1 - Marc-Andre ter Ansplant

[Potroh]

Are you really trying to argue that these saves are lucky or do you just want to remain stuck on your dislike of the player?

1. I don't like my messages being deleted on any forum. (To whom it may concern...)
2. Try to play a fair game and once you called me "delusional", etc. don't pull it back.
3. I do not dislike ANY player, I simply try to analyze some. Sometimes.
4. The "specialty" of this forum is to presuppose a highly emotional content (love or hate) when someone dislikes what others put in for particular and pragmatic sentences or notions. Therefore I'm not a bit interested in any post with highly emotional but intellectually questionable content.
5. To presuppose that anyone "dislikes or hates" a player just because he is critical, to my standards at least, it is very very emotional.
6. I'm not in the slightest degree interested in anyone's emotional state. I'm interested in opinions, that enrich my own.

 

[God Serena]

1. I don't like my messages being deleted on any forum. (To whom it may concern...)
2. Try to play a fair game and once you called me "delusional", etc. don't pull it back.
3. I do not dislike ANY player, I simply try to analyze some. Sometimes.
4. The "specialty" of this forum is to presuppose a highly emotional content (love or hate) when someone dislikes what others put in for particular and pragmatic sentences or notions. Therefore I'm not a bit interested in any post with highly emotional but intellectually questionable content.
5. To presuppose that anyone "dislikes or hates" a player just because he is critical, to my standards at least, it is very very emotional.
6. I'm not in the slightest degree interested in anyone's emotional state. I'm interested in opinions, that enrich my own.

My post was deleted as well, I didn't "pull back", I got an infraction. I believe every word I said to be true and am glad you got the chance to read them.

Way to completely ignore everything I said. It was expected because clearly he's not saving the shots in the way you describe but instead of throwing your hands up and crying "You're too emotional" you could just admit you're wrong, what with you not disliking any player, which is also obviously false...

 

[Horatio]

Calm down guys. Don't make me ban anyone.

 

[God Serena]

Calm down guys. Don't make me ban anyone.

I'm sorry, boss. =(

 

[Zebulun]

Stegen can't win with some folks in here, don't even make sense trying to argue about it
1)when he's MOTM= Lucky bastard
2)when defence lets us down= he should know better than to concede in this hard game.
3)when he makes mistakes= we all knew he's shit anyways.

i can say there is a clear agenda against MATS and neymar here.

 

[Potroh]

My post was deleted as well, I didn't "pull back", I got an infraction. I believe every word I said to be true and am glad you got the chance to read them.

If your post (along with my answer) was deleted, I'm much more concerned with the fact of the actual deletion, much more than the strange content of your original message. I used to be a sportsman so I don't easily get aggrieve or violable.
Needless to say that we rarely like or easily tolerate censorship or "official interference"

Way to completely ignore everything I said. It was expected because clearly he's not saving the shots in the way you describe but instead of throwing your hands up and crying "You're too emotional" you could just admit you're wrong, what with you not disliking any player, which is also obviously false...

We may not agree on the pragmatic issue but that's not the important point. I don't ignore what you've said, I'm just on a considerably more generic ground, trying to form an opinion not based on a single performance or game and without the possible least emotional content - hence depending on likes or dislikes.
Your deleted comments towards me were - to say the least - highly emotional and personal. But frankly I don't mind that, that's why my deleted answer was a joke.
I'd be a fool if I thought I were always right, nobody is (except Trump) and I'm not in the forum to "spread my truth", I'm here because I'm interested in other views, experiences and opinions.

 

[God Serena]

If your post (along with my answer) was deleted, I'm much more concerned with the fact of the actual deletion, much more than the strange content of your original message. I used to be a sportsman so I don't easily get aggrieve or violable.
Needless to say that we rarely like or easily tolerate censorship or "official interference"



We may not agree on the pragmatic issue but that's not the important point. I don't ignore what you've said, I'm just on a considerably more generic ground, trying to form an opinion not based on a single performance or game and without the possible least emotional content - hence depending on likes or dislikes.
Your deleted comments towards me were - to say the least - highly emotional and personal. But frankly I don't mind that, that's why my deleted answer was a joke.
I'd be a fool if I thought I were always right, nobody is (except Trump) and I'm not in the forum to "spread my truth", I'm here because I'm interested in other views, experiences and opinions.

So, like, are you going to respond to my question or not?

 

[Potroh]

So, like, are you going to respond to my question or not?

I just searched for a question mark in your post but didn't find any.
So what the question?

 

[God Serena]

I just searched for a question mark in your post but didn't find any.
So what the question?

Only one save out of the four major ones even comes anywhere close to the type of save you are actually describing, and that was a close range shot that didn't involve him throwing his body in any way because he closed the angle down. Every other one has him throwing an arm or a leg out to the exact spot where the ball is going. He's not covering the "largest possible space with his body", he's getting his hand or his leg to the ball in moments that demand an instant reaction. Go back and look at the saves again. Are you really trying to argue that these saves are lucky or [snip]?

