenly just come over the horizon. They’ve both been shite pretty much the whole time he’s been here. He’s made choices, he decides where we need strengthening and where we’ll “get by”. He’s decided to “get by” with 2 sub standard keepers. If we go down because they’re awful and undermine the back 4, that’s down to him. Not Claude Puel, Mark Hughes, Les Reed or any other figures that have been  gone awhile. 
 

What’s Walcott on a week? 

Obsessed. Puel brought in McCarthy. He was shite then and still shite now. Amazing that you dismiss your idols role in this. Bizarre. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

20 minutes ago, JibMcdo said:

It’s a shame you have to spend your time typing out the bleeding obvious, anyone with a brain knows the above two paragraphs sums up the keeping situation. We are spending £130k+ a week on two goalkeepers and won’t shift them before their contracts expire.

Those trying to argue points about Ralph being responsible blah blah are arguing for the sake of 1) an agenda, or 2) being an arse.

Why do you think you have to shift one, before signing somebody else, is there a limit to the number of keepers you’re allowed to pay? Can we not sign someone  to replace Redmond because we can’t shift him. It’s bizarre anyone would would accept 2 shite keepers just  because they’ve got contracts. Other clubs bin keepers regularly, regardless of whether they’ve  contracts . We did it when first promoted. I don’t suppose you chumps were saying we had to put up with Kelvin because he had a contact and signing  Boruc would have meant an extra keeper on the books. 

 

Who is responsible to playing and putting up with a substandard keeper, if not the manager?

[S-Clarke]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why do you think you have to shift one, before signing somebody else, is there a limit to the number of keepers you’re allowed to pay? Can we not sign someone  to replace Redmond because we can’t shift him. It’s bizarre anyone would would accept 2 shite keepers just  because they’ve got contracts. Other clubs bin keepers regularly, regardless of whether they’ve  contracts . We did it when first promoted. I don’t suppose you chumps were saying we had to put up with Kelvin because he had a contact and signing  Boruc would have meant an extra keeper on the books. 

 

Who is responsible to playing and putting up with a substandard keeper, if not the manager?

I literally don't know how else people can spell it out to you to be honest.

Think we'll just have to leave it there.

[Badger]

5 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

Forster, he is actually capable of pulling of saves you wouldn't expect him to whereas McCarthy is just weak all round. 

All about opinions but I think its the other way round.

Under the Hughes period I can recall a few important saves by AM , Bournemouth (home), Everton (away - although that was undone eventually by a Bertrand wayward clearance in injury time), and Swansea in the critical game at their place.

FF has a better penalty record admittedly, but I struggle to recall a 'save' that you come away from the ground talking about by FF in his time with us (other than when the ball has hit him in the face, chest, shoulder, or he's cleared it with an ankle and it hasn't rolled back to an oncoming forward). One exception was the Sf at Anfield where he twisted himself to get the ball off the line, though it was after one of his own fuck ups.

Accept that the AM saves are a couple of seasons ago, and that he can be a calamity with the ball at his feet, but FF always gives the impression he's playing in wellington boots so scares me shitless with the ball at his feet also (remember Palace away a couple of year ago?).

In truth my answer given the option would be a resounding "neither". 

Edited 11 August, 2021 by Badger

[Cartman]

Forster's 75k per week or whatever it is amounts to 3.9m a year. Would no one really take him on a free transfer and pay him the difference between his new contract and his current one as a signing on fee? Sheffield United for example, selling Ramsdale for a ridiculous amount, would they really have no interest in either Forster or McCarthy for free? The salary argument is valid when they have several years left, but with just one it makes a lot less sense. This club just has a bizarre blindspot when it comes to keepers, for me the last truly good one we had was Niemi almost 20 years ago (at Premier League level obviously, so excluding Kelvin).

[Cartman]

 

Quote

With a pressing need for Arsenal to find a second first-team goalkeeper, they are now forced to consider alternative options.

https://theathletic.com/news/arsenals-ramsdale-move-on-verge-of-breakdown-as-clubs-fail-to-agree-valuation/7vXCmNnWmrby

Take one of ours, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

I literally don't know how else people can spell it out to you to be honest.

 

There’s nothing to spell out. As you say it’s about priorities. This “we have 2 keepers earning big money” is just a get out to excuse the manager. Do you accept that if he thought it was a higher priority then he could sign another keeper. If you accept that, then the contract situation of the 2 we have is irrelevant . The argument then becomes whether the manager has his priorities right. You keep banging on about a forward & left back as opposed to a keeper, but they’re not the only new additions. 
 

Ralph has clearly decided that he’ll make do and focus on other positions, that’s his decision to make. Time will tell if it’s the right one, the status of FF or AM won’t change that. He could have got someone in, he’s chosen not to. 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

10 hours ago, Cartman said:

 

https://theathletic.com/news/arsenals-ramsdale-move-on-verge-of-breakdown-as-clubs-fail-to-agree-valuation/7vXCmNnWmrby

Take one of ours, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

Really annoying neither of ours can kick the ball very well as the top clubs would be jumping on them as a cheap backup.

