It doesn't.Originally Posted by pv4
Other players get called shit useless or hopeless, they don't have their game analysed to highlight key technical errors, and then have incorrect "improvements" suggested.
It doesn't.
Other players get called shit useless or hopeless, they don't have their game analysed to highlight key technical errors, and then have incorrect "improvements" suggested.
Not protected.
Analyse his game, pull apart all his weaknesses, tear strips of him, but do it with some semblance of understanding of goalkeeping.
Agree with Jamie Young from Brisbane (only marginally). I would take Janjetovic, Reddy, Velaphi, Necevski, Redmayne, Lawrence Thomas all over BK and also Paul Izzo and Jack Duncan from what I have seen of them in Australian Youth matches as well.
I have not highlighted any technical errors but am happy to go on record to say IMO BK is all three of shit, useless and hopeless.
I got to the part where you picked a Gypo over BK then realised that you obvs have no clue.
enjoy your marching band this weekend.
What are you talking about? Of course key technical errors and issues are discussed about basically every player.
Caravella with his roundabouts, Taylor Regan with his composure on the ball and general style, David Carney seen as lazy in defence, Sam Gallagher seemingly insistent on moving the ball backwards all the time, and heaps of others that you can probably think of yourself. Specific issues of players games are highlighted on a near daily occasion.
But you keep disregarding these discussions happening, and deflect legitimate concerns about BK's game that seem to be of a recurring nature.
OK
As a legitimate question to people who have been trained as keepers..
Why doesn't BK set his wall on the other side of the goal? Clearly his wall is redundant, as seen by how "easily" it was bypassed. I've read a few times saying his line of vision on the ball was blocked by the wall. If he sets the wall to block the other side of the goal in the example of the weekend, he has vision of the ball before, when it is kicked, and after it is kicked. It's far enough out that he has the near post covered himself, so that's not a big issue. If the right footer takes the free kick and tries to swing the ball around (near post side) the wall, to swing to the far post, BK will have seen the ball the entire time. And if the left footer attempts to chip the wall for the far post, the flight time is longer and BK for the most part can see the ball as his line of vision is better. Plus he'll get the extra time to get across to it, as opposed to the near post hit.
To me it makes sense. I can't remember ever over-hearing a keeper say why this "inverted wall" (that's what I'll call it) is a bad idea.
OK
Because hitting the far wall is an easier shot than going 'up and over' if the wall is at near post.
Hitting to the open far post lets you get way more power and would then give BK less time to react.
This is kind of what happened for the Finkler goal (from memory).
BK was more at fault for that one because he seemed to be set up all wrong.
From my coaching book the one v Nix he did everything right he just got beat by a great free kick.
Exactly what I said yesterday. If he has trouble reacting quickly enough when his view is blocked by the wall, reverse it. It buys time, says to the shooter "go ahead big boy, take your best shot" Shooter either tries to curl up and over the wall to the far post, or blasts it straight at BK who will do his best to make a clean catch.
Radical, daring and unheard of. Hence we should try it! Couldn't get worse. .....
Also, as far as the thought that if he can see the ball being kicked he can react immediately, it's not exactly right.
Any half decent footballer can make contact with the ball but send it in a variety of directions/speeds.
The keeper essentially has to wait to see the trajectory before deciding what to do.
Any extra time looking at it is probably negated by the extra power that can be put on a shot with no wall to go up and over.
I hope it made sense pv4 because your question is valid and one which I personally have been part of before. But from every way of looking at it/dealing with them the way the Jets were set up on Sunday was correct in giving the taker the lowest % chance.
Bloke just hit a peach of a shot.
I see "caravella roundabouts",
not caravella fails to assess the situation before receiving a pass, he ball watches in the lead up to receiving a pass and has limited awareness of his options..... Solution , he should close his eyes and spin three times.
Taylor Reagan's "general style" wow, great technical analysis.
I'm not bothering to continue, as I'm pretty sure each of these things don't have a dedicated thread, but bk and free kicks deserves one?
Not deflecting, I've said all along, people can pull his games to bits, but they should do it with some goalkeeping knowledge.
"He should stand behind the wall" and he shouldn't "do that little jump" before diving are two pieces of goalkeeper coaching droplets of gold.
that you took my summary (SUMMARY) of examples and consider that the technical analysis. If you want my "technical analysis" on each of those players, plus my explanation of Regan's general style that I see as being detrimental to his game, I'm happy to provide them for you in detail (and to some extent have done so for most players we've had over the years already) but this isn't the appropriate thread to do so in, I was merely giving a few quick examples to further my point arguing against your thoughts.
I'm not convinced BK's weaknesses with free kicks is deserving of a thread, nor am I sold that it shouldn't have one. I haven't made my mind on that one yet tbh, but I definitely promote discussing the issue. For what it's worth, doesn't Caravella get called "Roundabout" by many people now, and I'm kinda sure a thread was made specifically about it? Just saying..
