Nathan Bishop?

[in the know]

Think confidence plays a massive part for keepers. Watch most keepers warm up before the game and the ball sticks like glue to their gloves from shots and crosses. Come the game they parry and punch for all the reasons mentioned above. But now and again a keeper in a game who's on his game will catch everything. The young Liverpool No 2 does if I recall.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Don't think I'd know a good goalkeeper anymore. They all look average to me. Not assertive enough, rooted to the line, punching and parrying towards attackers rather than catching. It must be the way they are coached and guess its to do with the ball. It remains, along with 11 players back for a corner, a mystery of the modern game. Flahaven in the league 1 promotion year is the best at Roots Hall in recent times and he wouldn't get a game anymore because he wasn't 8 foot tall.

Obviously not.

The reason Flahavan didn't progress wasn't because of his height but rather his ponderous decision making when he had to think about things rather than rely on his reflexes. You could see it with his inability to come for crosses (other than crosses beyond the far post, where he had more reaction time to decide to come for it), in his distribution. It's amusing to see some of those who criticise Oxley for his failure to come off his line rate Flavs, whose greatest asset was always the defence in front of him, followed by his ability to make routine saves look difficult. It didn't take him long to be found out at Palace.

The best I've seen at Roots Hall was Nick Pope when he faced us in various loan spells. It was obvious he was going a long way (obviously unlike Flavs who rarely got further than a yard off his line...). I wasn't at all surprised to see him play for England.

For Southend Roycie was the gold standard and more recently Dan Bentley developed into a very good keeper. Third on my list would be Sammy who, the occasional Saints and Greavsie worthy howler aside, was solid and dependable.

Looking at loanees Federici was also pretty decisive (he may be best remembered for his excellent but also fast distribution) and someone of a similar stature to Flavs but with much faster decision making in Cameron Belford. I can't say Belford necessarily filled me with confidence but he was an aggressive keeper - a poor man's Grobelaar if you like.

 

[rigsby]

Bruce Grobbelaar wasn’t overly big, dominated the area, caught at every opportunity and regularly dropped at the feet of opponents to concede soft goals and look a muppet. He also won 6 champions medals, 3 fa cup winners medals, 3 league cup winners medals and a champions league winners medal. Taking the risk of dropping a ricket was considered by the dominant team of the era a risk worth taking for the goals that were otherwise saved. Goalkeepers are too risk averse probably because of the lashing they’d get on social media and multiple reruns on video.

The only time Bruce dropped the ball is when he was paid to do so.

 

[Blue Yonder]

Ha ha... just goes to show if he never dropped the ball except when paid to do so he was even better than I remember ! ... id forgotten about the unseemly allegations at the end of his career.

 

[Blue Yonder]

On the broader issue of goalkeepers... as a centre half despite the allegations I’d have liked Bruce behind me. Other wise it would be Peter Schmeichel who better fitted the modern goalkeeper profile but who also dominated the penalty area. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be in the 6 yard box defending from under the crossbar when there’s a bloke with arms allowed to handle the ball and much better equipped to do the job.

 

[Richard Hearn]

Flavs was 2 inches taller than Rene Higuita and only 3 shorter than Lev Yashin.

 

[Letmein]

Would say the best two keepers that I have seen play a decent amount of games for us are Jim Stannard and Dan Bentley. A poll of best keeper would obviously have to include Bart!

 

[londonblue]

Obviously not.

The reason Flahavan didn't progress wasn't because of his height but rather his ponderous decision making when he had to think about things rather than rely on his reflexes. You could see it with his inability to come for crosses (other than crosses beyond the far post, where he had more reaction time to decide to come for it), in his distribution. It's amusing to see some of those who criticise Oxley for his failure to come off his line rate Flavs, whose greatest asset was always the defence in front of him, followed by his ability to make routine saves look difficult. It didn't take him long to be found out at Palace.

I disagree with that. At the time Peter Schmeichel was the blueprint for all 'keepers. Teams wanted huge dominant 'keepers like him. Daryll wasn't in that mold. That's not to say his size was his only drawback, (after all, no goalkeeper is perfect) but it was certainly an big hinderance.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Ha ha... just goes to show if he never dropped the ball except when paid to do so he was even better than I remember ! ... id forgotten about the unseemly allegations at the end of his career.

Grobbelaar had to pay the Sun's legal fees of £500,000 and was unable, so declared bankrupt.

