If you've not noticed we've been horrific at football for the last 12 months so being our most consistent player does not mean he's actually good at football.
And yeah he's good enough to play keeper for that shower that is out there right now but again that isn't the standard we're aspiring to (I don't think) so does it actually matter? We need to look to improve the team, all areas of the team, and my guess is we'll settle for his average at best for a long while yet. I find it frustrating.
It doesn't discount the rest of the crap, but we don't pretend the rest is any good.
So because the team as a whole has been crap we can't acknowledge that the best performer in that team still gets more crap than pretty much anyone who isn't
Michael Keane just because he shouts a bit?
The whole erratic argument is based on his performances way in the past, he's been solid this year.
He has his weaknesses but he is comfortably a midtable/Europa League quality keeper.
And also, just about your point in another post about keepers being the cheapest position to improve. I can't agree.
There is a bottleneck of top quality goalkeepers that's why Liverpool paid 70m for a top one, why Chelsea risked 70m on one. Obviously you can uncover a cheap gem, like Edouard Mendy, but for the most part you pay a premium for quality in every position.
I'm more than happy to hear valid criticisms of Pickford but most people don't give valid criticisms.