Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Harry Isted Signs on a 2yr deal
Comments
-
Yes I said Isted is a liability and we need better.superclive98 said:
AMB was keeping behind the worst Charlton defence that I can ever remember. Isted is lucky that the defence in front of him has been improved (but still not great).Covered End said:
I assume he realised the same as the vast majority of fans, that AMB was a massive liability and Isted should be give a chance.superclive98 said:
Maybe, but I doubt that Nathan Jones looked at those stats and thought that Isted must be the better keeper.Covered End said:
Nathan Jones also dropped AMB for Isted.superclive98 said:
Doesn't confirm anything unless you analyse every shot that they have faced. Saving a shot that was straight at you would count the same as a shot that was heading for the top corner.Covered End said:
Backs up what I said that the Lincoln goalie was outstanding against us.Callumcafc said:Save percentages in the league this season
Jensen (Lincoln) 76%
Roberts (Barnsley) 75%
Baxter (Bolton) 74%
Norris (Portsmouth) 74%
Crocombe (Burton) 73%
Stevens (Cambridge) 72%
Brynn (Orient) 71%Cox (Bristol R) 70%
Sinisalo (Exeter) 70%
Tickle (Wigan) 70%
Ashby-Hammond (Stevenage) 70%Isted 70%
Southwood (Cheltenham) 69%
Grimshaw (Blackpool) 69%
Wildsmith (Derby) 69%
Beadle (Oxford) 68%
Marosi (Shrewsbury) 66%AMB 66%
Ripley (Port Vale) 65%
Lynch (Fleetwood) 65%
Bilokapic (Peterborough) 63%
Button (Reading) 62%
Stryjek (Wycombe) 62%
Also confirms my thoughts that Istead is bang average and AMB is worse.
I think I trust his judgement as well.
Isted is also a liability but not as bad.
We need a better No 1 there is no doubt whatsoever about that.
Isted has cost us goals in the last 2 games. Let's see what he does going forward to see if you still feel the same.0 -
And you are right.Covered End said:
Yes I said Isted is a liability and we need better.superclive98 said:
AMB was keeping behind the worst Charlton defence that I can ever remember. Isted is lucky that the defence in front of him has been improved (but still not great).Covered End said:
I assume he realised the same as the vast majority of fans, that AMB was a massive liability and Isted should be give a chance.superclive98 said:
Maybe, but I doubt that Nathan Jones looked at those stats and thought that Isted must be the better keeper.Covered End said:
Nathan Jones also dropped AMB for Isted.superclive98 said:
Doesn't confirm anything unless you analyse every shot that they have faced. Saving a shot that was straight at you would count the same as a shot that was heading for the top corner.Covered End said:
Backs up what I said that the Lincoln goalie was outstanding against us.Callumcafc said:Save percentages in the league this season
Jensen (Lincoln) 76%
Roberts (Barnsley) 75%
Baxter (Bolton) 74%
Norris (Portsmouth) 74%
Crocombe (Burton) 73%
Stevens (Cambridge) 72%
Brynn (Orient) 71%Cox (Bristol R) 70%
Sinisalo (Exeter) 70%
Tickle (Wigan) 70%
Ashby-Hammond (Stevenage) 70%Isted 70%
Southwood (Cheltenham) 69%
Grimshaw (Blackpool) 69%
Wildsmith (Derby) 69%
Beadle (Oxford) 68%
Marosi (Shrewsbury) 66%AMB 66%
Ripley (Port Vale) 65%
Lynch (Fleetwood) 65%
Bilokapic (Peterborough) 63%
Button (Reading) 62%
Stryjek (Wycombe) 62%
Also confirms my thoughts that Istead is bang average and AMB is worse.
I think I trust his judgement as well.
Isted is also a liability but not as bad.
We need a better No 1 there is no doubt whatsoever about that.
