| Defence 14:19 - Jul 20 with 11543 views | deanscfc |
Surely ours needs improving, not weakening??
For much of last season our defence looked weak and we let in goals at the wrong times causing us to lose games we should have at least drawn, if not won. Rangel is getting on a bit and looked slow in the highlights from last nights game and now our left back is going. Anyone else think we at least need good cover for a right back? |  | | |  |
| Defence on 17:41 - Jul 20 with 866 views | eastbanker |
| Defence on 17:31 - Jul 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Statistically he is better than Marshall by a long shot (in fact, it would be difficult to find someone who was worse).
How many times have you, in person, seen him play for Arsenal ? |
You don't physically have to be present to watch performances. Champions League, FA Cup etc are all shown on TV. | | | |
| Defence on 17:44 - Jul 20 with 857 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Defence on 17:40 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
Google - Fabianski statistics - read and weep |
Well, no.
I have my opinion on Fabianski which is similar to yours, but sometimes stats show something differently.
His shots to saves ratio might be higher than Marshall's even if its not really on a like for like basis. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Defence on 17:44 - Jul 20 with 853 views | eastbanker |
Surely the most important statistics are games played to goals conceded. | | | |
| Defence on 17:49 - Jul 20 with 836 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Defence on 17:44 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
Surely the most important statistics are games played to goals conceded. |
Well that would make Marshall a donkey though, surely?
Goals conceded is to do with far more than just the keeper. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Defence on 17:51 - Jul 20 with 830 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 17:33 - Jul 20 by PozuelosSideys |
What stats are they then? Can we see? |
sure.
Fabianski conceded 29 goals in 32 premier league matches (a rate of 0.9 goals per game) and Marshall conceded 73 goals in 37 premier league matches (a rate of 2 goals per game). | | | |
| Defence on 17:52 - Jul 20 with 823 views | eastbanker |
| Defence on 17:49 - Jul 20 by PozuelosSideys |
Well that would make Marshall a donkey though, surely?
Goals conceded is to do with far more than just the keeper. |
I agree but having witnessed Marshalls performances last season (every Match of the Day highlights) he was outstanding in front of an awful defence. | | | |
| Defence on 17:53 - Jul 20 with 818 views | Daggyjack |
| Defence on 17:00 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
Im afraid the statistics prove your argument to be incorrect. He is not a competent keeper otherwise he would have been first choice for Arsenal. Vorm wasn't as consistent last season however, his previous seasons performances were good. One season doesn't make you a poor keeper. Form is temporary, class is permanent, but 7 seasons of mediocrity does make you a poor keeper. |
Nothing to do with the fact that Arsenal have another very good keeper in Szczesny. How you can say that the statistics don't back Fabianski up as a good keeper is beyond me (concedes less than a goal a game in the Premier League in his career).
Eastbanker, you're right, games to goals ratio is very important.
2013/14
Cech 0.73 goals per game
Hart 0.92
Howard 0.97
Boruc 1.00
Szczesny 1.16
De Gea 1.19
Mignolet 1.21
Fabianski overall last season 1.00, better than Szczesny, De Gea and Mignolet |  | | |
| Defence on 17:54 - Jul 20 with 814 views | londonlisa2001 |
oh - I used that stat by the way since it was 'the most important' stat according to the person that said Fabianski was little better than a donkey and Marshall was the one we should have gone with and that he'd used stats to determine this. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Defence on 17:54 - Jul 20 with 809 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Defence on 17:51 - Jul 20 by londonlisa2001 |
sure.
Fabianski conceded 29 goals in 32 premier league matches (a rate of 0.9 goals per game) and Marshall conceded 73 goals in 37 premier league matches (a rate of 2 goals per game). |
Come on, you cant get away with that one  | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Defence on 17:56 - Jul 20 with 803 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 17:52 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
I agree but having witnessed Marshalls performances last season (every Match of the Day highlights) he was outstanding in front of an awful defence. |
then that was Cardiff's problem. They may have conceded less if he'd been behind their defence rather than in front of it ;-) | | | |
| Defence on 17:58 - Jul 20 with 787 views | JackFish |
| Defence on 17:54 - Jul 20 by PozuelosSideys |
Come on, you cant get away with that one |
Saves to shots on target ratio would be more relevant.
