Right, but for a keeper, he was somewhat ahead of his time with the game experience he got so young in MLS. Now he's improving the technique he lacked, that most keepers get in their younger years while not playing for the 1st team. In a sense, he's doing things on schedule but in a different order from the norm. In the beginning, Howard rode his form and athletic ability. After a while, his lack of technique caught up and he made some errors. Now he's working on that. He may very well be done as a starter for ManU, but it's possible he still has a lot to gain by staying there.
Could it be that there is some sort of anti American bias at man U...?? Howard, Spector, Cooper and yes, even Rossi (subbed at HT in the Carling Cup....as the easy sub option...) have careers seemingly in some sort of holding patern at Man Utd...????....could it be "pecking order" problems...? team/club internal politics...??....stay tuned.
I see, Glazer buys the team and now there's an anti-american bias. Since I started the Fulham tangent. How about forget Crossley's injury, Howard's a better keeper they should sign him as an upgrade.
Really? You think that Tim Howard would have been satisfied with sitting on the bench for 4 freakin' years to then "get a shot" at #1? I certainly don't.
Whatever, this is getting tiresome. I'll just pop on FSC and watch Timmy playing for Fulham next week. To answer your question, he went over as most likely the No. 3, and between Barthez being horrible and Tim playing well on the CW tour, he got his shot. I honestly think that when he signed, he would be pretty pleased with the idea of starting reserve games and getting Cup games with the first team for at least a few years. I'm not saying he would be happy in that role for four years, but would it be worth it? I'm thinking his answer would be yes.
You must spread some yada yada yada Don't forget what they did Kirovski or Thorrington either!!! It's the Evil Empire. Then again, Chelsea makes everyone look like Ewoks now.
If I were SAF, if Jussi is available, I'd go for him with an eye to him taking over for van der Sar next fall. Sorry to say also that I'd let Howard go. IMHO, Jussi is the best keeper in the PL, even better than Cech. And, according to Sky Sports, Cech rates 6.3 on average, while Jussi is 6.8. Friedel, by way of comparison, rates 6.6, tied with van der Sar.
How lame. If it's tiresome, it's because you continue to make non-sensical statements. But it's especially lame since all you've got to save yourself from embarrassing yourself is saying sarcastically that Timmy will be playing for Fulham, (actually, you don't have the ability to sound sarcastic, so you use a rolleyes) when I said from the very beginning that it wouldn't happen, just not for the reasons you state. So now you're making a distinction between "pretty pleased" and "not saying he would be happy". I don't know what that's all about. I really do not believe that Tim Howard went to MAn U for 4 years of reserve football followed by "a shot" at first team football. AndI don't believe that Man U paid that much for a guy who, 4 years down the road might be starting.
I would not be surprised if we lose Jussi,I am worried that the cheap ass chairman will not put out the money to keep him.In that case I would like Bolton to get Tim as I am confident he could win the top job over our current backup keeper.
1. "pretty pleased" in year one. Going from the Metrostars in MLS to being the No. 2 at Man United and playing reserve and cup games. 2. "not saying that he would be happy" in year four of the deal to be in the same position. I can't make it much clearer than that for you. I wouldn't expect him to be thrilled not to advance in four years, but I was simply saying that to be in that position in four years (meaning after next year) was worth the shot. The worst that happens is that he moves on, most likely to another EPL club, with an eye towards being No. 1 at 28 years old. On the flip side, he could end up getting another shot where he could solidify his position at one of the biggest clubs on the planet. Tim is a big boy. I am sure he knew that there were no guarantees when he signed his contract, and that there will always be someone pushing him for his spot as he should be pushing Van der Sar. Finally, your comment "that Man U paid that much for a guy who, 4 years down the road might be starting" is naive at best. First, they didn't pay that much for him. Second, that is how big clubs have to stockpile for depth. Just while Tim has been there, you have seen a number of young players come and go -- David Bellion, Eric Djemba Djemba, Diego Forlan etc. -- all of whom the club (and the player) would have wished for a different result, but you sign for a shot. Tim got his early, and I am convinced he will likely get another shot or they would have dumped him a while back. He probably agrees, or he would have asked for a transfer by now. I know its in short supply around here, but everyone needs to be patient. If and when it doesn't work out, we will all know it. In regard to the topic, he isn't going anywhere on loan when the guy behind him is an untested 21 year old.
That would be the more likely scenario, but I don't think United will sell Tim this year, and I have never heard him utter anything to suggest that he would request a sale. Things may change by the summer, but I would be surprised if he moved in January.