Isted has cost us goals in the last 2 games. Let's see what he does going forward to see if you still feel the same.1 -
Some people have.killerandflash said:
I don't think anyone's been saying that Isted has been great. Just that he's better than AMB.Exiled_Addick said:
You also can’t base your entire assessment of a player or situation on stats. AMB had to play behind an absolutely dire defence and midfield that played for months with no desire, organization, or commitment. Maybe AMB was part of the problem or maybe he was just caught in the cross fire a bit. He let in some goals he shouldn’t have, but so has Isted. You can’t relay blame AMB when week after week after week he was left totally exposed to the kind of shooting opportunities no keeper can be expected to save. Take our propensity for leaving strikers unmarked 6 to 10 yards out and allowing unchallenged pulls backs to those strikers, or how rarely we were blocking shots on the edge of the area. Really nothing AMB can do about that.Garrymanilow said:
Yeah, I've got to say ignoring the fact that AMB has conceded more goals, has a lower save percentage and calling the stats meaningless because you reckon you've figured out who is better from the stands is genuinely very funny and a good summary of this forum and football discussion in general. AMB is worse on just about every metric and Isted has been chosen over him repeatedly. He's not even that young either, he'll be 25 in the summer, old enough to not play like a kid anymore, which he does.superclive98 said:
And my view is the complete opposite of yours.Garrymanilow said:
That's an interesting perspective. I thought they both started poorly. AMB had ended the previous season looking questionable and then was bad enough at the start of the season that he was dropped for Isted. Isted was a bit shaky at first but had just started to look like he was settling in when he got injured. We definitely improved when Isted came in for AMB. We won one lost 4 with one clean sheet with AMB and then won two lost one drew with one clean sheet with Isted. We went through a little phase of improved form after that but I think that's more attributable to Chuks than either of the keepers. What is notable is that AMB kept another clean sheet against an abject Reading in October and then didn't keep another one again before being dropped in February. Our next one was against Pompey that month, which was Isted's 4th game back. They've each kept two now, though Isted has done it in fewer games.Exiled_Addick said:I don’t rate Isted at all. AMB improved us, initially, when he came in for Isted when Isted was injured at the start of the season. Then the entire team’s organization and confidence evaporated as the Appleton effect took hold and AMB’s formed suffered badly in that towards the end.
One of the things that deserted AMB was his decision making but Isted has been just as bad but he’s got away with a few. There’was cross he came for against, I think, Lincoln that he should have been nowhere near but he fortunately dropped it out for a corner. And against, I think, Portsmouth he went chasing out by the corner flag when he should have been nowhere near it and again got away with it. Then there was Northampton.
It’s obviously an exaggeration to say Isted makes no saves, but I haven’t really seen him save anything for us that I wouldn’t expect every keeper to save. And his attempt to stop that shot vs. Cheltenham was pretty weak.
Theres really very little between him and AMB. AMB did need to come out of the side but I think he’s marginally better of the two, when he’s confident and not in two minds about all his decisions.
I think the improved coaching and defensive shape is why the defence looks so much better, not because the goalie has changed.Also, almost every player has improved under NJ, why could that not be true of AMB if he were to be given another chance?
Isted has made two errors in two games that have cost us goals. AMB would be getting crucified if he’d done the same. You can tell NJ is not happy with Isted so I wouldn’t be totally surprised if AMB does come back in this weekend.
What you can take from that is fairly limited, other than that neither have covered themselves in glory this season. There's been 5 different managers across those games, about a billion different defensive line-ups and you can't really attribute too much of our form to the keeper. What I do find interesting is that Holden started with AMB and then dropped him for the Oxford game. He did lose his mind a little bit for that game and then was gone so who knows, but Pearce chose Isted for his one game. He wasn't afraid to completely change formation so I don't think it was just a caretaker going for consistency. Appleton then also picked Isted as his keeper until he was injured, Fleming kept AMB in for his two games where he very much game the impression of a man desperately not trying to do anything exciting (REG in midfield. Help.) and then Jones has chosen Isted as his man as well. It seems like the permanent managers have all gone with Isted in the end which either tells you that Isted is better or AMB is worse. Either way though, I've seen Isted play 12 league games, conceding 14 goals and I'm not sure yet if he's good enough. I've seen AMB play 51 league games, conceding 79 goals and I'm pretty well decided that he isn't.
I take no notice of those stats, as a lot of that can be down to what happens in front of the keeper.
