1 - Marc-Andre ter Ansplant

[Barcaman]

Your last paragraph is bang on. Stegen is a timid keeper. You see it best with high balls.

 

[JamDav1982]

For a good average but LUCKY goalkeeper it is a savable shot.
- A GK should never instinctively close his eyes, unless he is jumping TOWARDS a speeding opponent. But never because the BALL is coming to his head or face.
- A GK should ALWAYS follow the ball, therefore should never wait for it with closed eyes. They practice it tens of thousands of times, so an incoming ball should not invoke this otherwise common reflex in him (the same reflex when placing contact-lenses but after some weeks the reflex dies out).
- In this situation he jumps a tiny bit, but upwards and slightly backwards, which cannot be considered as a conscious save attempt, rather a self defending reflex.
- Godin's head may have or may not have changed the trajectory of the ball, so before all he should have moved TOWARDS the ball and not elsewhere.
- The goal was almost like conceding one from a corner, which is one of the most compromising for a keeper.
- He is tall enough, so perhaps should have tried to come up and to box it out. There were NO other players between him and Godin. He stood still without moving outward, which is a mistake.
- Golden rule says the GK IS the tallest player in the box, because he can use his hands too, thus he could have prevented the header if he came out.

Was it his mistake? No. Not necessarily, but out of 10 very good keepers at least 4-5 could save it with a little luck and slightly more bravery.

He did nothing wrong with goal and could not have come through three players for the ball. Nothing to do with bravery either it was correct decision to stay on his line.

All he can do there is make himself big and give best chance to save it. Which he did.

 

[God Serena]

When he plays so well you have to hyper analyze his reaction to a close range header you probably don't have much of a case. If I sat down and analyzed all of Bravo's conceded goals we'd probably see much worse.

 

[DonAK]

If he had come off the line and punched it away with an Atletico player somehow volleying it in outside the box from the rebound, you would be the first one to say a smart keeper would stay on the line.

I guess sometimes, you cannot win.

 

[Potroh]

If he had come off the line and punched it away with an Atletico player somehow volleying it in outside the box from the rebound, you would be the first one to say a smart keeper would stay on the line.
I guess sometimes, you cannot win.

The slight problem is that it's some of you who constantly feels the urge to win - at least here in unimportant debates, usually lacking quality too.

- A smart keeper never stays in the line WHEN an arched ball comes and his chances are better when narrowing the covered angle - compared to the large space to cover when staying in the line.
- Look at the video, there were NO other players between Godin's head and him. So theoretically he could have come out. Not necessarily though, for the very reason you mentioned about a boxed rebound, but you place this in the wrong content.

When you look at - a conceded goal for instance - you do that from the A-TYPICAL angle of the fan or spectator, just summarizing if xy or z player played well or not.
But you should also put on the shoes of the coach sometimes, which traditionally needs a very different angle of view.

There are TWO MAJOR rules when it comes to the assessment of a game:
1. When assessing the entire game, he should ALWAYS MENTION and ANALYZE the good and well done parts of the game.
2. But when it comes to INDIVIDUAL assessment, between the coach and the given player, he should NEVER even talk about the good part, he should only talk about things that need to be done better and analyze what the player did wrong.

Here you either hear (read) a player being praised after good games and cursed after bad ones, that is the standard but when talking about individual players, the best is to mark what he could have done better, because that's constructive, but the mere likes and dislikes are boring and pretty much flat.

 

[Potroh]

If I sat down and analyzed all of Bravo's conceded goals we'd probably see much worse.

Most probably. But by analyzing 1-2 seasons, the result favors Bravo, because he was more consistent in the long run.
This is MATS's first full Liga season, with great days, games, periods and saves, but Bravo used to be more consistent and a bit more reliable.

 

[DonAK]

Not sure you should question others' quality of arguments when you called his last game for all luck, before you backtracked and pointed out one particular situation in the end.

My comment was more pointed towards; Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had he punched the ball and an Atletico player scored an outrageous goal from a volley on the rebound, people would have complained about his decision to come out instead of staying on the line. Everything with ter Stegen gets microanalyzed, which didn't happen with previous goalkeepers. Certain posters have this infatuation with their narrative that one guy is perfect while everything the other person does can be faulted, you can nitpick and find something to criticize, while the other guy despite committing mistakes himself is given a free pass.

These narratives run deep here through a couple of guys which I'm sure you've seen and actually argued against in another thread from what I've noticed.

 

[Potroh]

Not sure you should question others' quality of arguments when you called his last game for all luck, before you backtracked and pointed out one particular situation in the end.

