Well, de Gea has been here for a year and a half, so this extended period of time thing you keep banging on about, he hasn't even been at United for an extended period of time. Unless you make up a random time span just to cover your tracks. It's obvious he is improving, yet you seem more interested in slating the kid rather than looking at the positives. Ivanovic has proved himself, because he's been at Chelsea for over 5 years and is a mainstay in the team. De Gea had a career before United, where he was known as one of, if not the best young keeper in Europe. Why do you think so many goalkeepers current and past think the same? Give him a few more years before you try write him off completely and put every goal we concede down to some non existent error you see in your head.
If he doesn't make any mistakes for a year and a half I'll consider that an extended period of time without making any mistakes.
If we have to wait a few more years before he is consistent and good enough to actually convince people he's a top class goalkeeper then we should get shot of him now, his contract only has a few more years to run, we don't want to be in a position where he finally makes it as a top class goalkeeper then walks out on us. I'd hope that in a year's time or by the start of next season he's improved enough that he gets recognised as being very good, if it's going to take several years then it's just not worth it.
So this "3 or 4" mistakes in so many games is not good enough for a United keeper, is not writing a player off? He comes in here after every game bringing up the same stuff, then some. He claims de Gea parries the ball into danger too much and has the cheek to use City's first goal as an example of this. It's beyond ridiculous at times.
I certainly don't think de Gea is perfect, but looking for things that aren't even there is too much. The media were on his back from day 1, and that much is obvious. Look at David Luiz, he was getting gushing praise at the start of his Chelsea career because he scored a couple of goals and could play a bit, yet despite that he was a calamitous disaster in his supposed position on the football pitch. De Gea got the reputation after 1 competitive game, then they started to bring up this shots from the outside of the box thing from his time at Atlético. Regardless of how he played, the reputation stuck with him from his first match.
Do you think he wouldn't be a better goalkeeper if he parried the ball into less dangerous places?
Your second paragraph is interesting, you seem to be admonishing the media for using his career at Atletico where he conceded a lot of goals from outside the box as part of their analysis of his ability from shots outside the box, yet earlier you used his previous career as "the best young goalkeeper in Europe" as something the media should be taking into account. Which is it? Should we take into account his time at other clubs or not?
His reputation for being dodgy on long shots quickly evaporated by the way, his failings aerially quickly overtook it as De Gea's biggest flaw.
Kie:
a) Do you believe that we are indeed looking for a new keeper?
b) Do you think we should be looking for a new keeper?
I believe we're always looking for possible ways to improve the team in every position, and so we should be.