What I do take note of is what I see with my eyes. AMB is still a young goalkeeper and has scope for improvement. Isted doesn't have the same scope for improvement. He's 27 and has never held down a position.
I doubt that either will ever be good enough to be first choice in a promotion chasing League One side or a Championship side, which is what we need, but I'd rather have AMB as back-up than Isted, who just looks physically unimposing , as a goalkeeper, to me.
I would argue that Isted has only been exposed to that kind of defending once since returning to the team under NJ and that was vs. Cheltenham and it led to him spilling a simple save and costing a goal.
The save percentage stats and goals conceded don’t really factor in the difficulty of the saves made or the performance of the defence in front of the keeper.If you want to talk on stats, if a keeper concedes 2 but the xG was 3 then that is probably better than conceding 1 when the xG was 0.5.
I guess I’m defending AMB a bit but not because I think he is a particularly great keeper, but I’ve seen a lot of stuff about how great Isted has been since he came back in and I just can’t agree with that. I think he has been bang average and there were warning signs of his two recent errors in earlier matches.We need to pick one as backup next season and move the other one on while signing a true no.1 who is top 6 quality.1 -
To be generous , he’s made 1.5 errors in the last two games , playing behind a far more settled and organised team than AMB. Neither are good enough for a promotion side , if that’s our aim next year .Exiled_Addick said:
Some people have.killerandflash said:
I don't think anyone's been saying that Isted has been great. Just that he's better than AMB.Exiled_Addick said:
You also can’t base your entire assessment of a player or situation on stats. AMB had to play behind an absolutely dire defence and midfield that played for months with no desire, organization, or commitment. Maybe AMB was part of the problem or maybe he was just caught in the cross fire a bit. He let in some goals he shouldn’t have, but so has Isted. You can’t relay blame AMB when week after week after week he was left totally exposed to the kind of shooting opportunities no keeper can be expected to save. Take our propensity for leaving strikers unmarked 6 to 10 yards out and allowing unchallenged pulls backs to those strikers, or how rarely we were blocking shots on the edge of the area. Really nothing AMB can do about that.Garrymanilow said:
Yeah, I've got to say ignoring the fact that AMB has conceded more goals, has a lower save percentage and calling the stats meaningless because you reckon you've figured out who is better from the stands is genuinely very funny and a good summary of this forum and football discussion in general. AMB is worse on just about every metric and Isted has been chosen over him repeatedly. He's not even that young either, he'll be 25 in the summer, old enough to not play like a kid anymore, which he does.superclive98 said:
And my view is the complete opposite of yours.Garrymanilow said:
That's an interesting perspective. I thought they both started poorly. AMB had ended the previous season looking questionable and then was bad enough at the start of the season that he was dropped for Isted. Isted was a bit shaky at first but had just started to look like he was settling in when he got injured. We definitely improved when Isted came in for AMB. We won one lost 4 with one clean sheet with AMB and then won two lost one drew with one clean sheet with Isted. We went through a little phase of improved form after that but I think that's more attributable to Chuks than either of the keepers. What is notable is that AMB kept another clean sheet against an abject Reading in October and then didn't keep another one again before being dropped in February. Our next one was against Pompey that month, which was Isted's 4th game back. They've each kept two now, though Isted has done it in fewer games.Exiled_Addick said:I don’t rate Isted at all. AMB improved us, initially, when he came in for Isted when Isted was injured at the start of the season. Then the entire team’s organization and confidence evaporated as the Appleton effect took hold and AMB’s formed suffered badly in that towards the end.
One of the things that deserted AMB was his decision making but Isted has been just as bad but he’s got away with a few. There’was cross he came for against, I think, Lincoln that he should have been nowhere near but he fortunately dropped it out for a corner. And against, I think, Portsmouth he went chasing out by the corner flag when he should have been nowhere near it and again got away with it. Then there was Northampton.
It’s obviously an exaggeration to say Isted makes no saves, but I haven’t really seen him save anything for us that I wouldn’t expect every keeper to save. And his attempt to stop that shot vs. Cheltenham was pretty weak.