I'm not pointlessly questioning any arguments by others, if they are at least arguments.
But there are the arguments that one can do little to nothing with, as the "argument" says: "You are an asshole, IF you don't agree with my single sentenced and unquestionable assertion - with the exception of those, who do agree with me... Only they are welcome, they are liked, agreed with, the rest should eat their own testicles"
This is not an argument in my eyes, this is a kind of fanatical outcry.

BTW, I have to write down at least the 5th time that I did NOT call his last game "for all luck", I said "he was lucky" which is a partial assessment that was said by me 5 minutes after the game.
And yes, sorry to say, but he was ALSO lucky, besides some unquestionably great saves. Just as he was NOT particularly lucky yesterday with the goal.
Unfortunately most people are less forgiving when it comes to the performance of a keeper, whereas attackers may always overwrite their mistakes if they score.

That is an unbalanced notion and a constructive attitude also contains a "what if" scenario, even if a player had an outstanding performance, but not necessarily a flawless performance.
If one considers himself to be an expert, and not just a mere fan, he should always try to see movements with an unbiased eye, because that leads somewhere.
Fanaticism and forced opinions are too biassed and too emotional to lead anywhere...

 

[mark1nhu]

Ball was on the very first corner of the small box with 3 players between him and the ball.

No way to get there without making a very EARLY decision, which could obviously backfire if they put the ball on the other post. If that happened, imagine the uproar here...

About his closed eyes, he wouldn't be able to save it by skill even if he had them wide open. Only by luck.

These first post deflection are almost always unsavable.

 

[Potroh]

About his closed eyes, he wouldn't be able to save it by skill even if he had them wide open. Only by luck.
These first post deflection are almost always unsavable.

I do agree. But we have all seen hundreds of balls, saved situations like that, so with a little luck it can happen.
Penalties were 'invented' to create an unsavable situation but there are saved penalties and there also are consciously saved ones.

Question: Was Messi's free kick savable? Surgically aimed at just where two post meet and with considerable strength. But it was saved by Oblak, although 99% of spectators all around the world would have said it was the A-typical unsavable one - if went in. Was it mere luck?

 

[BerkeleyBernie]

Wonder what's the % of players who do that on their own for self-assessment, post-game. As in, watch the clips in slow-mo/freeze frame and see what they could've done better. Maybe some coaches out there hand out self-assessment analysis homework to their players?

 

[snowy]

errr was that a juvenile perso attack using la computadora's smiley?

Cool!

and nope, not calling you puta or anything hehe

edit: or were u sayin Xavi didn't need vid replays cuz he was perfect? Or that coaches and players could use Xavi's footage as learning material? If so, bang on right on both

 

[snowy]

dam that was a noob question after all! my bad lol

Video anal. is widely used by all coaches so as to tear and penetrate the oppostion with a bang!!! Conte is famous for his extended vid sessions.
Moumou uses them with his powerpoint files and Pep loves them as well. Short interview with Bayern's head of analytics:
https://tinyurl.com/jptxv3c

So far, mainly saw articles supporting pre-match foreplay presentations but pretty sure coaches and players would use post-match footage as well.

This dude has a good channel:

There's also vids on a few of our defeats (incl. the PSG one) and some endearing Xaviesta & Messi ones. (and... hope you guys like Beethoven)

 

[mark1nhu]

I do agree. But we have all seen hundreds of balls, saved situations like that, so with a little luck it can happen.
Penalties were 'invented' to create an unsavable situation but there are saved penalties and there also are consciously saved ones.

Question: Was Messi's free kick savable? Surgically aimed at just where two post meet and with considerable strength. But it was saved by Oblak, although 99% of spectators all around the world would have said it was the A-typical unsavable one - if went in. Was it mere luck?

For hundreds of deflected balls that are miraculously saved we see thousand ones that are not. So, what's your point?

About Messi's FK, I don't consider that to be unsavable.

Great FK, for sure, but it was far enough to make Oblak wait for the ball to pass the wall and only then decides to stay where he already was.

The unsavable ones are closer than that, the keeper generally can't wait for seeing the ball and start to move for the other side, only to get wrong footed by the FK taker.

But again, what's your point? How relevant it is to the completely different goal Mats conceded? How a FK saved by skill relates to a goal that could only be saved by luck and what is your point in all of that?

 

[Potroh]

But again, what's your point? How relevant it is to the completely different goal Mats conceded? How a FK saved by skill relates to a goal that could only be saved by luck and what is your point in all of that?

Sorry if you don't see the relation.
Just a week ago good folks argued that there was no such thing called "luck" in this game. Now that I dared to mention that Mats was unlucky with the goal, the agenda has changed and the "unsavable" phenomenon took the lead.
That's why the question at Messi's free-kick, as it is a good example of what results people either consider to be lucky or they do not. But we seem to be on a good path, because at least most here sort of admitted that Stegen's goal could have been saved with some luck... (and an open eye...)