Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

How does the modern football goalkeeper train? –

An exploration of expert goalkeeper coaches’ skill
training approaches

Fabian W. Otte, Sarah-Kate Millar & Stefanie Hüttermann

To cite this article: Fabian W. Otte, Sarah-Kate Millar & Stefanie Hüttermann (2019): How does
the modern football goalkeeper train? – An exploration of expert goalkeeper coaches’ skill training
approaches, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1643202

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1643202

View supplementary material

Published online: 16 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1643202

How does the modern football goalkeeper train? – An exploration of expert

goalkeeper coaches’ skill training approaches
a
Fabian W. Otte , Sarah-Kate Millarb and Stefanie Hüttermanna
a
Institute of Exercise Training and Sport Informatics, Department of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research, German Sport University Cologne,
Cologne, Germany; bDepartment of Coaching, Health & P.E., School of Sport & Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The football goalkeeper position arguably represents a unique role within the team sport. Despite its highly Accepted 5 July 2019
complex skill demands, research on football goalkeeping has only sporadically examined the position
KEYWORDS
within isolated and limited parameters. In particular, there is limited literature on “modern” skill acquisition Association football; skill
training methods and approaches within the field of goalkeeper training. In a cross-cultural study with acquisition training; decision
fifteen expert goalkeeper coaches, researchers here examined the overarching research question of “how making; perceptual-motor
does the modern football goalkeeper train?”. Semi-structured interviews explored expert coaches’ views on skills; representative training
critical skills for performance in goalkeeping and the training approaches used to develop these critical designs
skills. Results indicate that four skill sets are considered essential by goalkeeper coaches, these are: decision-
making skills, athleticism, mentality, and technical skills. In terms of developing these skills in goalkeeper-
specific training, the majority of expert coaches apply a similar microstructure to training sessions. This
structure involves a steady progression from simple to complex training tasks, where for large parts, isolated
technical training appears to be prioritised over a holistic training approach that integrates technical skills
and perceptual-cognitive components (e.g., decision making). Scientific and practical recommendations for
researchers and practitioners in the field of football goalkeeper coaching are provided.

Introduction data of sixty-two GKs in the English Premier League was col-
lected. Here, they found that the average professional GK cov-
“The goalkeeper has a rare privilege in football: the use of his
ered a total distance of 5611m (±613m) with sprinting distance
hands to keep the ball out of his goal” (FIFA, 1997). This statement
coverage of 11m (±12m) in a game. They also revealed that only
outlines how the goalkeeper (GK) position represents a unique
2% of all movements happen at high-intensity speed (compared
and integral part in association football and demonstrates that the
to 73% of movements at walking speed). Other research by De
GK requires a high level of proficiency across a vast range of
Baranda, Ortega, and Palao (2008) found that goalkeepers per-
complex actions. These actions include accurate passing over
formed an average of 6.2 (±2.7) dives per game during the FIFA
distance, close distance hand-foot reaction saves, catching shots
World Cup in 2002. This figure can be supported by more recent
on goal, and punching away crosses. Despite the importance of
English Premier League statistics for the 2017/18 season, which
the GK’s role in a team’s success, to date, literature and research on
show a comparable average of 5.7 GK saves per game (Premier
football goalkeeping have only sporadically examined the position
League, 2018a). In addition, further studies have investigated
within isolated and limited parameters (for example, the physio-
GKs’ physical and physiological performance characteristics and
logical characteristics of the GK, e.g., Ziv & Lidor, 2011; or percep-
found GKs, on average, to be heavier, taller and have larger body
tual-cognitive demands of the GK position, e.g., Savelsbergh,
fat percentages and less aerobic capacity when compared to
Williams, Van Der Kamp, & Ward, 2002). In general, studies on
outfield players (Gil, Gil, Ruiz, Irazusta, & Irazusta, 2007).
football have purposely excluded the GK position from analysis
rom a perceptual-cognitive perspective, the majority of GK
because of large differences in behaviour from outfield players
studies have examined penalty kick situations because of how
(Santos et al., 2018) or have only analysed rare events, such as
they differ from game situations (Shafizadeh, Davids, Correia,
penalty kicks (Woolley, Crowther, Doma, & Connor, 2015).
Wheat, & Hizan, 2016). Savelsbergh et al. (2002) found differing
visual search behaviours for GKs of dissimilar skill levels (i.e.,
Research on football goalkeeping experts versus novices). This study revealed that experts perceive
more relevant kinematic information from the penalty shooter.
Existing literature on goalkeeping has predominately focused on
Additionally, other studies have found that GKs had faster
physiological and anthropometric GK profiles and perceptual-
response-initiation times when responding to a penalty kick
cognitive abilities. For example, in an analytical study by Di Salvo,
compared to outfield players (Peiyong & Inomata, 2012) and
Benito, Calderón, Di Salvo, and Pigozzi (2008), key physiological

