| Lumley 00:23 - Feb 10 with 5551 views | numptydumpty |
Crikey what a balls up.
I actually genuinely felt sorry for the man.
A dreadful mistake !!!
He did always have that in his locker before or maybe its just in front of the loft end..
Put yourself in that position. I personally would have needed a toilet break after such a calamity.
Unfortunately though the shot that deflected up right near the end that he tipped over rather than in, meant my sadness and good vibes for the chap diminished in that moment.
Crikey though. What a howler !!!!! |  |
| |  |
| Lumley on 11:39 - Feb 10 with 1771 views | Noelmc |
| Lumley on 11:30 - Feb 10 by robith |
Did anyone else think that late bodge shot was gonna drop in to complete the night for him? |
It took a wicked deflection and so had a load of top spin on it. To be fair Lumley watched it carefully and dealt with it well. Reminded me of the Paul Parker deflection on the free kick in the World Cup SF against Germany in 1990, which was not dealt with by Shilton. |  | | |
| Lumley on 11:45 - Feb 10 with 1731 views | Esox_Lucius |
| Lumley on 11:32 - Feb 10 by PinnerPaul |
I felt sorry for him as well, tempered by the fact I'm sure he said something to Illias after that first miss, tried to get SJ booked for a nothing foul in the first half and took a minute with that last GK!
BUT fair play to him, still clapped us at the end despite the chants! |
He also stopped to chat with the kids in the Family stand for a few minutes too, and you could see him debating whether or not to give his shirt to one of them. He decided against in the end which was probably the right decision for an opposition player. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Lumley on 20:45 - Feb 10 with 1487 views | WatfordR |
I'm reminded of Gary Player, when accused of being a "lucky" golfer, who replied "it seems that, the more I practice, the luckier I get".
Joe Lumley last night, and at their place earlier this season, looked like exactly the same keeper that left us, prone to a panic/lapse of concentration that costs goals and points. Personally, I've always felt that Lumley post having his face rearranged at Villa Park was never the same keeper as previously.
There's a better keeper in there than he has shown over the last few years, not necessarily Prem league, but I feel it's up to him to face a few home truths and deal with his shortcomings if he doesn't want to fade away through the leagues. |  | | |
| Lumley on 22:03 - Feb 10 with 1396 views | Myke |
| Lumley on 10:09 - Feb 10 by BrianMcCarthy |
PP,
I would be disappointed if a Rangers goalie let Chair's one in, to be honest.
Lumley had time to take four steps, it's at a good height, nice pace, and it was a couple of feet inside the post. What causes Lumley a problem is that he sets up, takes two tiny steps, stops again, takes two more tiny steps and then dives. Even then he's not at full extension when he dives. What you're looking for is set-up, wait, two big steps and a hard, full dive. |
I had another look Brian and while I bow to your superior technical knowledge regarding goalkeeping, I feel this is a tad harsh on Lumley. Chair used not one, but two Boro defenders to 'shield' the ball, which would have meant that Lumley would not have seen the exact trajectory of the shot until very late. Also the balls are very light nowadays, so it was undoubtedly travelling faster than it appeared.
I used to play in goals for our 40+ five-a-side (we took turns when we were knackered!) and I always preferred if there was no-one between me and the shooter, if the defenders were not actually defending, as I could at least have a clear view of the shot. |  | | |
| Lumley on 23:06 - Feb 10 with 1334 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Lumley on 22:03 - Feb 10 by Myke |
I had another look Brian and while I bow to your superior technical knowledge regarding goalkeeping, I feel this is a tad harsh on Lumley. Chair used not one, but two Boro defenders to 'shield' the ball, which would have meant that Lumley would not have seen the exact trajectory of the shot until very late. Also the balls are very light nowadays, so it was undoubtedly travelling faster than it appeared.
I used to play in goals for our 40+ five-a-side (we took turns when we were knackered!) and I always preferred if there was no-one between me and the shooter, if the defenders were not actually defending, as I could at least have a clear view of the shot. |
You may well be right, Myke. Absolutely. Most analysis is subjective, after all.
I'd also admit that I'd be very demanding and would judge goalies by very high standards.