Theres really very little between him and AMB. AMB did need to come out of the side but I think he’s marginally better of the two, when he’s confident and not in two minds about all his decisions.
I think the improved coaching and defensive shape is why the defence looks so much better, not because the goalie has changed.Also, almost every player has improved under NJ, why could that not be true of AMB if he were to be given another chance?
Isted has made two errors in two games that have cost us goals. AMB would be getting crucified if he’d done the same. You can tell NJ is not happy with Isted so I wouldn’t be totally surprised if AMB does come back in this weekend.
What you can take from that is fairly limited, other than that neither have covered themselves in glory this season. There's been 5 different managers across those games, about a billion different defensive line-ups and you can't really attribute too much of our form to the keeper. What I do find interesting is that Holden started with AMB and then dropped him for the Oxford game. He did lose his mind a little bit for that game and then was gone so who knows, but Pearce chose Isted for his one game. He wasn't afraid to completely change formation so I don't think it was just a caretaker going for consistency. Appleton then also picked Isted as his keeper until he was injured, Fleming kept AMB in for his two games where he very much game the impression of a man desperately not trying to do anything exciting (REG in midfield. Help.) and then Jones has chosen Isted as his man as well. It seems like the permanent managers have all gone with Isted in the end which either tells you that Isted is better or AMB is worse. Either way though, I've seen Isted play 12 league games, conceding 14 goals and I'm not sure yet if he's good enough. I've seen AMB play 51 league games, conceding 79 goals and I'm pretty well decided that he isn't.
I take no notice of those stats, as a lot of that can be down to what happens in front of the keeper.
What I do take note of is what I see with my eyes. AMB is still a young goalkeeper and has scope for improvement. Isted doesn't have the same scope for improvement. He's 27 and has never held down a position.
I doubt that either will ever be good enough to be first choice in a promotion chasing League One side or a Championship side, which is what we need, but I'd rather have AMB as back-up than Isted, who just looks physically unimposing , as a goalkeeper, to me.
I would argue that Isted has only been exposed to that kind of defending once since returning to the team under NJ and that was vs. Cheltenham and it led to him spilling a simple save and costing a goal.
The save percentage stats and goals conceded don’t really factor in the difficulty of the saves made or the performance of the defence in front of the keeper.If you want to talk on stats, if a keeper concedes 2 but the xG was 3 then that is probably better than conceding 1 when the xG was 0.5.
I guess I’m defending AMB a bit but not because I think he is a particularly great keeper, but I’ve seen a lot of stuff about how great Isted has been since he came back in and I just can’t agree with that. I think he has been bang average and there were warning signs of his two recent errors in earlier matches.We need to pick one as backup next season and move the other one on while signing a true no.1 who is top 6 quality.1 -
Is the defending better which is making Isted look better or is the defence better because they have more confidence in the bloke behind them?superclive98 said:
AMB was keeping behind the worst Charlton defence that I can ever remember. Isted is lucky that the defence in front of him has been improved (but still not great).Covered End said:
I assume he realised the same as the vast majority of fans, that AMB was a massive liability and Isted should be give a chance.superclive98 said:
Maybe, but I doubt that Nathan Jones looked at those stats and thought that Isted must be the better keeper.Covered End said:
Nathan Jones also dropped AMB for Isted.superclive98 said:
Doesn't confirm anything unless you analyse every shot that they have faced. Saving a shot that was straight at you would count the same as a shot that was heading for the top corner.Covered End said:
Backs up what I said that the Lincoln goalie was outstanding against us.Callumcafc said:Save percentages in the league this season
Jensen (Lincoln) 76%
Roberts (Barnsley) 75%
Baxter (Bolton) 74%
Norris (Portsmouth) 74%
Crocombe (Burton) 73%
Stevens (Cambridge) 72%
Brynn (Orient) 71%Cox (Bristol R) 70%
Sinisalo (Exeter) 70%
Tickle (Wigan) 70%
Ashby-Hammond (Stevenage) 70%Isted 70%
Southwood (Cheltenham) 69%
Grimshaw (Blackpool) 69%
Wildsmith (Derby) 69%
Beadle (Oxford) 68%
Marosi (Shrewsbury) 66%AMB 66%
Ripley (Port Vale) 65%
Lynch (Fleetwood) 65%
Bilokapic (Peterborough) 63%
Button (Reading) 62%
Stryjek (Wycombe) 62%
Also confirms my thoughts that Istead is bang average and AMB is worse.
