Who would you start in goal?

[Jeff]

Absolutely dreadful signing, we signed another goalkeeper because rightly Dan at 18 with a handful of starts shouldn't be put into a situation where we are reliant on such a young lad to play a 46 game season especially with a new back 3/5 most of those similarly have little experience, so we sign a keeper with barely any more experience than Dan whose record is arguably worse.

The goalkeeper signing was a massive one for us in my opinion, we needed someone to come in 30+ who's played 100s of games either at this level or ideally League 2 to steady the ship and make us solid, we've failed miserably. If this was all we could do we may as well had just played young Dan and got a kid on loan from someone to sit on the bench.

Thing is, was that really likely to happen though?

The club is in a tough position regarding GK - Lavercombe's progress last season and subsequent Liverpool trial was fairly well documented, so every lower league keeper (and his agent) would know about him. The risk of any experienced head coming down to us would be the risk that he would be ousted by Lavercombe and likely not get back in - and thus said player's career would be seriously compromised. Thats probably put players off in the first instance. Also, if we signed an experienced keeper who ultimately wasn't as good as Lavercombe, we'd be wasting a significant chunk of budget for someone to warm the bench. And by the same token, no Prem/Championship club would want to send their youngster down here as he might not actually get any game-time behind Lavercombe.

Speiss probably represents the best situation we could get. He's young and unproven enough that he fits the budget, yet has played some first team football so is potentially better than a total novice. I imagine he'll start the year in goal, first balls-up he makes he's replaced by Lavercombe and then injury aside thats the last we see of him

[royalgull]

I don't see why we couldn't have gone for Lenny Pidgeley or Jake Cole or someone of that ilk who have been around a bit to come in as a solid experienced option who Dan can continue to learn from, he doesn't need to be playing in the first team this year really. Some Trophy games, the odd game here and there and even a loan spell wouldn't be the end of the world for someone so young. By signing Speiss who won't be coming here to sit on the bench we have just added to a potential problem and not solved anything. We're now in a situation where we have two totally unproven rookie goalkeepers and the one we've brought in is certainly no better than the one we already have. We'd have been better keeping Ricey!

[Colorado Gull]

Got to be Lavercombe for me. He may be young (even younger than me), but he's good enough. Sadly, I don't see this happening.

[nickbrod]

Saw Speiss against Argyle and not convinced; sadly down to what we can afford. Let's hope he comes good as the season progresses. Like Rice doesn't command his six yard box for crosses/corners.

[Dave]

First time I've seen Speiss play tonight, Made a quality save 1v1 made another save although flagged offside Spiess wouldn't have known that, came and took a couple of crosses alright, flapped at a couple. Thing is, he fits the budget and looks ok for this level, the one thing we can't do as fans, is find ourselves dragged into another Rice situation, if Spiess plays, support the lad.

[Gloomy Gull]

Interesting opinion from Exeweb "Some good, low crosses put in but their keeper was very good. Kept his eye on the ball even when crowded and got safe hands onto some very awkward crosses."

That was my take on Spiess' performance, thought he looked confident and capable.

Probably what we will need at the start of the season.

[yellowforever]

Yep Speiss should, and I think will start. He looked good tonight and I've heard great things about him from a County supporting mate, who said his downturn in form last season was a lot down to his confidence being shot in a couple of loan deals. He reckons a regular starting role and a set of new surroundings and he could be a terrific signing for us.

Added in 5 minutes 35 seconds:
On a side note, where has all this negativity come from regarding Speiss? He's looked good so far, has a terrific pedigree (he also had a trial at Liverpool earlier last season, same as Lavercombe) and fits the budget.

Good teams can have players fighting for the jersey. I remember that was the remit when we had both Poke and Bevan, and the same thing occured with Dearden and van Heusden. Both teams with those 'keepers in competition were good.

[Kit_robin]

I will echo Cox's comments that Spiess has got better each game he's played. For me, lavercombe still looks slightly better but after today I think Cox will play Spiess.

[lucy6lucy]

Lavercombe on merit deserves the chance to be number 1 keeper, he was faultless last season, he is still improving. Coupled with the fact he is local and has the respect from us fans. If we are going to cash in on a talented youngster, we have to give him games.

[Dave_Pougher]

I would start with Lavercombe. We are selling club more so than ever before and if PC wishes to push us, and himself, on he's going to need some lolly. Plus the reasons above by l6l.

[Dave]

Not meaning to disrespect any other poster here, but the notion PC should pick a player to increase the chance of selling him on is totally ridiculous. No manager worth his salt, no matter the club or it's financial position, should ever, would ever pick a team around the thought process of trying to market a young player for sale.

Paul Cox should, and I'm in no doubt will pick 11 players for Saturday he thinks present the best chance of winning the game, because that's what it's about, above and beyond anything else. I personally think both Spiess and Lavercombe will have large part to play in the season, think they'll both be seen as equal in the eye's of PC.

Which ever keeper PC starts the season with I'll respect his decision and fully support both keepers, I would strongly advise all TUFC fans do the same, we simply can not afford to go down the same road as we did with Ricey, Spiess will play games, will concede goals, there will be no need to over analyse every goal he concedes.

Spiess played well against Exeter, think I saw him make one mistake in the whole game, well fork me, lets put the unless twort against a wall a shoot him. It has to be remembered that Lavercombe is only 18 and has just 5 senior games to his name, Lavercombe was faultless in those games agreed, but he's still in his honeymoon period, he hasn't hit that brick wall in his career yet that all players do, he'll have bad game somewhere down the line, how will he handle that, will his form and confidence suffer at any point, it might, it may not, who knows.

Lavercombe is a very young inexperienced player, Paul Cox has a duty of care, and a duty to help Lavercombe's career develop, protecting the player and the clubs asset, that's why I think he'll start with Spiess, but hey, I could well be wrong.

[SuperNickyWroe]

Head says Spiess, heart says Dan...... :devil: