Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the technical-tactical requirements profile of goalkeepers and to assess the influence of age and performance level. Therefore, 213 league matches involving elite youth soccer players (under 17 years old [U17], U19), semi-professional (U23, Germany's 4th league), and professional teams (Germany's 1st and 2nd league) were analyzed. Goalkeeper actions related to distribution, space defense, and goal defense were qualitatively recorded using a predefined categorization system by two independent raters, ensuring rigorous examination. The distribution of actions across offensive play, space defense, and goal defense was consistent, indicating robust patterns regardless of age or competitive level. Specifically, offensive play actions constituted about 73–77% of all actions, space defense accounted for 13–15%, and goal defense comprised 10–12%. This uniformity suggests that despite variations in age and competitive levels, the technical requirements profiles of U17, U19, U23, and professional goalkeepers largely coincide. Consequently, goalkeepers should be introduced to building play under pressure as early as possible. Training focused on playing with the feet under pressure should hold a high priority in goalkeeper training.
Introduction
The position of the goalkeeper undoubtedly plays a unique role in team sports like soccer. Compared to other positions, goalkeepers are distinct in that they are allowed to handle the ball following specific rules and within a designated zone. There are three main areas of goalkeeping—goal defense, space defense, and distribution. These actions embody technical-tactical skills, whereby a goalkeeper must not only master various techniques but also make the correct tactical decision on which technique will ensure the success of the action. 1 Despite the uniqueness of the position and its technical-tactical demands, many existing studies have focused on anthropometry, physiology, injuries, or penalty kicks.1,2–4,5 However, saving penalty kicks does not occur in many games and is therefore only a minimal aspect of the requirement profile.1,6
Only a few studies have focused on the technical and tactical analysis of goalkeepers. In recent years, the game-related demands of the soccer goalkeeper have been investigated very differently. Some studies only focused on the distribution6–9 or the defensive actions of the goalkeeper, 10 while other studies pursued differentiated objectives11–13 or did not make a detailed distinction between the techniques.14–18 Additionally, review articles on the soccer goalkeeper could not provide precise insights into the requirements profile and remained imprecise in their statements and varying definitions and classifications of the techniques across studies.3–5,19 Studies show that throughout a game, a goalkeeper had between 30 and 41 actions in goal defense, space defense, and distribution.1,17,20 Rechner and Memmert 20 offered the most detailed approach in this regard. They concluded that there is a descending relevance among basic techniques, push-off dives, close distance techniques, space defense, and distribution.
The relationship between performance level and the soccer goalkeeper's requirements profile has been explored, with studies mainly comparing within leagues or tournaments. Findings suggest that goalkeepers from higher-ranked teams or with better performance levels engage more in distributing actions and less in defense, with a generally higher success rate in distribution.6,9,13–15 However, differences were slight, and due to diverse study methodologies, drawing broad, universally applicable conclusions remains challenging.6,9,13–15 The influence of age on the goalkeeper's requirements profile has not been the focus of any study to date. The majority of research has concentrated on adult goalkeepers at the highest professional level, spanning from top European leagues6,7,9,14,15,17,21 to major tournaments such as the European and World Cup.8,10,13,16,18,20,22 Only Ortega-Toro et al. 12 and Santos et al. 23 included U12 and U17 goalkeepers in their studies, with a combined total of only seven goalkeepers examined across both studies. Whether and to what extent age might have an influence on the goalkeeper's requirements profile remains unclear.
The existing literature offers limited understanding of the technical requirements profile of the goalkeeper and scarcely addresses how age and performance level might affect it. Consequently, this study aims to conduct a detailed analysis of the technical-tactical requirements profile of the goalkeeper, with a focus on the impacts of age and competitive level.
Method
To address the research question, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 213 league matches involving elite youth soccer players (under 17 years old [U17], U19) and semi-professional (U23, Germanýs 4th league) and professional teams competing in Germany's 1st and 2nd league. Actions pertaining to distribution, space defense, and goal defense executed by goalkeepers were qualitatively recorded based on a predefined categorization system. This analysis was carried out by two independent raters, ensuring a rigorous examination of goalkeeper performance across different levels of play and age categories.
