Not every one agrees with Paul Gardner that goal keepers are not really soccer players, contributer nothing to the game, and are basically beneath contempt. http://www.foxsportsworld.com/world...020923_nick.htm
goals I read the column in question. And Gardner's point was that a dominating goalkeeper is rarely as influential as a dominating field player. Even as an often-keeper I tend to agree with that. I can be reminiscent of Lev Yashin (yea right! but if my team doesn't score any goals, we don't win. It's that simple. You're more likely to win if you concede two goals than if you score zero. A top-notch goalkeeper is often the difference between a good and great team or between a mediocre and good team. But a keeper doesn't score goals (usually). That's the common thread behind many of Gardner's columns: goals are the heart of the game.
Try clicking on the link. You should get an "error, page not found" message, but one that allows you to click on "soccer." On the left, one of the articles listed is to the effect that the EPL's two top keepers are Yanks.
Re: goals I have no problem with Gardner's touting of goals, but as an "average fan" I like great saves as much as great goals. To me, they're an exciting part of the game. My main gripe with Gardner, however, is his contemptuous tone toward keepers (and just about everyone else, for that matter). He seems to have a Frank Deford mindset -- can't say what he likes without putting down what he doesn't like. If Gardner had been brought up with the traditional US sports, I suspect he'd be just one more soccer bashing sportswriter. When it comes to soccer, not only does he seem to think he's the smartest guy around, but he also seems to think that everyone else is stupid. I don't think either.
Paul Gardner has also argued that, because 'keepers have become so dominant and athletic, the the size of the goals should be increased. So take it as you will.
Paul Gardner: paid to troll ... Here's the corrected link: http://foxsports.lycos.com/content/view?contentId=676564