Goalkeepers and their mandate of not getting beaten to the near post has become one of those coaching and analyst bromides that get picked up repeated by larger audiences.
Only, it gets occasionally misplaced and/or misused.
Because there’s more “near post” to some near post strikes. I present to you the debate over France’s goal Monday, Samir Nasri’s sharpshooter special that did get inside of Joe Hart’s near post. Somewhat, anyway.
Personally, I cannot get on board with the Hart-bashing on this one. It was a great hit, threaded through a quartet of Three Lion legs.
If we’re honest, Hugo Lloris was probably more at fault on England’s goal than Hart was on France’s equalizer – only England goalkeepers (and probably England in general in this part of the world) are more closely scrutinized. So no one is talking about Lloris standing pat when perhaps he should have aggressively moved toward the free kick cross.
When we talk about goalkeepers and “near post,” what it really means is this: On plays developing from certain angles, ‘keepers should never get caught cheating out, anticipating the cross and therefore exposing the near post, making things easier on the shooter. It’s about making the attacking team work harder for the goal. Force the pass. Give defenders a chance to make a play and a clearance. Give two players (the man with the ball and the target near goal) a chance to make a mistake, rather than leaving just one man, the shooter, with easy work.
(Good example: Late in Monday’s contest, Franck Ribery’s sneaky little effort to expose Hart’s front post nearly struck game-winner gold, and that would have been a much different discussion.)
As for France’s first-half equalizer: there was barely a “near post” in that near post. Nasri’s shot emanated from just a few yards off center.
A goalkeeper’s near post mandate does not mean “protect the nearer side at all costs, even if it means abandoning the most precise angle of goalkeeping position.”
Because the bottom line: shots that slip inside the “far post” count just the same.
-
- Trent Hergenrader - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM
-
Couldn’t agree more. Getting scored on the “nearer of two posts” is different than the “near post.” Had Hart fumbled Ribery’s late drive across the goal line into the net, now *that* would be a near post howler.
-
- Steve Davis - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM
-
“nearer of two posts” … wish I had put it that way. Well done.
-
- Richard Farley - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM
-
Agreed. Nice.
-
- 69jaredallen69 - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM
-
2nd half was embarrassment…both teams were playing for the draw
-
- Steve Davis - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM
-
Not sure I quite agree with that. I thought France was leaning in for the winner. Maybe not hell-bent for glory, but pretty much doing what they had done all afternoon on a hot day. Just my look at it. (I’m sure Richard Farley will have more on this when his “Drilling Down” on the game drops, which should be shortly.)
-
- Richard Farley - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM
-
Agree. I think France wanted a win, hence their subs. I also don’t think they were going to throw the kitchen sink at it, given ti was the first match.
The subs were pretty aggressive. Well, relatively so.
-
- simonwelds - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM
-
I thought hart played great in goal, had a few key saves and kept the back line well organized; I would like see Walcott get a few more minutes… Let’s face it this is an average team and I can live with the result
-
- Steve Davis - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM
-
Hold your fire on the overall game thoughts. Richard’s analysis will be posted shortly. (But I love that everybody is excited and commenting …)
-
- schirimiester - Jun 11, 2012 at 2:55 PM
-
#1. Unsighted IMO – this trumps all keeping tenets IMO
#2 Near post yes but not that “near” — wasn’t like Nasri was cranking from the side of the area or wider ya know. If he saves that we’d all be saying what a great save it was IMO.