Lumley

Serious QPR topics only. Posted images may be deleted. Off-topic or thread hijacking posts will be moved/removed and posters disallowed access to this forum. NO TICKET RELATED POSTS. ALL TICKET RELATED POSTS WILL BE DELETED. NO EXCEPTIONS. Please put ticket related posts in the right place only.

Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

Post Reply
Devonranger
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:20 am
Location: Exeter

Lumley

Post by Devonranger » Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:46 pm

I saw him being slated on another forum for tonight's game - is it me or did I see a different performance.

Thought he looked pretty assured on the whole - good judgement overall and pulled off a couple of smart stops. Couple of times maybe indecisive but no harm done and we did come up under pressure at times.

West Brom keeper had possibly no more than five shots and limited pressure, and still let in two - not even like the second goal for Rangers was anything special ..... :wink:

User avatar
deadendjob
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Lumley

Post by deadendjob » Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:11 pm

Personally don't think he's good enough for this level. I think he made a few good saves - one in particular where he came out early on in the game, but felt he should've done better with the goals - although, I'm not implying they were entirely his fault.
Image

nic
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:45 pm

Re: Lumley

Post by nic » Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:21 pm

Sadly I have to agree.

If you go back to the Milwall game, he flaps at a cross, gets caught in no mans land, and the striker hits the post. Had that gone in, as it should have done, he would have been torn apart ... we also look very shaky on crosses and corners in general. I wasn’t sure what was wrong with their disallowed goal in the last minute but we could easily have conceded four at home.

That’s not all his fault of course, but his inability to effectively take crosses and command his area is a big part of the problem.

To be honest, if possible I’d be looking to get rid of both Lumley and Kelly and being in two more keepers. Neither of them are good enough if you want to be in the top half of this league.

User avatar
Giorgio
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 4842
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Lumley

Post by Giorgio » Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:27 pm

..well...I would release Kelly for sure and keep Lumley....then going for an experienced keeper, plus evaluate Dieng who has been good on his seasons on loan....

User avatar
UxbridgeR
dot.org legend
dot.org legend
Posts: 10265
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Lumley

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:28 am

I think he's done well since he came back into the side. Neither he nor Kelly have been convincing across the season, but given the lack of defensive protection afforded by the rest of the team, it would be tough for any goalkeeper to shine.

I'd be happy to see a more experienced keeper come in, but that will cost money and will depend on what the manager has to spend.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 21434
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: Lumley

Post by Esox Lucius » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:36 am

Joe has done well since the restart and not having to deal with the toxicity of the fans at games has made a difference. MW's Red Sea defence is not the weapon to protect any goalkeeper and Joe has shown that he is the best goalkeeper at the club out of the four we have. Who knows what next season will bring but I can see Kelly & Barnes being let go with Dieng taking the #2 spot behind Joe and Marcin Brzozowski being brought into the 1st team squad and playing as 1st choice in the U23's. Tyla Dickinson who is only 19 has also had a new contract and moved to the U23's so the club obviously like the look of him too.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

Satch
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3906
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: Lumley

Post by Satch » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:16 am

He's the best option we have, the fans were a disgrace towards him. If a better option at a good price becomes available, fine but it's not quite the priority until we shore up the defence. He was a promising keeper at the start of the season and i think he's mostly looked good since he came back into the side. Hopefully, it was a temporary confidence issue and adjusting to MW's style. I thought Kelly looked shakey from the off and would have got utter pelters except the most critical fans had been so insistent on him playing they were forced to keep quiet.

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6569
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Lumley

Post by QPR_John » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:22 am

Behind that defence don't think many keepers would shine. As was mentioned above it was like the parting of the red sea

User avatar
Greyhound
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: Near Lewes, E Sussex

Re: Lumley

Post by Greyhound » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:35 pm

He's done well since winning his place back, is a good prospect, and the criticism of him is ridiculously harsh. He starts ahead of Kelly every time for me.

The most unfairly maligned QPR player by a mile.

User avatar
deadendjob
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Lumley

Post by deadendjob » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:38 pm

I read a stat on Sky yesterday that in terms of clean sheets kept we were 24th in the league. Several Other defensive stat's had us placed 22nd.

Who Scored has a few stats:
On clean sheets at home, we were the worst in the league. Strangely we conceded less away goals.
We were second for goals conceded in the first half 37 - second to Hull who were relegated.

It's a major issue we need addressed next season.
Image

LewiHoop
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:12 am
Location: Harrow via Surrey

Re: Lumley

Post by LewiHoop » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:02 pm

He's been good since the restart. I think people need to get off his back now. Hes young. I was a bit critical of him but he was good against WB. He will get better and better. His shot stopping was there. Hus distribution was there. He's only young. Hopefully now everything will fall into place for him. He'll be a good keeper for those experiences moving forwards.

User avatar
deadendjob
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Lumley

Post by deadendjob » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:25 pm

LewiHoop wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:02 pm
He's been good since the restart. I think people need to get off his back now. Hes young. I was a bit critical of him but he was good against WB. He will get better and better. His shot stopping was there. Hus distribution was there. He's only young. Hopefully now everything will fall into place for him. He'll be a good keeper for those experiences moving forwards.
I get that he's QPR through and through, but lets stop saying he's young. He's not young. He's 25 years old which is the average age of footballers.If he was 17/18, then fair play, he's just outta school, but in this case, age isn't an an excuse for someone under-performing.
Image

User avatar
Greyhound
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: Near Lewes, E Sussex

Re: Lumley

Post by Greyhound » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:59 pm

25 years is young for a goalkeeper, by any measure.

And he hasn't been underperforming

User avatar
deadendjob
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Lumley

Post by deadendjob » Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:08 pm

Greyhound wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:59 pm
25 years is young for a goalkeeper, by any measure.

And he hasn't been underperforming
He was dropped for nearly half the season - that's under-performing. If he was doing well, he wouldn't have been dropped at all.
Image

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 21434
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: Lumley

Post by Esox Lucius » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:38 am

I think the team rebuilding has priorities in other areas before looking at replacing goalkeepers. If we are to persist in zonal marking we will struggle again next season no matter who is in goal. The players need better communication to operate it more effectively, as we saw them time after time remaining in their zone whilst attackers exploited the spaces. This definitely seems to be a blind spot in MW's tactical approach and it is grossly unfair to lay the blame for goals conceded at the goalkeepers door every time we concede.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

Post Reply