If It Wasen't For Davis Where Would We Be?

[St Marco]

I have no doubt we would be miles adrift at the bottom, the guy is pure class and if we do somehow manage to stay up will be because of him. His saves are making our coaching set up seem better then what it really is.

[Legod Third Coming]

I have no doubt we would be miles adrift at the bottom, the guy is pure class and if we do somehow manage to stay up will be because of him. His saves are making our coaching set up seem better then what it really is.

 

 

Shock, goalkeeper does what he is paid for...

 

For years Shilton, Flowers and Jones did the same.

 

We're lucky to have him - which is a laugh given the reaction on here to him at the start of last season and before...

[70's Mike]

I have no doubt we would be miles adrift at the bottom, the guy is pure class and if we do somehow manage to stay up will be because of him. His saves are making our coaching set up seem better then what it really is.

 

DEEP in the brown stuff

[St Marco]

Shock, goalkeeper does what he is paid for...

 

For years Shilton, Flowers and Jones did the same.

 

We're lucky to have him - which is a laugh given the reaction on here to him at the start of last season and before...

 

Funny as i don't recall any of the other teams goalies we have played doing what Kelvin has this year. I guess you have right?

[Micky]

I have no doubt we would be miles adrift at the bottom, the guy is pure class and if we do somehow manage to stay up will be because of him. His saves are making our coaching set up seem better then what it really is.

 

Utter bollux - KD is coached in order to make those saves - therefore I would say that our coaching system appears to working very well.

 

It appears to me now that some here are prepared to use players who are playing well to try to make negative points - what on earth is going on...!!!!

[Legod Third Coming]

Funny as i don't recall any of the other teams goalies we have played doing what Kelvin has this year. I guess you have right?

 

Funnily enough I haven't seen other team's keepers make saves because we don't bloody shoot on target. I thought that might be obvious from the league position...

[St Marco]

Utter bollux - KD is coached in order to make those saves - therefore I would say that our coaching system appears to working very well.

 

It appears to me now that some here are prepared to use players who are playing well to try to make negative points - what on earth is going on...!!!!

 

What a load of **** and you know it. You cannot be coached on those things they are purely instinct. The team make their own negative points to talk about and Davis has made them seem a lot less negative. His saves recently are up there with the best i've seen any Saints Goalie make or even any other goalie make, they are not run of the mill at all.

The players drop further and further back and that invites more and more shots and because of that he has balied us out so many times. Did their goalie make 4-5 world class saves? No. So your talking ********.

[Micky]

What a load of **** and you know it. You cannot be coached on those things they are purely instinct. The team make their own negative points to talk about and Davis has made them seem a lot less negative. His saves recently are up there with the best i've seen any Saints Goalie make or even any other goalie make, they are not run of the mill at all.

The players drop further and further back and that invites more and more shots and because of that he has balied us out so many times. Did their goalie make 4-5 world class saves? No. So your talking ********.

 

Didn't bother reading past your opening gambit - if you believe that then you know naff all about football. Why not go tell KD to not bother turning up for training - no point - he can just cuff it with pure instict.

 

Talk about legendary coaching methods....!!!!

[Legod Third Coming]

What a load of **** and you know it. You cannot be coached on those things they are purely instinct. The team make their own negative points to talk about and Davis has made them seem a lot less negative. His saves recently are up there with the best i've seen any Saints Goalie make or even any other goalie make, they are not run of the mill at all.

The players drop further and further back and that invites more and more shots and because of that he has balied us out so many times. Did their goalie make 4-5 world class saves? No. So your talking ********.

 

 

Did he have to?

I know what you're saying and KD is making great saves - one against Charlton was Banks-class.

But that is the job he's paid for and he is, if we're really harsh, still a touch suspect on crosses and commanding his box...

We should be grateful we've got him, but you could just as easily say if we could finish a ham sandwich we would be top of the league.

[St Marco]

Didn't bother reading past your opening gambit - if you believe that then you know naff all about football. Why not go tell KD to not bother turning up for training - no point - he can just cuff it with pure instict.

 

Talk about legendary coaching methods....!!!!

 

I know so little about coaching keepers that i didn't know that keepers don't always train. Guess you didn't know that one of our England Goalies Kirkland doesn't train much because he doesn't want to hurt himself? He seems to be doing ok!

Plus if you read Peter Schmeichel's book Schmeichel: The Autobiography you would know about what he thinks of training and how it helped him, i suggest you read it.

 

Plus also you might want to read Gordon Banks one also, i think the line

"Goalkeeping is not just about stopping shots. It is about dominating the area, dealing with crosses consistently, not staying at home trembling on the line, or flapping in fear. It is standing up tall and challenging the striker to beat you, rather than dropping to the floor early and inviting the attacker to hit the target you have so conveniently opened for him. It is organizing the defenders around you and therefore reducing the number of times your heroics are required. It is holding the ball whenever possible and not pushing it back into danger. It is distributing decisively to counter-attack. Goalkeeping is about establishing a “dominant presence"

 

sums it up well. But i guess presence can be taught to people right?

[Micky]

I know so little about coaching keepers that i didn't know that keepers don't always train. Guess you didn't know that one of our England Goalies Kirkland doesn't train much because he doesn't want to hurt himself? He seems to be doing ok!

Plus if you read Peter Schmeichel's book Schmeichel: The Autobiography you would know about what he thinks of training and how it helped him, i suggest you read it.

 

Plus also you might want to read Gordon Banks one also, i think the line

"Goalkeeping is not just about stopping shots. It is about dominating the area, dealing with crosses consistently, not staying at home trembling on the line, or flapping in fear. It is standing up tall and challenging the striker to beat you, rather than dropping to the floor early and inviting the attacker to hit the target you have so conveniently opened for him. It is organizing the defenders around you and therefore reducing the number of times your heroics are required. It is holding the ball whenever possible and not pushing it back into danger. It is distributing decisively to counter-attack. Goalkeeping is about establishing a “dominant presence"

 

sums it up well. But i guess presence can be taught to people right?

 

Nice points - well researched - but the bottom line remains that all of those professional sportsmen that you have cited were all coached...!! They all benefitted from top class coaching facilities.

 

I grant you that there are the odd players who will look after and pace themselves during coaching sessions a la Chris Kirkland, however that is not the norm, and due partly to fear of injury. But the fact remains whether they enjoyed training or not - they are / were all coached.

 

Coaching is especially important for young players (which we have a few of), some of the older pro's probably do not put as much emphasis on training as those youngsters - but they are all coached.

 

Your original post infers that our coaching set up leaves a lot to be desired and is being bailed out by KD - total and utter bollux. KD is doing what he is trained (coached) to do - no more no less.

 

Apologies that I have not researched my reply with lots of 'player quotes', but I think you'll find that come Monday morning there are a whole lot more professional sportsmen at work on the coaching field than laying in bed knowing that they don't need to put the effort in.

[OldNick]

Nice points - well researched - but the bottom line remains that all of those professional sportsmen that you have cited were all coached...!! They all benefitted from top class coaching facilities.

 

I grant you that there are the odd players who will look after and pace themselves during coaching sessions a la Chris Kirkland, however that is not the norm, and due partly to fear of injury. But the fact remains whether they enjoyed training or not - they are / were all coached.

 

Coaching is especially important for young players (which we have a few of), some of the older pro's probably do not put as much emphasis on training as those youngsters - but they are all coached.

 

Your original post infers that our coaching set up leaves a lot to be desired and is being bailed out by KD - total and utter bollux. KD is doing what he is trained (coached) to do - no more no less.

 

Apologies that I have not researched my reply with lots of 'player quotes', but I think you'll find that come Monday morning there are a whole lot more professional sportsmen at work on the coaching field than laying in bed knowing that they don't need to put the effort in.

It is interesting that Webster is not coaching him at present. Without a doubt there is more than coaching to be a top footballer. Otherwise they'd all be MLT or Ronaldo's

[St Marco]

Nice points - well researched - but the bottom line remains that all of those professional sportsmen that you have cited were all coached...!! They all benefitted from top class coaching facilities.

 

I grant you that there are the odd players who will look after and pace themselves during coaching sessions a la Chris Kirkland, however that is not the norm, and due partly to fear of injury. But the fact remains whether they enjoyed training or not - they are / were all coached.

 

Coaching is especially important for young players (which we have a few of), some of the older pro's probably do not put as much emphasis on training as those youngsters - but they are all coached.

 

Your original post infers that our coaching set up leaves a lot to be desired and is being bailed out by KD - total and utter bollux. KD is doing what he is trained (coached) to do - no more no less.

 

Apologies that I have not researched my reply with lots of 'player quotes', but I think you'll find that come Monday morning there are a whole lot more professional sportsmen at work on the coaching field than laying in bed knowing that they don't need to put the effort in.

 

The things keepers can be coached on are the same things outfield players can be coached on. Speed training, footwork, passing, movement, positioning etc.. but ultimatly the key things of a goalie are the ability to judge situations. That cannot be taught. You cannot teach anyone to make the correct choice in every situation every time. For example a lot of goals are mostly 1 on 1's. In that split second where the player gets through the keeper has to have already decided what he will do. If he is too far from goal he is commited and must retreat. If the player is further away he must run out and try and narrow the target. Then instinctly try and get something on the ball without taking the guy out. It is very difficult and that is why we don't see world class keepers too often. Having watched our training sessions every now and then as well as other teams i know they train normally away from the rest of the squad. They have different training, ones that try to refine reflex's and mentality. Someone once told me they are even taught gymnastiques. So KD saves are done through his own decisions and judgments he decides in the momment, there is no way to prepare for that as each will be different.

A fine example of Goalies doing their own thing is Gomes at Spurs. He was doing so crap they actually sacked the goalie trainer and went without one.

[Wade Garrett]

Shilton was the best keeper of his generation, and he trained as hard as anyone and never stopped learning.

 

Decent coaching and training makes a real difference to a keeper.

 

The best are the best because they work hard at their game.

 

As the late great Roy Castle said 'Dedication's what you need'.

[Wade Garrett]

The things keepers can be coached on are the same things outfield players can be coached on. Speed training, footwork, passing, movement, positioning etc.. but ultimatly the key things of a goalie are the ability to judge situations. That cannot be taught. You cannot teach anyone to make the correct choice in every situation every time. For example a lot of goals are mostly 1 on 1's. In that split second where the player gets through the keeper has to have already decided what he will do. If he is too far from goal he is commited and must retreat. If the player is further away he must run out and try and narrow the target. Then instinctly try and get something on the ball without taking the guy out. It is very difficult and that is why we don't see world class keepers too often. Having watched our training sessions every now and then as well as other teams i know they train normally away from the rest of the squad. They have different training, ones that try to refine reflex's and mentality. Someone once told me they are even taught gymnastiques. So KD saves are done through his own decisions and judgments he decides in the momment, there is no way to prepare for that as each will be different.

A fine example of Goalies doing their own thing is Gomes at Spurs. He was doing so crap they actually sacked the goalie trainer and went without one.

 

 

I don't agree. 1 on 1's can be coached. Also if a keeper is committed the last thing he should do is retreat.

[St Marco]

I don't agree. 1 on 1's can be coached. Also if a keeper is committed the last thing he should do is retreat.

