If we sign a new keeper - Should he go straight into the team as No:1

We fell into the trap of playing the longer serving keeper, instead of the clearly better new signing - when Bratislava humped us & David Marshall was in goals instead of Artur Boruc.

A lot of people maybe think that we should start with Zaluska against Hibs, because he's been here for 3 seasons (& we've no other keeper ATM :icon_mrgreen.

However, when we sign Pletikosa or another keeper, whenever that may be -

Should they go straight in the team?

Or should we give Zaluska his chance to prove he's good enough, as we did with David Marshall - the night he shipped 5 goals.

Personally, I think we should go with the strongest team - regardless of how long they've been at the Club.

But for some reason, GK's more than any other position - seem to be afforded this luxury of proving themselves capable (which is OBVIOUSLY not the case, or we wouldn't be buying a replacement).

 

Not sure it's a great idea to throw a new keeper into the mix a few days after coming to a new club. I would give any new signing at least a week or two before starting them in a competitive match. There are plenty of friendlies left that a new keeper could play in to get settled.

 

Not really confident with luckasz in goal, prefer a newcomer

 

new guy for me, the pole is a ok back up, but he has had 3 seasons to get into the team so if hes not number1 by now then he will never be...

 

I would throw him in there straight away. The sooner he gets used to knowing his new team mates and how they play then they will develop an understanding quicker.

 

If we bring in a keeper,then he needs to be better quality than what we got
no disrespect to Zaluska,he should walk straight into the numer one slot.

 

Neither Zaluska or Cervi are up to the job from what i've seen of them. We need a quality keeper. Pletikosa is good enough from what i've seen of him.

 

It depends on who it is obviously.

 

Same as Mystic Penguin but if the new keeper is better then I'd prefer him to start.

 

This.

It could be the case that the goal-keeper needs a little time to adjust and get back to fitness, especially if he's not been playing regularly. (Pletikosa being the obvious example)

 

He should only go straight in if he is better than what we have

 

I'd only want to sign a new GK if he is better than we have already and would be a no.1.

 

+1

 

Zaluska I think, done nothing wrong in pre-season. Deserves a chance, after all we did sign him because he was a good keeper at Dundee Utd.

 

obviously depends on the ability of the keeper signed

 

It depends who the keeper is but I don't want Zaluska in goal for too many games anyway

 

depends on when he signs. if he signs like in the next day or two, then he has a few weeks to get to know the defence etc, but if he comes in a day or two before the game then maybe zaluska should be given the nod.

lets not forget that zaluska was playing very well for utd, hence why we signed him. just think that no matter who replaced boruc, they would almost certainly be a let down because they had to fill the gloves of, arguably, our best ever keeper.

 

* knows. This is a joke at our club just now. No keeper with a week to go.

Zaluska is not a No1 and I wont be confident in this guy on trial, simply because he hasnt played in two years. Anyone that says they are, are kidding themselves on. He hasnt thrown a glove at a ball in * knows how long.

So unless we sign Given or get Forster back in. Its a suck it and see approach.

Pish.

 

Penny pinching in my opinion.