Petr Cech

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Where would you place Szczesny, Mignolet, Casillas, Diego Lopez, Handanovic, Howard, Guzan, Begovic and Hart?

Szczesny would probably go under "Very good" in my estimations. The same for Diego Lopez. The rest are "good" goalkeepers, besides Hart, who I'd rank as average at best.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Szczesny would probably go under "Very good" in my estimations. The same for Diego Lopez. The rest are "good" goalkeepers, besides Hart, who I'd rank as average at best.

Szczesny is not a better keeper than De Gea.

[The Skipper 20,593]

Szczesny is not a better keeper than De Gea.

I'd put them in the same bracket actually. De Gea is a very good goalkeeper but right now he has a mess of a system ahead of him so naturally he's very exposed.

[Kieran. 6,317]

And Howard is definitely at least "very good"

[The only place to be 11,313]

I'd put them in the same bracket actually. De Gea is a very good goalkeeper but right now he has a mess of a system ahead of him so naturally he's very exposed.

De Gea was probably the best keeper in the league last season whereas Szczesny is bang average for me. I'd put Howard, Begovic and possibly even Mignolet above him.

[The Skipper 20,593]

De Gea was probably the best keeper in the league last season whereas Szczesny is bang average for me. I'd put Howard, Begovic and possibly even Mignolet above him.

Szczesny did well last year, has a lot of clean sheets (most in the league) and made some excellent saves, perhaps Howard and Begovic who are both excellent keepers are on his level but I think Mignolet is slightly overrated tbh. Pretty average IMO, Liverpool would do well to replace him with someone like Lloris for example.

[Footballover 222]

That tweet from Cech

What an absolute LEGEND this guy is, I really adore him! He came to be a "silent hero" in an era of players like Didier and Lamps. He gave so much for this club and not a single complaint, I can't remember him wanting to leave or something close to it in 10 years in which he has served this club. I am really glad he decided to stay even though he had every right to pursue first team football which he could easily find elsewhere. I truly believe he can help the team, even if not directly on the field.

I wish the fans chanted his name more, he deserves it.

[Special Juan 27,104]

In name only, reality is we are wasting 100k+ per week on a player who will likely plays no part until his departure next Jan/summer Mark is a fine back up imo.

With money saved on wages from players going/loans the cash isn't an issue, and he is obviously happy to stay and fight. I'm not saying Mark isn't a good back up, he is, just Cech is even better and affordable after some great business by the club.

[Madmax 9,219]

Szczesny would probably go under "Very good" in my estimations. The same for Diego Lopez. The rest are "good" goalkeepers, besides Hart, who I'd rank as average at best.

Interesting. I'm curious to know - subjectively speaking, do you (and/or other coaches you come across) place more emphasis on the things done right, or the things not done wrong? Orthodoxy (Textbook goalkeeping) vs Effectiveness?

[Jase 43,479]

Szczesny did well last year, has a lot of clean sheets (most in the league) and made some excellent saves, perhaps Howard and Begovic who are both excellent keepers are on his level but I think Mignolet is slightly overrated tbh. Pretty average IMO, Liverpool would do well to replace him with someone like Lloris for example.

*ahem* Joint-most in the league last season...

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Szczesny is not a better keeper than De Gea.

In your opinion.

From a technical point of view, de Gea is an absolute nightmare of a goalkeeper. I pity his coach. Sometimes I wonder if he has any need to wear gloves because he leads with his feet for absolutely everything - ironic since his actual footwork and movement from his starting position to set position is utterly horrific. He's just a bad, bad goalkeeper from a technical perspective and I feel sorry for any young goalkeeper who tries to emulate him when they're playing in the field with their mates. Szczesny is neat and tidy, a little exuberant at times and a little erratic with his save selection, but he is a bloody effective shot-stopper when he cuts out the fancy stuff.

Interesting. I'm curious to know - subjectively speaking, do you (and/or other coaches you come across) place more emphasis on the things done right, or the things not done wrong? Orthodoxy (Textbook goalkeeping) vs Effectiveness?

Question 1 - things done right vs things done wrong. This depends entirely on the coach him/herself. From my own experience as a coach, I focus on both, but always in a constructive way. I work with goalkeepers of all ages, from age 3 up to young men aged 21-26, but I always make sure that regardless of whether we are looking at things that have been done correctly or otherwise, everything is viewed from a positive perspective. But to answer your question, I suppose you have to focus on things not done correctly. Goalkeeping is different to playing outfield - it is very much a game of instincts and second-guessing your opponent. Doing something right or wrong is often down to luck more than judgement, so whilst I am always keen to praise one of my goalkeepers for doing something well, I suppose in my coaching sessions I focus on their weaknesses in order to improve them in any way possible.

The FA have a "four corners" approach to goalkeeping: the physical, psychological, technical and tactical corners. Whilst you need to be in good physical condition to be a goalkeeper, and a positive psyche, it is really the technical and tactical aspects that you "coach". From that point of view I guess what I'm trying to say is that with any goalkeeper, me and my fellow coaches will sit down, address their strengths and weaknesses and cater a personalised long-term development programme that will help improve their game in each of the four corners, but most specifically to look on turning their weak areas into areas of strength. As I say, it's very much down to the coach's own coaching style - some people will try and brush negative things under the carpet and focus only on the good things (a good way of maintaining a goalkeeper's confidence), but I always feel it is good to look at things that could have been done better, and to share my advice and experiences as a player and a coach to help enhance that goalkeeper's own game.

Question 2 - orthodoxy vs effectiveness. This is an awkward one. If a goalkeeper makes a save, regardless of whether it is technically perfect or an absolute abomination of a save where he/she misses the ball with their hands and it smashes them in the face and goes over, then the goalkeeper should be congratulated. It's the same as how a beautiful volley from 35 yards is worth the same as a shanked finish that takes a deflection and trickles over the line. A save is a save and goalkeeper coaches have to realise that not everybody can physically make saves the way the English FA wants them to. I get told by my senior coaches that all of my goalkeepers must do this and they must do that, but really goalkeeping is a very personal thing. A good example is the goalkeeping set position.

Compare, for instance, the set position of Jack Butland:

and that of Edwin van der Sar:

]##]

The set position is crucial. 90% of saves you try and make comes from this base. It gives you the balance and flex in your body required to react quickly to high and low shots. You can see from the goalkeeper's hand position how he/she intends to make a save. From a technical point of view, EvdS's set position is textbook. Absolutely perfect, 100% orthodoxy - his hands are in the gunslinger position, and he is ready to lead with them and attack the ball. If you notice his posture, he has perfect forwards-facing balance, which is key. Butland on the other hand has a far wider and straighter stance, with his hands is more of the "ape position" you'd associate with a one-on-one save. But, if it works, and it makes him a good goalkeeper (Butland is a gorgeous goalkeeper to watch), then that's great, right? As I said, a save is a save.

Orthodoxy is important. It gives you that basis to make a save, based on a tried and tested formula that has worked for English goalkeepers over the past twenty years. You can argue and state that the quality of English goalkeepers has dropped recently, but I would disagree - Joe Hart is an ugly goalkeeper to watch, technically very poor, but he can still be a very effective shot-stopper. Paul Robinson at his peak was similar, even Ben Foster, though not an orthodox goalkeeper, is still very effective in his own right. Every now and again you get a goalkeeper come through who is gorgeous to watch from a technical point of view and is also effective, such as Butland, who I am convinced has a big future ahead of him. So whilst you get goalkeeping purists who determine there can be such a thing as a "bad save", I disagree. However, ultimately I believe that goalkeeping orthodoxy is important to maintain as it gives you a strong basis from which you give yourself a greater chance to make a save. That's why we coach technique so heavily in the Academy that I work in. Things such as leading with your hands when making a collapsing save - small technical minutiae which, on the field of play, give you a greater possibility of actually making a save. If you want to be a goalkeeper like David de Gea and lead with your feet for every possible save, then so be it. If you follow the coaching guidelines set out by FA-qualified coaches and are able to maintain good weight distribution and forwards-facing balance at all times, and you are able to make saves in a more routine and orthodox manner (as opposed to the camera saves you see from Premier League goalkeepers), you give yourself a better chance of making those saves on a consistent basis. Coaches like me will argue that orthodoxy makes you effective in most situations. But goalkeeping is down to luck more than judgement at times, and certainly down to your instincts and reflexes.

I'm sorry that's a ridiculously long reply, but I felt your very good questions deserved in-depth responses.

[Special Juan 27,104]

I echo what Alex says on goalkeeping, and as a coach of under 9's and spend a lot of time with our keepers.

Like a house built on poor foundations will never be right, for me it starts at the bottom. I see kids flat footed and it's just way from right, being on your toes makes you set and ready to go either way at any height whether it be low or high.

[didierforever 7,349]

i read in the last page that lloris is better than cech!!! lloris? seriously? the keeper who makes a mistake every other game. his distribution is downright pathetic. about 4-5 goals the spurs conceded last season were cos his distribution. his shot stopping is no where near as good as cech. he is a brilliant sweeper though but barely changes the fact that he is so error prone.

[The only place to be 11,313]

In your opinion.

From a technical point of view, de Gea is an absolute nightmare of a goalkeeper. I pity his coach. Sometimes I wonder if he has any need to wear gloves because he leads with his feet for absolutely everything - ironic since his actual footwork and movement from his starting position to set position is utterly horrific. He's just a bad, bad goalkeeper from a technical perspective and I feel sorry for any young goalkeeper who tries to emulate him when they're playing in the field with their mates. Szczesny is neat and tidy, a little exuberant at times and a little erratic with his save selection, but he is a bloody effective shot-stopper when he cuts out the fancy stuff.

That might have been true of De Gea a few years ago but he improved under Eric Steele and even Chris Woods. He's a much more composed, reliable keeper now and quite a stable presence.

[Tomo 21,681]

Szczesny would probably go under "Very good" in my estimations. The same for Diego Lopez. The rest are "good" goalkeepers, besides Hart, who I'd rank as average at best.

Where would you rank Keylor Navas?

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Where would you rank Keylor Navas?

In my view he's borderline - somewhere between "good" and "very good", but people seem to think he's as good as Lev Yashin or Dino Zoff judging by some of the comments on here after the WC. Neat and tidy, excellent footwork. But is he as good as the likes of Weidenfeller or Lloris? IMO, not quite, but still comfortably one of the top 20-odd.

[Tomo 21,681]

In my view he's borderline - somewhere between "good" and "very good", but people seem to think he's as good as Lev Yashin or Dino Zoff judging by some of the comments on here after the WC. Neat and tidy, excellent footwork. But is he as good as the likes of Weidenfeller or Lloris? IMO, not quite, but still comfortably one of the top 20-odd.

fair point, if you were Ancelotti would you give him a shot given Cassilas form?

[Madmax 9,219]

I'm sorry that's a ridiculously long reply, but I felt your very good questions deserved in-depth responses.

Not at all; it was a fascinating read and quite insightful. I had De Gea in mind when asking the questions so your coverage of him was very welcome. Top, top post. Thank you.