 

I mean committed as in he is away from his line. If it is a 1 on 1 and the guy is in the penalty box you have to rush out no other option really as need to make the target as small as possible in such a short time. However if your really tall like say Czek or however he spells it then your always have better odds staying near the line. It is a hard one to call and as i said boils down to judgement of the person themselves. If it was coachable we would not see many goals would we!

 

The one thing that sticks in my head about Schmichael is he was talking about his kid when he was playing well for City when Sven was there. He was saying he tried to teach him to do xyz but he couldn't do it because the way he interpreted situations was different to his own. The one thing he said he taught him was the star fish jump where you jump like a star fish arms spread to the sides rather then in front of you. So that shows things can be taught/coached. But ultimatly each scenario is different. It is down to the goalie. When he does an amazing save they say "it is pure instinct". When he does a David Jamaes they call him a clown!

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Davis continues to prove his doubters wrong and long may his form continue, he knows he can go from hero to zero but lets hope the support he is getting remains even if he does the odd James

[Micky]

The things keepers can be coached on are the same things outfield players can be coached on. Speed training, footwork, passing, movement, positioning etc.. but ultimatly the key things of a goalie are the ability to judge situations. That cannot be taught. You cannot teach anyone to make the correct choice in every situation every time. For example a lot of goals are mostly 1 on 1's. In that split second where the player gets through the keeper has to have already decided what he will do. If he is too far from goal he is commited and must retreat. If the player is further away he must run out and try and narrow the target. Then instinctly try and get something on the ball without taking the guy out. It is very difficult and that is why we don't see world class keepers too often. Having watched our training sessions every now and then as well as other teams i know they train normally away from the rest of the squad. They have different training, ones that try to refine reflex's and mentality. Someone once told me they are even taught gymnastiques. So KD saves are done through his own decisions and judgments he decides in the momment, there is no way to prepare for that as each will be different.

A fine example of Goalies doing their own thing is Gomes at Spurs. He was doing so crap they actually sacked the goalie trainer and went without one.

 

 

I hate to say it, and I'm not doing so just to be argumentative - all of those situations that you say cannot be coached - errrr can, and are.

 

Keepers spend hours of coaching on one on ones, angles, positioning and reflex saves as well as normal goalkeeping skills. How many times do you see a keep act as sweeper - because he has been coached to take a good starting position - even when the ball is not even in his half of the field. How many times do you see goalkeepers being coached with multi-ball practices - to build up their reflexes and awareness of second ball situations. Why are keepers the only players that will make extra 'markers' on the field - because they have been coached to, in order to get thier angles and distances right.

 

Kelvin Davis is a product of the same coaching set up that you say is not good enough, therefore surely the coaching set up should be given the praise for his form - not being doubted.

[Micky]

It is interesting that Webster is not coaching him at present. Without a doubt there is more than coaching to be a top footballer. Otherwise they'd all be MLT or Ronaldo's

 

Agreed - but no matter how well KD is playing at present - to put him in that company is somewhat flattering. I doubt that Kelvin himself would expect to be spoken about as such. Yes touted for England, yes playing well, but pure talent or coached skill - then I think it is more likely down to the latter.

[Wade Garrett]

I mean committed as in he is away from his line. If it is a 1 on 1 and the guy is in the penalty box you have to rush out no other option really as need to make the target as small as possible in such a short time. However if your really tall like say Czek or however he spells it then your always have better odds staying near the line. It is a hard one to call and as i said boils down to judgement of the person themselves. If it was coachable we would not see many goals would we!

 

The one thing that sticks in my head about Schmichael is he was talking about his kid when he was playing well for City when Sven was there. He was saying he tried to teach him to do xyz but he couldn't do it because the way he interpreted situations was different to his own. The one thing he said he taught him was the star fish jump where you jump like a star fish arms spread to the sides rather then in front of you. So that shows things can be taught/coached. But ultimatly each scenario is different. It is down to the goalie. When he does an amazing save they say "it is pure instinct". When he does a David Jamaes they call him a clown!

 

Setting your body, being on the balls of your feet, and making yourself big are all things that are coached to keepers. Schmeichel's starfish technique was something he learnt playing volleyball by the way (just thought you might be interested).

 

When a centre-forward volleys one in from 30 yards it is instinctive, but it is something he practices for hours and hours and hours on the training pitch.

[St Marco]

I hate to say it, and I'm not doing so just to be argumentative - all of those situations that you say cannot be coached - errrr can, and are.

 

Keepers spend hours of coaching on one on ones, angles, positioning and reflex saves as well as normal goalkeeping skills. How many times do you see a keep act as sweeper - because he has been coached to take a good starting position - even when the ball is not even in his half of the field. How many times do you see goalkeepers being coached with multi-ball practices - to build up their reflexes and awareness of second ball situations. Why are keepers the only players that will make extra 'markers' on the field - because they have been coached to, in order to get thier angles and distances right.

 

Kelvin Davis is a product of the same coaching set up that you say is not good enough, therefore surely the coaching set up should be given the praise for his form - not being doubted.

 

See again i disagree. As i've already stated they spend about 90% of the time actually away from the other players and tend to do their own thing. What works for one won't always work for another. If you look at my previous post your see i said the things they can be coached on are the same things outfield players are coached on. As you say they learn to play sweeper, that is part and parcel of being a keeper today. But you can't teach someone to change their own perceptive of judgements. If you could do you really think James would make the amount of mistakes he does especially when they are normally the same mistakes? He has been around for a longtime. It is like i remember David Seaman ages ago talking about the save Banks made in the world cup. He said it was the greatest save he ever saw and was why he wanted to be a keeper. That is all about reactions and chain of thought. If people could be taught that as i said we would not see many goals.

