Crabby Shrimper
President
The most frustrating thing about the constant over-analysis of Smith's performance is the constant over-analysis of Smith's performance with a biased agenda. I'm not talking about wanting what's best for the team as that's an agenda we all should have. The frustrating piece has been the apparent need for people to invest so much determination in proving themselves right because they publicly entrenched themselves in a view that the player wasn't good enough, such that every conceded goal is now dissected to see if the goalkeeper might possibly be at fault.
While Smith did look shaky at times at the outset - for me the jury has always been undecided - the performance last night shows that, if we can get behind him, he could be a massive asset.
It's made me start looking at some of the goals on a Saturday night on MOTD in a different light. You can almost find fault with EVERY goal and hold the keeper partly responsible. If the keeper had come out there, he'd have got it. If he'd only parried it round the post, the striker wouldn't have followed up. If he'd caught it rather than punched it.... etc. For every 'error' attributed to Smith lately, I've seen identical 'failings' on a weekly basis from keepers in the Premier League, suggesting that some people are holding our keeper to impossible standards.
The keeper is the last line of defence and if a goal is scored it's due to a combination of events, like our strikers not retaining possession, the midfield not cutting out the counter-attack, the defenders being out of position and not tracking their attackers and THEN the keeper not stopping the ball.
The point is, when you start with a position of 'Smith must be at fault', you'll be likely to make a case for it every time - and some people are going all out to prove it.
We all seem to accept that he's a confidence player. While last night shows he has the ability, why don't we try to help him with that confidence.
AND WHAT A PENALTY SAVE!!! :clap:
Great post, and agree 100%. It's worth remembering, however, that the claim of biased agenda could well be levelled at members of both sides of the argument (I'm looking at you Neil 24 :raspberry: )