Whether talking with friends or prophesising to millions on national television (think Alan Hansen’s ‘you can’t win anything with kids’), there is a sort of unofficial disclaimer that comes with any kind of sporting proclamation that says ‘I know very well the risk of being a know-all, but I ask you to grant me the benefit of the doubt should I be proved wrong’, or something.
With this in mind, it is ironic that, in a season that had been expected to be his last – not least by me (see disclaimer above) – Manchester United’s Edwin Van Der Sar has signed a new contract until 2011, breaking a Premier League record for the longest time ever to have not conceded a goal along the way.
Such a record, it must be said, is hardly one that should be attributed to Van Der Sar alone. Certainly, it says more about Man Utd’s good form than it does anything else. Indeed, Van Der Sar has been around long enough to know how fickle such records can be. Such is the curious and thankless position of being a goalkeeper – make one mistake, and you go from seemingly invincible to undependable.
Take the case of Iker Casillas, the best goalkeeper in the world: No sooner had he lifted the European Cup as captain of Spain on the back of, not one but, many fine seasons as Real Madrid’s most consistent player, than he became victim of criticism that he is ‘not the player he once was’, all because of one or two small mistakes.
Needless to say, Casillas has since regained his form, at least as far as the media are concerned – if you ask me he never looked slack – but I think this example says as much about the nature of being a goalkeeper as it does about the ever-reproachful disposition of the media.
In this sense, it is interesting to consider what it is that makes the goalkeeping position so unique. I would argue that, whilst it is inevitable that any player will face criticism at some point in their career – not even Zinedine Zidane is (or was) immune from this – a goalkeeper seems to be scrutinized more heavily than that of any other position. Or is that they are simply scrutinized in a different way?
Certainly, the most obvious attribute that differentiates the goalkeeper from any other position is that he can use his hands. But what is more interesting is the by-product that comes with this, in the fact that there is only room for one goalkeeper in a given team. This means that, unlike in the case of an outfield player – who can, to an extent, either fill in for or play alongside any number of players – the goalkeeper is 100% inadaptable and, so, the position is a lot more competitive in terms of the ratio between opportunities to play and the number of players in contention for a place in the team. Continuing the Manchester United theme, Darren Fletcher, for example, may see his chances of getting in the team improved if any one of Paul Scholes, Michael Carrick, Anderson, Ji-Sung Park, Cristiano Ronaldo, Ryan Giggs or maybe even John O’Shea or Gary Neville get injured. The same cannot be said for Ben Foster or Tomasz Kuszczak, who wait their turn behind Van Der Sar himself.
Such high levels of competition might help to explain the overall negative attitude towards the current selection of English goalkeepers. Personally, I reject the belief that the English national team are short of good goalkeepers to choose from. In Chris Kirkland, David James, Robert Green, Paul Robinson, Ben Foster and (maybe) Scott Carson, I think England have an encouraging list of options. So much so that I wonder if it is the case that England – and, indeed, the players in question – are simply suffering from the fact that there are just too many goalkeepers of a similar standard (that would be ‘very good’ but not ‘exceptional’), and the sheer amount of competition has made it difficult for any player to settle or hold down a place in the team.
Certainly, this adds to the issue of increased media scrutiny. More generally, however, this is simply the result of the goalkeeper representing the last line between the opposition striker and the goal, meaning any mistake he makes is likely to be critical. This, in turn, means the goalkeeper’s every move is also critical and so the level of pressure he is put under to perform even the most basic actions is far more than that of any outfield player. If a striker slightly miscontrols the ball in the final third of the pitch where he is attacking, for example, he might concede possession in the form of a throw-in. Even if he gives the ball directly to the opposition, his mistake is unlikely to be critical as there is still plenty of space/grass and, indeed, defenders in his favour. Yet, if a goalkeeper miscontrols a pass in his area, he may very well concede a goal a second later.
This, ultimately, results in a natural inconsistency surrounding how a player is judged: the difference between what I like to call ‘positive and negative marking’…
Generally-speaking, if a striker misses a chance – or even five chances – he can make up for it by scoring a goal, so he is marked ‘positively’. Whereas, a goalkeeper can only make errors in the case of messing up a straightforward situation, so he is marked ‘negatively’, as it were.
