IdleRich
IdleRich
Looks as though karma finally caught up with Neuer for that despicable act of filthy cheating
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...alkeeper-bayern-munich-germany-injured-skiing
Roiling football blather
- Thread starter crackerjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alan smith 17 arsene the glum aesthete basic schoolboy errors benitez the sad clown borderline rivaldo shithousing bromley spiritual healer chelsea :facepalm: dracula and his war council henry does an adam smith i am a holding midfielder of your face. jumpers for goalposts lads it's tottenham large samuel ole's at the wheel serie a epic fail shearer yawn shed ted square balls the special one traffordish waving imaginary cards
Looks as though karma finally caught up with Neuer for that despicable act of filthy cheating
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...alkeeper-bayern-munich-germany-injured-skiing
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well it certainly does happen, as you can see - and as well as those freakish comedy ones in the links I sent you there all kinds of goals where the keeper is arguably at fault but you could also question the outfield player's decision to pass back to him when the striker was near enough to put him under some kind of pressure. Or even more often there is the needless concession of a corner of simply the loss of the ball... In my opinion defenders pass to their goalkeepers more often than they need to and, while I have never seen a statistical analysis of the pros and cons of passing back to the keeper (probably cos to work out exactly what question you are asking when you say that and then to tease out all the variables in such a way as to separate, compile and compare the relevant stats would be incredibly difficult) I suspect that if it could be done, the conclusion would lead to more defenders simply putting an agricultural foot right through the thing instead of trying to pretend they are Paolo Maldini whenever they have the ball at their feet.
I should probably say that, up to the nineties, it was completely fine for a player to pass back to his goalie and for him to then pick it up or handle it as he normally would - however, this meant that, should they want to it was possible for an ultra-defensive/boring (probably Italian) team to slow the game down by passing from the goalie to defender and back without any danger of conceding possession. So in 1992 they (rightly in my opinion) decided to do something about this. I think it was @padraig (u.s.) who said that before the shot-clock was introduced in basketball the game could be very boring with teams just negatively hanging on to the thing for as long as they wanted without risking losing the ball by trying to score. Presumably if you were ahead you could run down time that way and win a very boring game of basketball so they did something about it. That seems to me like a pretty good comparison - although in football you could only do it at one end of the pitch and it had to involve one particular player it looks fairly similar as far as I can tell.
But rather than a timer (though there is a limit to how long the keeper can hold on to it once he has picked it up I think) they changed it so that if a player passed the ball back to his keeper then the keeper was unable to use his hands, instead, until someone from the other team touched it, he was reduced to using his feet, head etc like all the other players. Of course like all the other - on the face of it simple - rules it did have problems; what counted as a deliberate pass back and what was a tackle? Or how about if the player returned the ball to his keeper with his head say? But the principle was sound and they have kept it in place ever since.
But there were several tactical questions that came along with it - mainly what should a player do if he was under pressure with the ball at his feet and facing his own goal? Should he pass back to the keeper anyway and expect him to be good enough with his feet to deal with it? Or should he whack it out for a throw-in or something? The latter was certainly safer but it conceded possession and, especially for teams that prided themselves on cultured passing, it simply didn't look very good. So, while there were certainly times where the ugly option was the only one, most teams tended to try to avoid it where possible - and as a result, the ability to receive the ball to feet and to distribute it as accurately as possible became a further requirement for keepers throughout the game. Nowadays teams such as Manchester City - whose coach Guardiola famously took possession football to hitherto undreamed of levels with Barcelona - will consciously seek out goalkeepers who are able to control the ball well with either foot, evaluate the options open to them at lightning speed with several attackers closing in on them at full pelt, and then pass the ball to the selected pace with great accuracy - ideally also with either foot.
The theory here is that you can thus change defence to attack in the quickest possible way - when it's done properly a good GK/defender combination can not only prevent the other team from scoring but also set your team well on the way to getting one of their own. The goalkeeper is no longer just the final line of defence, he is also the first line of the attack. But this approach carries its own risks - as well as the fact that any miscalculation on the point of GK or defender is very likely to lead to conceding a goal, as you saw in the videos above there are other factors such as bobbling balls and so on which can arise and make you look very stupid indeed when you didn't really do anything wrong.... unless you count the decision to pass back in the first place...
Certainly for me I quite often find my heart in my mouth as I see my keeper under seemingly avoidable pressure. While it's great to look for a brilliant hollywood pass in defensive situations, a defender's first priority should surely be defence? Also, there are many times when teams appear to choose to pass back to the keeper cos he can kick it harder and it doesn't look so basic if it is he who whacks it as hard as he can into the other team's half, I can't believe that that makes sense in terms of percentages.
william kent
Well-known member
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Going to call you Betty Swollocks from now on.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
My footy loving mate sent me this on whatsapp
It's cool and slightly surreal for me to see football like this, the way it is when you see it live (I've been to a few matches in recent years), feels more real than seeing it from the usual TV angles and somehow less impressive (probably not to most people but to me its slightly deglamorised).
Anyway, I've not watched a single match of this world cup but I'm vaguely interested in seeing Messi win a World Cup. Although Morocco winning would be cool also. Never France, never a guillotine in Picadilly 🏴🏴
It's cool and slightly surreal for me to see football like this, the way it is when you see it live (I've been to a few matches in recent years), feels more real than seeing it from the usual TV angles and somehow less impressive (probably not to most people but to me its slightly deglamorised).
Anyway, I've not watched a single match of this world cup but I'm vaguely interested in seeing Messi win a World Cup. Although Morocco winning would be cool also. Never France, never a guillotine in Picadilly 🏴🏴
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Tell him to hold his phone the right way round in future, FFS.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
This picture is another good example of how TV cameras distort football — because it shows how far the penalty spot is from the goal. I know for a professional footballer (probably even for an amateur one) this isn't a big distance to shoot from, but it's bigger than TV makes it look. I wouldn't fancy my chances, even against a goalkeeper paralysed by poison, especially when the pressure is on.
jenks
thread death
Also - just how hard a professional hits a football.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I had a look at Morocco's human rights status on wiki today out of interest and it's interesting that in certain respects (attitude to homosexuality) it looks not too far from Qatar on that front—and yet all the lefties on NTS chat (and most people I suppose) are fully behind them winning the WC. Maybe just cos they're underdogs or because it would be a big surprise, or they just love the team? Anyway, thought it was an interesting example of how moral scruples seem to be switched on and off in some cases. I guess they're not building stadiums with slave labour. And of course European nations have no shortage of hideous crimes to account for. Perhaps its just best to switch off these scruples when it comes to the actual teams, rather than the hosts?
william kent
Well-known member
There isn't really a good team to root for on moral grounds when your options are France, Argentina and Morocco, but you can find fault with any country.
I haven't watched any of the games or official coverage because of the migrant worker stories, but I've seen clips and headlines on Twitter and people tell me what's been happening.
I haven't watched any of the games or official coverage because of the migrant worker stories, but I've seen clips and headlines on Twitter and people tell me what's been happening.