As for Marshall, while he did make some fantastic saves last season, I also remember him making a fair number of errors that resulted in goals. Certainly don't think he's be worth the sort of money Cardiff would have been asking for him. |  | | |
| Defence on 18:03 - Jul 20 with 769 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 17:54 - Jul 20 by PozuelosSideys |
Come on, you cant get away with that one |
as I said - I used it because I was told it was the most important statistic by the person who said that he was measuring how good they were statistically and we should have gone for Marshall. (It's the first stat that was quoted - games played, goals conceded in an attempt to show that Fabianski is poor).
Not my fault that he's tying himself up in knots because when it comes down to it, he's not basing the dislike of Fabianski on anything other than he doesn't like him. That's irrational, which was the point I made at the start.
Look, I don't know whether he'll be good or not, I just know that Arsenal rated him very highly, offered him a lot of money to stay, most Arsenal fans really rate him and (in my opinion) Vorm was verging on crap for a lot of last season, so I believe this to be a significant upgrade which I am happy about. I do not understand slagging off our players before they've even played. | | | |
| Defence on 18:05 - Jul 20 with 764 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 17:58 - Jul 20 by JackFish |
Saves to shots on target ratio would be more relevant.
As for Marshall, while he did make some fantastic saves last season, I also remember him making a fair number of errors that resulted in goals. Certainly don't think he's be worth the sort of money Cardiff would have been asking for him. |
obviously it would - I was making the point in response to the original poster.
And to be frank I can't be arsed to look up saves to shots on target. | | | |
| Defence on 18:08 - Jul 20 with 748 views | KingBony |
| Defence on 18:03 - Jul 20 by londonlisa2001 |
as I said - I used it because I was told it was the most important statistic by the person who said that he was measuring how good they were statistically and we should have gone for Marshall. (It's the first stat that was quoted - games played, goals conceded in an attempt to show that Fabianski is poor).
Not my fault that he's tying himself up in knots because when it comes down to it, he's not basing the dislike of Fabianski on anything other than he doesn't like him. That's irrational, which was the point I made at the start.
Look, I don't know whether he'll be good or not, I just know that Arsenal rated him very highly, offered him a lot of money to stay, most Arsenal fans really rate him and (in my opinion) Vorm was verging on crap for a lot of last season, so I believe this to be a significant upgrade which I am happy about. I do not understand slagging off our players before they've even played. |
Not that you need it Lisa because you're doing a fine job of mugging off the mugs but just for the record to rubbish any new signing before he's even had a chance to play in a competitive game for us is disgraceful.
Fans?
Really?
Pah! |  |
| Daddy Daddy cool, Daddy Daddy cool |
| |
| Defence on 18:09 - Jul 20 with 745 views | eastbanker |
| Defence on 17:54 - Jul 20 by londonlisa2001 |
oh - I used that stat by the way since it was 'the most important' stat according to the person that said Fabianski was little better than a donkey and Marshall was the one we should have gone with and that he'd used stats to determine this. |
I didn't say that Marshall was the one we should have gone with, I used him as en example of keepers who would fall within our budget. Personally I would have preferred McCarthy from Reading. | | | |
| Defence on 18:09 - Jul 20 with 742 views | Daggyjack |
| Defence on 17:58 - Jul 20 by JackFish |
Saves to shots on target ratio would be more relevant.
As for Marshall, while he did make some fantastic saves last season, I also remember him making a fair number of errors that resulted in goals. Certainly don't think he's be worth the sort of money Cardiff would have been asking for him. |
I think one of the issues would be the another of transfer kitty that GM has.
If he has say £20 million, would he want to spend £5 million on a "better" keeper when there are a number of other positions that require more urgent consideration, i.e replacing Michu, Hernandez and JDG.
It may be that he felt that Fabianski, for free, was a better option than any keepers that would cost him £5 million (I can't think of any available in that price bracket that wouldn't have been a risk).
I'm more concerned at finding a CB partner for Ash and cover for Rangel. | | | |
| Defence on 18:10 - Jul 20 with 740 views | Drizzle |
| Defence on 17:56 - Jul 20 by londonlisa2001 |
then that was Cardiff's problem. They may have conceded less if he'd been behind their defence rather than in front of it ;-) |
 |  | | |
| Defence on 18:20 - Jul 20 with 711 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 18:09 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
I didn't say that Marshall was the one we should have gone with, I used him as en example of keepers who would fall within our budget. Personally I would have preferred McCarthy from Reading. |
oh right.
