If Dan conceded the goal vs Sligo, then he would have been crucified. Terrible goalkeeping.
Let's not forget that for months people were considering Dan to get back into the first XI at the expense of George Long. The two playoff games seem to have clouded people's judgment on how successful Long's loan was. He wasn't much better than Dan.
Yes, stats appear to be in Long's favour - but it was Ebbe Skovdahl that said "stats are like miniskirts, they look good but hide the important bits".
Long ticked all our boxes - Young, tall, potential, highly rated down south. And with the extra expense was he really that big an improvement on Dan?
Dan may not be terrific, but he doesn't give you the fear anywhere near as much as Hollis and Neilsen. And he was for 6 months on course to win our POTY. People are easy to forget that. He was crucial in the points we did pick up, and kept our hammerings down from cricket scores.
Check out the highlight of the defending vs Dundee and Accies at the start of last season. And you'll see how much Dan saved us at times last year.
The year we finished 2nd we managed to do this with Neilsen and Hollis. Widely recognised as far inferior goalkeepers than Dan. That's because in the SPL - a prolific striker/strikeforce is far greater requirement. And with McDonald/Wes/Moult we may well have that again. Thus relieving the pressure on our "inferior" goalkeeping position.
Of course Dan will be replaced as Bara has stated. But certainly not the disaster that everyone reckons.