Gazzaniga: the verdict?

I still think you are being a perfectionist and unrealistic. Read my post above.

As a coach, you should be teaching the keepers to try to read the game, then make a decision on what to do, try not to commit unless you have to. The dive is the commit part and you said earlier you wanted keepers to gamble. You're getting frustrated that a gamble didn't payboff.

I'd never be getting frustrated at a keeper who hadn't dived for a header that rocketed passed them from 6 yards out.

 

Yes your point is true that can happen and does but if he doesn't move then the striker is just going to nod it into the corner regardless which will be a goal. If the keeper goes flying across it might put the striker off as well. Sometimes they do put it back across (like agueros goal vs saints) in which case there is very little the goalkeeper can do anyway. My point isn't against Gazzaniga necessarily but you can bet that Watson would have told him he could have gone for it and I bet PG told himself that he could have dived for it.

 

Maybe gamble isn't the right word. My point is just that you should never accept that you are beaten. That seaman save for arsenal springs to mind. that was already past him but he hooked it back and it is lauded as one of the best saves in history. There is no shame in not getting to it but I am willing to bet that any goalkeeper coach in the world will tell their students not to get rooted to the spot. Obviously it happens but personally i think you arent beaten until it hit's the net.

 

That's fine Saint B, but what's your view on my scenario a couple of posts back. Is that not a reasonable scenario?

Edit - you've replied above, sorry I'll go read it

 

I don't accept this 'never accept you are beaten' argument in this case. I agree if there is a chance of stopping it, but I'm pretty sure it was past him before he knew it. What idiot dives when it is in the net? It was a powerful head from close range and was over the head of Fonte. If Fonte wasn't there, I'm sure Gazza would have moved towards it because he would know it was his...but he had to be poised for anything if Fonte had connected.

 

Well in that case we have to agree to disagree. Your point about Aguero sort of contradicts your earlier view. He might not be "beaten anyway" and if he gambled correctly he may save it.

The bit about if the 'keeper doesn't move then the striker will just nod it in' doesn't make any sense. What happens is that the striker heads it in a direction and then the keeper moves/dives for it. This underlines my point about lack of realism and as a coach I think you need to consider this. Everything happens very quickly and the attacking move happens first (the header) and then the keeper reacts (or gambles, but you seemed to have changed your mind on whether they should gamble or not) and hopes to be able to react quick enough.

It is ok for a keeper to gamble on occasions.

Another question. At a penalty, should a keeper gamble, or wait a fraction of a second to see where the ball goes? If he gambles and moves slightly one way and then sees the ball going in the opposite side, is it ok if he stops his dive?

 

OK well put it this way, how often do you see neuer buffon and casillas standing flat footed watching a goal go in. Like I have said I'm not attacking Gazzaniga, I know it was nearly impossible to stop, but its something that I have always been taught and that's by GK coaches that are currently in the England setup.

 

If Gazza had committed to going to the right and the ball had hit Fonte or even Benteke had headed it to Gazza's left into a big space with Gazza floundering (diving) after it, he'd have been criticised.

My key point is that it is wrong to criticise the keeper for that goal. I don't blame anyone as it was an excellent header.

*if Fran's not looking, you could mention that Fonte could have been stronger and won the header - but I wont, just in case*

 

What are you whispering about?

 

Do you really want me to find goals where they have conceded and not moved? They'll be out there.

As for what you've been taught, I would suggest that it is never black and white. There is always a time when you just can't do what you've been taught.

 

Nothing. Move along. Nice weather today.

 

My only addition to this debate is to ask whether or not Gazza was in a good position to start with. Its a genuine question, I'm not sure.

 

I think I made a mistake using the word gamble. By gamble I mean there is no harm in trying once the shot has been shot. In the Gazzaniga scenario fine he was probably beaten then moment it hit bentekes head but in my opinion he should go after the shot. Benteke might get a weak head on it and one brush of the fingertip could put it on the bar. Penalties you do have to gamble really because if you wait then someone like Lambert will just power it into the corner before you have a chance to move. It's less gambling and more reading what the striker is going to do. Angles of hips and feet where striker looks and the shape of the run up are all tips The gk will use to decide which way to go.

 

I agree it's not black and white. Agree to disagree was a good call. The important thing is gazza played well and we won

 

Saw a DeLorean yesterday, couldn't persuade the owner to try for 88 mph otherwise I could have gone back and told Gazza what was going to happen, more chance of that happening than him getting to the header on that occasion.

 

That's very good indeed, SD13. I took the trouble to read it twice through. I might steal that, if you don't mind.

 

Jeez FLT, I admire your spirit and determination. You're arguing the case well and in detail. Stay in there mate.

IMO, you are right as well.

 

Not trying to butt into a private battle, but had Gazzanigga gambled on the ball going to his left, and dived in that direction, when the ball actually went to his right, he would have looked more of a plum than he did, by waiting to see where the ball was going, and accepting that he couldn't get near it.

 

It's not a battle and it's not private. It's just a decent debate without any name calling or childish behaviour. Feel free to join in.


Plonker

(Joking )

 

I think I may have given him the wrong impression.