BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots

Subject: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 03:28 AM

I was distressed by a picture in the sports pages of The Times today captioned "De Gea tries in vain to stop the ball crossing the line." Manchester United's goalkeeper is shown sticking his foot out towards the ball.  It was an absolute principle in my goalkeeping days, 65 or so years ago, that no goalkeeper ever stuck his foot out, but always got down and smothered the shot with hands and body. The picture shows that the ball would have been well within  reach for De Gea to do just that; and in fact the reach of any lying body is far longer than that of one leg.  This important technique seems largely to have been lost these days, though some of the better keepers (Joe Hart comes to mind) seem to favour the old ways I describe.  I am sure many more saves of low shots would be achieved if all keepers would return to the old ways of always trying to get a hand, rather than a foot, to the ball. It is worth adding, moreover, that the method I advocate obviates the risk of a score on the rebound.

Anyone out there, goalkeepers or others, with an opinion on this?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: G-Force
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM

Agreed, but instinct sometimes takes over. Also, it takes longer to get your body down and out to the side, so if you've only just seen the ball coming, sticking a leg out may be the natural thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:37 AM

Always had too many brain cells to be a goalie. Being left footed put me on the wing at school, but not being the fastest sprinter meant I never got to pour champagne in the slipper of Miss World.

I have gone through life assuming the first rule for success as a goalie is not to be Scottish, if that helps.

On a more serious note, sticking the foot out seems wrong in most circumstances, but back when most players were home grown, punching the ball out was somewhat off too, but this continental technique is common place now.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:39 AM

The practice of punching the ball also used to be taboo, except as a last resort, on the grounds of it being too easy to misdirect the ball by a badly-timed punch, or even miss the ball completely, whereas it seems to be the first resort of many 'keepers today (presumably because they can't be relied on to catch the damn thing?).

How time changes things!

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:40 AM

Cross-posted, Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 05:51 AM

Re time taken getting down, G-Force. I think it actually quicker doing a resolute all-in-one dive if one has practised it regularly, as surely any goalkeeper will have done. Sticking leg out as shown in the pic I mention is liable to lead to the splits, torn ligaments, has one unbalanced on one leg & so helpless. It really ought to be regarded, as it used to be, as a no-no for any self-respecting goalkeeper. It really does pain me to see so many of them trying it these days - almost invariably unsuccessfully SFAICS; the ball spins in off the foot or rebounds to an advancing attacker who scores.

Re punching: one would resort to it two-handed if surrounded and hard-pressed and so liable to be charged over the line holding the ball if one caught (as used to happen before today's idiotically over-protected milksop goalkeepers: I wait to see a red card given to someone for giving a goalie a dirty look from the centre circle -- think I'm exaggerating!?)

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:47 AM

I've always assumed that goalies only punch balls as a desperate substitute for catching it, never as a first choice.

Pat Jennings was the man for catching and holding impossible balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: banjoman
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 05:45 AM

It really does not matter which part of the body prevents the ball crossing the line. Keepers like Pat Jennings made saves with every part of their anatomy. Gordon Banks was a genius at stopping shots with his legs. I am sure a certain Pele would agree ( Mexico 1970)

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 07:07 AM

It really does matter, I should say. Of course the priority is to keep the ball out, and sometimes a block is the only way. But if one can hold the ball and prevent the rebound, which is difficult to control & might well fall to an attacker while one is still off balance from the previous 'stop with any body-part', it is obviously preferable to do so. Hence the preference where possible to get down to, and hold, the ball, to which my generation of keepers were trained. As I say, some of the best keepers still do it. Watch Joe Hart. He looks like a throwback in that particular maybe, but he is still England's no 1. My impression [and my wife's, who is a Chelsea supporter -- tho how we stay married when I am lifelong Arsenal I can't imagine!] is that Petr Cech generally aims to do likewise.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 07:43 AM

The game has changed so much in the years I've been watching it. Played at a much higher tempo for the most part. The skills of people kicking the ball have radically altered, the ball now spinning and dipping with the way in which it is kicked. The ball itself is much altered, lighter, water resistant with the laces down the middle of one side a distant memory. These things must make the game harder for the keeper in some ways. However, like you, MtheGM I would love to see keepers actually catch the ball instead of pushing it away from the gaol and again like you I often think they would be better served to block with the body than the feet. Having said all that I struggle to catch a cold never mind a football, perchance the financial aspects of the game have actually affected the way it is played.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 09:28 AM

Unlike my namesake, I never played in goal in a proper match (during my schooldays). Being small-ish and a fast runner meant I was always a forward. However, being smaller than most opposing defenders also meant that I spent most of my time airborne...

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:48 AM

I get the image of Pete being kicked and headed all over the place by massive opponents and never being allowed to get his feet on the ground...

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 06:17 PM

Goalkeeper turned Pontificator.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:20 PM

'Goalkeeping technique for low shots'

Spend an hour in the BS section of Mudcat. It's a Darwinian place to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 04:44 AM

Of course, using the boot is not as good as gathering the ball & keeping control of it. ...

But, if the goalie is only placing his body on the line (ok, that's not quite what I meant) to block the ball, then a rebound from his head/body/arms/legs has the same effect as getting his foot to it. The main difference is that if he clears it with his boot then he's still on his feet to cope with whatever comes next.

It's a split second choice which can only be made by the goalie.

Also remember that the goalie has to consider where the ball has come from. If it has touched one of his own team on its way back to him, then handling it could cost his team a free kick if the ref construes it as a pass to the goalie. In these circumstances a kick is the only reasonable option. (this rule came after MtheGM's goal-keeping days)

As the original post is just concerned with a single picture then we can't know the circumstances in which this happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 05:06 AM

The new back-pass rule, which IMO has greatly improved the game, explicitly only applies to a deliberate and intended kicked back-pass; a headed or breasted one is explicitly permitted. I don't think any ref would interpret a ball touching a player on the way to the goalkeeper as such.

I greatly disagree, Nigel, about use of the foot, involving desperate launching foot-first toward the incoming shot, leaving the keeper on his feet & better balanced: it is likely, on the contrary, to lead to 'the splits', and overbalancing backwards. If you could locate the picture in The Times which inspired this thread [see my OP], you would see what I mean.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Goalkeeping technique for low shots
From: MikeL2
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 11:27 AM

Hi

I agree with Michael that the method of goalkeeping has changed somewhat than in our day.

Yes I was taught to dive and catch the ball where-ever possible and in my short term as a goalkeeper I did that.

But the game has changed, and I believe those changes have no doubt influenced the use of the feet at times.

As a Man U member I watch David de Gea play most weeks, and i have to say that he makes some astounding saves with his legs and feet every wee...saves that I do not think he would have made by diving and trying to catch the ball.

I believe that today because the lighter ball moves about much more the goalkeepers try to spread themselves as widely as they can when faced by a shot at goal. This means that the balance of the body is such that it is quicker to keep the shots out.
I is a matter of instinct and reactions. IMHO De Gea is one of the best shot stoppers in the Premier League.

His problems were fielding crosses when he first came to Manchester. He has improved this area but he can still be at fault.

I have also seen Joe Harte this season and he has not been as consistent as he used to be. Indeed he is not the first choice keeper at Man City !!

Cheers

MikeL2