I think I trust his judgement as well.
Isted is also a liability but not as bad.
We need a better No 1 there is no doubt whatsoever about that.
Isted has cost us goals in the last 2 games. Let's see what he does going forward to see if you still feel the same.
We don’t really know.If you want another stat to compare the two, try goals prevented which compares a goalkeeper’s goals conceded against the expected goals they’ve faced, which accounts (somewhat) for the general difficulty of shots faced.
AMB: 41 conceded, 37.2 xG faced, -3.8 goals prevented
Isted: 14 conceded, 13.0 xG faced, -1.0 goals prevented
I do think we need a new keeper in the summer but it’s AMB that I’d be looking to move on from personally.2 -
Isted does make mistakes which is not good.
AMB not only makes mistakes but also seems more likely to cause mistakes in the defence as well, which is worse.
And yeah maybe that's down to Jones having a more settled/organised defence... but he opted for Isted to be part of that which surely speaks for itself.
Neither is good enough for promotion. Isted is the less bad of the two.2 -
Would be completely fine with Isted as cover for next season but would want a new Number 1 to come in. Think it's time to move on from AMB and time for him to go and establish himself as a No1 somewhere.
1 -
If the new number 1 stays fit all season I’m more than happy with either Isted or AMB as back up3
-
The talk about the improved defence and how much the GK influences vs the defenders themselves misses what I think is the biggest reason - the improvement across the team as a whole. Under NJ we’re more organised, aggressive, direct and play at a higher tempo. The focus is on winning the battle over playing out from the back and keeping possession that was there under MA (though not as extreme as it was under Garner).Callumcafc said:
Is the defending better which is making Isted look better or is the defence better because they have more confidence in the bloke behind them?superclive98 said:
AMB was keeping behind the worst Charlton defence that I can ever remember. Isted is lucky that the defence in front of him has been improved (but still not great).Covered End said:
I assume he realised the same as the vast majority of fans, that AMB was a massive liability and Isted should be give a chance.superclive98 said:
Maybe, but I doubt that Nathan Jones looked at those stats and thought that Isted must be the better keeper.Covered End said:
Nathan Jones also dropped AMB for Isted.superclive98 said:
Doesn't confirm anything unless you analyse every shot that they have faced. Saving a shot that was straight at you would count the same as a shot that was heading for the top corner.Covered End said:
Backs up what I said that the Lincoln goalie was outstanding against us.Callumcafc said:Save percentages in the league this season
Jensen (Lincoln) 76%
Roberts (Barnsley) 75%
Baxter (Bolton) 74%
Norris (Portsmouth) 74%
Crocombe (Burton) 73%
Stevens (Cambridge) 72%
Brynn (Orient) 71%Cox (Bristol R) 70%
Sinisalo (Exeter) 70%
Tickle (Wigan) 70%
Ashby-Hammond (Stevenage) 70%Isted 70%
Southwood (Cheltenham) 69%
Grimshaw (Blackpool) 69%
Wildsmith (Derby) 69%
Beadle (Oxford) 68%
Marosi (Shrewsbury) 66%AMB 66%
Ripley (Port Vale) 65%
Lynch (Fleetwood) 65%
Bilokapic (Peterborough) 63%
Button (Reading) 62%
Stryjek (Wycombe) 62%
Also confirms my thoughts that Istead is bang average and AMB is worse.
I think I trust his judgement as well.
Isted is also a liability but not as bad.
We need a better No 1 there is no doubt whatsoever about that.
Isted has cost us goals in the last 2 games. Let's see what he does going forward to see if you still feel the same.
We don’t really know.If you want another stat to compare the two, try goals prevented which compares a goalkeeper’s goals conceded against the expected goals they’ve faced, which accounts (somewhat) for the general difficulty of shots faced.