Didn't feel like typing it out again.

 

[feggydinho]

Stegen really performed well in those matches

 

[xXKonan]

I think the biggest silver lining these days has to be Mats stepping up in a time where things aren't looking good on the pitch.

Jasper also deserves a shout out as well in the Copa.

 

[Potroh]

Didn't feel like typing it out again.

Okay it was not the last msg but the previous one. Okay, sorry.
So also without repeating what I've previously said, you were talking about the last game whereas I tried to be as generic as possible when saying a few words on MATS.
You are right, when he instinctively puts a hand or leg in the way of the ball, it is indeed a conscious type of save. He is also good at the full-body saves, which are the dirty ones as I said earlier.
But often (and not always) he is weaker in saving simpler shots and specially shots when the ball is not seen by him at the very moment of the shot. Usually it is then when he is getting "frozen".

By very briefly saying all that, many saves can be considered as "lucky" and I'm not particularly talking about Stegen. This game as such, needs a considerable amount of luck, like it or not, because it is not weight-lifting or swimming where luck has no real role.
Luck is a considerable factor and you may practice a lot of thing but not everything. When the defender slips in the worst moment because the grass is wet, is bad but one can practice nothing against it, because it becomes an external factor, a non-definable factor, thus you can name it anything but the simplest is: luck. Everyone know that a drop of that is needed to be successful.

So GKs regardless how talented they are and how much work they accomplish, they also need to be lucky sometimes. Actually in my vocabulary GKs need more luck than others. So please allow me to think around my own vocabulary (which is very similar to that of the players) and lay down that MATS in the particular game WAS also lucky, besides giving a very good performance.
Of course I could analyze the role of luck in football for pages, but seriously doubt anyone would be interested...

 

[God Serena]

Okay it was not the last msg but the previous one. Okay, sorry.
So also without repeating what I've previously said, you were talking about the last game whereas I tried to be as generic as possible when saying a few words on MATS.

Uh...

I rather think he had a LUCKY game today.
With two exceptions, the other great saves were just mere luck, which is also needed but the conceded goal shows how vulnerable he is when it comes to easier situations.

Yeah, I'm sure you were trying to avoid talking about that specific game. Silly me.

You are right, when he instinctively puts a hand or leg in the way of the ball, it is indeed a conscious type of save. He is also good at the full-body saves, which are the dirty ones as I said earlier.
But often (and not always) he is weaker in saving simpler shots and specially shots when the ball is not seen by him at the very moment of the shot. Usually it is then when he is getting "frozen".

You are trying to very hard to move the goalposts but I won't let you. His freezing hasn't been a problem in numerous games and for the past numerous weeks he's been the one keeping us in games, with very few of his saves being the "Dirty" saves you are describing (I've played goalkeeper for 10+ years and have never heard that term used and have never been called lucky to make a save either but that's probably because I'm not a former pro).

By very briefly saying all that, many saves can be considered as "lucky" and I'm not particularly talking about Stegen. This game as such, needs a considerable amount of luck, like it or not, because it is not weight-lifting or swimming where luck has no real role.
Luck is a considerable factor and you may practice a lot of thing but not everything. When the defender slips in the worst moment because the grass is wet, is bad but one can practice nothing against it, because it becomes an external factor, a non-definable factor, thus you can name it anything but the simplest is: luck. Everyone know that a drop of that is needed to be successful.

This doesn't actually have anything to do with Mats and whether or not he had, as YOU YOURSELF SAID, "a LUCKY game". Yeah, in any game where you are in competition with another team luck plays some role, but bringing that up now is just pointless rambling.

So GKs regardless how talented they are and how much work they accomplish, they also need to be lucky sometimes. Actually in my vocabulary GKs need more luck than others. So please allow me to think around my own vocabulary (which is very similar to that of the players) and lay down that MATS in the particular game WAS also lucky, besides giving a very good performance.
Of course I could analyze the role of luck in football for pages, but seriously doubt anyone would be interested...

So are you speaking generically about Mats or are you not? You're directly contradicting yourself, in the same post. Either he was lucky, or he wasn't. You admitted yourself that a specific type of save (Of which all of his saves qualified as) are conscious and, therefore, not lucky, so how in that particular game was he lucky? We've suddenly come full circle, and my question has not been answered.

 

[Potroh]

His freezing hasn't been a problem in numerous games and for the past numerous weeks he's been the one keeping us in games, with very few of his saves being the "Dirty" saves you are describing (I've played goalkeeper for 10+ years and have never heard that term used and have never been called lucky to make a save either but that's probably because I'm not a former pro).

True, in the recent two games he did not "freeze". But we all know he has a tendency to do that. Just in case it is so (that I tried to analyze in a much earlier post) two games are too few to state he's getting better in that regard, probably he never will, or just in years (young enough for that). So you are right and he saved the team from a greater blunder in Paris, as well as in the Camp.

