Jump to content

Eccentricity in GK's. Good or bad?


Recommended Posts

Look up Rene Higuita on Youtube and tell me if that's good or bad. ;)

In terms of the match engine, I'd guess they are more prone to errors but will also make more spectacular saves / interceptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWMxgaqnkc

Yeah, that was a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The creator of ScoutGenie has it as a negative attribute - i.e. the higher the eccentricity the lower the goalkeeper rating. I dimly remember way back an SI spokesman suggesting it's a bad attribute too. I guess the thing is that you want your goalkeeper to be reliable above all else - hello, Gomes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it also mean they are more likely to rush out of their box and attempt to beat an on-rushing striker to the ball? If so, this can be a good thing, as my keepers normally stay back when they probably would be better off coming out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd say you want a mid-ranged rating for this attribute. 20 will probably be bad and your goalie would probably make some stupid mistakes that you would get annoyed at, however a rating of 1 would mean that your goalie rarely pulls off those fantastic saves. so a rating of around 10 is probably best. personally i treat it as a bad attribute and aim for lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it also mean they are more likely to rush out of their box and attempt to beat an on-rushing striker to the ball? If so, this can be a good thing, as my keepers normally stay back when they probably would be better off coming out.

Keepers have a rushing out attribute. I think BenArsenal is correct here. Rushing out is important for me since I play a sweeper-keeper behind a very high D-line. He needs good rush out, pace and acceleration attributes, but good decisions too so that he doesn't rush out at the wrong time!

gcormack - surely a good keeper with reflexes and agility etc will pull off great saves without being eccentric - it's what they're paid to do. I really can't see the benefit in any eccentricity at all and I don't recall SI ever satisfactorally clarifying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a VERY eccentric goalie (18 with 13 in Decisions) and he has performed incredibly well. On one occassion he rushed out of his net with the opposing striker zooming in for a one-on-one. My keeper charged out of the net, met him just after the half-line and cleared the ball into touch. Saved us a goal, IMO.

He tried that again in a different game, similar circumstances, but was beaten. He wasn't credited with a mistake in his stats. Nor should he have been... I felt he made the right call and was simply beaten by the striker. Fair play to the lad.

Personally, I'm still waiting for my keeper to do 'something crazy'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a South American trend, Rene Higuita, Jorge Campos and Carlos Roa are also up there. I know (from experience) you have to be mad to be a goalkeeper, but this lot take the biscuit!

South American trend? Last time I checked Barthez wasn't South American for example. It’s just down to a person not what part of the world there from. Some say Lehman was eccentric.

Eccentricity is a bad thing generally in FM though. There can be exceptions but I’d much rather have my GK to have a low eccentricity rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

South American trend? Last time I checked Barthez wasn't South American for example. It’s just down to a person not what part of the world there from. Some say Lehman was eccentric.

Eccentricity is a bad thing generally in FM though. There can be exceptions but I’d much rather have my GK to have a low eccentricity rating.

I think you've missed my point, I'm not saying that eccentric goalkeepers are all South American, nor am I saying that all South American goalkeepers are eccentric...

and as for Jens Lehmann, he wasn't eccentric, just a prat :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's trying to say that South American keepers are more prone to eccentricity, and have that 'Latin' flair for showing off.

Maybe.

Yeah, pretty much. I just thought of some eccentric goalkeepers and they happened to all be South American. Plenty of others that aren't, David James, Fabien Barthez, Bruce Grobelaar etc...
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really miss your point because there wasn't really one of any substance anyway; all you did was name three South American goalkeepers and suggest it's a trend.

I simply highlighted one maybe two examples that suggest it’s not a trend in South America it’s just relative to a person’s makeup/personality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, from what I can recall it wasn't so much that Roa was eccentric on the pitch as certifiable off it (still haven't forgiven him for the time I was asked a quiz question about him and could remember all the stuff about the unsigned contracts and the end of the world but not the name of his religious denomination; Seventh-Day Adventist, in case you weren't wondering...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I wonder if there is like a 1 in a million chance in FM of a super eccentric keeper doing a

or something similar? Maybe a 'tries bicycle kicks', 'tries tricks' or 'likes to beat man repeatedly' as PPMs, that plus 20 eccentricity (and 1 decisions haha) would make for an entertaining goalie! :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a VERY eccentric goalie (18 with 13 in Decisions) and he has performed incredibly well. On one occassion he rushed out of his net with the opposing striker zooming in for a one-on-one. My keeper charged out of the net, met him just after the half-line and cleared the ball into touch. Saved us a goal, IMO.