CONTACT Fabian W. Otte fabian.otte@gmx.de Institute of Exercise Training and Sport Informatics, Department of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport
Research, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, Cologne 50933, Germany
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 F. W. OTTE ET AL.
that GKs tend to use a “global perceptual approach” (including
visual fixation points and peripheral vision) to obtain information
from the penalty shooter (Woolley et al., 2015, p. 1774). Despite
the impact of penalty situations on a football game, according to
2017/18 English Premier League statistics, a total of 83 penalty
kicks were awarded to all clubs across the 380 season games
(Premier League, 2018b). This equates to an average of 0.2 pen-
alty kicks per game and thus indicates that previous research has
explored events that a GK is rarely confronted with in games (by
comparison, GKs were faced with an average of 6.99 shots on
target per game; Premier League, 2018c). Consequently, more
research must focus on the GK skills that are more frequently
performed in football games and also potentially practiced in GK
training, in preparation for in-game execution.
Thus far, research on GKs has tended to focus on physiological
and perceptual-cognitive skills, as opposed to the area of skill
acquisition training (i.e., training to coordinate motor skills “that
are adaptable to a range of varying performance characteristics”;
Davids, Bennett, & Button, 2008, p. 4). Despite skill development
methods for outfield players having been extensively explored
(e.g., Torrents et al., 2016; Williams & Hodges, 2005), similar
research in the football goalkeeping context is notably limited.
In order to fill a research gap in the area of GK training, the
current study explores expert GK coaches’ views on critical skills
for performance in goalkeeping and “modern” GK training
approaches. More precisely, the study investigates how expert
practitioners see GK training in terms of skill development and it
explores the microstructure of football GK training. The micro-
structure, in particular, investigates the session structure, activities
athletes are engaged in during the training session, and the time
spent on these various activities (Ford, Yates, & Williams, 2010).
Skill training approaches in sports coaching
Across sports, training sessions led by a sports coach (i.e.,
coach-led) represents a “critical element in the development
of skilled athletic performance” (Hodges & Franks, 2002,
p. 793). For the purpose of this paper, the concept of training
is operationally defined as “organized activities in which the
principal focus is on skill development and performance
enhancement” (Côté, Baker, & Abernethy, 2007, p. 184). In
more detail, various skill training approaches have been stu-
died across a range of applied sporting contexts over the past
decades. Here in this paper, two rather distinctive approaches
will be briefly presented; a more “modern” and a “traditional”
approach.
An emerging “modern” approach to skill acquisition training
advocates the coach’s role as a facilitator who works towards
identifying and manipulating key player, environmental and task
constraints (see Renshaw, Chow, Davids, & Hammond, 2010, for
a detailed conceptual review on skill acquisition theory) and
encourages the development of self-organised and functional
movement patterns (Davids et al., 2008). In more detail, these
rather “modern” training approaches demand for the coach to be
able to do four key tasks: 1) constantly manipulate task con-
straints to find an optimal challenge point between task difficulty
(relative and actual) and information made available to the
performer; 2) provide representative training scenarios that
require game-realistic perception-movement couplings and
cognitive processing of game-realistic informational variables;
3) introduce appropriate cognitive and contextual interference
to consistently solve game-specific problems; and 4) follow
a rather facilitating and “hands-off” coaching style (Davids
et al., 2008; Pinder, Davids, Renshaw, & Araújo, 2011; Porter &
Magill, 2010).
In contrast to aforementioned “modern” coaching tasks,
rather “traditional” coaching methods can be briefly summarised
by four characteristics: 1) large amounts of explicit “expert” feed-
back and instructions focused on technical details; 2) idealised
technical movement solutions and “textbook” techniques; 3)
“drill-based” skill training with large numbers of predictable
repetitions and in isolation from perception-action couplings;
and 4) task decomposition to limit information loading on the
player (Ford et al., 2010; Passos, Araújo, Davids, & Shuttleworth,
2008; Williams & Hodges, 2005). Under this latter approach,
motor patterns are supposed to eventually achieve “the same
performance solution repeatedly” (Passos et al., 2008, p. 128) and
once skills become proficient, the athlete is introduced to com-
plex game play (Pizarro, Dominguez, Serrano, Garcia-Gonzalez, &
Del Villar Alvarez, 2017). Hereof, these skills, learnt in isolation, are
expected to be applied effectively in complex situations.
Despite various theoretical perspectives on skill acquisition and
the commonly accepted notion that training is of critical impor-
tance for the development of expertise in sport, there is limited
exploration of the microstructure of training (i.e., the structure of
individual training sessions; Hüttermann, Memmert, & Baker,
2014). This research gap extends to the specific football GK con-
text and GK training approaches. Therefore, it is of interest to gain
insight into the ways that expert practitioners, as “theory appliers”,
currently act and work (Stolz & Pill, 2014, p. 36). The value of expert
knowledge to enhance empirical understanding of performance is
being increasingly recognised throughout sport science (e.g.,
Greenwood, Davids, & Renshaw, 2012; Millar, Oldham, &
Renshaw, 2013; Russell & Salmela, 1992). The value of this knowl-
edge is argued because it is understood that experts retain the
most relevant and effective knowledge units through exchange
with other experts, as well as through a sustained accumulation of
competition and training experience (Millar et al., 2013). Common
methods for acquiring this knowledge in a publishable form
involve the use of semi-structured interviews, from which themes
can be drawn. The theming process is inductive in so far as it is
data-driven and pragmatic in that it aims to capture effective
expert knowledge that is common to successful coaches (or ath-
letes). In professional football, position-specific GK training is
commonly facilitated by specialised GK coaches (e.g., UEFA,
2014). These coaches may possess expert knowledge on GK skills
and techniques needed at the elite competitive level and on
specific skill training approaches. Therefore, it is these specialised
coaches’ views on critical GK skills and GK skill training approaches
that the study aims to investigate. Practical recommendations for
coaches are provided towards the end of the paper.
Methods
The study design employed a qualitative-descriptive approach
with a unique sample of fifteen expert GK coaches. Because
the way coaches interpret GK skills ultimately influences their
coaching practices, the use of Personal Construct Psychology

(PCP) by Kelly (1991) will be used as the theoretical framework
for this research. PCP posits that an individual’s psychological
processes are guided by the way one anticipates events (Kelly,
1991), or the ways in which the individual perceives the world
and makes sense of lived events (Gucciardi & Gordon, 2008).
Consequently, this research studied GK coaches’ personal
views on critical GK skills and the specific training of these
skills. Under the overarching research question of “how does
the modern football goalkeeper train?”, the study investigated
the following areas: 1) perceived critical skills required to be
a top-level GK, in conjunction with practitioners’ views on
“idealised images” of technical GK skills; and 2) GK coaches’
training approaches, including the microstructure of a 60-
minute GK training session. These areas were chosen in
order to examine the underexplored football GK position, its
skill demands, and to provide scientific evidence on coaches’
skill training methods.
Participants
With the objective of exploring views on the positional demands
for goalkeeping and GK training approaches, the study focused
on a specialised group of expert football GK coaches from
around the world. These coaches had to meet the inclusion
criteria of: a) have a background in national federation football,
professional senior club or youth academy football (i.e., football
clubs or academies currently playing in their countries’ top divi-
sions); and b) hold or have previously held a full-time GK coach-
ing job in an elite youth academy or the senior professional
football space. Numerous qualifying GK coaches were invited
to partake in the study and those who voluntarily agreed to
participate were interviewed by the researchers. The study
received approval from the researchers’ local ethics committees.
Fifteen GK coaches (n = 15) participated in the study, and
this global sample included practitioners (aged between 26
and 67 years, inclusively) with substantial coaching experience
(M = 12.9 years, according to criteria a and b, SD = 8.7 years)
across numerous men’s and women’s professional football
contexts. These contexts included coaching at top-division
senior level (e.g., Australian A-League; Belgian Jupiler League;
English Premier League; German Bundesliga; Scottish
Premiership; US Major League Soccer), elite youth levels (e.g.,
A-League Academy; Bundesliga Academy; Premier League
Academy; U.S. Soccer Development Academy), as well as inter-
national coaching experience (e.g., with the Australian FA;
German FA; Irish FA; New Zealand Football; Qatar FA).
Procedure
Semi-structured interviews were conducted and lasted
between 25 and 65 minutes (M = 45.6min, SD = 11.96),
where expert GK coaches gave their detailed perceptions of
critical skills in modern football goalkeeping and their applica-
tion to modern football GK training. The research method was
chosen, so as to allow participants to talk in their own words
about, and elaborate on their personal experiences in their
professional contexts (Barriball & While, 1994; Gratton & Jones,
2010; Smith, 2010). Interview questions were ordered and
designed around two specific areas:
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
Area 1 What are the critical skills required to be a top GK?
In particular, to what extent do coaches believe in ‘idea-
lised technical images’ when talking about critical GK
skills and techniques?
Area 2 How are the stated skills trained by GK coaches?
This was explored by coaches discussing what the struc-
ture of a 60-minute GK training session would look like?
(Context of area 2 was the situation of 3-4 GKs in
a professional context and/or in an elite youth context)
Data analysis
All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and
a thematic analysis was completed to search for “repeated pat-
terns of meaning” across the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 86).
Within this, a latent approach was used in order to classify under-
lying ideas and key assumptions under consideration of the
research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). More specifically, the
approach of template analysis (as a form of thematic analysis) was
used. This form of analysis generally permits data coding, which is
based on previously identified a priori themes and the in-depth
engagement with the data set (see Brooks, McCluskey, Turley, &
King, 2015). Hereby, firstly, an initial broad coding template was
developed to allow the researchers to define initial theme defini-
tions. This coding template was then adjusted throughout the
analysis stages and eventually applied to the entire data set.
Overall, this process (i.e., using a mixture of a priori themes and
a coding template based on prior knowledge in the fields of skill
acquisition training and football goalkeeping) considered newly
emerging patterns from the data set (Brooks et al., 2015).
Results
Results regarding the two areas and the exploration of the
data set from the semi-structured interviews with expert GK
coaches are presented and discussed under two broad
categories:
Category 1: Critical skills for performance in football goalk-
eeping (see Figure 1 and Table 1)
Category 2: GK training approaches and the microstructure of
GK training (see Figure 2)
Category one introduces the GK skills that expert coaches
perceive to be critical requirements for success on the professional
stage. It then connects these findings to an exploration of coaches’
views on “idealised GK techniques”. Category two links the find-
ings from the first part to GK training approaches and the micro-
structure of GK training. Specifically, category two merges findings
on: 1) how the stated critical performance skills for GKs are trained;
and 2) the microstructure of a standard GK training session (within
either a professional senior or elite youth context).
Category 1: critical skills for performance in football
goalkeeping
In general, the modern GK was described as an “all-rounder” that
must consistently master a range of complex actions within the
areas of: 1) defending the goal (i.e., termed as “goal defence”); 2)
defending the space in front of the goal to prevent opposing
teams’ attacks (i.e., termed as “space defence”); and 3)
4 F. W. OTTE ET AL.

Figure 1. Critical skills for performance in football goalkeeping.

Table 1. Ratings of GK specific techniques in terms of GK coaches’ “idealised appreciated by the following quote: “Decision making [. . .]
technical images”.
because with the wrong decision, the best technique will not
GK Technique* Mean (SD) work. With the right decision, the worst technique can work.”
Catching a “volley” (standing position) 82.9 (± 15.4)
(see supplemental material for further quotes).
“Scoop technique”/“Basket technique” 73.9 (± 18.8)
(on the ground)/“Smother” In more detail, the results revealed that GK-specific decision
“Cup technique”/“Basket technique” (standing) 78.3 (± 15.4) making may be divided into three sub-categories: i) technical
“Collapse save”/“Tuck-in save” 74.1 (± 16.5)
decision making; ii) tactical decision making; and iii) technical-
“Full dive”/“Push-off” Low 77.2 (± 20.1)
High tactical decision making (see Figure 1). Firstly, technical decision
72.9 (± 16.9) making, according to the coaches, is concerned with the GK’s
1v1 – “Ball attack”/“Interception”/“Diving at feet” 68.3 (± 21.6)
decision on which specific technique/skill to use in order to
1v1 – “Block save” 63.5 (± 26.8)
Catching crosses (full movement pattern) 76.0 (± 18.5) achieve the task goal of, for example, intercepting the ball.
*GK techniques were read out to each expert GK coach and, in a next step, GK Secondly, tactical decision making is the understanding of what
coaches were asked to rate the technique on the believes of an “idealised tactical behaviour is needed in response to the GK’s understand-
technical image” from 0 to 100 (0 = there are numerous ways of coordinating ing of tactical game situations and the own team’s football playing
and executing the technique with a high level of variability; and 100 = there is
only one way of coordinating and executing the technique in the smallest detail philosophy. Thirdly, technical-tactical decision making, as the
and without variability) highest and most complex form of decision making, requires the
GK to recognise relevant references (e.g., the ball and player
movements), understand tactical scenarios and eventually coordi-
participating in possession play or initiating attacks (i.e., termed as nate and execute a technical GK action. For example; “It is impor-
“attacking game”). In other words, GKs must effectively execute tant that the goalkeeper is able to read the game well, that the
core goalkeeping tasks, such as “making match winning saves”, goalkeeper has a good pre-orientation and can recognise situa-
while also playing the role of an “11th outfield player”. In order to tions well . . . that the goalkeeper can constantly adjust the posi-
master these core tasks, Figure 1 presents an overview of four tion and is able make the right decision on what technique to use
dominant skill areas, identified by the expert coaches: 1) “decision- out of this position.”
making skills”; 2) “mentality”; 3) “athleticism”; and 4) “technical
skills”. Words directly outside each rectangle in Figure 1 display Mentality
the most frequently stated sub-categories to these four broad skill Mental skills or “mentality” was stated as the second most
areas. important key skill set for any GK at the professional level.
Under the term, “mentality”, a range of interrelated skills was
mentioned by 12 of the expert coaches: courage; personality;
Decision-making skills focus and concentration; and work ethic. For example;
The vast majority of these expert coaches (n = 13), identified “Mentality . . . having the will to throw oneself into the ball,
“decision-making skills” as the most significant skill component to defend the goal and trying to save everything”.
for every top-level GK. Despite most coaches’ understanding that In detail, “courage” was a term used by coaches to encom-
decision making and technique work in synch, the majority of pass traits like bravery, will power, aggressiveness, “craziness”
practitioners stated “decision making” to be significantly more and determination. Hereof, it is the GK’s courage to defend the
important than “technique” for a GK. This, for example, can be goal and prevent the opposition from scoring at all costs; this

Figure 2. The microstructure of a football GK training session.
especially relates to the previously mentioned core tasks of
goalkeeping.
“Personality” was mentioned by participants in terms of
remaining composed under pressure, dealing with negative
performance (e.g., the ability to deal with mistakes and
acknowledge mistakes in front of the team), demonstrating
confidence (i.e., the “belief in own abilities”) and having
a positive presence (e.g., through positive “body language”).
The abilities to “focus and concentrate” and to demonstrate
exceptional “work ethic” relate to a GK’s ability to be con-
stantly engaged in the game and to the possession of traits,
such as “hard working”, “resilience”, “reliability” and “profes-
sionalism”, both on and off the football pitch.
Athleticism
The importance of well-developed physical skills for a football GK
was mentioned by 11 of the 15 expert coaches. Under the terms,
“athleticism” or “athletic ability”, the majority of coaches found
physical abilities, such as “power”, “dynamic”, “speed strength”,
“explosivity”, “agility” and “jumping power” to be most essential
for elite GKs. In addition to the most frequently mentioned trait,
“speed”, further physical skills considered to be important for GKs
were “fitness”/“endurance”, “strength”, “coordination” and “mobi-
lity” (see supplemental material for participant quotes).
Overall, it becomes obvious that “athleticism”, as a whole,
must be regarded as a pre-condition for every GK at the highest
level in order to handle the demands of professional football.
Interestingly, “being tall” (a traditional key selection criterion for
GKs) was deemed to be beneficial, however, it was not rated as
the principle physical feature of a GK by expert coaches.
Technical skills
Technical skills, based on the experts’ opinions, can be described
as skills that deal with GK-specific techniques when defending the
goal, defending the space in front of the goal or when initiating
attacks and keeping possession of the ball. Within this, the two key
technical skill areas of “football skills” and “basic handling skills”
were repeatedly mentioned by 10 of the coaches.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5
Firstly, “football skills” describe technical abilities that allow the
GK to play with both feet, have a good first touch after receiving
a pass, and have the ability to consistently distribute the ball over
various distances; for example, “the ability to be able to play
comfortably with the ball and basically look like a field player
nowadays”.
Secondly, the skill set of “basic handling skills” describes
essential and highly position-specific techniques. These “tech-
nical core skills” of handling the ball were deemed to be
critical and thus, coaches expect GKs to display “an absolute
solid foundation in regard to basic techniques”.
Coaches’ views on “idealised technical images” for GK
skills
Due to the identified importance of “technical skills” and the
previously described multitude of complex position-specific tasks
that GKs need to master, the researchers further explored GK
coaches’ views on “idealised technical images”. More specifically,
coaches were asked to rate various GK techniques with a score of
between 0 and 100. Zero was stated to indicate that a specific GK
technique can be coordinated and executed with lot of individual
variability, while 100 was stated to represent no individual varia-
bility to coordinate the movement (i.e., there is a highly idealised
technical image). The results, as displayed in Table 1, show rela-
tively high values with mean scores of over 70 for the majority of
GK techniques. These high values demonstrate that coaches see-
mingly believe in key technical principles for most of the stated
techniques. Such principles need to be met by the GK, in order to
execute a technique effectively.
Category 2: GK training approaches and the
microstructure of GK training
Along with exploring expert GK coaches’ views on GK skills,
the research study aimed to investigate GK coaches’ training
approaches to develop these critical GK skills. Findings on
6 F. W. OTTE ET AL.

structural commonalities within the microstructure of a GK very little to no technical-tactical decision making; instead, it
training session are presented in the following section. seems to focus more on “traditional” isolated and drill-based
exercises, so as to achieve high numbers of predictable (often
blocked) repetitions. According to the coaches, such a high
The microstructure of GK training
quantity of repetition, here, would aim at developing “muscle
To explore the microstructure of GK training, each participant memory” and automating movement solutions that emulate
was asked to describe a) how they trained critical GK perfor- their imagined “optimal technical images”.
mance skills and b) how they would structure a 60-minute GK
training session with 3–4 GKs of either an elite youth (i.e., top
Complex part
division U-17s age group) or a senior professional standard
The complex training part, along with the technical part, can be
(i.e., top division men’s or women’s team). As a result of these
seen as the second major pillar of a standard GK training session.
research questions, Figure 2 displays five different GK training
Under the terms, “complex training”, “situative training”, “game
session blocks, the particular training content of each block,
phase training” or “match-realistic training”, GK coaches aim at
the training time spent on each block in minutes (out of
introducing game-like scenarios and decision-making compo-
a total of 60 minutes for the entire session) and the GK skill
nents to their GKs. Within this, task difficulty is increased in
focus of each session block (relating back to previously intro-
various layers throughout this training session part.
duced results on critical GK performance skills in Figure 1).
Alongside the use of numerous “layers of advancement”
Overall, the majority of GK coaches mentioned applying
throughout the session, many coaches divide the complex part
similar training structures (independent of the GK’s age and
into two sub-parts (i.e., described as ‘complex 1ʹ and ‘complex 2ʹ
skill level) to their training sessions. Hereby, some general
in this paper). The first layers within ‘complex 1ʹ describe a steady
training principles applied by most GK coaches state: 1) each
progression from the technical training part. More specifically,
training session to focus on one topic or game situation; 2)
there is the introduction of relevant technical-tactical references
each training topic to be connected to the theme of the team
and behaviours, such as the positioning towards the ball/shoo-
training session (if applicable); and 3) each training session to
ter, footwork patterns and specific techniques, while balls com-
follow a steady methodical transition into more complex train-
ing towards the GKs are still rather predictable and controlled.
ing throughout the session. Most GK training sessions consist
This considered, the first part of ‘complex 1ʹ (with a length of
of five major blocks that, for this paper, are termed as: 1. pre-
10–15 minutes of the total 60 minutes; or up to 25%) can be
activation; 2. warm-up; 3. technical part; 4. complex part; and
regarded as an extension of the technical training within a more
5. cool-down (see Figure 2).
game-like context and with limited decision making.
Following the first block, the ‘complex 2ʹ part represents
Pre-activation
a progression of the game-realistic training situation into the
The first structural block of “pre-activation” can be seen as an
highest form of complexity within GK training. In this training
athleticism-focused training programme, done prior to GK train-
part, coaches aim at authentically replicating game-realistic
ing for at least 10 minutes. This “pre-activation” is mostly per-
scenarios in GK training and increasing the number of relevant
formed in the gym (under the supervision of athletic trainers).
contextual and informational variables (e.g., opponent and
Hereof, GKs may go through a range of body activation (i.e., hip,
time pressure, positioning changes, unpredictable service of
legs and upper body), injury prevention, agility and stabilisation
the ball). These variables, eventually, demand for the GK to
exercises (i.e., “core stabilisation”, “tension exercises”).
acquire game-specific skills and make complex decisions (i.e.,
technical, tactical and technical-tactical decisions) that reflect
Warm-up
the GK tasks demanded in competitive football games. This
The GK training warm-up with around 10–15 minutes (of the
part is stated to take only around 15 minutes (or up to 25%) of
total 60 minutes) or up to 25% can be regarded as an on-pitch
the 60-minute session.
extension of the athletic pre-activation block. Hereof, the GKs
Notably, towards the end of the session, it is the integration
are encouraged to continue the physical warm-up with run-
of outfield players into the GK training session that can pro-
ning, flexibility and stabilisation exercises (with a ball). In
vide an effective method of manipulating the environment, so
addition, the warm-up may include simple technical catching
as to simulate game-like scenarios in which the “goalkeeper
and passing exercises, (GK) games and cognitive drills, so as to
experiences more situations in training than he ever would
further prepare the GK for the session.
experience in a game and has to make correct decisions”. This
approach of “integrative GK training” was effectively men-
Technical part
tioned by 11 of the expert coaches and aims to overcome
The technical training section, as described by the coaches,
the limitations of GK training with small groups of GKs.
represents an integral part of the microstructure of a single GK
training session. To describe this session block, coaches used
a variety of terminologies, such as “technical warm-up”, “adap- Cool-down
tation phase”, “analytical training part”, “build-up part” or Concluding the session, the cool-down part aims at starting the
“introduction part”. With an average time of 17 to 21 minutes immediate recovery process. Within this, coaches mentioned
or about 30% (of a 60-minute training session) spent on activities, such as running, stretching, core work and roller exer-
“technical skills”, this part mostly includes “catching exercises” cises. In addition, a verbal reflection on training session outcomes
and “basic handling drills”. Hereof, this training part involves and potential learnings was mentioned by some coaches.

Discussion
The goal of this research was to identify the skills that expert
GK coaches perceive to be critical for a top-level GK (see
category 1) and to understand how a training session would
be structured to best develop these skills (see category 2). This
section will address a potentially contradictory finding: while
decision making was regarded a core GK skill by the majority
of expert coaches, GK training seemingly favours isolated
technical training over a holistic technical-tactical training
approach; thus, key decision-making components may be
overlooked. Possible reasons for this “traditional” approach,
as well as the need for “modern” and representative training
designs for GK skill development, will be discussed. Finally,
study limitations, ideas for future research and practical
recommendations for GK coaches will be stated.
The training time split between technical and tactical
GK training
Overall, in regard to the training time split within the micro-
structure of GK training sessions, the study revealed some
clear and remarkable results. While the majority of expert GK
coaches stated “decision-making skills” to represent the most
vital skill set for elite-level GKs (see category 1), most coaches
spend at least 50% – and often even up to 60–70% – of their
training session time on predictable technical GK work (see
Figure 2 for the breakdown of minutes spent on each training
session part). Hereof, it is predominately the “warm-up”, the
“technical part” and potentially ‘complex 1ʹ that largely focus
on isolated movement coordination and execution with
a great level of technical detail. This, in particular, often
appears to be without game-relevant (technical-tactical) deci-
sion-making components. According to further external
insights from study participants, this finding may be seen
even more drastically in the extended football GK coaching
world (see supplemental material for participant quotes).
This potentially contradictory finding opens up the ques-
tion of: why do some parts of the GK training session seem to
isolate technical training from tactical training (including deci-
sion making in game-realistic training contexts) – especially
considering that numerous practitioners view tactical “deci-
sion-making skills” as more significant than “technical skills”?
To provide answers, research results from this study revealed
some valuable insights concerning: a) the coaches’ understand-
ing of influencing variables, such as the player’s age and skill
level, and b) coaches’ beliefs in “idealised technical images”.
Influencing variables on training time split
In terms of differentiating between youth and senior GK train-
ing, expert coaches appear to have a detailed understanding
of influencing variables with substantial impact on the GK
training approach and thus, on the training time split between
tactical “decision-making skills” and “technical skills”. In detail,
it is stated that often youth GK training contains an enlarged
“technical skills” component compared to training with senior
professionals. In other words, practitioners believe that iso-
lated technical training for youth GKs (whose skill levels may
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7
be “lower” compared to those of senior professionals) should
outweigh complex training that focuses on decision making
within game-realistic environments. This finding is linked to
the idea of coaches having to identify and manipulate key
player, environmental and task constraints, in order to facil-
itate a training environment that matches the players’ abilities
with the level of task difficulty (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-
Römer, 1993; Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004). This ultimately aims
at finding “an optimal challenge point” to ensure athlete pro-
gress and development (Farrow & Robertson, 2017, p. 1047).
“Idealised technical images” for football GKs
Despite the understanding of the importance of individuality in
technical executions, practitioners believed in “key technical prin-
ciples” and seem to follow “idealised technical images” in their
coaching (see Table 1). In this regard, highly “idealised technical
images” may carry the idea of coaches prioritising isolated, tech-
nical training approaches that aim at guiding their athletes meti-
culously towards “textbook” techniques (e.g., Handford, 2006;
Passos et al., 2008). For many coaches, therefore, the acquisition
of these highly idealised techniques appears to require a large
investment of training time that favours isolated technical training
over complex training (including “decision-making skills”). This
finding arguably stands in contrast to “modern” skill acquisition
theory that endorse an integrated and holistic athlete training
approach and the importance of functional movement variability
(Chow, 2013; Davids, Bennett, & Newell, 2006). This “modern”
approach is advocated in novel and dynamic environments,
including football games, which demand constant movement
adaptation processes (e.g., the GK’s hand acceleration towards
an approaching and deflected shot). Therefore, an athlete’s skill
performance and its assessment should possibly be focused on
achieving the task outcome (i.e., “stopping the ball from going in
the back of the net”), as opposed to an idealised movement
process (Dicks, Button, Davids, Chow, & Van der Kamp, 2017).
Despite some wider “technical rules” that seemingly constrain
GK coaching processes, coaches should potentially encourage
movement variability without working towards an a priori defined
ideal movement.
The need for representative training designs
The aforementioned advocated call for a holistic development
and “modern” approach, could further be supported by previous
research stating the importance of constantly linking perceptual-
cognitive skills (e.g., decision making) to the mere execution of
motor skills (e.g., technical skills) in dynamic sports like football
(e.g., Williams & Ford, 2008; Williams & Ward, 2007). More speci-
fically, by using rather “traditional”, isolated and drill-type train-
ing approaches, this “interaction between perceptual, cognitive,
and motor skills observed during match-play is difficult to repli-
cate” (Ford et al., 2010, p. 485). Subsequently, the theory of
representative training designs – first introduced by Brunswik
in 1956 (in Pinder et al., 2011) – may prove to be an effective
method that is closely related to previously introduced “modern”
training approaches.
In detail, constructing a training environment that provides
GKs with relevant affordances (i.e., possibilities for action)
8 F. W. OTTE ET AL.
would enable game-relevant information-movement cou-
plings and maintain an intact player-environment relationship
(Travassos, Duarte, Vilar, Davids, & Araújo, 2012). Following
Bernstein’s (1967) widely cited notion of “repetition without
repetition”, the representative training approach may advo-
cate an increased amount of training session time spent on
match-realistic training designs. Instead of spending between
50–70% of training time on predictable technical work in
sessions (as presented in the results in Figure 2), this time
could include more complex decision-making parts. This pro-
posal can be supported by previous research, which has exam-
ined elite athletes’ (including football players’) past training
experiences. More specifically, the studies revealed that elite
athletes (compared to sub-elite level athletes) often spent
significantly more training time on activities requiring and
developing decision-making skills (Baker, Côté, & Abernethy,
2003; Côté et al., 2007; Ward, Hodges, Williams, & Starkes,
2004; Williams & Ward, 2007). This corresponds to the current
research in that coaches stated “decision-making skills” to be
arguably the most important skill set for GKs.
Overall, the increased focus on possibilities for actions and
movement variability within the microstructure of training
sessions, hereof, is stated to support the emergence of robust
skills that are likely to enhance performance in competitive
game environments (Davids et al., 2008).
Limitations
Despite insightful research findings, several limitations to this
study need to be mentioned and drive the call for future
research. Firstly, the research design did not specifically men-
tion football team training to participating coaches. As the
purpose of the interviews was to examine critical skills
required to be a top-level GK and the microstructure of GK-
specific training sessions, training time spent with the entire
team (e.g., training games with 22 players) that could add
further complexity and representativeness to the session was
not considered. Secondly, the relatively small sample size of
fifteen expert GK coaches (n = 15) displays a limitation in
terms of generalising the findings. Due to the primary focus
of exploring current approaches towards GK training,
a qualitative, in-depth research approach was chosen.
Future research recommendations for scientists
Due to a considerable lack of research on football goalkeeping
training methods, there appear to be some recommendations
for future research:
(1) It is recommended for researchers to shift the focus
away from rarely executed game situations, such as
penalty kicks. More frequently performed skills in com-
plex and dynamic open game situations and their train-
ing approaches should be investigated in future
research studies.
(2) The need for more conceptual work on (GK) skill training
methods and its periodisation appears to be eminent.
Hereof, a multi-disciplinary academic approach on “mod-
ern” skill acquisition training theory is recommended.
(3) Quantitative analyses of different coaching approaches
within the GK training context could prove invaluable
and are recommended. In more detail, experimental and
mixed-method research designs and intervention studies
could enhance academic and practical understanding.
Practical recommendations for coaches
Concluding the paper, three practical recommendations for
football GK coaches emerge from the study. Importantly, it is
the perspective of holistic player development that drives
these recommendations.
(1) “Call the shots”. The GK coach should always be in
a position to manipulate and adjust key constraints and
the level of task difficulty throughout the session. Hereof,
the training time split between isolated technical training
and more complex training (including decision-making
components) should be adequately balanced in accor-
dance with the GKs’ skill levels and abilities.
(2) “Train the way you play”. Representative and holistic
training designs (integrating perceptual-cognitive and
motor skills) should display key layers within the micro-
structures of GK training sessions. By creating competition-
like situations (e.g., by integrating outfield players into
football GK training), coaches have the opportunity to
facilitate the GK’s interaction with the game environment
and with relevant informational variables, cues and pat-
terns that arise from it. Consequently, this training part
should carry sufficient timely weight within the session
structure.
(3) “Many roads lead to Rome”. Coaches should acknowl-
edge and even encourage functional movement variabil-
ity within GK training sessions. Despite potentially
holding highly “idealised technical images”, GK coaches
may need to understand that at the end of the day, it is
more about successfully and consistently achieving the
task outcome and less about the finer details in the way of
getting to it. In one GK coach’s words: “If I make a save and
it hits me in the butt, and it doesn’t go in and you’re my
coach, you’re gonna be happy it didn’t go in.”.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Fabian W. Otte http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8331-0690
References
Baker, J., Côté, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Sport-specific practice and the
development of expert decision-making in team ball sports. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1), 12–25.
Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured
interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 328–335.
Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The co-ordination and regulations of movements.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The utility of template
analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 12(2), 202–222.
Chow, J. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: Evidence,
challenges, and implications. Quest, 65(4), 469–484.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Play and practice in the develop-
ment of sport expertise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 184–202). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Button, C. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Newell, K. M. (Eds.). (2006). Movement system
variability. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
De Baranda, P. S., Ortega, E., & Palao, J. M. (2008). Analysis of goalkeepers’
defence in the World Cup in Korea and Japan in 2002. European Journal
of Sport Science, 8(3), 127–134.
Di Salvo, V., Benito, P., Calderón, F., Di Salvo, M., & Pigozzi, F. (2008).
Activity profile of elite goalkeepers during football match-play.
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48(4), 443–446.
Dicks, M., Button, C., Davids, K., Chow, J., & Van der Kamp, J. (2017). Keeping an
eye on noisy movements: On different approaches to perceptual-motor skill
research and training. Sports Medicine, 47(4), 575–581.
Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3),
363–406.
Farrow, D., & Robertson, S. (2017). Development of a skill acquisition
periodisation framework for high-performance sport. Sports Medicine,
47(6), 1043–1054.
FIFA. (1997, October 31). Goalkeepers are not above the Law [News].
Retrieved from https://www.fifa.com/news/y=1997/m=10/news=goal
keepers-are-not-above-the-law-72050.html
Ford, P., Yates, I., & Williams, A. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and
instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice:
Exploring the link between science and application. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 28(5), 483–495.
Gil, S. M., Gil, J., Ruiz, F., Irazusta, A., & Irazusta, J. (2007). Physiological and
anthropometric characteristics of young soccer players according to
their playing position: Relevance for the selection process. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 438–445.
Gratton, C., & Jones, I. (2010). Research Methods for Sports Studies.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Greenwood, D., Davids, K., & Renshaw, I. (2012). Using elite coaches’ experi-
ential knowledge to enhance empirical understanding of sport perfor-
mance. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(2), 411–422.
Guadagnoli, M., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for
conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor
learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2008). Personal construct psychology and
the research interview: The example of mental toughness in sport.
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 118–129.
Handford, C. (2006). Serving up Variability and Stability. In K. Davids,
S. Bennett, & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Movement System Variability (pp.
73–84). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hodges, N., & Franks, I. (2002). Modelling coaching practice: The role of
instruction and demonstration. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10),
793–811.
Hüttermann, S., Memmert, D., & Baker, J. (2014). Understanding the micro-
structure of practice: Training differences between various age classes,
expertise levels and sports. Talent Development & Excellence., 6(1), 17–29.
Kelly, G. A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs. Florence, KY:
Routledge.
Millar, S. K., Oldham, A. R., & Renshaw, I. (2013). Interpersonal, intraperso-
nal, extrapersonal? Qualitatively investigating coordinative couplings
between rowers in Olympic sculling. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology
and Life Sciences, 17(3), 425–443.
Passos, P., Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Shuttleworth, R. (2008). Manipulating
constraints to train decision making in rugby union. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(1), 125–140.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 9
Peiyong, Z., & Inomata, K. (2012). Cognitive strategies for goalkeeper respond-
ing to soccer penalty kick. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115(3), 969–983.
Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Representative
learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 146–155.
Pizarro, A., Dominguez, A., Serrano, J., Garcia-Gonzalez, L., & Del Villar
Alvarez, F. (2017). The effects of a comprehensive teaching program
on dribbling and passing decision-making and execution skills of
young footballers. Kinesiology, 49(1), 74–83.
Porter, J. M., & Magill, R. A. (2010). Systematically increasing contextual
interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 28(12), 1277–1285.
Premier League. (2018a). Premier League Club Stats – Saves [Statistics].
Retrieved from https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/saves?
se=79
Premier League. (2018b). Premier League Club Stats - Penalties conceded
[Statistics]. Retrieved from https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/
clubs/penalty_conceded?se=210
Premier League. (2018c). Premier League Club Stats - Shots on target
[Statistics]. Retrieved from https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/
clubs/ontarget_scoring_att
Renshaw, I., Chow, J., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led
perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: A basis
for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis?.
Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117–137.
Russell, S. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1992). Quantifying expert athlete knowledge.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4(1), 10–26.
Santos, S., Coutinho, D., Gonçalves, B., Schöllhorn, W., Sampaio, J., &
Leite, N. (2018). Differential learning as a key training approach to
improve creative and tactical behavior in soccer. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 89(1), 11–24.
Savelsbergh, G., Williams, A., Van Der Kamp, J., & Ward, P. (2002). Visual
search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 20(3), 279–287.
Shafizadeh, M., Davids, K., Correia, V., Wheat, J., & Hizan, H. (2016).
Informational constraints on interceptive actions of elite football goal-
keepers in 1v1 dyads during competitive performance. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 34(17), 1596–1601.
Smith, J. (2010). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: A reply to
Amedeo Giorgi. Existential Analysis, 21(2), 186–193.
Stolz, S., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding.
European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36–71.
Torrents, C., Ric, A., Hristovski, R., Torres-Ronda, L., Vicente, E., & Sampaio, J.
(2016). Emergence of exploratory, technical and tactical behavior in
small-sided soccer games when manipulating the number of team-
mates and opponents. PloS One, 11(12), e0168866.
Travassos, B., Duarte, R., Vilar, L., Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2012). Practice
task design in team sports: Representativeness enhanced by increasing
opportunities for action. Journal of Sport Sciences, 30(13), 1447–1454.
UEFA. (2014). UEFA Goalkeeper A License - Course Guidelines [PDF]. Nyon,
Switzerland: Author.
Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., & Starkes, J. L. (2004). Deliberate
practice and expert performance: Defining the path to excellence. In
A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research,
theory and practice (pp. 231–258). London: Routledge.
Williams, A. M., & Ford, P. R. (2008). Expertise and expert performance in
sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 4–18.
Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill
acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences,
23(6), 637–650.
Williams, A. M., & Ward, P. (2007). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport:
Exploring new horizons. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (pp. 203–223). New York, NY: Wiley.
Woolley, T. L., Crowther, R. G., Doma, K., & Connor, J. D. (2015). The use of
spatial manipulation to examine goalkeepers’ anticipation. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 33(17), 1766–1774.
Ziv, G., & Lidor, R. (2011). Physical characteristics, physiological attributes,
and on-field performances of soccer goalkeepers. International Journal
of Sports Physiology and Performance, 6(4), 509–524.