Why I Play Goalkeeper

Rather than just jumping into fairly complex tactical discussion, I think I should take a little time to explain some things about me.  Everybody experiences this game I love in different ways, and part of that, I believe, is down to how, and therefore where, they play the game.  As the title of this posts indicates, I am a goalkeeper, I always have been.

The first time I played an organized game (9 or 10 years old) I was put in goal, given an old Flamengo shirt, like this one  
as my goalkeeper shirt, an old set of gloves, and was basically just told to keep the ball out of the goal.

Now, I would like to sit here and tell you that this decision was based on some sort of natural ability that somebody saw in me, but in reality most of the kids I was playing with had played before, I hadn't really, and I was willing to do it.

I have no real recollection of the game, let alone the score or how I performed, but I do remember my friends dad, who had given me the shirt said something along the lines of "you looked like you enjoyed that," and I had, it just made sense to me for some reason I couldn't explain.  I went in to the little shop by the field, bought a pair of Brine goalie gloves with an elastic wristband, and that was it, I had a position, a role.

Of course, throughout my youth I always practiced with the rest of the team, as any other player, and to this day I am thankful for that.  I sincerely believe that a goalkeeper shouldn't specialize in goalkeeper training until sometime around 16, and should always feel comfortable stepping out from the world of goalkeeping and be able to train and play in other positions.  There are two practical reasons for not "just" being a goalkeeper.  First of all is the simple issue of numbers, there is only one goalkeeper per side on the field at a time, and if you happen to have a team with multiple goalkeepers, playing on the field is a much more attractive option than sitting on the bench.  More directly to do with goalkeeping itself, training in other positions simply makes you a better goalkeeper, you understand the game in a more complete way, you develop better touch and passing with your feet, which is an essential part of the modern game; when I play now (7 v7 indoor) I spend probably 3 or 4 times more time with the ball at my feet after a pass from a teammate than stopping a shot from an opponent.

The real question still lingers though, why?  Why did I enjoy that first game, why did I continue in a position most players view as alien, a position that is often reserved for the least talented or least popular?  Is it really as simple as some people say, are goalkeepers just crazy?  Am I too deep into my own madness to recognize this?  I leave questions of my overall sanity to others, but I can assure you I continue keeping goal because it offers a combination of rewards that outsiders don't realize at first.  Goalkeeping is a complex love, it can make you feel like superman, and it will certainly crush you both in a physical manner and in an intensely brutal mental fashion.

Let's cover some things that I often hear people, mostly outsiders but occasionally fellow keepers, say about goalkeepers and goalkeeping.  I claim no monopoly on feelings about this topic, and if another keeper tells you something about the position and I tell you differently, he certainly isn't wrong, just experiencing the position differently than myself. 

The most common statement I here when it comes to goalkeeping is sympathetic to our plight, something along the lines of "you never get the credit you deserve since only your mistakes go on the scoreboard."  While to a degree this is factually correct, the game is indeed scored by goals, which are bad moments for us keepers, there are two things that I find wrong with the comment.  The first thing about the comment that isn't exactly right is that all the teams I have played for have noticed the good things; you form a bond with the other players, especially defenders, and they both know and appreciate when you are doing well, even the small things.

More to the point, the "people only notice your mistakes" comment really misses the point to a degree.  I know when I put that jersey and those gloves on what I'm signing up for, I know I start at zero and have no place to go but down from there.  I'm fully aware that there will be goals scored that I don't really have a chance to stop, believe me, this is not what gives goalkeepers nightmares.  Don't be mistaken, I will still get mad, furious more accurately, for a moment regardless of how great the goal was, but really, that frustration is because I want my team to win, not because I feel I made a real mistake.

What people don't get about starting in a perfect position (0 goals against) with no place to go but further and further away from that perfection is the opportunity it presents.  I start the game perfect, that means one thing to me, I have a realistic chance to end it the same way.  Where else can you be perfect, in terms of score anyway?  A striker can score 3 goals, but if 0 is perfect for me, that means infinity is perfect for him, it is unattainable.

A related phenomenon is that as a goalkeeper, I can have a pretty slow, boring day at the office and still achieve my goal.  A defender has to win balls, a midfielder has to distribute, a striker has to score, but since I start at perfect, I can do a pretty small amount of work and come away with a clean sheet, a shut-out.




