Read the thread. It's not about their shot-stopping ability, it's more to do with their distribution. Davis is a fine keeper and he was utterly amazing against Leeds, but it's his general distribution, via his feet, that is iffy. He can throw fine. Don't know why he used to kick at all.
I've read and redread what you've posted. Despite what you've posted (have I mentioned that I've read it?) I'm struggling to reconcile the skills being easy to learn with the fact that why goalkeepers tend to improve so much later in their careers. I would have taken that as a sign that the skills were harder to learn rather than easier (which is what you've posted - I know, as I've read what you posted). I think the discrepancy that you're so angry about might be because you think of the skills required as being (basically) the physical ones of catching, throwing and kicking. Perhaps we see the skills as running a little more deep than that, for example, positioning, motivation of defence, speed of decision making, etc, etc. You even betray your thinking by the wording of your final question which specifies physical skills. I contend that the physical skills are not what makes the goalkeeper. Vin
Very astute Fran. As a paid up member of the goalkeepers union it's very much a position where you improve with in game experience. You have to be able to read the game just as much that classy centre back because your starting position and the ability to anticipate where the ball is likely to be headed is just as important as having the agility to do something about it. Without getting too dull and technical you have to adapt those starting positions to suit your style and ability. An obvious example would be to compare De Gea & Cech who are physically very different. Naturally for reasons of height De Gea will have to stay further back as a default starting position, so will have to compensate with pace & quick feet to sweep and narrow potential goalscoring angels. Gazzanigga needs game time to get himself in different situation, whether that be in training matches, u21 games or out on loan.
I should have specified physical skills when I said it requires less skill, but it would be fair to say most think of skills as physical or at least I do. I think goalkeepers maturing later and hanging around longer is purely mental. Its standard practice for goalies to be chosen to be purely goalies a lot later than outfield players because I believe the goalkeeping skills are a lot easier to learn and require less of a natural feel. And positioning, motivation of defence is a lot more difficult for a central defender where they have to watch the offside, multiple runners etc. and I also believe the physical skills required are much harder to learn. Obviously being a professional goalkeeper is difficult but playing anywhere else requires a lot more physical and also mental skill. Although the last one is more debatable and there is certainly a lot more pressure on a goalkeeper if they make a mistake and for that it is probably more stressful.
I'm really struggling to find any substance to this argument to be honest. I don't think it's fair to say that. Skill is defined as "the ability to do something well; expertise", so any inference that they are purely or mostly physical is your own. Is that true? Or is it more that there is only one goalkeeper on the team so, to avoid a situation where you have 10 kids all wanting to play in goal, it makes more sense to teach them the skills necessary to play outfield first? What physical skills? Running and jumping? Most people can do that without any specific training! Goalkeepers on the other hand must have cat-like reflexes, be agile enough to contort their body to reach a reflex save, reliably catch a ball which is travelling at them quickly and/or bouncing just in front of them. What does a defender have to do that requires more adeptness than any of those? And that's not to mention the mental torture they endure, and the complete disregard for their own safety they are frequently required to demonstrate. This is speculative at best: what physical and mental skills? Give some examples. I expect lots of them as well as you yourself say playing outfield requires "a lot more" skill.
Doubt you would get 10 kids wanting to play in goal...they all want to play as strikers at first. Makes sense to train any promising goalkeeper in general footballing skills as they have to be comfortable on the ball outside their area or in dealing with back passes.
I haven't played goalie since I was a kid and so am not familiar with playing the position. My opinion is based more on my experience playing in the outfield. I have played at a decent level in Australia, against and with players who are now playing professionally but it is more often than not a goalkeeper that makes it overseas. This I believe is because australian football while it may be of a standard physically cannot regularly produce a tactically and technically astute outfielder. WIth goalkeepers this is not a problem and we have produced and continue to produce good goalkeepers when they are less than a 10th of the footballing talent. Whether this makes the position easier isn't clear but I would suggest it is an easier position to excel at with the requisite physique and determination.
I may have been exaggerating! If equal time was dedicated to goalkeeping skills I'm sure you'd see more kids wanting to utilise them though. I'm confused, so it's not about physical skills at all then? The opposite example is the African nations traditionally, who have had some extremely gifted outfield players but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of African goalkeepers who have made it in Europe for example (in fact I can only think of one, Carlos Kameni, who actually played at the top level). Why do you think that is? Could it be that goalkeepers need more specific technical training than outfield players?
Possibly, in 1st world countries who have access to the world's footballing knowledge to less limited degrees like usa and australia have produced mostly goalies. They also both have strong cultures of violent sports with nfl in america, and rugby and afl in Australia, which may or may not or may be a factor
Now I'm really confused, what "footballing knowledge" exactly do you think that the African nations (with barely any infrastructure to speak of) have had that the USA and Australia (two of the richest most developed nations in the world, with top class sporting facilities everywhere you look) haven't? If you're using American football and Aussie rules as examples, I'd have thought a better example would have been to point to the fact they might give players better ball-handling skills than the fact they are "violent"!
Its well understood that poorer countries like argentina and brazil have not struggled to develop technical players. And those sports would encourage ball handling and contact 2 important things for a goalie. Australia and USA probably produce more men of a size to play in goal as well. Whether africa has lacked technical knowledge to develop goalkeepers I have no idea.
Agree with this minus the violent sport remark. The US and Australia have produced predominately goalkeepers at the top level because their national sports require hand eye coordination; Rugby, NFL, AFL and even basketball which have skills which translate to the goalkeeper. I believe Pat Jennings was a good Gaelic footballer
Well I'm glad you mentioned Brazil because in fact they have also struggled to develop good goalkeepers, compared to their glittering outfield stars. So interestingly, it seems there may be a correlation between a country's development and its ability to produce good goalkeepers. Compared with outfield players who can develop their game in the favelas or on the beaches, that can only really indicate that the skills involved in being a goalkeeper need more considered training and as such are more difficult to learn, can't it? I don't think there is really anything to the theory that other sports requiring hand-eye co-ordination lead to better goalkeepers. I'm not aware of any such sports being particularly popular in Italy, Spain or Germany, for example, and they have probably the best keepers in the world.
I think playing a proper contact sport would be handy if you're diving at someones feet. Federici probably would have done better against rodriguez if he had have played more rugby as a kid. But yes its probably more important that the sports promote hand eye coordination. AFL is especially good for goalkeeping as a standard skill is marking the ball in a contested situation ala coming for a cross.
How does that follow? I think most people would agree that the harder something is, the more detailed instruction you will require to do it well.
They need specific instructions whereas you can develop the fundamentals of football with no instructions.
