Creating Game-Realistic Small-Sided Environments for Goalkeepers

Having players train in small sided games is an effective way to expose them to many repetitions of game-realistic constraints and pressures. For field players, the environmental cues for general play are universal as individual and small group tactics for field players are the same regardless of their location. Although it is true that a player dribbling against pressure in front of their net is in a different tactical phase than a player dribbling against pressure in front of the opposition net, their technique remains the same despite the difference in geography.?

The reason for this is that the only geographic restrictions that exist for field players are the boundary lines and the offsides line. A player in the center of the field, as a result, is only restricted by the placement of themself in relation to other players. Even when a player is at one of these geographic boundaries, their physical actions are only constrained directionally, not in what they can do within the rules of the game. Due to this, small-sided games are able to replicate game-realistic behaviors despite the massive reduction in playing space.?

Goalkeepers, however, are inherently geographically restricted players. Their defining feature is only usable within the 18-yard box. All of their training is, therefore, geographically based within (or immediately outside of) that space. As fields are large and defenders actively attempt to prevent the opposition from getting within 18 yards of the goal, one-vs-one moments happen only a few times each game. In a small-sided game, the opposition reaching half-field often puts them within 18 yards of the goal, and any pass to an open player or an attacker beating their defender has a high probability of directly triggering a one-vs-one tactical situation or being the direct antecedent of it. Such a situation would make it seem that small-sided games are excellent tools to develop goalkeepers’ ability to behave in one-vs-one situations.

Yet, goalkeepers almost never display game-realistic one-vs-one behavior in these activities. Why? Two reasons:

-The Arc: at least from how I teach one-vs-one behaviors, goalkeeping behavior is inseparable from geography not only because of the geographic restriction of hand-usage but also because of the Arc, which is a guide to goalkeeper behavior that recommends certain behaviors based on a statistical analysis of how certain save techniques interact with angle play. This wonderful diagram from Dr. John Harrison’s study on one-vs-one decision making is the basis for how I teach one-vs-one decision making. I believe in this method of teaching one-vs-ones as it is statistically supported, easily understandable, and, from a non-scientific view, has made the goalkeepers I coach much more effective at closing down space. Without the markings of the 18-yard box, however, this diagram makes no sense. The goalkeepers are taught to engage when an attacker enters a space a yard or two from the penalty spot and slightly above the top corners of the six-yard box. If there is no penalty spot and no six-yard box, none of the environmental cues the goalkeepers use are present. Behavior is the interaction of environment and physical ability. Different environments lead to different behavior. Unrealistic environments lead to unrealistic behaviors.?

-Geographic restriction of hand-usage: when you look at a small-sided game, could you possibly tell me where goalkeepers stop being able to use their hands? How far forward? How far to the sides? If the coaches cannot tell, then the players certainly cannot. The idea that a goalkeeper would be able to behave properly when they do not even know where they are allowed to use their hands is ridiculous.?

Without the 18-yard box markings, the Arc method reduces in its effectiveness because the positional information provided by player placement in relation to the lines is unavailable. How far the goalkeeper is from their line, how far to one side they are, how far the ball carrier is from the line, and how far to one side the ball carrier is are all essential information for the Arc methodology and not available with clarity to the goalkeepers during small-sided games. Even though there are times when obscuring information is a useful training tool, goalkeepers will always have lines during games so there is no advantage to training without them. In short, the lack of lines removes the markers used to make decisions in a way that does not develop any other skill.

The most impactful issue that leads to unrealistic behavior is that goalkeeper do not know where they can pick the ball up. Realistic behavior can frequently result in the goalkeeper handling the ball 12 yards from their goal line, but this distance could easily be a third of a small-sided game’s field. Without specific guidance, goalkeepers will not venture out that far in fear of being deemed outside the imaginary box that no one can actually point out. The action of picking the ball up is inherently linked to being within the box. If there is no box to be within, then the environmental cuing is that the ball cannot be claimed, and if goalkeepers are training in environments that cue them not to handle the ball, then there is a serious deficiency in the efficacy of that training activity.

Before I get into the ways I have experimented to find a solution, I need to thank all of the wonderful coaches at the New York Red Bull RDS residential program at the Peddie School this summer that let me turn their small-sided games into my laboratory (and for lending me cones). The first system I used was setting up a line of three cones centered to the goal with one at six yards, one at twelve yards, and one at eighteen yards.?

Immediately, goalkeeping behavior radically shifted. They began closing down one-vs-ones in a realistic way, forcing the field players to increase their quality of play and giving the goalkeepers meaningful repetitions. While this system resulted in better behavior and minimal initial set up, the cones’ central position led them to be knocked out of place with some regularity and the goalkeeper still did not know how far to the sides they could go.

The second system I used was just to make an age-appropriate penalty box with each corner marked by a cone and one for the penalty spot. This setup took longer to do (9 cones for each goal), but had the best results. Goalkeeper behavior became the most realistic I have ever seen in a small-sided game, which is unsurprising because it was the most game-realistic environment they had ever been in during a small-sided game.?

Even in a field only thirty yards long, I just set up two penalty boxes that overlapped. Understandably, the coach was concerned that having the entire field eligible for the goalkeepers to use their hands would lead to unrealistic behavior. Although there is theoretical legitimacy to that, no issue ever occurred because of game realistic pressures. If the goalkeeper came rushing out too far in a space with multiple attackers, they would be passed around, and the concern of the goalkeeper carrying the ball past midfield to distribute was dissipated by the similar pressure of the team giving away position before the goalkeeper returned to their position.

The full penalty box setup was tiresome to do and may be impractical due to equipment limitations. What I would recommend is setting up a space fourteen yards high and with the width of an age appropriate six yard box. Fourteen yards is roughly the height of the arc and the width of the six yard box is roughly the width of the arc.

This space gives adequate space for the goalkeeper to attack one-vs-one situations that arise frequently in small-sided games while also giving them the space needed to perform the Arc methodology.?

Small-sided games can be wonderful training tools for goalkeepers as well as field players. The constant threat of shots and the fluid creation of one-vs-one situations is an excellent training tool for goalkeepers to engage in shot-stopping and one-vs-one situations, develop their ability to anticipate and proactively engage one-vs-one situations, and work on one-vs-one engagement techniques. In order to unlock those meaningful repetitions, however, coaches need to create game-realistic environments for their goalkeepers to behave in. A few cones that may need to be flipped over every now and then is all that it takes to actually train your goalkeepers and put your players up against realistic goalkeepers.