Categorization system
A detailed categorization system based on previous research was developed that encompasses zones (supplement), distribution (Figure 1), space defense (Figure 2), and goal defense (Figure 3), complete with definitions and anchor examples (Supplement Part II).1,17,20 Unfortunately, the studies cited did not report inter-rater reliability measures for the established categorization system. However, an established categorization system, featuring clearly defined criteria and representative anchor examples, ensures high inter-rater reliability in qualitative technical-tactical analysis. 24
Categorization system of distribution.
Categorization system of goal defense.
Categorization system of space defense.
The categorization system underwent a two-stage pre-testing process, including necessary adjustments. The first stage involved discussions with experts, specifically goalkeeper coaches from the Bundesliga and Regionalliga, to ensure the system's relevance and accuracy from a professional standpoint. The second stage consisted of the analysis of seven matches, followed by discussions aimed at refining the categorization system based on practical application and feedback. This comprehensive approach ensured that the final categorization system was both theoretically sound and practically applicable, incorporating insights from experienced professionals and real-world data analysis. In preparation for the main analysis, the raters underwent three training sessions with seven matches. Then two raters analyzed all matches. The interrater reliability was examined using Cohen's Kappa, achieving (almost) perfect agreement with values of 0.88 and higher. The consensus procedure with a third rater was applied in cases of ambiguity, where the action was discussed, and an agreement was reached. The three raters for this study were selected based on their substantial experience in soccer. Two of the three as former goalkeepers with careers extending over numerous years, including time spent at the second and fourth highest level (2nd Bundesliga and Regionalliga). One holds the German basic goalkeeper coach license and had three years of coaching experience in Germanýs fourth league (Regionalliga). The other one holds the UEFA Goalkeeper A License with numerous years of coaching experience in Germanýs fourth league (Regionalliga). The third rater had five years of coaching experience in a Germanýs 2nd Bundesliga youth academy.
The analysis of 213 league matches played by the U17, U19, U23, and professional squads was employed. This analysis included 39 matches from the B-Juniors Bundesliga for the U17 team, split between 24 games in the 2018/19 season and 15 games in the 2022/23 season. The U19 team's participation consisted of 38 games in the A-Juniors Bundesliga, with 23 during the 2018/19 season and 15 in the 2022/23 season. The U23 team contributed 68 games, all in the Regionalliga Bayern, evenly divided with 34 games in each of the 2018/19 and 2022/23 seasons. Similarly, the professional team was analyzed through their 68 games, which were played in the 1. Bundesliga in the 2018/19 season and in the 2. Bundesliga in the 2022/23 season, with each season providing 34 games. The duration of the matches was 90 min, plus any added time for stoppages. The only exception was the U17 Bundesliga in the 2018/19 season, where matches were ten minutes shorter. Therefore, the actions were extrapolated to 45 min for the results. For the 2018/19 season matches of the U17, U19, and U23 teams, video footage provided by “Die Ligen GmbH” was utilized, while for the 2022/23 season, footage from “Bepro Group Ltd” was employed. This footage featured an elevated camera perspective, usually positioned at midfield height. The analysis of professional matches from the 2018/19 season was based on television broadcasts to focus on a ball-centered view. In contrast, for the 2022/23 season, instead of TV broadcasts, a tactical camera positioned at midfield height within the stadiums was used to avoid slow-motion replays. An additional eleven league matches were excluded from the analysis due to certain factors, such as camera angle, that could have compromised the objectivity and precision of the investigation. Utilizing the VLC Media Player (VideoLAN, France) provided the observers with access to essential functions such as full screen, start-stop, repeat, slow motion, freeze frame, and reduced speed for detailed analysis at any given time. In line with the recommendations by Jaschinski-Kruza, 25 the raters conducted their analysis using a 15-inch screen positioned at eye level, ensuring that the distance between the observer and the screen was no less than 40 inches. This setup was chosen to optimize viewing conditions and enhance the accuracy of their evaluations.