You were deflecting, that's why I posted originally. You said that the other members of the team do not come under the scrutiny of having their game analysed to highlight key technical errors. That's deflecting. It's like you're saying "hey guys stop talking about one persons issues, talk about others".
What I will say is the goalkeeping knowledge thing, and the "silly" solutions some have provided, I don't disagree with. But basically every player gets given these kind of armchair critic solutions all the time anyway. I laughed the first time I heard someone say they thought James Virgili should be moulded into a right back (and still do laugh tbh). I laughed at people who thought our issues with retaining possession would be solved by starting Michael Bridges (and still do).
Every player comes under intense scrutiny, every issue gets offered good and bad solutions. I will argue this every time I see you argue otherwise when talking about BK and his issues.
OK
An inverted wall. Nice name.
It invites a powerfully driven shot at the now unwalled near post. As plague said, powerful drives give you less time to track the trajectory of the ball - ever been watching a game on telly and the ball (usually a defensive clearance) sort of looks like it's going towards the goaline, but it's not, as it's actually heading straight for the camera, and goes out for a throw, depth perception when the ball is travelling at speed is difficult.
The shot for the far top corner (now covered by the inverted wall) becomes easier as the wall is further from the ball, and the post is further from the wall, giving the attacker more room, to get the ball up, and back down again. It may also disappear from sight depending on the angle of the deadball position, negating any advantage of being able to see the ball from the outset.
It's opens up the space directly in front of the ball and outside the near post for the attackers to control and penetrate, meaning you'd have to commit defenders to that space anyway. I'd rather have a wall of my team doing their job than a smattering of legs all looking for a deflection, or gaping open space at the near stick, or just outside it for the opposition to take advantage of.
An inverted wall is easier to get the ball in behind and have a ball being cut back to onrushing attackers.
It's also gives the kick taker a greater margin for error with a powerful strike, they can powerfully strike at the near post, or inside the wall and curl away from the keeper towards the far.
Again depending on the location of the free kick, it may also retreat the offside line.
The (traditional) wall's job is to make the easier (closer) shot at goal more difficult by forcing the ball to navigate the wall , and the far post shot more tempting. The far post shot, travelling further in theory should then be easier to save, it's slower having travelled further and you've had more time to see it.
It might seem easier to deal with a thunderbolt coming straight at you, but it's not favourable as setting up the defensive situation to encourage that strike, opens other options for the attacking team that become far more difficult to resolve.
At the end of the day, if the wall is set right, and the bloke can get it up and over, or around, then he deserves the credit for a great goal.
Points taken.
I'm not convinced BK's weaknesses with free kicks is deserving of a thread, nor am I sold that it shouldn't have one. I haven't made my mind on that one yet tbh, but I definitely promote discussing the issue. For what it's worth, doesn't Caravella get called "Roundabout" by many people now, and I'm kinda sure a thread was made specifically about it? Just saying..
You were deflecting, that's why I posted originally. You said that the other members of the team do not come under the scrutiny of having their game analysed to highlight key technical errors. That's deflecting. It's like you're saying "hey guys stop talking about one persons issues, talk about others".
What I will say is the goalkeeping knowledge thing, and the "silly" solutions some have provided, I don't disagree with. But basically every player gets given these kind of armchair critic solutions all the time anyway. I laughed the first time I heard someone say they thought James Virgili should be moulded into a right back (and still do laugh tbh). I laughed at people who thought our issues with retaining possession would be solved by starting Michael Bridges (and still do).
Every player comes under intense scrutiny, every issue gets offered good and bad solutions. I will argue this every time I see you argue otherwise when talking about BK and his issues.
Maybe I need a glove icon to represent the goalkeepers union.
Though I stop arguing BK gets a disproportionate amount of unwarranted criticism next time an outfield player makes a textbook tackle and a thread is started about how poorly said player tackles. Or, to make it fair, next time someone makes a pass, so over ten metres, and they do it consistently (say over 85%) and a thread I started about the one pass they may have misplaced.
Last edited by GazFish35; 24-02-2015 at 12:05 PM.
Isn't an inverted wall when the players are standing on their heads?
Seriously what a laugh reading some posts on here. A properly hit ball, you won't see until it hits the back of the net, wall or no wall.
I guess that would depend on whether the player seems to have learnt from their mistakes or not.
OK
And in this instance, given that BK's positioning for the free kick in question was correct, what hasn't he learnt?
I guess that's the thing Gaz. The goal keepers get the blame, rightly or wrongly, because any actual or perceived mistake is more likely to lead to a goal. We don't often analyse what instigated the opportunity, the 10 shots the striker put wide or the 12 passes from the midfielder that were intercepted. We just remember the glorious through ball and finish past the on-rushing keeper.
It comes with the territory.
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
Then as a proud member of the goalkeepers union, I'll defend them to the hilt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote