Howard

[Pinchy]

Long's kicking isn't great but it is generally better than Howard's was last night. Did you watch the game last night? Both Stockdale's and Howard's distribution was awful - for different reasons too; Howard kicked either too long and straight or directly out for a throw around half way. Stockdale kept miskicking under pressure.

Yes I saw it. He didn't once deliver the ball directly to an opposing attacker, thereby creating a goal scoring opportunity. We've seen our George do that on a number of occasions. Howard has far better technique. If the worst he does is kick it too long (no pun intended) then I'll live with that. Long's errors have cost us dear this season.

Let's assess it fairly shall we, rather than through Bladey, "We Young Georgie" specs. The kid has a great deal to learn. At the moment he is doing it at our expense.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Let's assess it fairly shall we, rather than through Bladey, "We Young Georgie" specs.

Frankly, I don't really care who our keeper is - I simply want a consistent assessment of both. Howard was no better than Long last night in his command of the area, was far worse on his kicking, was on a par with his handling. I say it again - flawless he was not. Perhaps you're suffering from the 'Bladey Bladey way' of failing to be objective.

 

[Silent Blade]

Has everyone really forgotten just how appalling George Long's kicking is? I would say the worst I have ever seen from a professional goalkeeper.

Not one of the best kickers out of our keepers past and present (Simon Tracey was the best) but for one match I would say that last night Howard wasted more kicks than anyone I have seen (possibly he was instructed to do this?)

 

[LoughboroBlade]

I would say that last night Howard wasted more kicks than anyone I have seen (possibly he was instructed to do this?)

Given the consistency of the wastefulness, I can see why you would think it was under instruction. But given there were a number of times in the game where we needed a breather after some sustained Fulham pressure, to immediately hand back possession again and again and again was not only exhausting to watch, but will have been exhausting for the team. He gave them no favours whatsoever - had he simply taken about 10/15% off the power of his kicks it would have at least given us a fighting chance of retaining possession.

 

[Kenilworth]

I like Howard, always have done, calm, unfussy, good position, can kick long . Seriously though, he kicked either for touch or to Stockdale that often, I wonder if there was a purpose behind it?

Think you may have something there LSF
I was also thinking something similar and reckon it may have been a deliberate tactic - their centre backs are tall buggers 6'6" and 6'7" so kicking it to a single striker in Porter would have been next to useless. Even more so when Baxter came on to replace him.
Kicking to touch resulted in a throw in but it is easier to defend a restart from the throw in than it is to defend a goal kick coming straight back into the danger area from the head of Burns or Hangaland.

He was then looking to see if he could catch the wind and get a freak goal over the head of Stockdale if he kicked it long enough - or at least pen them back in with a goal kick against the wind.

Either that, or his kicking is shit

 

[Silent Blade]

Conceding possession in that way (booting it straight to the hands of the opposition) allows us to get 11 players behind the ball and the opposition back line moves up higher in the field (unless the keeper rolls the ball to defenders feet) giving us space to run onto if we get a counter attack if we win the ball from the keeper's kick. It is easier to get a good counter attacking chance if we clear the opposition's corner or from winning the ball at the end of the keepers kick or if our keeper quickly catches the ball and quickly punts it to the wings than if the keeper has the ball in his hands but doesnt release the ball quickly enough. I am not a fan of these tactics

 

[LSF]

Think you may have something there LSF
I was also thinking something similar and reckon it may have been a deliberate tactic - their centre backs are tall buggers 6'6" and 6'7" so kicking it to a single striker in Porter would have been next to useless. Even more so when Baxter came on to replace him.
Kicking to touch resulted in a throw in but it is easier to defend a restart from the throw in than it is to defend a goal kick coming straight back into the danger area from the head of Burns or Hangaland.

He was then looking to see if he could catch the wind and get a freak goal over the head of Stockdale if he kicked it long enough - or at least pen them back in with a goal kick against the wind.

Either that, or his kicking is shit

My thoughts exactly Kenilworth.

 

[LSF]

Conceding possession in that way (booting it straight to the hands of the opposition) allows us to get 11 players behind the ball and the opposition back line moves up higher in the field (unless the keeper rolls the ball to defenders feet) giving us space to run onto if we get a counter attack if we win the ball from the keeper's kick. It is easier to get a good counter attacking chance if we clear the opposition's corner or from winning the ball at the end of the keepers kick or if our keeper quickly catches the ball and quickly punts it to the wings than if the keeper has the ball in his hands but doesnt release the ball quickly enough. I am not a fan of these tactics

Maybe not Silent, but if that were last night's intentions, it certainly worked!