 

[Blue Yonder]

Grobbelaar had to pay the Sun's legal fees of £500,000 and was unable, so declared bankrupt.

What an end to a career eh ? And that’s only a couple of weeks wages now.

 

[rigsby]

On the broader issue of goalkeepers... as a centre half despite the allegations I’d have liked Bruce behind me. Other wise it would be Peter Schmeichel who better fitted the modern goalkeeper profile but who also dominated the penalty area. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be in the 6 yard box defending from under the crossbar when there’s a bloke with arms allowed to handle the ball and much better equipped to do the job.

You might want to look at that famous 3-3 at Anfield with both your favourites playing. It’s claimed that the result was pre-planned

 

[londonblue]

Grobbelaar had to pay the Sun's legal fees of £500,000 and was unable, so declared bankrupt.

You do know that doesn't necessarily mean he was guilty don't you?

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

You do know that doesn't necessarily mean he was guilty don't you?

The details of the scandal emerged following an expose that appeared in the Sun in November 1994. In October 1994, Grobbelaar had been secretly taped by his friend and fellow countryman Chris Vincent in a Southampton hotel confessing about accepting bribes to throw matches. During his conversation with Vincent, Grobbelaar talked about throwing at least three games as well as trying to throw a few others. The video tapes were presented as evidence against Grobbelaar who was charged alongside John Fashanu and Hans Segers of Wimbledon FC both of whom were working with the same Singaporean betting syndicate as Grobbelaar.
The keeper also confessed to have had the intentions of throwing a game against Manchester United in 1994. He claimed to have dived the wrong way but the ball hit his hand, costing him 125,000 pounds. The Sun also filmed Grobelaar accepting Vincent’s offer to throw a game between Southampton and Liverpool at the end of the 1994/1995 season in exchange for 134,000 pounds. Vincent told Grobbelaar that he would receive 2000 pounds each fortnight and 100,000 pounds for each game that he fixed successfully. On their part Segers and Fashamu did not pursue legal action against the Suns and Segers continued playing for a while.

 

[londonblue]

The details of the scandal emerged following an expose that appeared in the Sun in November 1994. In October 1994, Grobbelaar had been secretly taped by his friend and fellow countryman Chris Vincent in a Southampton hotel confessing about accepting bribes to throw matches. During his conversation with Vincent, Grobbelaar talked about throwing at least three games as well as trying to throw a few others. The video tapes were presented as evidence against Grobbelaar who was charged alongside John Fashanu and Hans Segers of Wimbledon FC both of whom were working with the same Singaporean betting syndicate as Grobbelaar.
The keeper also confessed to have had the intentions of throwing a game against Manchester United in 1994. He claimed to have dived the wrong way but the ball hit his hand, costing him 125,000 pounds. The Sun also filmed Grobelaar accepting Vincent’s offer to throw a game between Southampton and Liverpool at the end of the 1994/1995 season in exchange for 134,000 pounds. Vincent told Grobbelaar that he would receive 2000 pounds each fortnight and 100,000 pounds for each game that he fixed successfully. On their part Segers and Fashamu did not pursue legal action against the Suns and Segers continued playing for a while.

From his wiki page:

Grobbelaar pleaded not guilty [to a criminal charge], claiming he was only gathering evidence with the intent of taking it to the police. After two successive trials, in both of which the jury could not agree on a verdict, he and his co-defendants were cleared in November 1997.

So, he was not found guilty of any crime.

Wiki carries on:

Grobbelaar later sued The Sun for libel and was awarded £85,000. The Sun appealed, and the case was eventually taken to the House of Lords where it was found that, though the specific allegations had not been proved, there was adequate evidence of dishonesty. The Lords slashed his award to £1, the lowest libel damages possible under English law, and ordered him to pay The Sun's legal costs, estimated at £500,000.

