Simon Mignolet

[el matador]

Jurgen Klopp’s regular boosts to Mignolet’s confidence might be getting Liverpool’s goalkeeper through to the end of the season without a complete meltdown, but allowing the Belgian to retain his place as Liverpool’s No. 1 goalkeeper beyond the summer would be tantamount to negligence. It’s not an issue of belief or form – he’s just not good enough.

It is Mignolet’s decision-making that leaves most to be desired, highlighted by his vain attempt to claw away the cross from which Papiss Cisse headed Newcastle’s first goal on Saturday. These are mistakes – when made regularly – that you would expect of a novice goalkeeper. Mignolet turned 28 last month.

Of the 30 goalkeepers to start more than five Premier League games this season, Mignolet ranks 27th by save percentage and 29th for save percentage from shots inside the box. Nobody has made more errors directly leading to goals this season, and only four goalkeepers have dropped more crosses.

Liverpool would not necessarily be a top-four club with a more able goalkeeper, but defensive solidity starts from the back and moves forward. Mignolet is leading by poor example, and it’s time for a change.

http://www.football365.com/news/prem...-and-losers-32

holy ****. i thought mignolet was bottom 3 out of the 20 goalies in the league, now he's bottom 3 out of 30 goalies in our league. god almighty, if there was ever a clearer case of bringing in a goalie this is it.

i have no doubts that kloppo will get rid of him or make him our no.2. he isnt good enough to be our no.1

[BigChief]

Negligence is the keyword here. I can imagine Rodgers being negligent picking the same players that make the same mistakes. Haven't seen that with Klopp yet.

[RichC]

Its not negligence don't be OTT he's just not good enough for us long term.

[RichC]

Its not negligence don't be OTT he's just not good enough for us long term.

[BootRoom]

Why give him a new 5 year contract when he still had 2.5 years to run on his existing deal?

[Bender]

Why give him a new 5 year contract when he still had 2.5 years to run on his existing deal?

if he runs his contract down/refuses to sign a new deal he leaves on a free transfer....this way we still get a transfer fee.

[el matador]

if he runs his contract down/refuses to sign a new deal he leaves on a free transfer....this way we still get a transfer fee.

Hard to see anyone paying a fee for him. Even promoted sides may have better keepers than mig.

[RichC]

He'll be brought if we sell whether he stays in the PL is another matter.

[BootRoom]

if he runs his contract down/refuses to sign a new deal he leaves on a free transfer....this way we still get a transfer fee.

Oh, the old 'protect the asset' routine.......would make sense if Mig was actually and asset and not a liability.

[Bender]

Oh, the old 'protect the asset' routine.......would make sense if Mig was actually and asset and not a liability.

Clubs have and will continue to by players even if there **** ****...Balotelli being a prime example.

[BootRoom]

Clubs have and will continue to by players even if there **** ****...Balotelli being a prime example.

He's not good enough and shouldn't be anywhere near the first team - if he's nowhere near the first team and unable to 'showcase his talents' for any extended length of time his supposed value will continue to plummet. He's not an up-and-coming player, or a mercurial talent that could persuade somebody to take a risk for big money; he's an unreliable keeper that will cost his team a shed-load of goals over the long-term - not something that is in high demand. Lumbering ourselves with this long-term deal in the hope that somebody will out-stupid us seems completely ridiculous.

[Bender]

He's not good enough and shouldn't be anywhere near the first team - if he's nowhere near the first team and unable to 'showcase his talents' for any extended length of time his supposed value will continue to plummet. He's not an up-and-coming player, or a mercurial talent that could persuade somebody to take a risk for big money; he's an unreliable keeper that will cost his team a shed-load of goals over the long-term - not something that is in high demand. Lumbering ourselves with this long-term deal in the hope that somebody will out-stupid us seems completely ridiculous.

Exactly my point again Balotelli a classic example....selling Mignolet won't be too hard as long as we don't ask silly money.And i agree for a club like LFC he's very average to poor.....unlike his previous club Sunderland that's his level.

[Exiled_red]

Clubs have and will continue to by players even if there **** ****...Balotelli being a prime example.

We'll see in the summer

[Bender]

We'll see in the summer

[BootRoom]

Exactly my point again Balotelli a classic example....selling Mignolet won't be too hard as long as we don't ask silly money.And i agree for a club like LFC he's very average to poor.....unlike his previous club Sunderland that's his level.

Sell him when? This summer? If so there was no need for the new contract as he still had two years left. You think he'd just down tools for two years and sulk in the reserves and then expect to walk in to a decent-level gig?
If we shouldn't ask for "silly money" then what's the point of the new long-term deal - surely that would point to the opposite strategy, as in: "we don't have to sell so make us a silly offer we can't refuse".

Sell him when? The following summer? Why do we want him around for another year? Makes no sense.

Presumably his new contract involved improved terms, so his new "lower level" club will have to pay him on a par with a top-level club - unless they barter the the transfer fee down to compensate, defeating part of the object of 'protecting the asset' with a long-term contract.