I don’t think anyone in the world thinks it’s more important than shot stopping, but I don’t see any evidence that Turner is special at either. Surely there is another keeper in the world who is affordable, comparable or better in shot stopping, aerial presence and area command, who can actually play a little bit.
Yeah. For me it's the same as fullbacks. #1 overwhelming priority is on the defensive side. If they can also be good offensively that's great, and obviously what everyone should be striving for. But what they earn their pay for is defense. Or IOW, I'd much rather have a FB or GK who's good at defense and we can try to develop them offensively, rather than the other way around. YMMV
Apparently players aren't training tomorrow, which is why certain players got match time i.e Martinelli, Xhaka, Ode, etc. Not sure if thats correct or even smart but explains why they played if they get time off before the Pool game.
I thought Turner looked awkward with the ball at his feet, would change the way Arsenal play if Ramsdale had a long term injury. Disagree with others in that I thought Sambi looked good. Guys who don't play as regularly seemed eager to prove something. Some of the regulars like Xhaka, White, Saka were pretty quiet. Didn't really happen for Marquinos though. Free Reiss - hope he gets a start at some point this month.
Just glanced at some random player ratings including Arseblog (I think Andrew Allen does those?) and... General consensus is that Turner was near or at the low end of the ratings on the day... 6 of 10 was typical. And the ones I read said the same thing as everyone seems to say: decent shot-stopping but not great w/ ball at feet. So @Super Llama I stand corrected. I guess I didn't notice all of his passing errors and weighted his saves more heavily. I'm sure I'm guilty of that every time I watch GK's. Other player ratings that stood out: Marquenos was almost universally the lowest rated player, like 5 of 10; Saka also got poor ratings; Vieira looks to have been the standout highest rated player on the night, typically 8 of 10. *Disclaimer: This was a very unscientific, unthorough, quick survey of a few websites.
Seems a little hyperbolic; I mean he did just keep a shutout... Somehow, he has risen to the #2 spot at a very good team. Good for him.
Ultimately, shot-stopping just hits a hard-cap of utility to most teams. Reason is that a great shot will beat great shot-stopping most of the time. So what’s the best way to mitigate this? Reduce the number of high-percentage shots you give up. What’s the best way to do this? Don’t let the opposition possess the ball, especially not near your goal. What’s the easiest way in modern football to affect this? If you can effectively add another outfield player onto the field in the form of a ball-playing keeper. It’s the clearest alpha in modern football, and there’s still pretty wild variation in keeper distribution ability because we’re not generally into second generations of keepers who have grown up in this new keeping style. Meanwhile, there’s a much smaller spread of quality in shot-stopping at the top level of keeping, and less of an ability for keepers at top teams to leverage shot-stopping as an advantage, because top teams face fewer shots. So yeah, in conclusion, distribution is at least as important as shot-stopping in evaluating a keeper for a top team, if not more important.
Interesting thesis. But, I could not agree less. Just NFW. It's like a striker who can't strike, but hassles defenders. Or a midfielder with a cultured left foot but no engine: players like that exist, but first and foremost, a keeper has to be able to make a save. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if they were 5' 6". And it matters.
i mean, ultimately, what matters is what arteta thinks and he clearly values it. eduteta made aaron ramsdale a clear priority the offseason before this last and he took the spot pretty quickly. now, it could be argued that he is better on crosses/command of the box and certainly in communication with his defenders, but ramsdale certainly is not a better shot stopper than leno who was excellent at that part of the job. i don't know how much to read into the lack of market for someone who is: 1) an excellent shot stopper, 2) a good goalkeeper, 3) a solid professional, and 4) someone who is arguably a solid no 2 for the german national team (when he plays) but we certainly had a tough time selling leno. our style, like manchester city's, relies on distribution from the goalkeeper and it shows pretty heavily whenever ramsdale is out.
tierney and tomiyasu are superior defenders to zinchenko and white. vastly so in case of the pair on the left since zinchenko is a converted 10. we are 100% a stronger team at the moment with zinchenko in the lineup and, arguably, with white in the lineup.
Many variables at play here. One of which is that we haven’t really faced excellent offenses much, so far this season, so it’s really hard to judge… to say that Zinchenko is a better overall pick than Tierney for example. That said I’m nowhere near as high on Tierney as I was a couple years ago. And how we used to use him offensively just is not the way we are built to play anymore. So there’s that. I suppose it might end up being horses for courses with Mikel’s LB decisions. As for the other side, I continue to be really impressed by Tomiyasu. He’s got the defensive core that I see as a baseline requirement. But he also has a smart, dangerous offensive side, though maybe not as good a vertical passer as white, I think he could be that complete player that locks up first choice RB. Crossing fingers that Tomi doesn’t follow the same somewhat disappointing to arc that Tierney has charted. Overall I really like our defensive squad at the moment, both in their quality and the versatility.