I've watched it back many times since, because I was even wondering myself if I was being too exacting. I'm sticking with my call - but just about! And I can 100% see that your view is valid. |  |
| |
| Lumley on 23:32 - Feb 10 with 1300 views | GloryHunter |
| Lumley on 22:03 - Feb 10 by Myke |
I had another look Brian and while I bow to your superior technical knowledge regarding goalkeeping, I feel this is a tad harsh on Lumley. Chair used not one, but two Boro defenders to 'shield' the ball, which would have meant that Lumley would not have seen the exact trajectory of the shot until very late. Also the balls are very light nowadays, so it was undoubtedly travelling faster than it appeared.
I used to play in goals for our 40+ five-a-side (we took turns when we were knackered!) and I always preferred if there was no-one between me and the shooter, if the defenders were not actually defending, as I could at least have a clear view of the shot. |
I agree. Top players deliberately use the defenders in front of them to shield their shooting shape from the goalie. Not sure if Chair has reached that level yet, but let's give Lummers the benefit of the doubt.
I won't forget Lummer's vociferous vocal support for Rangers during the lockdown games. His solo "Come on you Rs" was audible even through the streams. Top bloke. |  | | |
| Lumley on 23:34 - Feb 10 with 1291 views | kensalriser |
| Lumley on 22:03 - Feb 10 by Myke |
I had another look Brian and while I bow to your superior technical knowledge regarding goalkeeping, I feel this is a tad harsh on Lumley. Chair used not one, but two Boro defenders to 'shield' the ball, which would have meant that Lumley would not have seen the exact trajectory of the shot until very late. Also the balls are very light nowadays, so it was undoubtedly travelling faster than it appeared.
I used to play in goals for our 40+ five-a-side (we took turns when we were knackered!) and I always preferred if there was no-one between me and the shooter, if the defenders were not actually defending, as I could at least have a clear view of the shot. |
I think that's a myth about the weight of the ball. The regulation weight has been the same since before the war. The only difference is that modern balls don't absorb water as the old unfinished leather covered ones did. |  |
| |
| Lumley on 23:48 - Feb 10 with 1276 views | GloryHunter |
| Lumley on 23:34 - Feb 10 by kensalriser |
I think that's a myth about the weight of the ball. The regulation weight has been the same since before the war. The only difference is that modern balls don't absorb water as the old unfinished leather covered ones did. |
Very good point, Kensal.
Funnily enough, I was just researching why games are 90 minutes long - in response to the Chair thread. (Apparently games were reduced from 120 minutes to 90 minutes at the same time the teams were reduced from 20 to 11 - in 1866.)
The football has to weigh between 14 and 16 ounces at KO - which seems to have survived through the years. Although how the referee can judge this by squeezing it I have never understood. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lumley on 05:21 - Feb 11 with 1188 views | Loftgirl |
| Lumley on 23:48 - Feb 10 by GloryHunter |
Very good point, Kensal.
Funnily enough, I was just researching why games are 90 minutes long - in response to the Chair thread. (Apparently games were reduced from 120 minutes to 90 minutes at the same time the teams were reduced from 20 to 11 - in 1866.)
The football has to weigh between 14 and 16 ounces at KO - which seems to have survived through the years. Although how the referee can judge this by squeezing it I have never understood. |
Keith Stroud judges the weight by French kissing it. Quite a skill really. |  | | |
| Lumley on 09:38 - Feb 11 with 1066 views | TheChef |
| Lumley on 11:39 - Feb 10 by Noelmc |
It took a wicked deflection and so had a load of top spin on it. To be fair Lumley watched it carefully and dealt with it well. Reminded me of the Paul Parker deflection on the free kick in the World Cup SF against Germany in 1990, which was not dealt with by Shilton. |
Shilton is roughly half the size of Lumley and also was further off his line. Plus for an international keeper of his ability/longevity he never seemed to get much height with his leaps (see also the Maradona handball goal). And he should have been put out to pasture by Italia 90 (Seaman, Coton even Beasant much better/younger options).
Although his penalty saving ability is on a par with Lumley!
But yeah anyway don't get me started.  |  |
| |
| Lumley on 14:44 - Feb 12 with 829 views | PinnerPaul |
| Lumley on 23:48 - Feb 10 by GloryHunter |
Very good point, Kensal.
Funnily enough, I was just researching why games are 90 minutes long - in response to the Chair thread. (Apparently games were reduced from 120 minutes to 90 minutes at the same time the teams were reduced from 20 to 11 - in 1866.)
The football has to weigh between 14 and 16 ounces at KO - which seems to have survived through the years. Although how the referee can judge this by squeezing it I have never understood. |
We do have things called pressure gauges!  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