[WestMidSaint]

I liked AM for a time but last season his form seemed to drop off the edge of a cliff. By the end of the season it was a joke and looked like he wasn’t even trying. Whilst I’m sure he was, I think he was just that bad that I couldn’t get my head around how likely to concede he was. 
 

Whilst FF is no Niemi he would certainly start the season for me. If after 10 games he’s having a nightmare then reassess at that point. 
 

Roll on contract expiry dates 

[Jack50]

Forster was horrible for a long time, completely lost it. Based on last season I’d have to say Forster though.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Is it sinking in yet, or do we have to wait until FF starts costing us points as well. 

[Turkish]

How have we ended up in a situation where two of our highest paid players play in the same position and neither of them are any better than mid table championship levels?

[OttawaSaint]

Neither, they are both far below what is required of an EPL keeper.

[bpsaint]

Starting to wonder if McCarthy is a mute. Never hear him bellowing to organise his defence, and when we concede a stupid goal as a result of our error he just has this look of “oh well, never mind” about him. People say it’s counter productive, but when the defence fucks up I want to see a keeper up on their feet given said players a good fucking rollicking, 

A good goalie should behave like a second captain, and help marshall that back line, it’s absolute basics.

[st alex]

Not bothered which of the two start. They’re both alright and both have limitations. Very little between them.

FF might be more vocal but has struggled with coming for crosses and commanding his area and short distribution.

I probably feel a bit more nervous when FF plays, but really don’t mind which of the two is in goal.

[saint77]

Forster all day long McCarthy shouldn’t even be on the bench 

[Killers Knee]

Don't want either at the club, both fall far below what is required in the Premiership, but i feel we will lose every match McCarthy plays in.  At least with Forster I have a glimmer of hope a draw could be on the cards.  

[FarehamSaintJames]

I cannot fathom how we still have McCarthy in goal and RH doesn’t see how piss poor he is.

He is appalling. He is not a good keeper. If it was true we were considering offering him a new contract then whoever is behind it needs to take off their tinted glasses and get real. He is shocking. 
 

We need two new CB’s, a new GK and a change of tactics and formation urgently.

[Teddeer]

53 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

I cannot fathom how we still have McCarthy in goal and RH doesn’t see how piss poor he is.

He is appalling. He is not a good keeper. If it was true we were considering offering him a new contract then whoever is behind it needs to take off their tinted glasses and get real. He is shocking. 
 

We need two new CB’s, a new GK and a change of tactics and formation urgently.

Well I'd take one new centre back but agree with the rest.

[Baird of the land]

Hopefully Ralph sticks with his pick Mccarthy for a period rather than flip flopping like the end of last season.

[S-Clarke]

3 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Hopefully Ralph sticks with his pick Mccarthy for a period rather than flip flopping like the end of last season.

I'd switch now - go with Fraser, number 1. Done.

He's not great either, but at least he provides presence and some vocal communication. Neither of which McCarthy is capable of doing.

My worry with McCarthy were the chats a few months ago that we were offering him a new contract - WTF? Please don't. Let both of these goalkeepers expire and start again Saints.

[Billy the Kidd]

Do we know for certain McCarthy has been offered a deal?

Its been rumoured for a while but can’t find anything for sure. 
 

Id be amazed if he has and if we have offered him one, I’m not sure how to feel.  I was thinking he may be ok for a few years as a number two, but I think we need to get rid of him and FF and start again. 
 

If Ralph has sanctioned a new deal I think his position needs serious consideration. 

[Baird of the land]

9 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I'd switch now - go with Fraser, number 1. Done.

He's not great either, but at least he provides presence and some vocal communication. Neither of which McCarthy is capable of doing.

My worry with McCarthy were the chats a few months ago that we were offering him a new contract - WTF? Please don't. Let both of these goalkeepers expire and start again Saints.

 

That just sets a precedent that if we concede a few to change keeper again.

[S-Clarke]

7 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

 

That just sets a precedent that if we concede a few to change keeper again.

No, it's just an admission that McCarthy has been beyond terrible for almost a year now. Someone else needs a long run in this team, McCarthy has had his chance and is killing us.

I doubt Fraser will be much better, but beggars can't be choosers. We've got ourselves in a right old mess in goal, let's not forget the loss we just made on Gunn either.

Edited 15 August, 2021 by S-Clarke

[Baird of the land]

4 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

No, it's just an admission that McCarthy has been beyond terrible for almost a year now. Someone else needs a long run in this team, McCarthy has had his chance and is killing us.

I doubt Fraser will be much better, but beggars can't be choosers. We've got ourselves in a right old mess in goal, let's not forget the loss we just made on Gunn either.

If he switches and Fraser commits an absolute howler then he will be under massive pressure to switch again which gets us nowhere. Think both are very average but that's where we are.