In the mult-ball they are actually stretching. The most visual training for keepers is obviously the shot stopping/kicking. If Davis was being coached then he would be a better kicker and be more confident with it, which he clearly isn't, which just dis-proves your theory as he would make better decisions in that department. That is the only bad aspect of his game in my book.

[saintjinksie]

I have no doubt we would be miles adrift at the bottom, the guy is pure class and if we do somehow manage to stay up will be because of him. His saves are making our coaching set up seem better then what it really is.

 

without davis we would have gone up in 2007, he must have cost us 10 points that season.

[St Marco]

without davis we would have gone up in 2007, he must have cost us 10 points that season.

 

bit harsh isn't it? Granted he made some mistakes but his defence and manager were a lot to blame to.

[saintwarwick]

It is interesting that Webster is not coaching him at present. Without a doubt there is more than coaching to be a top footballer. Otherwise they'd all be MLT or Ronaldo's

 

Keith Granger is the coach now isn't he?

[Micky]

See again i disagree. As i've already stated they spend about 90% of the time actually away from the other players and tend to do their own thing. What works for one won't always work for another. If you look at my previous post your see i said the things they can be coached on are the same things outfield players are coached on. As you say they learn to play sweeper, that is part and parcel of being a keeper today. But you can't teach someone to change their own perceptive of judgements. If you could do you really think James would make the amount of mistakes he does especially when they are normally the same mistakes? He has been around for a longtime. It is like i remember David Seaman ages ago talking about the save Banks made in the world cup. He said it was the greatest save he ever saw and was why he wanted to be a keeper. That is all about reactions and chain of thought. If people could be taught that as i said we would not see many goals.

In the mult-ball they are actually stretching. The most visual training for keepers is obviously the shot stopping/kicking. If Davis was being coached then he would be a better kicker and be more confident with it, which he clearly isn't, which just dis-proves your theory as he would make better decisions in that department. That is the only bad aspect of his game in my book.

 

Personally I don't think that anything you have written disproves any of my theorys at all. We could debate all night long - but it is patently obvious that we are poles apart in terms of opinion. Perhaps instead of reading some of the ghost written Biographys, you might try some coaching manuals instead and see what drills are taught and why.

 

I maintain though that, if you go back to your original post, there is no way that you can claim that the teams coaching set up is poor and then point to one of the players good form as proof of that. Total contradiction of arguments in the same sentence.

[Saint Bones]

Imagine where we'd be with a 30+ goals scorer.

 

Wow - look - this game works both ways

 

 

Be proud of what KD has done - not try and turn it around.

 

If he wasn't here some othher player would be goalie - and there is no way in the world anyone would know if he would do better or worse then KD

 

Prozac City FC

[sydney_saint]

I think I might add a bit of a different perspective on the training issue as I've played to a reasonable level as a keeper and was coached by imo the best goalkeeping coach in the country over here. Yes as a keeper alot is instict however, reflexes can be good without good training, or be brilliant with good training. Reflexes and shot stopping can always be improved upon and the ways upon doing so are always changing so training is very effective in that regard. So I'll give a point to the coaching department on that regard. Making yourself big and closing down angles is NOT instict in the main and can only really be taught effectivly through training by simulating match situations so thats another point to the training. Judgement in a match I'll give to the keeper insticts department as the coachs are not on the pitch with Davis. 1 on 1s I'll call a draw because they can be slightly proved upon through training but judgement plays a key part as well on this. I'll also give another point to the coaching set up because of the research they do on opposing teams which would enhace Davis peformance so I make that 3-1 that the coaching setup is working with Davis. All in imho of course.

[saintwarwick]

I think I might add a bit of a different perspective on the training issue as I've played to a reasonable level as a keeper and was coached by imo the best goalkeeping coach in the country over here. Yes as a keeper alot is instict however, reflexes can be good without good training, or be brilliant with good training. Reflexes and shot stopping can always be improved upon and the ways upon doing so are always changing so training is very effective in that regard. So I'll give a point to the coaching department on that regard. Making yourself big and closing down angles is NOT instict in the main and can only really be taught effectivly through training by simulating match situations so thats another point to the training. Judgement in a match I'll give to the keeper insticts department as the coachs are not on the pitch with Davis. 1 on 1s I'll call a draw because they can be slightly proved upon through training but judgement plays a key part as well on this. I'll also give another point to the coaching set up because of the research they do on opposing teams which would enhace Davis peformance so I make that 3-1 that the coaching setup is working with Davis. All in imho of course.

 

A very good opinion from someone who has been there and done that. Hopefully those who think they know about goalkeeping will read this post and realise they don't know half as much as they think they do.

[St Marco]

A very good opinion from someone who has been there and done that. Hopefully those who think they know about goalkeeping will read this post and realise they don't know half as much as they think they do.

 

Well i know a few ex keepers and have had the fortune to meet some of the best through my work at various events. What Sydney said is true but can also go the other way. For example the research. I know for 100% fact that majority of keepers do that themselves and see it as part of their job. A tea boy might gather the footage of certain players and then it is down to the keeper to try and find out things about the players. Especially penalty takers. Remember Reina talking in the champs league awhile ago about how he watches at least an hour a day prior to a match tapes on the teams opponents strikers? In fact i recall this bit of info about Xavi Valero (Liverpool coach) about the new keeper Liverpool got Dean Bouzanis. He says

"I sit down with goalkeeping coach Xavi Valero sometimes and watch tapes of Pepe Reina, looking at how he catches the ball, his distribution and how he does things," says Bouzanis". If he was being coached the way described then Bouzanis would be taught the same so would not need to spend time watching tapes of another keeper would he?