Alex McCarthy - 13 premier league games played, 23 goals conceded at a rate of 1.77 goals per game.
Why don't you just admit that your view on Fabianski is not based on anything other than you don't like him. | | | |
| Defence on 18:21 - Jul 20 with 706 views | eastbanker |
| Defence on 18:08 - Jul 20 by KingBony |
Not that you need it Lisa because you're doing a fine job of mugging off the mugs but just for the record to rubbish any new signing before he's even had a chance to play in a competitive game for us is disgraceful.
Fans?
Really?
Pah! |
As already stated, been a supporter for 48 years and am entitled to my opinion. A forum is a place where people are allowed to make a statement and encourage discussion. A fan supports the club not just individual players and believe me I've seen some really poor players wearing the shirt since I began attending matches in the 1966/67 season. You obviously find it difficult to differentiate between people who have a genuine concern over the success (or lack of it) next season with those who want to slag off individuals on a personal level. I do not have any personal grievance with Fabianski as a person, Ive never met him and I'm sure he is a nice young man. I am only dubious of his ability to represent the club to a level that is required. Now if you think that makes me less of a fan than you, thats your problem, not mine. I will be at every home game this coming season as well as a few away matches including some of the friendly fixtures.
I am not prepared to agree with everyone else's opinion of players and their abilities just to be seen as "a true supporter." Going to Rochdale on a cold, dark wet Tuesday evening to watch us lose 2-0 makes us true supporters, having been to 83 football league grounds following the Swans over the years means I've earned my tag as a true supporter. Oh, by the way, I still don't rate Fabianski! | | | |
| Defence on 18:26 - Jul 20 with 681 views | bermudajack |
| Defence on 18:10 - Jul 20 by Drizzle |
|
If people are questioning Fab's ability already...
God help them if he gets injured 😳😳😳😳😳
Tremmel, Tiendalli & Rangel worry me much, much more than Fabianski TBH |  |
| |
| Defence on 18:28 - Jul 20 with 671 views | KingBony |
| Defence on 18:21 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
As already stated, been a supporter for 48 years and am entitled to my opinion. A forum is a place where people are allowed to make a statement and encourage discussion. A fan supports the club not just individual players and believe me I've seen some really poor players wearing the shirt since I began attending matches in the 1966/67 season. You obviously find it difficult to differentiate between people who have a genuine concern over the success (or lack of it) next season with those who want to slag off individuals on a personal level. I do not have any personal grievance with Fabianski as a person, Ive never met him and I'm sure he is a nice young man. I am only dubious of his ability to represent the club to a level that is required. Now if you think that makes me less of a fan than you, thats your problem, not mine. I will be at every home game this coming season as well as a few away matches including some of the friendly fixtures.
I am not prepared to agree with everyone else's opinion of players and their abilities just to be seen as "a true supporter." Going to Rochdale on a cold, dark wet Tuesday evening to watch us lose 2-0 makes us true supporters, having been to 83 football league grounds following the Swans over the years means I've earned my tag as a true supporter. Oh, by the way, I still don't rate Fabianski! |
Lol I take it you guessed I had you down as one of the mugs then 
Seriously dude, there is a difference of opinion then a downright display of clearly not willing to give him a chance. Lisa has already said we don't really know how he's going to perform but you've written him off before he's even played?
It's not rational behaviour to call him derogatory names before you've seen him in a swans shirt surely?
Bizarre behaviour from someone who's watched us a lot longer than I have but still cheer up buster, you never know it might never happen.
In all serious no offence you are entitled to your opinion same as anyone it's just the majority won't be able to forge theirs until the poor fecker actually gets a chance to play like. | |
| Daddy Daddy cool, Daddy Daddy cool |
| |
| Defence on 18:28 - Jul 20 with 669 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 18:08 - Jul 20 by KingBony |
Not that you need it Lisa because you're doing a fine job of mugging off the mugs but just for the record to rubbish any new signing before he's even had a chance to play in a competitive game for us is disgraceful.
Fans?
Really?