Now let me fill you in on what really makes it all worth it, all the nervous energy, the riding the wave of a mental breakdown, the pressure cooker of being the last chance: simply put, when that ball is flying to the corner and you get a big enough piece of it to make a save, you are instantly the all-conquering hero and the ultimate bad guy.

I could sit here and lie to you, tell you I just love the pure joy that comes from keeping out a goal, but it's darker than that, I enjoy ruining the other guys day.  Just think of it, the other team goes through all the hard work to get the ball in a scoring position, the shot clearly looks headed for goal, the celebrations have already started, and then something happens, it's like I get to cheat them out of all of it, I get to take it all away in a blink of an eye.  They were about to turn in their term paper, and I get to close it without saving, it's all gone, it's over before they even know how it happened.  The stages of grief are instantaneous, they deny it happen, they are angry at themselves me and the universe for what just happened, they bargain to some unseen force with a confused look and arm motions, they hang their heads in depression, and then they start that slow walk back up the field.

Now despite that last paragraph, I am not a sadist, the other guy being sad isn't the end goal, it's the power that I got to do that, seemingly through some sort of dark magic.  It's the suddenness of it, the finality, the mystery.

Let us also not forget the joy though, it truly is special, the look of your teammates, their gratitude, the relief, the disbelief, you can't buy that.  Internally the reaction is slightly different, at first it is primal, a scream, not of joy, but just of being alive of announcing to the universe what has just transpired.  Slowly as you come back down to Earth, you are slightly dumbfounded at what just happened, because really you didn't make that save a second ago, you made it slowly over the years.  Yes, you consciously put yourself in the right position, weighing the risks of every scenario and how it relates to your stance, but the reaction is pure instinct, it's zen-like.  The body simply takes over, using the proper form you have had drilled into your brain by countless hours of slow, boring work.  What hand goes where for when the ball is high or low, to catch it or to deflect it, to get back up, this all happens without really thinking about it.  When it all goes right, there really are no words to describe it that don't sound cliche or fake, so I will end this here, with the hope of providing some insight as to why I play goalkeeper.

Oh, and if your interested I have two videos for you to check out, first is my inspiration as I was growing up, Oliver Kahn

The second is in my opinion, and most others, the greatest goalkeeper in the world currently, Iker Casillas.

Why I've come around to the back 3

For the longest time I felt that the proper way, in almost all cases, to set up a defense was a back 4.  To be more exact, I never felt comfortable with a back 3, despite the fact that the system I grew up in was closer to a back 3 than a 4.  This gets to the heart of the issue for me; the way I understood the nomenclature of formations, and the way I processed what position (Defense, Midfield, Forward) players fit into was if not wrong, certainly incomplete.

The reason I say the system I grew up in was closer to a back 3 than a 4, is that it isn't always that simple, the way a player interprets a position, the way a coach sets the team up, and the blending and intermingling of some positions beyond the simple labels of "Defender" or "Midfielder." 

In reality what we played was originally set up as a sweeper or libero who was first set up in the classic Italian way of a libero (literally "free") who was "free" in the sense that they had no set opponent to mark, but was almost purely a defensive player.  Beside the sweeper were 2 marking backs, not really center backs, but certainly not fullbacks playing in the wide spaces.  The basic job of the markers was to mark the two center forwards, and there were almost always 2 opposition center forwards.

The reason the system was understood by most of us as a back 4 was the "stopper" not really a term used anymore in the sense we used it; he was probably meant to be a physical presence breaking up the play before it got to the forwards.  Basically a purely defensive midfielder in modern terminology.

Enough of my preteen years though.  Long story short, the "stopper" became the driving force of the midfield, bringing the ball forward and really playing like a box-to-box midfielder.  Eventually the system became a pure back 3 for half a season, before being replaced by a back 4 with two center backs and two fullbacks playing a zonal rather than man marking system, the player who used to be the stopper was moved permanently into midfield, eventually ending up as a purely attacking midfielder playing just off the forward line.

End Ramble about my past.

So what does all that have to do with my current thoughts on a back 3 and why I now see it as a viable option?  It's all about how the team is set up as a whole.  The two main problems I had with a back 3 are the obvious problem of having 3 people cover the width that 4 people could be, and the more complex problem when facing only 1 center forward: a back 4 has 2 center backs to cover 1 center forward which works because 1 CB can stay tight to him, 1 can cover any space he leaves open.  when 3 CBs are left to cover the 1 center forward, it leaves two players covering, which is essentially a waste of a player; similarly the 2 wider defenders can be drawn out wide to pick up wingers or wide forwards, leaving the most central of the 3 defenders stuck without much help.

