Matt Turner ahead of Zack Steffen as US national team goalkeeper?

Your post was really insightful and interesting, thanks. On this bit I cut out this is the crux of where I just can’t take the argument that Turner is equal to let alone better than Steffan.

It doesn’t seem too early to tell who is going to have the better career at all. With Club one dude played well in the Bundesliga and was bought by One of the top ten clubs on the planet and is their #2 and for country that guy has been terrific. While the other is great domestically and is yet to be capped.

I still am not seeing any compelling argument for this to even be a serious discussion between the two. If Steffan hadn’t played well in the Bundesliga or for us already this discussion would make more sense.

 

There is no question that the position has changed a lot the last 10 years. But herein lies the real problem. So kieepers now have much higher completion percentages than they did years ago. That is a very good thing. But that is where metrics skew things. You have to look much deeper to determine how effective this really is.

For example, how many times now do we see a keeper pass to an outside back. Then the back passes to a deep midfielder. Then the midfileder passes back to the keeper. Who then passes to an outside back. Now great in that they have maintained possession for 30 seconds. And the keeper is 2 for 2 in passes. But now the back is pressured so this time he just kicks the ball downfield, a 50-50 play. Which is absolutely no different than had the keeper kicked the ball downfield in the first place, except that 30 seconds has elapsed.

Look I am all for keepers playing with their feet. its great tool. But can you name me the last time when the passing around the back led to a scoring opportunity? Again go read my post 1244 in the other thread. The metrics are not accounting for the real outcomes here.

 

I think there are some metrics that track how often keepers' passes lead to goalscoring opportunities, even indirectly, but I'm not super familiar with those.

But, I guess my thinking is: a) there has to be some good reason why entire leagues, almost from top to bottom of the table, have shifted drastically in this direction; and b) even if there isn't and it's mostly irrational, this is the way teams at that level prefer to play right now, so I don't think keepers can really get away with weaknesses in that part of their game anymore if they want to make it at that level.

 

Whether the approach is effective or not doesn't change that is how the game has changed and what is expected of the goalkeeeper today.

 

Wish I could rep this twice.

I remember a time when, even in top competition, keepers would often default to playing the ball as far as possible, from goal kicks, punts or from the run of play.

Today's top keepers seem to me (and I watch a LOT less than most of you guys, I'm sure) to be generally way more sophisticated. I'm constantly amazed to see a keeper with the ball at his foot pick out someone close to midfield, on a dime.

This is just how it seems to me, and the numbers you point out seem to confirm it.

PS: Added to original post to say, a lot of this may be because of ball pressure from forwards, resulting in the spreading out of defenses, which has seemingly increased dramatically over the past ten years. Just an observation, I have no data.

 

No question that keepers are expected now to be very good with their feet. I just hope that this doesn't blind coaches to overlook keepers who are actually better at their main role because they view them as weak footed.

 

Just to be clear. There is no reason not to train and want keepers to be good with their feet. It makes sense to have them being an integral part of ball control. As long as its not THE criteria for being a keeper.

Go up a few posts and look at that data. Is anybody here going to say that they wouldn't take a prime Tim Howard right now?

 

It totally depends on th style the coach wants to play. I have no idea if Tim could play out of the back consistently. My guess is he could if he trained like that, but nobody really could know that.

 

Otherwise we should assume that 60 years old Nikki Rimando is still the best and is undisputed NT starter. And BTW Turner being more athletic, better technically, and more agile than Steffen not necessary means that he is much worse with his feet. Steffen isn't Rimando, or Friedel, or even Howard.

 

Love to see the measures you use to place Turner superior in technical ability, athleticism (name your measures) and agility (get those 3 cone drill videos out). Hyperbole reigns here.

 

Apparently not. When I first joined BigSoccer in 2006, I received quite an education, and one thing I remember is that the MLS Goalkeeper of the year that year, Troy Perkins, was paid the league minimum (29k). His teammate, Bobby Boswell, the MLS Defender of the Year that year, also made 29K.