The only thing he lost was the libel case, which has nothing to do with the criminal case. These are the defences for libel (from hse.gov.uk):

Defences to defamation
7. There are a number of defences to an action for defamation, including:

1. the words complained of are true in substance and in fact;
2. the statement is protected by absolute privilege (see below);
3. the statement is protected by qualified privilege (see below);
4. the statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest: that is, opinion which any person could honestly hold, based on facts known at the time;
5. the words were published innocently by a person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement, who took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and s/he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what s/he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement3 and an "offer of amends" has been made4. Proceedings cannot be taken if the offer of amends is accepted5. It will constitute a defence if the offer was made as soon as practicable after the publisher received notice that the words might be defamatory.
6. Publication on a matter of public interest provides for the defence to be available in circumstances where it can be shown that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest and that it was reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest6

8. Absolute privilege attaches to:

• words spoken in the ordinary course of legal proceedings;
• a fair and accurate report of public legal proceedings published contemporaneously with such proceedings7. Fairness requires that reports should be impartial and should convey the substance of what has taken place in court.

9. Qualified privilege attaches:

• where the person who makes the communication has a duty to its recipients and they have an interest in receiving it (eg. where you have sought to publicise a letter containing implications for public safety);
• where it fairly and accurately reports public legal proceedings (they do not have to be published in a newspaper or be contemporaneous).

10. Statements must not be published `maliciously'. Reports are published with `malice' if the publisher knew the report was untrue, or was reckless as to its truth, or intended to injure the complainant8.

11. Where there are good reasons for HSE to issue a press release after a particular case has been heard, Press Office should be contacted immediately. Any comment should be published as soon as possible.

Given that he was found not guilty in a criminal court you have to assume that number 1 is a non-starter for why he lost.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

He won the first case because some members of the jury believed his made up story that he knew it was a sting and was going to expose the betting syndicate. Yeah, right. A bit like the story that John Higgins came out with when he was caught on tape arranging to throw matches. He was found guilty and banned by the snooker governing body. He also said he knew it was a sting. Pete Townsend was caught with sickening child porn. He got away with it because he said he was investigating as he was writing a book about children being abused. Most are guilty, but it depends if you can get the right people to believe your explanation when they are caught out.

 

[londonblue]

He won the first case because some members of the jury believed his made up story that he knew it was a sting and was going to expose the betting syndicate. Yeah, right. A bit like the story that John Higgins came out with when he was caught on tape arranging to throw matches. He was found guilty and banned by the snooker governing body. He also said he knew it was a sting. Pete Townsend was caught with sickening child porn. He got away with it because he said he was investigating as he was writing a book about children being abused. Most are guilty, but it depends if you can get the right people to believe your explanation when they are caught out.

Whatever your opinion 2 juries didn't convict him of anything.

 

[rigsby]

Bruce was clearly guilty. He was stupid enough to think a libel case needs the same level of proof as a criminal case.

He got what he deserved.

 

[Holy Joe]

Didn't he win the libel case - being awaded £1 in damages?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I disagree with that. At the time Peter Schmeichel was the blueprint for all 'keepers. Teams wanted huge dominant 'keepers like him. Daryll wasn't in that mold. That's not to say his size was his only drawback, (after all, no goalkeeper is perfect) but it was certainly an big hinderance.

You say huge and dominant but dominant was the more important attribute. Had he been three inches shorter he'd have still been a top class keeper.

Had Darryl been three inches taller he'd have still been a limited keeper for the reasons I stated.

From his wiki page:



So, he was not found guilty of any crime.

Wiki carries on:



The only thing he lost was the libel case, which has nothing to do with the criminal case. These are the defences for libel (from hse.gov.uk):



Given that he was found not guilty in a criminal court you have to assume that number 1 is a non-starter for why he lost.

As @rigsby has already quite rightly pointed out the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is very different to the civil one (on balance of probabilities).

In Scotland they have a third verdict, not proven but in England not proven would come under not guilty.

 

[londonblue]

You say huge and dominant but dominant was the more important attribute. Had he been three inches shorter he'd have still been a top class keeper.

Had Darryl been three inches taller he'd have still been a limited keeper for the reasons I stated.

In your opinion, not mine. In my opinion the two are linked. It's easier to dominate your area when you're taller/bigger/built like a brick ****house and can barge your way through a crowd of players.

As @rigsby has already quite rightly pointed out the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is very different to the civil one (on balance of probabilities).

In Scotland they have a third verdict, not proven but in England not proven would come under not guilty.

Again, he wasn't found guilty of a crime even though he was tried twice. He lost a libel case, which is completely different. Whatever our opinions of the man and even what went on, we weren't on the jury, and probably don't know the as much as they did. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like the guy, but I think it's important to recognise no-one has found him guilty of anything.

That said, it's unlikely he'll sue anyone on here for libel!