This, it's quite simple to see exactly what they meant.

I've never thought of you as ignorant - the complete opposite. Bowden has been pushing his luck though.

The rationale for the keeper being included in the 1-4-3-3 and it's derivatives - 1-4-5-1, 1-4-3-3, 1-4-2-3-1, 1-3-4-3, etc, is that their role as sweeper is considered integral to the success of the team. This is because the formation is considered a passing based one, not a crossing one.

If one looks at Matt Ryan, he is the archetypal product of a keeper who can play the role of sweeper because of superior foot skills developed by goalies to play the 1-4-3-3.

Past keepers have essentially been shot stoppers in Australia.



Edited by decentric: 8/5/2014 04:20:04 AM

I can see the logic, the role of the keeper often means a team feels like it has an extra outfield player at times, but I've just always personally thought that the role of the keeper can be so ambiguous that I don't see the point of including them in the formation. I've just thought every formation is 1-x-x-x-x, whether you include the '1' or not, that '1' just plays a different role in different teams but he's always going to be there as a man on the pitch that can get involved in play in some way. Whatever floats your boat though :)

So if the Goalkeeper sits back and doesnt take on the sweeper role, it is a 4-4-2, but if matt Ryan (for example) is in goals, it is a 1-4-4-2?

Also, how is it written up, if the 4 at the back is a traditional back 4 with one sweeper and one stopper.

I think what you've posted is essentially the universal contemporary view of Holland , Spain and the writers of the FFA National Curriculum.

It is interesting to view footage of old games when players could play back to the keeper. According to contemporary football coach education, 80 percent of a modern keeper's touches are with the feet without handling the ball. So skill with the ball on the deck is much more important now for a keeper than it was .