1. Not that much money? How many goalkeepers have been purchased for $4million or so in the last couple of years? 2. That's funny, earlier on you were saying Fulham wouldn't sign him because if van der sar was injured, Man U would snatch him right back. Now you're saying Man U wouldn't let him go because Van der sar might get injured... but if they can snatch him back from Fulham, what would be the problem?
You get an Incomplete for failing to do your homework. First, lets deal in pounds since that is the currency that we can compare. MUFC paid 2.3 million for Howard. Just for comparison at United, they have recently paid 2 million for Van der Sar who is a decade older with only a couple of years left in him. They paid 7.8 million for Barthez. Hell, they paid 4.4 million for Massimo Taibi. They also paid 2.25 for 21 year old Luke Steele. When you consider that next years starting back four cost United a combined 47 million pounds, I stand by my assertion that the fee for Howard given his age and upside was not a lot of cash for United. On point two, you act as if the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. Fulham wouldn't want to take him on loan because of the very real possibility of him being recalled, thereby leaving them high and dry. United doesn't want to loan him because they would be left with very little cover. Even with a recall provision, they could easily lose a game or two without Howard being available immediately. You are looking at this from a "what's best for Howard" perspective. Both clubs are far more selfish than that. Look at the upside for both clubs, and it simply isn't worth doing.
ACtually Fulham wouldn't be high and dry they would still have the two other keepers they have not. They are not very good. Still thats not the point. I agree that Man Utd wouldn't want to loan him out anyway at the current moment. In addition, IIRC Foster was bought for another 1MM pounds.
Allow me to explain, pounds and dollars are not the same currency, 2.3 million pounds was roughly $4 million in 2003. Yes, a few of what were considered the top keepers in the world went for more money. Again, not many keepers go for the amount that Howard went for. And finally, just stop it, you are tying yourself in knots to prove god knows what point. Either Man U can recall him or not. That would be good for one team, and bad for the other, not bad for both. This is boring, plus you had a nice post on the politics board, so I forgive you for your torturous logic here.
Oh, and nice try, they paid 500,000 for luke steele. The transfer would cost a total of 2.25 million if he plays. Which really proves my point.
OK, once again, let me 'splain the rules. 1. A PL-to-PL loan has to be for the duration of the season. So if Howard goes to Fulham on a normal loan, he CAN'T be recalled. Like Spector at CA...once loaned, he was there till the next transfer window. ManU would probably have recalled him rather than play Beardsley, but they didn't have the option. 2. A team can appeal under special circumstances, like S'hampton last year. Given the singular nature of the goalkeeping position, it's probably limited to keepers. 3. Fulham could never win the appeal with Warner healthy. 4. Has anyone ascertained that Crossley's injury was more than temporary? 5. An emergency loan COULD have a recall provision. Fulham would only want Howard until either Warner or Crossley was healthy, and, in fact, would only be ALLOWED to have Howard until one or the other was healthy. While there's the chance they'll be left high and dry if EVDS gets hurt, guess what? THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO PLAY THEIR YOUTH KEEPER IN THAT EVENT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING THEM TO PREFER TO HAVING HOWARD. But, again, with Warner healthy, it's a moot point. Can we all stop this silly tangent now???
1) No sh!t? As I explained, I converted it because all of the transfers are in pounds. 2) I will alert Massimo Taibi that he is one of the top keepers in the world. I am sure he will be thrilled. Btw, Fulham paid 7 million pounds for Van der Sar when he was younger. 3) As Dave has pointed out, this is a moot point, but assuming United could loan him to a Div. 1 team, it could be bad for both. What if Van der Sar was injured five minutes into the Chelsea game? Would they add on 2 hours of injury time waiting for Tim to take a train to OT? That would have potentially been a six point swing. 4) I love torturing people with logic. It's what I do.
No because the game isn't at Old Trafford It's about a 33 minute walk from Fulham to Stamford Bridge of 15 minutes by tube. Also since that game is on April 29th and is the next to last game of the season, it might not matter anyway if Chelsea can keep the current 9 point gap.
By using "was" I was referring to a hypothetical that Tim was on loan at the last game where we already know the outcome. Then, that gap would be 15 points. You can plug the example into any game, and there is a risk that Man United could drop points by not having an adequate back up for a 35 year old keeper. But unfortunately, I think you will probably be right about the importance of that next to last game. That would set up a funny scenario, however. "Edwin, could you just roll around clutching your knee for another 7-8 minutes as Timmy jogs over from the Cottage?"