To further put this into context, if a goalkeeper has had a quiet game, he (along with his defence) has probably done a good job; whereas if a striker has had a quiet game, he has probably not had a particularly good day. Yet, if a goalkeeper has been the centre of attention, it is either because his defence has been so bad that the other team has created a number of chances, or it is because he has made a costly error.
In this sense, one could argue that the individual successes or failures of a goalkeeper – at least, within in an individual match – will ordinarily come at the direct expense or profit of those successes or failures felt collectively by the team: A goalkeeper can only excel if defensive mistakes are made by his team. This is not true in the ultimate sense – because good or bad goalkeeping may mean the difference between a team either winning or losing – but it is true for independent situations within a match itself. I accept it is not a watertight argument, but it is certainly one worth pondering, especially for a player like Ben Foster, who I mentioned earlier…
Indeed, I wonder if the thought-process behind such a theory may tempt Foster into making a loan move to a lower club. It is true to say that the recent success of Edwin Van Der Sar has come at the expense of the younger goalkeepers at Manchester United, notably Foster himself. Since joining the club four years ago, Foster’s most successful period has come, not at Old Trafford but, at Vicarage Road where he spent two years on-loan at Watford. Despite Watford’s relegation from the Premier League, Foster impressed, and was eventually called up to the English national team.
Temporary moves like this allow young players to gain and maintain a level of confidence through playing regularly but, unlike in the case of an outfield player – who has to weigh up the risk of not excelling at a lower level and thus, ultimately, risking his profile – a goalkeeper does not have this problem because, as we have established, playing for a poor team can actually even enhance his reputation as he has more opportunities to make saves, as was the case for Foster at Watford.
As for the future of this young goalkeeper, I suppose we will have to wait and see. Certainly, he is a player of great potential, but he has lost momentum, of late. He was forced to have surgery on his knee prior to the 2007/08 season, unsettling his position for the coming season, and has generally not played more than the occasional game since. Clearly this has affected his confidence – if not ultimately, then certainly in the short-term.
Although he should stay at Man Utd in the long-term, Foster needs to play, and I believe he would greatly benefit from making another loan-move, whether it be to a Premier League club or otherwise. Foster is still only 25, so the possibility that he will one day play for Manchester United and England on a regular basis is still very much there. In the meantime, who would have predicted that – in Edwin Van Der Sar and David James – Foster’s opportunities would be frustrated by two players nearing their forties? Not me, is the answer to that question…
With this in mind, it is ironic that, in a season that had been expected to be his last – not least by me (see disclaimer above) – Manchester United’s Edwin Van Der Sar has signed a new contract until 2011, breaking a Premier League record for the longest time ever to have not conceded a goal along the way.
Such a record, it must be said, is hardly one that should be attributed to Van Der Sar alone. Certainly, it says more about Man Utd’s good form than it does anything else. Indeed, Van Der Sar has been around long enough to know how fickle such records can be. Such is the curious and thankless position of being a goalkeeper – make one mistake, and you go from seemingly invincible to undependable.
Take the case of Iker Casillas, the best goalkeeper in the world: No sooner had he lifted the European Cup as captain of Spain on the back of, not one but, many fine seasons as Real Madrid’s most consistent player, than he became victim of criticism that he is ‘not the player he once was’, all because of one or two small mistakes.
Needless to say, Casillas has since regained his form, at least as far as the media are concerned – if you ask me he never looked slack – but I think this example says as much about the nature of being a goalkeeper as it does about the ever-reproachful disposition of the media.
In this sense, it is interesting to consider what it is that makes the goalkeeping position so unique. I would argue that, whilst it is inevitable that any player will face criticism at some point in their career – not even Zinedine Zidane is (or was) immune from this – a goalkeeper seems to be scrutinized more heavily than that of any other position. Or is that they are simply scrutinized in a different way?
Certainly, the most obvious attribute that differentiates the goalkeeper from any other position is that he can use his hands. But what is more interesting is the by-product that comes with this, in the fact that there is only room for one goalkeeper in a given team. This means that, unlike in the case of an outfield player – who can, to an extent, either fill in for or play alongside any number of players – the goalkeeper is 100% inadaptable and, so, the position is a lot more competitive in terms of the ratio between opportunities to play and the number of players in contention for a place in the team. Continuing the Manchester United theme, Darren Fletcher, for example, may see his chances of getting in the team improved if any one of Paul Scholes, Michael Carrick, Anderson, Ji-Sung Park, Cristiano Ronaldo, Ryan Giggs or maybe even John O’Shea or Gary Neville get injured. The same cannot be said for Ben Foster or Tomasz Kuszczak, who wait their turn behind Van Der Sar himself.