I realize that was ages ago, but I can see it's still relevant today. Perkins sold mortgages, I think, in the off-season. Many players had to share housing - not such a bad thing, but not when it's a forced choice.

 

My eyes are good enough.

 

Well, yes but those are general terms. Obviously a team that dominates possession and doesn't receive as many shots will place priorities in a different order than a team that absorbs offense and plays on the counter.

 

I thought this was a great post, but I think you are underselling the importance of club and league in evaluation, butterfinger's eyes notwithstanding.

I'll start with an old quote I read in a Western many years ago. "When you throw a stone into a pack of curs (dogs) the one that yelps is the one that got hit."

This has broad applicablilty - as on BS when someone makes a generalized criticism, and another poster jumps in defensively as if the criticism had been directed at him.

In this case, we're looking at the obverse(?) of the equation. I don't know if Steffen is better than Turner, but I do know that Man City thought so and backed that judgment with cash. Unless you think that Turner was not available (at any price), then Man City's selection (of one out of many) is significant.

And it's not just one data point to be considered along with many others. It's a data point that encompasses all the others in a certain sense, reflecting the considered opinion of many.

 

a stat i havent seen posted yet- 1.

thats how many times turner has helped his team to the mls playoffs. once. THE MLS PLAYOFFS.

dont reply, talk among yourselves about how wrong you think i am. this is a ridiculous thread.

 

It means something, but it's just one data point. This is where we disagree. The market simply isn't that efficient. Man City looks for certain things in a GK, and they liked what they saw in Steffen. But Steffen had also already been in Europe, had been back in MLS, had been the US GK for a while, and the interest in him was relatively quick and limited to Man City. There was no bidding for his services, no collective referendum on Zack Steffen.

Nor has there been on Matt Turner. Since Man City wants great distribution skills, I doubt they love Turner, but he also hadn't proven himself when they bought Steffen. Perhaps they like him better than Steffen, but aren't about to drop another $7.5M on a small upgrade.

Six months before Steffen was purchased, the market's referendum on him after he had been to Europe, was that he wasn't good enough. No one bought him. I don't even remember offer. Then, despite not really getting better in the next six months, he sold for $7.5M.

The idea that these teams are constantly weighing small differences and evaluating all and upgrading isn't true at all.

And as such, it's a data point. The scouts at Man City thought Steffen was worth that (provided they weren't doing MLS a favor at all). That's a good data point.

But it's not all encompassing in any real sense.

And we have a near constant litany of actual soccer results to prove it. Top teams win with volume and cash money, not because every single player outperforms.

 

Mkay

 

Unwritten rule #1 of BS...do not discount the BS poster's "eye test", as many here know more than Man City scouts/management.

Someone with a bit of money should just hire a dozen of the posters here, and could create a champions league team at a fraction of the cost. Market inefficiency again.

Off topic, but reminds me when some British team tried to do that. I paid 75 pounds to be an "owner" of a club, where we would all vote online about club decisions. I don't think I voted once. Complete waste of money, when I didn't really have extra to spend.

 

Shrug.
Steffen is far and away our #1.

Its also reassuring that we have Turner developing. He's probably fine for CONCACAF WCQing should Steffen be unavailable.

All one has to do is read Tim Howard's comments, and how highly he rates Steffen. Tim probably forgot more about goalkeeping yesterday than we'll all know combined in our lifetimes. I don't trust the "eye test" of Big Soccer posters when it comes to goalkeeping more than Tim Howard.

But anyway..........................

Its too be determined what level Steffen will reach in Europe. But hell, he's been getting games for Man City folks. Not Yeovil Town. Manchester City.

 

I think he could challenge for n1 but he has to play.

 

No.............................

If we have a Euro-only camp in November, Horvath will likely get the call to back up Steffen. He has an opportunity to prove himself to coaches in training at least.