Pah! |
I agree - I absolutely hate it.
Despite all their faults, the one thing that the Cardiff fans do on their discussion boards is big up any new signings (in fact they are ridiculous the other way - everyone they sign is according to them, the best player since Messi). On here, everyone signed or mentioned in dispatches is 'not good enough' or 'crap' or 'worse than what we've got' or similar.
It's pathetic. I seem to be in a minority in that I am always genuinely excited to see our new players in action - OK sometimes they turn out to be complete crap, but it's the hope and anticipation that we may have uncovered another real gem.
I've always tried to get to one of our preseason friendlies for that reason (even though I live 200 miles away) - I can't wait to see the new players. Been like it ever since I was a kid - remember for example Jimmy making his debut in a preseason friendly (Spurs?) and being substituted - he walked off by the North Bank and got a standing ovation all the way round the pitch - he was brilliant, and I every season hope for the same thing. It's what makes football fun. | | | |
| Defence on 18:38 - Jul 20 with 652 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Defence on 18:21 - Jul 20 by eastbanker |
As already stated, been a supporter for 48 years and am entitled to my opinion. A forum is a place where people are allowed to make a statement and encourage discussion. A fan supports the club not just individual players and believe me I've seen some really poor players wearing the shirt since I began attending matches in the 1966/67 season. You obviously find it difficult to differentiate between people who have a genuine concern over the success (or lack of it) next season with those who want to slag off individuals on a personal level. I do not have any personal grievance with Fabianski as a person, Ive never met him and I'm sure he is a nice young man. I am only dubious of his ability to represent the club to a level that is required. Now if you think that makes me less of a fan than you, thats your problem, not mine. I will be at every home game this coming season as well as a few away matches including some of the friendly fixtures.
I am not prepared to agree with everyone else's opinion of players and their abilities just to be seen as "a true supporter." Going to Rochdale on a cold, dark wet Tuesday evening to watch us lose 2-0 makes us true supporters, having been to 83 football league grounds following the Swans over the years means I've earned my tag as a true supporter. Oh, by the way, I still don't rate Fabianski! |
I genuinely believe that everyone has a right to an opinion, and if you had said that you were concerned from what you'd seen that Fabianski may not turn out to be the keeper that we need, then that's fair enough.
In my view calling him' Flappyhandski' over and over again in more than one thread is an insult to him and to the people that have signed him - you are not giving him a chance. And that is not, in my opinion, the right way for a supporter to behave. You say that you don't agree with supporters slagging off individuals on a personal basis - well what do you think that calling him that without seeing him is then? Sorry, but I do think that makes you less of a fan.
And, by the way, I'm not doubting your credentials as a supporter, but honestly, the umber of people that used to watch us in Rochdale on a cold, wet Tuesday night is blooming astonishing given our attendances in those days. | | | |
| Defence on 18:49 - Jul 20 with 626 views | FearOfAJackPlanet |
I also think the defence needs some investment. I don't think swapping Taylor for Ben really affects us much, in my opinion Taylor is the better defender of the two, but Ben had more to his game, especially going forwards, but Tayls isn't a slouch in that respect either (Still remember that peach of a cross for Bony at Arsenal last season in one of his rare appearances).
Ash is good enough. Chico is a bit...well, Chico. Amat is someone it seems hard to dislike based on his attitude and professionalism, as well as his versatility; I have doubts about him making it at centre-half in the Prem though, he seems to lose too many physical/aeriel battles for my liking. He's built more like a full-back to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing him getting a chance at RB at some point.
Bartley certainly has the physique, but question marks remain about the rest, although I'm more of a fan than most on here it seems...
Rangel doesn't have strong enough competition, and KIngsley is a complete unknown as understudy to Tayls (if that's how it's to work out).
Bit risky to go as we are into the season IMO. |  |
| |
| Defence on 18:57 - Jul 20 with 609 views | RuDeMan1970 |
Just a slight interruption to the Fabianski argument (I'm on the fence with this one as I've not seen enough of him to form an opinion but hope he does well for us) but...can Kyle Bartley play Right Back? I'm sure he was signed as a CB / RB. If that's the case, maybe he's the reason we're not looking for cover for the ageing Rangel.  |  |
| ..."who will guard the guards..?" |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