Statistical analysis
Microsoft Office program Excel (Microsoft Corporation, United States of America, version 16.81) was used for the data collection in the form of the systematic game analysis. The interrater reliability was examined using Cohen's Kappa. The values were classified as follows: κ < 0 = poor agreement; 0 < κ < 0.20 = slight agreement; 0.21–0.40 = fair agreement; 0.41–0.60 = moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80 = substantial agreement; 0.81–1.00 = (almost) perfect agreement. 26 The data will be presented in both absolute and relative terms.
Results
Table 1 provides an overview of all recorded goalkeeper actions. The youth goalkeepers had more actions than the adult goalkeepers. The distribution of actions across the main areas of goalkeeping was generally similar. There was a tendency for the proportion of distributing actions to increase with age and skill level, while that of space- and goal-defending actions decreased.
Recuirements profile - all actions.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
Table 2 shows that about two-thirds of all distributing actions for all goalkeepers occurred during open play. The information on the subcategories can be found in the Supplements Part I (Table 2). With regard to set pieces, especially the professional goalkeepers increasingly decided for long balls. As age and skill level increased, the use of fast long kicks (within three seconds) as a potential countermeasure became significantly less common. Regarding the foot techniques and their ball handling, only minimal differences were observed (Table 2, Supplement Part I: Table 2).
Distribution - techniques.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
The data on distribution - pressure can be found in Table 3, with a presentation including the subcategories in the Supplements Part I (Table 3). Under pressure, professional goalkeepers most frequently used the ball control with one or two touches in a small range before playing it on. In contrast, youth and amateur goalkeepers typically played the ball directly onwards. In comparison, under pressure the U19 goalkeepers notably often decided for a low pass (Table 3, Supplement Part I: Table 3).
Distribution - pressure.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
In goal defense (Table 4), youth goalkeepers were more (frequently) challenged than adult goalkeepers. A push-off dive was applied equally often in all areas per game, while basic and close distance techniques decreased in frequency. With increasing age and skill level, the proportion and relevance of push-off dives increased. Professionals were the only ones to apply more explosive push-offs dives than close distance techniques. The information on the subcategories can be found in the Supplements Part I (Table 4). Among youth and amateur goalkeepers, blocking techniques dominated in close distance situations over diving, while the opposite was true for professionals (Table 4, Supplement Part I: Table 4).
Goal defense - techniques.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
Although professional goalkeepers overall had the fewest actions in goal defense, they recorded the most lateral shots (Table 5). Remarkably, U17 goalkeepers were relatively less likely to explosively push-off dive sideways compared to all others, with the proportion of collapse diving actions being the highest instead (Table 5, Supplement Part I: Table 5).
Goal defense - lateral shots.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
In basic techniques adult goalkeepers made significantly fewer catching mistakes than youth goalkeepers. In all other areas, catching behavior showed no significant differences (Table 6).
Goal defense - catching behaviour.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
In space defense, adult goalkeepers acted less frequently than youth goalkeepers. Data on the subcategories can be found in the Supplements Part I (Table 7). Particularly, the number of intercepted crosses during the game decreased with increasing age and skill level. A similar trend was observed with through-passes, which were also less frequently intercepted outside the box. However, the proportion of free balls without recipients steadily increased in space defense. Both free balls and through-passes inside the penalty area were almost exclusively dealt with using central basic techniques or ball attacks (Table 7, Supplement Part I: Table 7).
Space defense - situations and techniques.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
The distribution of the zones from which the crosses were taken can be found in Figure 4 and the designation of the zones can be found in the Supplements Part I: Figure 4. Regarding the catching behavior of crosses, it was particularly evident that with increasing age and skill level, both the rate and the number of mistakes decreased (Table 8). This included both, technical catching mistakes and the failure to intercept or reach a cross. The detailed breakdown of the categories can be found in the Supplements Part I (Table 8). Adult goalkeepers attacked crosses during set pieces significantly less frequently than youth goalkeepers, but they were comparatively more active during open play. Additionally, their proportion of crosses from the lateral zones was significantly lower. U17 goalkeepers attempted to intercept crosses outside the 5-meter area the least frequently (Table 8, Supplement Part I: Table 8).
Crosses - played from zone.
Space defense - crosses.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
Professional goalkeepers conceded the fewest goals per game. It was extremely rare across all age and skill levels for the last action of a goalkeeper before the ball crossed the line to be either a space-defending or distributing action. Among professional goalkeepers, the majority of goals occurred in the area of explosive push-off dives, while in the youth and amateur categories, close distance techniques were more common. Specifically, within close distance, both (low) diving and (long) blocking were the most relevant techniques for conceding goals across all levels (Table 9, Supplement Part I: Table 9).
Goals conceded.
The quota of goals conceded indicates the number of times a technique was used in goal defense resulting in a goal. The first number in Table 10 and Supplement Part I (Table 10) represents the overall quota of goals conceded, while the second percentage excludes actions with shots off-target. Across all age and skill levels, these rates differed only minimally, despite professional goalkeepers conceded the fewest goals per game. In all areas, the quota of goals conceded increased evenly when excluding shots off-target, most notably with push-off dive techniques. Among basic techniques, the rate of low collapse dive by U19 goalkeepers stood out. In close distance, adult goalkeepers saved a ball significantly less often with (hand) reactions compared to youth goalkeepers. Furthermore, as age and skill level increased, the quota of conceded goals decreased for low diving, with U17 goalkeepers notably had the worst success rate in diving (Table 10, Supplement Part I: Table 10).
Quota of goals conceded.
U17: under 17 years old; U19: under 19 years old; U23: under 23 years old; Pros: Professional goalkeepers.
Discussion
The aim of the study was to explore the technical requirements profile of goalkeepers and to assess the influence of age and performance level. Across all groups, the distribution of actions within the categories of offensive play, space defense, and goal defense was relatively consistent, indicating robust patterns regardless of age or competitive level. Specifically, offensive play actions constituted about 73–77% of all actions, space defense accounted for about 13–15%, and goal defense made up about 10–12% of the actions. This uniformity highlights that, despite variations in age and competitive levels, the technical requirements profiles of U17, U19, U23, and professional goalkeepers largely coincide.
The relevance of distribution, space defense, and goal are confirmed for professional soccer. 20 The noticeably higher number of actions recorded compared to previous studies1,17,20 might be due to the differentiated study design. For example, shots were recorded where the goalkeeper applied a technique, but the ball either missed the goal or was not caught securely, requiring a subsequent ball attack. The higher number of actions in the youth sector compared to adult goalkeepers is due to the missing actions in space and goal defense. A possible reason for this could be that it is increasingly difficult to play dangerous actions for the opposing goal in adult classes because the teams defend better and more compactly. 27 The higher proportion of offensive actions and lower proportion of defensive actions among higher-performance goalkeepers can thus be partially confirmed.6,9,13–15
Distribution is the most frequent action in goalkeeping across all age groups and competitive levels, highlighting the goalkeeper's central role not only in preventing goals but also in initiating play. 28 In distribution, the most common actions involve the foot, predominantly consisting of passes, though the frequency of long balls is also significant. This indicates that, despite the goalkeeper being the only position allowed to handle the ball with the hands, a focus in goalkeeper training should be on foot skills. Potential goalkeepers could benefit from participating in team training, especially in small-sided games.11,29,30 The data showed only a slight tendency towards more control and less risk in actions among older and higher-performing goalkeepers, such as through less frequent passing during set pieces, increasingly slow execution of goal kicks, or a preference for controlling the ball under pressure. However, the values for goal kicks should be interpreted with caution, due to a rule change between the 2018/19 and 2022/23 seasons that now permits playing a teammate within the penalty area. In the 2018/19 season, goalkeepers averaged 8.3 goal kicks, 2.4 free kicks, and 25.4 distribution actions from open play per game, totaling 36.1 distributing actions. In comparison, during the 2022/23 season, these numbers changed to 7.4 goal kicks, 2.5 free kicks, and 33.2 distribution actions from open play per game, totaling 43.0 distributing actions. An isolated examination of the 2022/23 values, therefore, suggests a higher rate of passing during goal kicks and an increase in actions from open play, as it occurs that the goalkeeper is played by a defender during a goal kick.
Push-off dives are more frequently observed in professional goalkeepers. This may be due to the fact that at the highest level, balls are shot more precisely, as evidenced by the high number of lateral shots as well as techniques and goals conceded, or, in general, due to acceleration and speed of the ball has increased in the modern game. Additionally, professional goalkeepers are better trained and can therefore initiate an explosive push-off dive more quickly and frequently.4,31 The lesser relevance of close distance techniques may again be due to the difficulty of creating scoring opportunities at the highest level, necessitating shots from greater distances. This is also supported by the more frequent use of diving as opposed to blocking among professionals, as the distance to the shooter is almost always greater in diving than in blocking. The fewer catching mistakes in basic techniques are attributed to the higher experience of adult goalkeepers. Otherwise, the objectives across all age and performance levels in basic techniques are to securely catch or control the ball and, in the case of an explosive push-off dive, to reach and then deflect the ball in a controlled manner. In close distance techniques, this is only achievable through diving and ball attacks, as the ball cannot be held due to the technique used in blocking and reacting. The decreasing interception of crosses with increasing age and performance level is not definitively explainable. It is possible that crosses are being played more sharply and precisely, making interception more challenging. Speculatively, the observed differences could be attributed to an increase in the number of diagonal crosses landing farther from the 5meter-area, an area crowded with players, making it harder for goalkeepers to influence the ball, possibly as a response from opponents developing alternative strategies to counteract the enhanced effectiveness of goalkeepers in intercepting crosses. Alternatively, it could also be that fewer crosses are being played in general. Therefore, the total number of crosses played during a game is needed. The decreasing rate of mistakes in dealing with crosses indicates improved performance and better decision-making with increasing age and skill level. The smaller proportion of crosses from the first lateral zones can be explained by fewer actions in corner situations. Similarly, the total number per game could be lower or the quality of the crosses higher.
The consistent quota of conceded goals indicates that the demands of the game and the capabilities of goalkeepers evolve similarly with age. The game and its actions become faster and more complex, yet goalkeepers also improve. The high number of goals conceded from collapse dives is largely due to penalties, where the goalkeeper chooses the wrong corner. The higher quota of conceded goals among adult goalkeepers in reactive situations could be coincidental. The increasingly better performance in low diving may be due to the complexity of the movement and the quicker execution associated with increasing age and performance level.
This study also presents limitations. Unfortunately, the data do not come from consecutive seasons, which is due to the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and related regulations. Nonetheless, the game between the seasons should not have changed significantly, apart from the increase in playing time in the U17 category, which was compensated for by an extrapolation. Additionally, variations in match durations (added time and net playing time) may have influenced the number of actions, although this effect should be leveled out over the number of matches analyzed.
Practical implications
Given the significant emphasis on foot skills, integrating goalkeepers as active participants in small-sided games with designated playing directions and goals during team training could substantially enhance their proficiency. This method is particularly warranted since over fifty percent of distribution actions occur under pressure, and accurately simulating such opponent pressure in traditional goalkeeper training is often inadequate. Additionally, including forwards and defenders to challenge goalkeepers during goalkeepers’ sessions could effectively mimic game-related pressure during distribution exercises, further enhancing integrative training (players-goalkeepers sessions). There should also be a focus on practicing striking precise long balls. Owing to the high prevalence of fundamental techniques in goalkeeping and space defense, these basic techniques should underpin all defensive training. Defensive skills should be progressively integrated into youth training programs to ensure a smooth transition to professional play. As players age and their skill levels increase, push-off dives are expected to gain importance, whereas the focus in close distance defense should shift towards diving and blocking. For space defense, training should emphasize intercepting crosses at various heights and cutting off through-passes. As training evolves, the focus for goalkeepers should progressively shift to refining basic techniques, mastering push-off dives, enhancing close distance defense, space defense, and distribution strategies.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-spo-10.1177_17479541241275914 - Supplemental material for The Technical-Tactical Profile of Soccer Goalkeepers: The Impact of age and Competitive Level
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-spo-10.1177_17479541241275914 for The Technical-Tactical Profile of Soccer Goalkeepers: The Impact of age and Competitive Level by Felix Kielkopf and Michael Keiner in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Lucas Mai and Christian Krüger for their invaluable assistance in collecting the data. All authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript being submitted. They warrant that the article is the authors’ original work, hasn't received prior publication and isn't under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
