World Cup

[HomerJSimpson]

He did his job, he job was clean sheet during the game. You ask to have your opinion respected Homer, but seem to refuse that some keepers could be better and certain aspects. Van Gaal himself said that krul was simply bigger and could cover more of the goal.

If your a teams man scorer should you also be their pen taker even if you're useless at them? Just because you score the most goals from open play?

I'll leave the subject now matey as don't wanna argue but whilst i can agree he may not have been chuffed with being subbed. He now has a semi to play in which is the more impiortant thing for himi would expect.

My point is simply if he's good enough to be #1 then why sub him for penalties. What had happened if Costa Rica had got a penalty in the 120 minutes before the shoot out. Would they have subbed him and left Krul on? I'd say no so why for the play off. Makes no sense to me. Not the fault of either keeper but seems a weird management decision

 

[Deleted member 15344]

My point is simply if he's good enough to be #1 then why sub him for penalties. What had happened if Costa Rica had got a penalty in the 120 minutes before the shoot out. Would they have subbed him and left Krul on? I'd say no so why for the play off. Makes no sense to me. Not the fault of either keeper but seems a weird management decision

If you are number one does that mean you automatically better than every other keeper at every aspect of keeping or just the majority

Cillessen is better than Krul at shot stopping , crosses , distribution , area domination , kicking but Krul is better at stopping penalties - would that not mean that Cillessen would be number one but Krul is better at saving penalties ? So if a shoot out happens then you would want the player who is best at saving penalties as opposed to the other aspects of keeping ?

Seems a simple choice but risky and maybe one that other people will make

 

[Papas1982]

My point is simply if he's good enough to be #1 then why sub him for penalties. What had happened if Costa Rica had got a penalty in the 120 minutes before the shoot out. Would they have subbed him and left Krul on? I'd say no so why for the play off. Makes no sense to me. Not the fault of either keeper but seems a weird management decision

I doubt very much they would sub him, much like if a team had a penalty specialist in the bench they would take a star stiker off either. But, when its a penalty should out and you have players specifially picked for a penalty shoot out i dont see the problem.

Surely the plan is, pick you best players for the match, and then your best for the penalties?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Krul has only ever saved 2 penalties in the PL so I've no idea how he can be considered an outstanding penalty stopper

 

[Papas1982]

Krul has only ever saved 2 penalties in the PL so I've no idea how he can be considered an outstanding penalty stopper

Van Gal didn't say he was, simply that he was bigger and therefor cover more of the goal. Surely if all penalty shoot outs are luck with no goalkeeper skill involved then the bigger the keeper the better?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Krul has only ever saved 2 penalties in the PL so I've no idea how he can be considered an outstanding penalty stopper

Did he not save two in the shootout and guess the right way on every penalty ?

The manager thought he would make the goal look smaller with his bigger frame also and it appears to have worked.

It appears the manager made the right choice for the good of the team.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Lots of players and keepers do it during penalties in normal time though. Try and put people off, just likely stopping during a run up was at one point apparently banned as it gained an advantage, or keepers staying on their lines. If england won a shoot out with it i'd be chuffed.

If England won a shoot out behaving like that I'd be embarrassed.

 

[Papas1982]

If England won a shoot out behaving like that I'd be embarrassed.

Fair enough, I'd take us winning a penalty anyway we could. There are imo players that do far worse things than try and put a player off.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Fair enough, I'd take us winning a penalty anyway we could. There are imo players that do far worse things than try and put a player off.

Not disputing that, but that doesn't make Krul's behaviour last night acceptable.

 

[Papas1982]

Not disputing that, but that doesn't make Krul's behaviour last night acceptable.

To you, in a time when its win at all costs i can think of a lot of things that i don't like. That i wasn;t so fussed about. Each to their own of course. Not saying i'm right. Just that imo i dont see anything wrong with it. Can understand why others do.

 

[Blue in Munich]

To you, in a time when its win at all costs i can think of a lot of things that i don't like. That i wasn;t so fussed about. Each to their own of course. Not saying i'm right. Just that imo i dont see anything wrong with it. Can understand why others do.