 

And the same apply's to reflex's. You cannot tell someone to reach for a ball or put your hand out to stop a ball going at 300 miles an hour, your brain does not think about those things that you have learnt it just does it. And the only way they will become pure instinct is to do it in games/match situations. It is the same when i do boxing. After years of fighting you instinctivley put your hands up and try to deflect the punches. It becomes natural to you. So yes reflex's can be made better but as i said before ultimatly kicking a ball at a person for hours on end they will naturally become more aware of how to stop it, such is how resilience works. That is not something taught or coached, kicking a ball at someone is not coaching anyone with no history of football can do that to someone.

 

The big comment goes against what Schmichael says and he was voted the greatest ever keeper so i think when he talks he probably knows what he is talking about. The drill he talked about that i think most of us have adopted in our sunday teams is the one where the keeper stands with his back towards the penalty spot (facing the net) and the guy outside the box with the ball shouts "now" and runs with the ball and shoots. When the keeper hears the now he turns and decides what to do. Our keeper is taught to dive to the feet of the player if he is close, however what he is taught never seems to make any difference to his decisions. Again it is the same in boxing when you sit on your stool at the end of the round and the coach is telling you what to do, you don't listen because your in your own world most of the time. That drill works on your awareness and more importantly your reflex's. Again that is not coached as that split second judgment is your own not someone elses.

The other obvious drills which Sydney must know is the 7 ball system. 7 balls all set up around the box and are shot at the goal one after another at different areas of the goal. The keeper has to dive, get back up and then save the next one and so on. You see a very light version of this in the pre-match build up. Again all designed at working on reflex's. But as i said it is up to you to jump, that decision is in your head.

It is the same for the other drills such as distribution. Schmichael contributes himself with being the pioneer of the fast break. He would practice corners so he could run and jump, catch the ball and in a split second after landing do a long throw out to the wingers to set up an attack, all in one motion. Again that is pure awareness by the keeper. He is firstly aware of the players in the box, aware of the balls flight path coming into the box, judges where abouts the best place to catch it will be then jumps into a bunch of players with no fear to catch the ball. Then knows through practice where one of the fast wingers will be and then throws to him. Throwing cannot be coached, the technique of how to throw can. If it could be coached then we would all have a team of Delap throwers would we not?

So all that is judgement,awareness and then reflex.

 

So im sure i don't know everything about being a goalie, hell i don't even play in that position (though i did for my college back in the day). But going through training myself for as long as i have you do tend to pick up what the goalie is doing mainly because it isn't what your doing. So what Sydney says is true to his opinion and his experience. One that is not the same for everyone else.

So i agree with SW and hope those who read this post and don't know half as much as they think they do realise they don't.

[solentstars]

Shock, goalkeeper does what he is paid for...

 

For years Shilton, Flowers and Jones did the same.

 

We're lucky to have him - which is a laugh given the reaction on here to him at the start of last season and before...

yep alot of people have short memories.

[Scudamore]

St Marco you are an utter bore. The facts are that he has been in goal. So what is the point in looking beyond that? As pointed out by others a goalie can provide plenty of points over a season. And i'm pretty sure that Strachan wouldn't be held in quite such high regard if he hadn't signed Niemi...but he did, and he earned us plenty more points along the way...which is great...i'd never use that as a negative on Strachan though as that would be utterly retarded...

[St Marco]

St Marco you are an utter bore. The facts are that he has been in goal. So what is the point in looking beyond that? As pointed out by others a goalie can provide plenty of points over a season. And i'm pretty sure that Strachan wouldn't be held in quite such high regard if he hadn't signed Niemi...but he did, and he earned us plenty more points along the way...which is great...i'd never use that as a negative on Strachan though as that would be utterly retarded...

 

Don't be a lamo Skidamore. How is that facts exactly because he says so? So it is fair to take one persons word even though he shows next to zero evidence to back up his claims and disregard mine which does? Sorry but i believe what i have read and seen and even that is common sense.

Keepers rely more on instinct then on what they are coached. The things they are coached are aimed more at making them comfortable with the same things outfield players are. Would you like me to photo copy some of the books i have and put up online to show your wrong?

 

Also have a read of this Scudamore

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fbookfootball.htm

It is a piece of work by Leigh Roose (bet you have no idea who he is).

The part where he says

 

"A good goalkeeper, like a poet, is born, not made. Nature has all to do with the art in its perfection, yet very much call be done by early training, tuition and practice. A "natural" goalkeeper seems to keep his form without much effort. All the training possible will not make a man a goalkeeper. To prove a successful goalkeeper, a man must be one of those destined by nature to be 'on his own', as the resources for reliably filling the post are entirely in himself, and, unless he wishes to be purely imitative, the goalkeeper, like the silkworm, must produce his materials from himself"

Sounds a lot like what i was saying right? But what do i know, im just a poster on a forum, a football forum, what could i possibly know about football?

Edited 7 December, 2008 by St Marco

[Legod Third Coming]

Don't be a lamo Skidamore. How is that facts exactly because he says so? So it is fair to take one persons word even though he shows next to zero evidence to back up his claims and disregard mine which does? Sorry but i believe what i have read and seen and even that is common sense.

Keepers rely more on instinct then on what they are coached. The things they are coached are aimed more at making them comfortable with the same things outfield players are. Would you like me to photo copy some of the books i have and put up online to show your wrong?

 

In the old days we used to be coached how to catch the ball. Now keepers couldn't catch a cold. They call that progress.

[Micky]

Don't be a lamo Skidamore. How is that facts exactly because he says so? So it is fair to take one persons word even though he shows next to zero evidence to back up his claims and disregard mine which does? Sorry but i believe what i have read and seen and even that is common sense.

Keepers rely more on instinct then on what they are coached. The things they are coached are aimed more at making them comfortable with the same things outfield players are. Would you like me to photo copy some of the books i have and put up online to show your wrong?

 

Also have a read of this Scudamore

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fbookfootball.htm

It is a piece of work by Leigh Roose (bet you have no idea who he is).

The part where he says

 

"A good goalkeeper, like a poet, is born, not made. Nature has all to do with the art in its perfection, yet very much call be done by early training, tuition and practice. A "natural" goalkeeper seems to keep his form without much effort. All the training possible will not make a man a goalkeeper. To prove a successful goalkeeper, a man must be one of those destined by nature to be 'on his own', as the resources for reliably filling the post are entirely in himself, and, unless he wishes to be purely imitative, the goalkeeper, like the silkworm, must produce his materials from himself"

Sounds a lot like what i was saying right? But what do i know, im just a poster on a forum, a football forum, what could i possibly know about football?

 

That would be the same Leigh Roose who:

 

"Roose was awarded his first international cap for Wales against Ireland on 24th February, 1900. During the game Ireland launched an attack down the right wing through Harry O'Reilly. Roose sprinted from his goalmouth and deliberately barged the Irishman into touch. Roose hit O'Reilly so hard that he was knocked unconscious. According to the rules of the time, no free-kick was awarded. As Rose later pointed out: "If a forward has to be met and charge down, do not hesitate to charge with all your might."

 

I think that you will find that coaching methods have moved on since the turn of the century, therefore probably not the best expert witness testiment that you could of quoted.

 

Your monologue in reply to SW is so contradictory in terms of actually explaining lots of differing basic coaching techniques and then saying that they do nothing to enhance the players ability or reflexes, that it's really not worth replying to. (Lunch break - really don't have the time (or inclination)).

[Scudamore]

Don't be a lamo Skidamore. How is that facts exactly because he says so? So it is fair to take one persons word even though he shows next to zero evidence to back up his claims and disregard mine which does? Sorry but i believe what i have read and seen and even that is common sense.

Keepers rely more on instinct then on what they are coached. The things they are coached are aimed more at making them comfortable with the same things outfield players are. Would you like me to photo copy some of the books i have and put up online to show your wrong?

 

Also have a read of this Scudamore

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fbookfootball.htm

It is a piece of work by Leigh Roose (bet you have no idea who he is).

The part where he says

 

"A good goalkeeper, like a poet, is born, not made. Nature has all to do with the art in its perfection, yet very much call be done by early training, tuition and practice. A "natural" goalkeeper seems to keep his form without much effort. All the training possible will not make a man a goalkeeper. To prove a successful goalkeeper, a man must be one of those destined by nature to be 'on his own', as the resources for reliably filling the post are entirely in himself, and, unless he wishes to be purely imitative, the goalkeeper, like the silkworm, must produce his materials from himself"

Sounds a lot like what i was saying right? But what do i know, im just a poster on a forum, a football forum, what could i possibly know about football?

 

Paragraph 1. No idea what the f::ck you are talking about. Reads as gibberish to me.

 

Paragraph 2. I'm not talking about goalies and their impact. I am saying that he is playing so it's pointless talking about him not playing. And i am also saying that Strachan probably wouldn't be held in such a high regard if he didn't have Niemi. Top keepers can have this effect. Schmeichel and Cech are two championship winning goalkeepers. People don't then look at Man Utd or Chelsea and say where would they be without them because it's hypothetical b::ll::cks...

 

Where would Saints be if Svensson hadn't been injured 04/05? Who knows. Who cares.

 

 

 

Also if you think i'm embarassed to not know a footballer who played a hundred years ago then you really are not on my plane at all. You do confirm my original suspicions that you are a bore though...

[Saint_clark]

You could argue that we might be in the Prem had he not made massive point costing mistakes in our play-off season.

[St Marco]

That would be the same Leigh Roose who:

 

"Roose was awarded his first international cap for Wales against Ireland on 24th February, 1900. During the game Ireland launched an attack down the right wing through Harry O'Reilly. Roose sprinted from his goalmouth and deliberately barged the Irishman into touch. Roose hit O'Reilly so hard that he was knocked unconscious. According to the rules of the time, no free-kick was awarded. As Rose later pointed out: "If a forward has to be met and charge down, do not hesitate to charge with all your might."

 

I think that you will find that coaching methods have moved on since the turn of the century, therefore probably not the best expert witness testiment that you could of quoted.

 

Your monologue in reply to SW is so contradictory in terms of actually explaining lots of differing basic coaching techniques and then saying that they do nothing to enhance the players ability or reflexes, that it's really not worth replying to. (Lunch break - really don't have the time (or inclination)).

 

Then obviously you didn't know that his methods/teachings are still used today. He is very famous in the keeping world and someone most keepers look up to wether it is because of his attitude or his philosophy. To make it even more funny Fifa released a worlds best 11 team recently and can you guess who was chosen to be in goal? That is right the guy who played 100 years ago....

 

Indeed coaching methods have changed a lot, no more are the days of having a pint before a game. At least not for pro's

But it doesn't matter what the era is. I have chosen numerous modern day keepers to quote and show that your wrong but yet their remarks fall on deaf ears. So there is not point arguing if you would rather believe someone other then people like Reina,Scmichael,Czech etc..

[St Marco]

Paragraph 1. No idea what the f::ck you are talking about. Reads as gibberish to me.

 

Paragraph 2. I'm not talking about goalies and their impact. I am saying that he is playing so it's pointless talking about him not playing. And i am also saying that Strachan probably wouldn't be held in such a high regard if he didn't have Niemi. Top keepers can have this effect. Schmeichel and Cech are two championship winning goalkeepers. People don't then look at Man Utd or Chelsea and say where would they be without them because it's hypothetical b::ll::cks...