The "dirty" save, as a term, is very common among GKs, that's all I can tell. If I'm not mistaken I knew and heard that word in 3-5 other tongues too, but forgot. I could dig it out, but that's not too important I guess. As far as I know keepers have been calling it "dirty" at least during my carrier and long after that it was common, because those are the primary types of saves when they risk their body. Easily possible that nowadays (and in different languages) there are different terms. When I did coaching in English territories (spent long years in India and elsewhere) that was the word being always used.

So are you speaking generically about Mats or are you not? You're directly contradicting yourself, in the same post. Either he was lucky, or he wasn't. You admitted yourself that a specific type of save (Of which all of his saves qualified as) are conscious and, therefore, not lucky, so how in that particular game was he lucky? We've suddenly come full circle, and my question has not been answered.

Sometimes I was talking about MATS, sometimes I generically circled around the subject. What's wrong with that? But if you need a definite answer from me, we need to be on a verbally common ground, so hence the redundant and uninteresting blah-blah from my side. What I consider to be a save with a good bunch of luck, you don't and vice versa. I could talk about "reflective" saves and conscious saves, which are not reflective, or conscious saves that are reflective in nature, but does it lead anywhere in this forum? You repeatedly say I didn't answer your original question, whereas I always feel I did.
But if you need another "statement" from me: yes, he did a great performance in those two games, not without being lucky in a few cases. He wasn't always just lucky, but he often was - in my vocabulary at least. If I said he was "just" lucky than I was wrong. But he was "also" lucky in some cases.

But may I return a related question to you? Generally speaking, are the greatest goalkeepers often also the luckiest or in your terms the end-result is what counts, regardless the quantity of luck being involved?

 

[God Serena]

True, in the recent two games he did not "freeze". But we all know he has a tendency to do that. Just in case it is so (that I tried to analyze in a much earlier post) two games are too few to state he's getting better in that regard, probably he never will, or just in years (young enough for that). So you are right and he saved the team from a greater blunder in Paris, as well as in the Camp.

The "dirty" save, as a term, is very common among GKs, that's all I can tell. If I'm not mistaken I knew and heard that word in 3-5 other tongues too, but forgot. I could dig it out, but that's not too important I guess. As far as I know keepers have been calling it "dirty" at least during my carrier and long after that it was common, because those are the primary types of saves when they risk their body. Easily possible that nowadays (and in different languages) there are different terms. When I did coaching in English territories (spent long years in India and elsewhere) that was the word being always used.



Sometimes I was talking about MATS, sometimes I generically circled around the subject. What's wrong with that? But if you need a definite answer from me, we need to be on a verbally common ground, so hence the redundant and uninteresting blah-blah from my side. What I consider to be a save with a good bunch of luck, you don't and vice versa. I could talk about "reflective" saves and conscious saves, which are not reflective, or conscious saves that are reflective in nature, but does it lead anywhere in this forum? You repeatedly say I didn't answer your original question, whereas I always feel I did.
But if you need another "statement" from me: yes, he did a great performance in those two games, not without being lucky in a few cases. He wasn't always just lucky, but he often was - in my vocabulary at least. If I said he was "just" lucky than I was wrong. But he was "also" lucky in some cases.

But may I return a related question to you? Generally speaking, are the greatest goalkeepers often also the luckiest or in your terms the end-result is what counts, regardless the quantity of luck being involved?

You directly diminished his game to just being lucky. Not being lucky in some cases, your exact words were "he had a LUCKY game", which is a statement you have thus far refused to actually explain. You've given me the run around by explaining different types of saves, that don't apply to Mats, you've explained different factors that constitute "luck", that don't apply to Mats, and you've claimed you answered my question, without actually answering it, so I'll ask you again, in what way was the game Mats had lucky? Which saves were lucky? Which moments? At what points did he save us and make you think "He's not really that good, he's lucky to have made that save"?

And to answer your question, end result is what counts. Maybe a striker missing an open net will win the opponent a match or two but generally speaking luck works both ways, to the point that it's not something you can pin success or failure on. Most great moments involve some measure of luck, part of playing is capitalizing on that luck to move yourself ahead. Go back and watch any great moment in football history, there's always someone, somewhere, who could have done better, which would make the player creating that moment "lucky". Messi is lucky half of the Getafe squad mistimed their tackles. Iniesta is lucky the Dutch defender didn't hoof the ball for a corner kick instead of sending it to a Spaniard in the 2010 World Cup. Alexis was lucky Diego Lopez came so far off his line that chipping him was possible. Every goalkeeper ever is lucky the striker doesn't curl a bullet into the upper right corner like they do in practice. This luck doesn't take away from the accomplishments of these players, because "Luck" as you put it is everywhere, but to the best players, that doesn't matter.