So those were my problems with a back 3, so why have I changed my mind?  4 teams essentially showed how to deal with the problems pro-actively.  The first two teams share a common DNA and dealt with the issue in a similar way: keep a very high level of ball possession.  The first team to start to change my mine was the Barcelona side of the last few years under Pep Guardiola, a team I could watch winning in modern times at the highest level; the second was the Ajax side of the mid 90s, especially 95.  Obviously I couldn't watch the Ajax side, not really much was even available online, I could however read about the thoughts behind the system as it had been studied for close to a decade and had dominated Europe as well as producing some of the greatest names of that generation.

Both Barca and Ajax played a 3-4-3 with the 4 in midfield being played as a diamond, one defensive midfielder, two central midfielders, and a fairly classic "#10" attacking midfielder.  Ajax played the system as a rule, Barca played it as a change of pace, or simply to fit an extra midfielder on the field.  The key element, in terms of formation, was a highly skilled defensive midfielder who could slip into the back line to create a 4, but was also supremely gifted on the ball, Ajax had Frank Rijkaard, Barca have Sergio Busquets.  Of course one player doesn't make the system go,and having star players willing to work extremely hard to win the ball back and then keep it in every position is fundamental to this style, but somebody able to be just as comfortable playing as central defender and a deep-lying playmaker of a midfielder, with the positional knowledge to know when to do each really makes everything run smoothly.

The other 2 teams that convinced me are both modern, both Italian, and both shared a high number of defenders.  The Juventus team of last season, undefeated champions, and the Italy team of Euro 2012 who went on to finish runners up.  The Italy team only briefly used the back 3, but Juventus used a 3-5-2 (more precisely 3-1-4-2) for the majority of their games, switching to it fairly early in the season and largely sticking with it.  Both teams did usually have more possession of the ball than their opponents, but this was largely a result of better quality players rather than the high emphasis placed on possession as a goal to itself of Barca and Ajax.  The Juve team made the system work with 3 key elements: first they had 3 cultured, skilled defenders, all relatively good passers, all natural central defenders but with experience playing as fullbacks, so they never were uncomfortable if the wide areas needed extra cover.  Point 2 is the way those wide areas rarely needed to be covered, because of the wingbacks; a wingback being neither truly a wide defender like a fullback, or an attacker like a winger.  They are usually counted as part of the midfield, but at times could just as easily be counted as part of the defense.  Juve had wingbacks who were incredibly hard working, even for a position in which being the hardest workers is basically what is expected of you.  Point 3 of the Juve system was Andrea Pirlo, put simply the best and most elegant passer of long, accurate balls forward and starting the offense.  He is not a particularly gifted defender, he didn't drop into defense like Rijkaard or Busquets, but he always dropped deep to collect the ball from the defense, and always seemed to find a great pass forward.  The Italy team is more of a footnote, but what a footnote they were.  Italy essentially used 2 of the 3 defenders from Juve, along with Pirlo in front of them, but the center of the 3 was Danielle De Rossi, who was free to bring the ball out of defense himself.  De Rossi is naturally a midfielder, one who can cover almost all positions in midfield, but known for being a high energy, all energy player capable of both bursting forward and physically dominating from a more defensive position.  What Euro 2012 showed in De Rossi was special though, he showed that he is not just an adequate passer of the ball who shines more through his running, he showed he is a fantastic, sophisticated, technical, great passer of the ball who just also happens to be a fiery force of nature, at times he even showed up Pirlo himself, the master of the elegant long pass out of defense.

So those are the main reasons I am totally convinced a 3 man defense is absolutely a legitimate tool in building a team.  I don't think it's really better or worse than a back 4, but both are tools that have slightly different qualities.

In terms of the elements that I most enjoy in a back 3 system, there are 2 that really provide the opportunity for the little moments of magic that make the game so enjoyable: wingbacks bursting up and down the sidelines, hitting in crosses, and the ability the system provides to play 2 strikers, in any configuration you want, without having to relay on 2 central midfielders (I don't like being outnumberd in central midfield, and a back 3 allows either 3 or 4 central midfielders, width from the wingbacks, and still the use of 2 strikers.  Whereas a back 4 and 2 strikers requires either having only 2 central midfielders in a 4-4-2, or a lack of width in a 4-3-1-2 (4-4-2 diamond).

So there it is, my first try.