Such high levels of competition might help to explain the overall negative attitude towards the current selection of English goalkeepers. Personally, I reject the belief that the English national team are short of good goalkeepers to choose from. In Chris Kirkland, David James, Robert Green, Paul Robinson, Ben Foster and (maybe) Scott Carson, I think England have an encouraging list of options. So much so that I wonder if it is the case that England – and, indeed, the players in question – are simply suffering from the fact that there are just too many goalkeepers of a similar standard (that would be ‘very good’ but not ‘exceptional’), and the sheer amount of competition has made it difficult for any player to settle or hold down a place in the team.
Certainly, this adds to the issue of increased media scrutiny. More generally, however, this is simply the result of the goalkeeper representing the last line between the opposition striker and the goal, meaning any mistake he makes is likely to be critical. This, in turn, means the goalkeeper’s every move is also critical and so the level of pressure he is put under to perform even the most basic actions is far more than that of any outfield player. If a striker slightly miscontrols the ball in the final third of the pitch where he is attacking, for example, he might concede possession in the form of a throw-in. Even if he gives the ball directly to the opposition, his mistake is unlikely to be critical as there is still plenty of space/grass and, indeed, defenders in his favour. Yet, if a goalkeeper miscontrols a pass in his area, he may very well concede a goal a second later.
This, ultimately, results in a natural inconsistency surrounding how a player is judged: the difference between what I like to call ‘positive and negative marking’…
Generally-speaking, if a striker misses a chance – or even five chances – he can make up for it by scoring a goal, so he is marked ‘positively’. Whereas, a goalkeeper can only make errors in the case of messing up a straightforward situation, so he is marked ‘negatively’, as it were.
To further put this into context, if a goalkeeper has had a quiet game, he (along with his defence) has probably done a good job; whereas if a striker has had a quiet game, he has probably not had a particularly good day. Yet, if a goalkeeper has been the centre of attention, it is either because his defence has been so bad that the other team has created a number of chances, or it is because he has made a costly error.
In this sense, one could argue that the individual successes or failures of a goalkeeper – at least, within in an individual match – will ordinarily come at the direct expense or profit of those successes or failures felt collectively by the team: A goalkeeper can only excel if defensive mistakes are made by his team. This is not true in the ultimate sense – because good or bad goalkeeping may mean the difference between a team either winning or losing – but it is true for independent situations within a match itself. I accept it is not a watertight argument, but it is certainly one worth pondering, especially for a player like Ben Foster, who I mentioned earlier…
Indeed, I wonder if the thought-process behind such a theory may tempt Foster into making a loan move to a lower club. It is true to say that the recent success of Edwin Van Der Sar has come at the expense of the younger goalkeepers at Manchester United, notably Foster himself. Since joining the club four years ago, Foster’s most successful period has come, not at Old Trafford but, at Vicarage Road where he spent two years on-loan at Watford. Despite Watford’s relegation from the Premier League, Foster impressed, and was eventually called up to the English national team.
Temporary moves like this allow young players to gain and maintain a level of confidence through playing regularly but, unlike in the case of an outfield player – who has to weigh up the risk of not excelling at a lower level and thus, ultimately, risking his profile – a goalkeeper does not have this problem because, as we have established, playing for a poor team can actually even enhance his reputation as he has more opportunities to make saves, as was the case for Foster at Watford.
As for the future of this young goalkeeper, I suppose we will have to wait and see. Certainly, he is a player of great potential, but he has lost momentum, of late. He was forced to have surgery on his knee prior to the 2007/08 season, unsettling his position for the coming season, and has generally not played more than the occasional game since. Clearly this has affected his confidence – if not ultimately, then certainly in the short-term.
Although he should stay at Man Utd in the long-term, Foster needs to play, and I believe he would greatly benefit from making another loan-move, whether it be to a Premier League club or otherwise. Foster is still only 25, so the possibility that he will one day play for Manchester United and England on a regular basis is still very much there. In the meantime, who would have predicted that – in Edwin Van Der Sar and David James – Foster’s opportunities would be frustrated by two players nearing their forties? Not me, is the answer to that question…