AMB: 41 conceded, 37.2 xG faced, -3.8 goals prevented
Isted: 14 conceded, 13.0 xG faced, -1.0 goals prevented
I do think we need a new keeper in the summer but it’s AMB that I’d be looking to move on from personally.
NJ has prioritised and got the basics in place that any successful team had. We’re much more difficult to play against. The defence isn’t regularly exposed like it was under MA. Players like Jones and Gillesphey look like the solid CBs we expected instead of their ability being questioned after they gave away yet another goal. NJ has shown our recent recruitment hasn’t been terrible, the way we played under MA wouldn’t have got the best out of most players.
On GKs I agree we need a new number 1 in the summer. Who’s second choice probably comes down to who we can move on and the wages they’re on.
1 -
Dear me. Should have kept that out and a dreadful kick nearly assisted them. Apart from that, he's had nothing to do.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
We get it, you're not a fan... jeez.0
-
Step forward AMB.sam3110 said:
I don't think many keepers would have kept that out actually, it was spinning and looping away from him and he would have seen it late.mendonca said:Dear me. Should have kept that out and a dreadful kick nearly assisted them. Apart from that, he's had nothing to do.2 -
As others have said, it feels like we have two good #2s at this level, but neither seems quite good enough for where we want to go.
I'll always feel we should have kept Jojo (and played him more in the second half of last season). But what's done is done.
For me, the best outcome would be sending AMB on loan next season to play regularly, keeping Isted as a backup, and bringing someone new in to hopefully be #1.
I think AMB is the weaker of our two keepers at the moment, but I think he has the higher upside because of his shot stopping and athleticism. I know Isted hasn't played a lot of senior football, but I feel like it's kind of what you see is what you get with him.2 -
Though is wasn’t an “easy” save, I thought the way he attempted to keep the ball out for their first goal looked very awkward. Didn’t seem to move his feet well, maybe went with the wrong hand, the way he tried to push it straight sideways rather than out from the goal a bit as well. It just all looked a clumsy and slow to react. The ball probably came at him a bit quicker than it looked and the flight of it was awkward but I also think a better keeper would have kept it out. I might be judging him harshly on this one because I just don’t trust him, but for me it’s another question mark against his name.
I just can’t shake this feeling that he’ll stop most routine things but anything that is a more difficult save, but still saveable, he will let in. We need someone who will keep some of those harder saves out of the net.0 -
@Dazzler21 this is a player based thread for comments on that specific player. You have a habit of turning things about the poster, which I noticed you did about me in the match thread.
One could make the same point about you calling out Karoy 3/4 for the same thing today. You're allowed your view. It's all cool.1 -
no chance with the first, huge deflection and did well to get anything on it.2
-
You're right of course this is the player based thread. However I highly rate Anderson but he's clearly struggling.mendonca said:@Dazzler21 this is a player based thread for comments on that specific player. You have a habit of turning things about the poster, which I noticed you did about me in the match thread.
One could make the same point about you calling out Karoy 3/4 for the same thing today. You're allowed your view. It's all cool.
A vocal minority right now are expecting Isted to save every shot, no matter how realistic that is.
That first goal, he could do little about and he did the little that he could.2 -
Having re-watched the first goal how are people calling for Isted to use his left hand here?