That’s just not the reality of the pool of keepers at the top level. In general, the pool of keepers that Arsenal would be looking to recruit have much more similar abilities in shot-stopping than they do in passing. In other words, there aren’t really top keepers who are a Lacazette equivalent (ie, a great passer but can’t stop shots) as you implied. Maybe that will be true in the future—maybe somebody goes Moneyball on this and takes this idea to the extreme and does start playing a DLP in goal—but that just isn’t the case right now. Given that shot stopping ability is less variable than passing ability among top keepers, it makes sense to value passing ability as the rarer ability that also provides more value. But beyond that, just because most keepers are going to have replacement-level shot-stopping (otherwise they stop getting trained as keepers at a younger age) or better, passing becomes the edge that can take your team to the next level. Especially if you’re recruiting for a team like Arsenal which aims to face sub-5 SOTs per 90 anyways.
i'm confused you don't feel that our ball movement and attack is smoother with zinchenko in the lineup than tierney? or you don't feel that tierney is a superior defender to zinchenko? which part of what i said did you disagree with?
I find Sambi fairly lazy. He thinks he's in the Bahamas on vacation. He certainly needs a loan at a club that will physically drill him to adjust to the EPL.
I was going to say that it seems like you have misconstrued a bit the point @Super Llama is making, but he's done a good job of doing that with his response.
I don't feel like I have misconstrued anything. I think the thesis being put forth is: All elite keepers have similar shot stopping capabilities, and as a result, distribution is equal or more important than actually keeping the ball out of the net. I couldn't agree less. And Arsenal management, having put Turner at #2, appears to agree with me.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I coulda been but basically I agree that Tierney is a better defensive LB than Zinchenko who is better and more diverse offensively, and who may fit our new style of play better. But when we come up against teams who are offensively truly powerful, then Mikel may choose KT, whereas against (most?) other teams he may choose OZ. If both remain fit, we may see the answer this month perhaps.
I want to ask, your thesis hinges on the fact that the best way to prevent teams from having chances near your goal is playing out the back. Is that true? I understand the more you possess the ball the better chances you have of not getting scored on, but how often do you possess the ball in your own third besides when there is a goal kick or an attack that was stopped? Isn't it expected that the other team will make it to your own third on their own and at that point shot-stopping is more helpful? I'm sure some of you have seen this but here's a good article on Matt,that also states that goals added (all touches, excluding saves) by the top keeper was only 0.03 goals per game. So it seems that it is the opposite of what you believe. Great keepers add more by saving goals than passing it out the back. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-valuable-soccer-player-in-america-is-a-goalkeeper/
WHich i know that this isn't apples to apples, but based on last season, Aaron really isn't as good as Matt at saving goals
No, I didn’t say anything about the passing style of the team, whether that’s passing out of the back or playing long. Both are viable if you have a ball-playing keeper. The key part of having a ball-playing keeper is the ability to maintain possession, regardless of passing style. The clear reflection of this is if another team tries to press you: if your keeper can effectively pass, you will always outnumber the other team’s press, unless they do some kamikaze technique like man-marking your striker with their keeper. Otherwise, you basically always have an extra man in attack that can break the press and relieve pressure. So far this season Arsenal are averaging about 60% possession in matches and 25% of that possession is in our own third. Bear in mind though, that a significant chunk of our middle 3rd touches are by our CBs, who are able to play that high up the pitch because they have an easy and effective outlet in Ramsdale if needed. GK touches are pretty variable—in other words relatively, league position doesn’t correlate well. For example, City are third in the league for GK touches while we are more average. However, what has to be noted is that on teams with good passing GKs, their gravity effects how opponents press. In other words, just having the option of passing to a keeper that you know is not automatically going to boot it into touch forces a significant change in opponent’s defensive behavior. Specifically, if they want to high press your team, it means they are forced to press your keeper, when many teams ignore the keeper in the high press if they aren’t a good passer. Again like, their analysis completely elides the effect that keepers having in changing the shape of opposing defenses. Even Matt Turner gets it wrong in the article—he says something like short passes are too risky and put your teammates in bad positions. But we know, clearly, from Arteta’s philosophy what the purpose of playing short passes in the back is: it’s to draw an opponent out of their compact shape, so that you can stretch their blocks and get behind them and up the field more quickly. Keepers are vital in this shift of gravity, and this dumb American stat is trying to tell of keepers are getting enough hockey passes or not. It’s like Steph Curry: his utility goes well beyond just hitting threes at insane rates. His outside effectiveness forces defenses to stretch out of their compact shapes to meet him, creating massive spaces for his teammates. We are not close to effectively operationalizing these spatial relationships, but quite obviously, the best teams strongly believe in the ball-playing keepers. For example, City has had two years of positive PSxG to goals allowed differential in the five years Ederson has been there. Meaning: Ederson has been worse than average at stopping shots most of the time. And yet, the team with the most unlimited resources in the world has never once looked to replace him over his five year tenure, and furthermore, never have seemed to be hindered by their keeper’s average shot-stopping. You can look across the league and see this relationship everywhere—the top teams could easily get much better shot-stoppers, and if these articles were correct, they would be wise to. And yet, they don’t, and instead have mostly above-average stoppers who can pass really well. And it seems to work for them.
I am not of the opinion that all elite keepers are of equal ability in shot stopping, and that therefore distribution is the key to their success. I also think that shot stopping way more important than distribution in any event. And since Turner's distribution is not his long suit, and he is firmly in second spot in the keeper pool at Arsenal, it appears the management at Arsenal agrees.
so, given @leppercut's stance and graphic states turner is a better shot stopper than ramsdale and you specifically state he is "firmly in second spot" behind . . . . ramdsdale. i'm not sure what you're saying is saying what you feel like it's saying. especially after management chased and then installed ramsdale over someone who is likely a superior shot stopper in leno.