 

Where would Saints be if Svensson hadn't been injured 04/05? Who knows. Who cares.

 

 

 

Also if you think i'm embarassed to not know a footballer who played a hundred years ago then you really are not on my plane at all. You do confirm my original suspicions that you are a bore though...

 

Hmm not quite sure what your talking about here really, seems to be of bog standard intelligence. Again the same as my above post though the fact that you don't know one of the best/most famous keepers to ever come out of this part of the world as well as one who's methods are used today is quite funny and just highlights the fact you really actually don't have a clue what your talking about. As i also mentioned "that 100 years ago footballer" was chosen in Fifas worlds 11 team recently.

Also to just rub it in a little bit more to show the fact you really don't have a clue you mention Man Utd and Schmeichel. Do you remember when he retired? How did united do when he left? Did the keepers they got in after him go on to have a stable career? Let me see, there was Bosnich,Taibi,Van de Gouw,Barthez,Carroll,Howard,Goram,Ricardo,Rachubka,Culkin and now Van der Sar. I make that 11 keepers in 8 years since he retired. If they could be "coached" would they really need to spend that amount on new keepers every season? Would they not just be able to "coach" at least one of them? Because your theory must mean that would be possible?

And as for Strachan he had Niemi who did us proud. But what happened when he left us? He didn't do to well did he? I think Strachan would be more thankful to Artur Boruc (do you know who he is as he wasent around 100 years ago?) who has actually helped him win things. Most notibly saving a 89th minute penalty in the champions league against Man Utd...

 

But as i thought you don't have a clue, so i may bore you but that is because what i say/said is actually valid. What you said just might as well amount to "well i don't like you, i don't know anything about keepers, don't know anything about football past last week but i'll give it a shot!).

[Alanh]

Seems to me that St Marco, Scudamore and Micky are arguing over semantics, as so often happens on any forum. St Marco, your style of delivery is hugely contradictory - as evidenced by your claim to believe that goalkeepers are 'born' as espoused by Roose, yet also say that modern keepers like Reina use coaching methods such as studying videos of opponents to better themselves. Obviously all pro footballers, not just keepers, have a massive natural ability as well as a determined mentality, but every footballer will also improve through continual coaching, hence the way that clubs train players. The level that they improve to will depend on their ability, injuries, confidence, etc - loads of factors.

 

FWIW I think it's disingenuous to say "His saves are making our coaching set up seem better then what it really is" and that, combined with your insistence on arguing the semantics of what others say is the reason you are getting so much stick.

[Saint Benali]

Nice to see someone reads about positions that are not the perceived cool ones. When i was growing up everyone wanted to be Bobby Moore. Now days i think being a striker is probably the cool position. Going in goal i doubt will ever be seen as cool. Which is a shame as we have had some great keepers from United Kingdom over the years. If only England had a Banks or a Shilton now. Interesting reading!

[St Marco]

My point Alan was that Reina was never told to do that, he felt he should do that as it would prepare himself. I think all top keepers do that in one way or another. How many times have we heard that old chesnut after someone saves a penalty (well i looked at the tapes before hand and noticed he shot this way a few times so gambled on it" etc..

So what i was saying with the Reina thing was that the new Liverpool keeper was sat down watching the tapes of his team mate, he was watching his technique. Those things can be taught or more so refined. Someone can look at say the way one is kicking and note down things such as the angle of the swing and so on, then pass those notes onto the person and say hit it this way instead etc.. Those things are the things all outfield players are coached on. And that was my point.

[Scudamore]

Hmm not quite sure what your talking about here really, seems to be of bog standard intelligence. Again the same as my above post though the fact that you don't know one of the best/most famous keepers to ever come out of this part of the world as well as one who's methods are used today is quite funny and just highlights the fact you really actually don't have a clue what your talking about. As i also mentioned "that 100 years ago footballer" was chosen in Fifas worlds 11 team recently.

Also to just rub it in a little bit more to show the fact you really don't have a clue you mention Man Utd and Schmeichel. Do you remember when he retired? How did united do when he left? Did the keepers they got in after him go on to have a stable career? Let me see, there was Bosnich,Taibi,Van de Gouw,Barthez,Carroll,Howard,Goram,Ricardo,Rachubka,Culkin and now Van der Sar. I make that 11 keepers in 8 years since he retired. If they could be "coached" would they really need to spend that amount on new keepers every season? Would they not just be able to "coach" at least one of them? Because your theory must mean that would be possible?

And as for Strachan he had Niemi who did us proud. But what happened when he left us? He didn't do to well did he? I think Strachan would be more thankful to Artur Boruc (do you know who he is as he wasent around 100 years ago?) who has actually helped him win things. Most notibly saving a 89th minute penalty in the champions league against Man Utd...

 

But as i thought you don't have a clue, so i may bore you but that is because what i say/said is actually valid. What you said just might as well amount to "well i don't like you, i don't know anything about keepers, don't know anything about football past last week but i'll give it a shot!).

 

Nothing you say is going over my head Marco. And as per usual you miss the point as you get overexcited at the possibility of appearing more intelligent than someone else. You're attempting to have an argument with me that i have never initiated. As such you don't appear anywhere near as clever as you would like...

 

I fully agree that top goalkeepers have an innate ability that cannot be coached. At no point have i argued otherwise. Please...go back and read what i say...as opposed to what you imagine i've said so you can attempt to patronise me some more.

 

Now i will reiterate this point as you really seem to be struggling with it. A good goalkeeper as once famously pointed out by Brian Clough (heard of him? hahaha...course you haven't for you are of substandard intelligence when compared to me...muahaha) is as important as a great striker. He was also of the opinion that Peter Shilton was worth 12 points over a season.