0 -
Plus possibly who is content as a No 2 and who is adamant they are not.Scoham said:
The talk about the improved defence and how much the GK influences vs the defenders themselves misses what I think is the biggest reason - the improvement across the team as a whole. Under NJ we’re more organised, aggressive, direct and play at a higher tempo. The focus is on winning the battle over playing out from the back and keeping possession that was there under MA (though not as extreme as it was under Garner).Callumcafc said:
Is the defending better which is making Isted look better or is the defence better because they have more confidence in the bloke behind them?superclive98 said:
AMB was keeping behind the worst Charlton defence that I can ever remember. Isted is lucky that the defence in front of him has been improved (but still not great).Covered End said:
I assume he realised the same as the vast majority of fans, that AMB was a massive liability and Isted should be give a chance.superclive98 said:
Maybe, but I doubt that Nathan Jones looked at those stats and thought that Isted must be the better keeper.Covered End said:
Nathan Jones also dropped AMB for Isted.superclive98 said:
Doesn't confirm anything unless you analyse every shot that they have faced. Saving a shot that was straight at you would count the same as a shot that was heading for the top corner.Covered End said:
Backs up what I said that the Lincoln goalie was outstanding against us.Callumcafc said:Save percentages in the league this season
Jensen (Lincoln) 76%
Roberts (Barnsley) 75%
Baxter (Bolton) 74%
Norris (Portsmouth) 74%
Crocombe (Burton) 73%
Stevens (Cambridge) 72%
Brynn (Orient) 71%Cox (Bristol R) 70%
Sinisalo (Exeter) 70%
Tickle (Wigan) 70%
Ashby-Hammond (Stevenage) 70%Isted 70%
Southwood (Cheltenham) 69%
Grimshaw (Blackpool) 69%
Wildsmith (Derby) 69%
Beadle (Oxford) 68%
Marosi (Shrewsbury) 66%AMB 66%
Ripley (Port Vale) 65%
Lynch (Fleetwood) 65%
Bilokapic (Peterborough) 63%
Button (Reading) 62%
Stryjek (Wycombe) 62%
Also confirms my thoughts that Istead is bang average and AMB is worse.
I think I trust his judgement as well.
Isted is also a liability but not as bad.
We need a better No 1 there is no doubt whatsoever about that.
Isted has cost us goals in the last 2 games. Let's see what he does going forward to see if you still feel the same.
We don’t really know.If you want another stat to compare the two, try goals prevented which compares a goalkeeper’s goals conceded against the expected goals they’ve faced, which accounts (somewhat) for the general difficulty of shots faced.
AMB: 41 conceded, 37.2 xG faced, -3.8 goals prevented
Isted: 14 conceded, 13.0 xG faced, -1.0 goals prevented
I do think we need a new keeper in the summer but it’s AMB that I’d be looking to move on from personally.
NJ has prioritised and got the basics in place that any successful team had. We’re much more difficult to play against. The defence isn’t regularly exposed like it was under MA. Players like Jones and Gillesphey look like the solid CBs we expected instead of their ability being questioned after they gave away yet another goal. NJ has shown our recent recruitment hasn’t been terrible, the way we played under MA wouldn’t have got the best out of most players.
On GKs I agree we need a new number 1 in the summer. Who’s second choice probably comes down to who we can move on and the wages they’re on.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
He got enough hand on that shot to have pushed it away
ponage0 -
Didn't think he had much chance with the goal. But given the pelters AMB gets for distribution it is worth saying that Isted kicked at least 4 awful clearances and against better opposition we would have been punished.5
-
Both haven’t took their chances. Definitely think we will have a new number one next season.0
-
Gone for a Burton.
Never really impressed and away at Fleetwood was the final straw.
1 -
I really hope his leaving means that an experienced keeper is about to join0
-
The goalkeeping position has been a problem for seasons now and he is another one that didn't solve it.
1 -
Very disappointing. The injury and starting off behind AMB didn’t help but when he got given his chance under a familiar manager he didn’t take it. He did better than AMB last season but that’s a low bar. Made too many mistakes and his saves weren’t positive enough to get rid of the danger. I’m glad we’ve moved on0
-
We've had pretty bad luck with keepers it seems like:
23/24 - Maynard-Brewer and Isted
22/23 - Maynard-Brewer and Woolacott
21/22 - MacGillivray
20/21 - Amos
19/20 - Phillips (Championship)
Zero consistency other than Maynard-Brewer that just didn't make the step-up we wanted.
If this means we move to get Begovic that's another keeper that's likely only going to be here for one season.1 -
Thought he was a step up on AMB, but wasn’t impressed at all towards the end of the season. Pleased we’ve managed to move on him, as definitely wasn’t of the calibre of goal keeper we need.Henry Irving said:Gone for a Burton.
Never really impressed and away at Fleetwood was the final straw.0 -
Didn’t make a save for about 6 games , sums up the shit we are serverd season after season and after today not expecting any better to come !1
