Machiavelli
Well-known member
Webster, on the other hand.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Steele and Webster
- Thread starter Reddleman
- Start date
@hans kraay fan club nailed this on WhatsApp and I’ve not seen it explained better.
Steele is better with his feet. Bart is better at all the other keeper stuff. But Bart is very nearly as good with his feet, whereas Steele is miles off the other keeper stuff.
Bart needs to be number one for the rest of the season.
Steele is better with his feet. Bart is better at all the other keeper stuff. But Bart is very nearly as good with his feet, whereas Steele is miles off the other keeper stuff.
Bart needs to be number one for the rest of the season.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 4,044
Now Webster…
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
According to fbref.com, Bart is the better keeper on every metric. But both have terrible stats for PSxG. Which is the metric on how likely the goalkeeper is to save the shot.
Positive numbers suggest better luck or an above average ability to stop shots. Zero is average and +0.23 is the current best in the league. (Vicario)
Per 90 minutes played, Jason Steele is -0.22 and Bart is -0.20.
Combined Verbruggen and Steele are comfortably in the Premier League bottom four statistically.
No wonder we're busy buying up the best young keepers in the land.
I’d challenge how those stats are baselined to an extent. When we concede it’s generally because we’ve lost the ball at the back or been hit on a high pace break. Either gives an easy goal with a totally exposed keeper.
But, that aside, we have a keeper in his 30s who fell to bits at Sunderland and a good but very young and inexperienced keeper in Bart. We just don’t seem to ever sign players with both qualified experience and young legs.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
PSxG takes into account the difficulty of the shot.
We're shit at saving all shots.
Still, I assume it will be Bart’s turn on Thursday.
Tricky game; luckily he’ll be match sharp and fully up to speed after playing vs. Wolves and Fulham.
Oh.
Tricky game; luckily he’ll be match sharp and fully up to speed after playing vs. Wolves and Fulham.
Oh.
Statistically that makes perfect sense. Visually, we were totally exposed for goals two and three yesterday. For two, Pervis should be closing down the cross and Dunk attacking the cross. Neither did. I called the third as their goal as soon as Gross lost it.
I’m not claiming our keepers are shot stopping geniuses though. They obviously aren’t.
Everton and (recently) ManUre and Villa have been dining out on the points won by their overperforming keepers. From what you suggest, we have been doing the opposite. Time for a fix, then.
Last edited:
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
Don't forget James Trafford, he saved 10 of the 11 shots we had on target. The best keeping performance I've seen at the Amex.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 4,044
Ask any Burnley fan what they think of him though, and they’d probably drive him down here themselves.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
Munchkin
Well-known member
RDZ plays his strongest XI available on Thursday.
I think that will be quite telling in terms of the goalkeeper debate.
I think that will be quite telling in terms of the goalkeeper debate.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
He played Steele in the must win against Marseille.
I doubt he'll do the same on Thursday.
nwgull
Well-known member
I’m sure he’ll be motivated by the fact that, no matter how well he plays, he’ll probably be rotated back to the subs’ bench for the return leg.
I can see it now. We go to Roma, Bart has a good game and we come back with a respectable result. Bart plays Sunday in a win over Forest, then RDZ puts Steele back in for the home leg.
Don Tmatter
Well-known member
Nothing to do with the decision making in the final third again, no? If that was ironed out we’d win more games than lose
Yes, to an extent - if you’re confident we can score 4 to counteract the 3 shipped at the other end, taking Fulham as the most recent example.
There’s no question that we could / should be doing better up the top end of the pitch. But the rate we’re letting them in means we’re sunk before we even start.
Luton? One down after 17 seconds; 2 down inside 3 minutes.
Wolves? One down inside 3 minutes.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
I think playing 3 at the back was the issue with those particular poor starts.