 

And thus to my point. Yes Kelvin Davis is saving us points this season. But that is his job.

 

Where would we be without him? Nobody knows. But it doesn't matter because we've not been without him.

 

And yes i am aware of Artur Boruc. I don't happen to think that knowing of a player means i know more about football than anyone else though. As studying football history and statistics doesn't mean you have a f::cking clue about football when it comes down to it.

 

Now calm down...breathe...and think about what you come back with...because your last couple of posts are really difficult to work out. Not because i'm stoopid but just because you're writing like a spammer. Split those paragraphs up nicely...reread what you've written and make sure it actually makes some sort of sense...that sort of thing...

[St Marco]

Nothing you say is going over my head Marco. And as per usual you miss the point as you get overexcited at the possibility of appearing more intelligent than someone else. You're attempting to have an argument with me that i have never initiated. As such you don't appear anywhere near as clever as you would like...

 

I fully agree that top goalkeepers have an innate ability that cannot be coached. At no point have i argued otherwise. Please...go back and read what i say...as opposed to what you imagine i've said so you can attempt to patronise me some more.

 

Now i will reiterate this point as you really seem to be struggling with it. A good goalkeeper as once famously pointed out by Brian Clough (heard of him? hahaha...course you haven't for you are of substandard intelligence when compared to me...muahaha) is as important as a great striker. He was also of the opinion that Peter Shilton was worth 12 points over a season.

 

And thus to my point. Yes Kelvin Davis is saving us points this season. But that is his job.

 

Where would we be without him? Nobody knows. But it doesn't matter because we've not been without him.

 

And yes i am aware of Artur Boruc. I don't happen to think that knowing of a player means i know more about football than anyone else though. As studying football history and statistics doesn't mean you have a f::cking clue about football when it comes down to it.

 

Now calm down...breathe...and think about what you come back with...because your last couple of posts are really difficult to work out. Not because i'm stoopid but just because you're writing like a spammer. Split those paragraphs up nicely...reread what you've written and make sure it actually makes some sort of sense...that sort of thing...

 

Again you try and deflect your lack of actual understanding of the topic we were talking about by just going for the insults. The only thing that makes sense in your post is the part about Brian Clough. But the problem even with that is that it just strengthens what i am saying and weakens what your saying. He never mentions anything about coaching. A great keeper is more important then a great striker but to be a great keeper doesn't mean you need to be coached. Alas i refer back to my other post about Kirkland, he isn't coached and doesn't train much but he can get into the England squad. If what you try and say is true would he just be considered a slacker/a know it all? Obviously not.

 

And yes studying football does mean you have a clue...That is like saying someone who studies anything has no clue. If you are interested in a subject and you put time into reading it/practicing it means you understand the subject. How else do you go about having a clue? Because by your logic which is flawed would mean the coach would be better then the keeper so thus why is he not in goal?!.

 

So a post aimed at praising one of our players falls into another typical thread with people throwing insults at each other. The difference being i know what i am talking about in this instance because all my life i have been interested in football and not just the football you see on tv. Im interested in the history of the game but more importantly the evolution of the game. That doesn't mean i claim to know everything about it as i don't, that is why i read auto-biography's and things like that because it interests me.

 

So you can attempt to insult me all you like but we both know what i am saying and have shown makes far more sense and is more plausible then what you have.

So i re-iterate what i said in my orgional post before the over analysers such as yourself woke up.

Without Kelvin Davis in his current form we would be in far deeper **** then we are now. Well done Kelvin, well done!

[Scudamore]

Again you try and deflect your lack of actual understanding of the topic we were talking about by just going for the insults. The only thing that makes sense in your post is the part about Brian Clough. But the problem even with that is that it just strengthens what i am saying and weakens what your saying. He never mentions anything about coaching. A great keeper is more important then a great striker but to be a great keeper doesn't mean you need to be coached. Alas i refer back to my other post about Kirkland, he isn't coached and doesn't train much but he can get into the England squad. If what you try and say is true would he just be considered a slacker/a know it all? Obviously not.

 

And yes studying football does mean you have a clue...That is like saying someone who studies anything has no clue. If you are interested in a subject and you put time into reading it/practicing it means you understand the subject. How else do you go about having a clue? Because by your logic which is flawed would mean the coach would be better then the keeper so thus why is he not in goal?!.

 

So a post aimed at praising one of our players falls into another typical thread with people throwing insults at each other. The difference being i know what i am talking about in this instance because all my life i have been interested in football and not just the football you see on tv. Im interested in the history of the game but more importantly the evolution of the game. That doesn't mean i claim to know everything about it as i don't, that is why i read auto-biography's and things like that because it interests me.

 

So you can attempt to insult me all you like but we both know what i am saying and have shown makes far more sense and is more plausible then what you have.

So i re-iterate what i said in my orgional post before the over analysers such as yourself woke up.

Without Kelvin Davis in his current form we would be in far deeper **** then we are now. Well done Kelvin, well done!

 

We all know that this thread was not set up to praise Kelvin. It was set up to belittle the efforts of the rest of the team.

[Micky]

We all know that this thread was not set up to praise Kelvin. It was set up to belittle the efforts of the rest of the team.

 

Precisely - glad to see somebody has stayed on the original topic and inference. Not quite sure what the muppet is on to be honest. Most on here appear to disagree with his opening gambit and since then he has dug deeper and deeper holes with total contradictory posts.

 

I have no idea where he claims any of his coaching knowledge from - but I personally would not wish to have him anywhere near an under 7's team let alone professing to know anything about professional coaching.

 

Go back to post one of this thread - total bollux. Any chance of starting again now - but keeping it brief....!!!