It's ungentlemanly conduct and therefore against the rules is what's wrong with it and why it's unacceptable, not a question of just being unacceptable to me, and not quite sure why you don't see anything wrong tbh. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's ungentlemanly conduct and therefore against the rules is what's wrong with it and why it's unacceptable, not a question of just being unacceptable to me, and not quite sure why you don't see anything wrong tbh. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Defiantly ungentlemanly conduct and I believe he should have booked him - that would have stopped the antics

 

[Cherry13]

People definitely underplaying the fresh legs/mind factor. Playing in goal for 120 min can be extremely tiring and mentally draining, Krul was then able to come on fresh, he had a bit more spring in his step and could wait that split second longer hence he punished what were two awful spot kicks. As good as navas was during the game he was exhausted and made his move before every kick was taken, so effectively guessing.

Krul waited, as was seen in going the right way every single time, but the good ones beat him.

Also dlnt under estimate as a striker being made to face a fresh keeper.

 

[Papas1982]

It's ungentlemanly conduct and therefore against the rules is what's wrong with it and why it's unacceptable, not a question of just being unacceptable to me, and not quite sure why you don't see anything wrong tbh. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

As is diving, time wasting, swearing to name a few. Do they all get booked? I'm sure you've seen your own players to some of those things and not always complained?

 

[Dodger]

Did he not save two in the shootout and guess the right way on every penalty ?

The manager thought he would make the goal look smaller with his bigger frame also and it appears to have worked.

It appears the manager made the right choice for the good of the team.

Guess is the word.

Lotteries penalty kicks. Van Gal has been made to look like a super hero but if Krul had guessed the wrong way he would have looked a right prick. He got lucky nothing more nothing less.Christ he could have put Veltman in goal for the kicks and he could have guessed right and become the hero.

 

[c1973]

He's only a goalie so what does it matter, he's only in goal cos he's not good enough to play outfield.



A brave decision by Van Gaal and one that would have haunted his managerial career had it not worked.

I've got to say, I'd have been livid if it had been me going off and I hadn't been kept in the loop, would have been fine if I'd known before had. Mind you, I was good enough to play outfield so it's immaterial.:ears:

 

[Papas1982]

Guess is the word.

Lotteries penalty kicks. Van Gal has been made to look like a super hero but if Krul had guessed the wrong way he would have looked a right prick. He got lucky nothing more nothing less.Christ he could have put Veltman in goal for the kicks and he could have guessed right and become the hero.

There has to be some skill in penalties? Or are we (english) just really lucky? Yes luck was involved, but his logic was that kruls reach was bigger, therefor if he got lucky and went the right way, the target that the opposing had was smaller? Surely thats still a tactic?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Guess is the word.

Lotteries penalty kicks. Van Gal has been made to look like a super hero but if Krul had guessed the wrong way he would have looked a right prick. He got lucky nothing more nothing less.Christ he could have put Veltman in goal for the kicks and he could have guessed right and become the hero.

Exactly. If Holland had missed and Costa Rica scored all there kicks it'll have made no difference and Van Gaal would have looked an idiot. I wonder if United fans will have to get use to other bizarre decisions in a few weeks time. Penalties are a lottery and subbing the keeper made zero difference in my opinion

 

[Slime]

Exactly. If Holland had missed and Costa Rica scored all there kicks it'll have made no difference and Van Gaal would have looked an idiot. I wonder if United fans will have to get use to other bizarre decisions in a few weeks time. Penalties are a lottery and subbing the keeper made zero difference in my opinion

That we will never know ........................... ever.
However, because of the outcome, I think it was the correct decision and certainly not bizarre.
Unusual yes, bizarre no .................. also in my opinion!


Slime.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Exactly. If Holland had missed and Costa Rica scored all there kicks it'll have made no difference and Van Gaal would have looked an idiot. I wonder if United fans will have to get use to other bizarre decisions in a few weeks time. Penalties are a lottery and subbing the keeper made zero difference in my opinion

But Holland didnt miss and Costa Rica didnt score all their pens and Van Gaal doesnt look like an idiot - can only look at exactly what happened - the GK that was subbed on saved two penalties - people can speculate on any other outcomes but the facts are pretty plain to see.