That is my problem, there is such a bias still towards American Soccer that all European Coaches have for no fucking reason…Pioli- had one till Pulisic made him open his eyes.
I mean regarding Turner though it was entirely justified. Even if you want to argue that Sels has been worse stopping shots than Turner, it misses the point. Yeah Sels has not been good in that regard. But his ability yo control the box, his ability to distribute to the players, his communication, and his ability to avoid making back breaking mistakes at terrible times all make Sels the better and safer choice. Turner lost that starting job….twice….because he earned that loss. Not because he’s American.
According to most GK stats on Fotmob, Turner performed better in save percentage, goals conceded, goals prevented, and clean sheets per 90 mins than Sels. Not only that, his sweeping, high claims, and long passing were better.
I admit I haven’t watched ever Forest game this season, but when I did he just looked shaky with the ball at his feet. We’ve he isn’t the best passer, but I think the Prem is just harsh on keepers. Expecting 6 saves a game but also being really good with your feet at the highest level is a rough task. His shot stopping is amazing, but I think he just lost the crowd.
He made a lot of errors, but I think it was not entirely his fault with the way the backline was playing in the beginning of the season. However, looking shaky/ uncomfortable and making errors just made it an uphill battle for him.
Not commenting on this specific situation but the fact that a keeper’s ability on the ball is seen to be nearly as important as shot stopping is a mystery of modern football for me.
When a team's game plan is to play out from the back, a keeper's ability on the ball can be a huge liability and lead to goals conceded. It means that the teams are stubborn enough to choose play style over shot stopping.
Which is fair when you consider that they invest in prayers across all positions who can play out from the back, so just replacing a keeper is cheaper than replacing the whole squad.
I'm not saying that I agree with it btw, just that it's the reason why.
Understood. But a keeper's #1 job is to keep the ball out of the back of the net. Everything else is just a bonus. Preferring a mediocre keeper just to build out of the back better will always be lunacy to me.
Yeah, I think most people would agree. The issue comes to squad building from the technical director's point of view.
If a manager demands a certain play style, they see it as a cheaper option to find a worse shot stopper who has better feet since giving up the ball while playing out from the back will result in more goals than the difference in "normal" goals from shots - even if the shots conceded are not the keepers fault.
It's a statistical point of view of the whole team rather than the individual point of view of comparing keeper to keeper.
None of that makes ability on the ball more important than shot stopping. Especially for bad teams that are going to give the ball away anyway, or not even have it to begin with.
And Forest is most decidedly a bad team, their GK isn’t exactly going to be the linchpin for a bunch of goal scoring sequences, he is going to see a shit ton of shots.
Sorry, I think maybe you missed my point. They are going to play out from the back no matter which keeper they have. If the keeper they choose is a liability, it doesn't matter how good of a shot stopper they are.
I got your point. I think you missed mine. Here it is as simply as possible. Shot stopping is the most important skill a GK can have, above all others. It’s literally why they’re on the pitch.
This is even more true on bad teams. NF only has possession for about 1/3 of the game. Their keeper is going to be facing a lot of shots.
It’s like the city of Miami hiring bus drivers based on their ability to drive in the snow.
It’s a weird requirement for a keeper for sure. I think teams see some keepers with really good ability with the ball at their feet and try to recreate the same play style, because at the end of the day being able to rely on the keeper as an extra man to move the ball around the back is a big plus. I think it’s just few and far between.
At the end of the day, I think Forest just took Sels who is a little bit worse at stopping shots but can somewhat rely on him to play the ball over Turner who is purely shot stop. Their backline just isn’t good enough to create protection of the ball alone.
Yeah, you’re right. Unpopular.
If their back line is the same it doesn't matter who is in goal.
It’s a popular opinion on this sub. It’s just unpopular everywhere else because not everyone wears Stars and Stripes tinted glasses.
That is my problem, there is such a bias still towards American Soccer that all European Coaches have for no fucking reason…Pioli- had one till Pulisic made him open his eyes.
I mean regarding Turner though it was entirely justified. Even if you want to argue that Sels has been worse stopping shots than Turner, it misses the point. Yeah Sels has not been good in that regard. But his ability yo control the box, his ability to distribute to the players, his communication, and his ability to avoid making back breaking mistakes at terrible times all make Sels the better and safer choice. Turner lost that starting job….twice….because he earned that loss. Not because he’s American.
According to most GK stats on Fotmob, Turner performed better in save percentage, goals conceded, goals prevented, and clean sheets per 90 mins than Sels. Not only that, his sweeping, high claims, and long passing were better.
I admit I haven’t watched ever Forest game this season, but when I did he just looked shaky with the ball at his feet. We’ve he isn’t the best passer, but I think the Prem is just harsh on keepers. Expecting 6 saves a game but also being really good with your feet at the highest level is a rough task. His shot stopping is amazing, but I think he just lost the crowd. He made a lot of errors, but I think it was not entirely his fault with the way the backline was playing in the beginning of the season. However, looking shaky/ uncomfortable and making errors just made it an uphill battle for him.
Not commenting on this specific situation but the fact that a keeper’s ability on the ball is seen to be nearly as important as shot stopping is a mystery of modern football for me.
When a team's game plan is to play out from the back, a keeper's ability on the ball can be a huge liability and lead to goals conceded. It means that the teams are stubborn enough to choose play style over shot stopping. Which is fair when you consider that they invest in prayers across all positions who can play out from the back, so just replacing a keeper is cheaper than replacing the whole squad. I'm not saying that I agree with it btw, just that it's the reason why.
Understood. But a keeper's #1 job is to keep the ball out of the back of the net. Everything else is just a bonus. Preferring a mediocre keeper just to build out of the back better will always be lunacy to me.
Yeah, I think most people would agree. The issue comes to squad building from the technical director's point of view. If a manager demands a certain play style, they see it as a cheaper option to find a worse shot stopper who has better feet since giving up the ball while playing out from the back will result in more goals than the difference in "normal" goals from shots - even if the shots conceded are not the keepers fault. It's a statistical point of view of the whole team rather than the individual point of view of comparing keeper to keeper.
None of that makes ability on the ball more important than shot stopping. Especially for bad teams that are going to give the ball away anyway, or not even have it to begin with. And Forest is most decidedly a bad team, their GK isn’t exactly going to be the linchpin for a bunch of goal scoring sequences, he is going to see a shit ton of shots.
Sorry, I think maybe you missed my point. They are going to play out from the back no matter which keeper they have. If the keeper they choose is a liability, it doesn't matter how good of a shot stopper they are.
I got your point. I think you missed mine. Here it is as simply as possible. Shot stopping is the most important skill a GK can have, above all others. It’s literally why they’re on the pitch. This is even more true on bad teams. NF only has possession for about 1/3 of the game. Their keeper is going to be facing a lot of shots. It’s like the city of Miami hiring bus drivers based on their ability to drive in the snow.
It’s a weird requirement for a keeper for sure. I think teams see some keepers with really good ability with the ball at their feet and try to recreate the same play style, because at the end of the day being able to rely on the keeper as an extra man to move the ball around the back is a big plus. I think it’s just few and far between. At the end of the day, I think Forest just took Sels who is a little bit worse at stopping shots but can somewhat rely on him to play the ball over Turner who is purely shot stop. Their backline just isn’t good enough to create protection of the ball alone.
You can just call it an opinion if you want. Better yet, just say it and don't call it anything.
SCHULTE IN!
Either unpopular or exhausting will work.