He tried that again in a different game, similar circumstances, but was beaten. He wasn't credited with a mistake in his stats. Nor should he have been... I felt he made the right call and was simply beaten by the striker. Fair play to the lad.

Personally, I'm still waiting for my keeper to do 'something crazy'.

i agree. i have an eccentric keeper and for ages now i've been waiting for craziness but he has been consistent (conceding 4 goals in 19 games :eek:) i used to stay away from this attribute but now i'm indifferent.

one thing i've come to appreciate though is my keepers 19 in rushing out and 14 for pace and acc:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of that discussion we seem no closer to the answer.

i think the awnser is don't let eccentricity be a factor when signing keeper. at least that's the conclusion i have come to after many seasons and different goalies

Link to post
Share on other sites

High eccentricity and high decisions means that it could be a good thing, he would be more likely to do well when acting as a sweeper or rushing out of his box. High eccentricity and low decisions means he might rush off his line when their is no need to and make a hash of it.

I suppose it depends on the type of goalkeeper you want. If you want a shot stopper who stays in his box then eccentricity is a bad thing, if you want a GK who will cover your back four as well as his normal GK duties then eccentricity is a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had mixed experiences with this stat. A keeper I had with low skills and fairly bad mental and physical stats (8-14) had a very high eccentricity and managed to do very well rushing at well...everything. He was terrible at saving shots and corners...so I offloaded him for one with low eccentricity who does much the same bit better job

Link to post
Share on other sites

High eccentricity and high decisions means that it could be a good thing, he would be more likely to do well when acting as a sweeper or rushing out of his box. High eccentricity and low decisions means he might rush off his line when their is no need to and make a hash of it.

I suppose it depends on the type of goalkeeper you want. If you want a shot stopper who stays in his box then eccentricity is a bad thing, if you want a GK who will cover your back four as well as his normal GK duties then eccentricity is a good thing.

You're wrong sir,

a keeper with low eccentricity and high rushing out, one on one, pace, acceleration decisions etc are what you'd look for. Eccentricity is not desirable for Goalkeepers.

Eccentricity means 'unusual or odd behavior on the part of a person, as opposed to being "normal"' - that is not an attribute you want your keeper to have a high value in. and contrary to what some people believe - it has no effect on a keeper pulling off a 'harder' save or 'pulling' a save out of think air.

What it computes to is a keeper being more likely to make a silly mistake for no apparent reason (not taking into account various hidden and non hidden attributes such as decision making)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong sir,

a keeper with low eccentricity and high rushing out, one on one, pace, acceleration decisions etc are what you'd look for. Eccentricity is not desirable for Goalkeepers.

Eccentricity means 'unusual or odd behavior on the part of a person, as opposed to being "normal"' - that is not an attribute you want your keeper to have a high value in. and contrary to what some people believe - it has no effect on a keeper pulling off a 'harder' save or 'pulling' a save out of think air.

What it computes to is a keeper being more likely to make a silly mistake for no apparent reason (not taking into account various hidden and non hidden attributes such as decision making)

Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Not only do I stand by my initial explanation, but I dismiss the notion that eccentricity is exclusively bad and can't have any good effects.

Apart from anything else, your explanation makes eccentricity void and pointless, because if it really relied so heavily on the other attributes they would just be low and there would be no need for eccentricity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Not only do I stand by my initial explanation, but I dismiss the notion that eccentricity is exclusively bad and can't have any good effects.

Apart from anything else, your explanation makes eccentricity void and pointless, because if it really relied so heavily on the other attributes they would just be low and there would be no need for eccentricity.

You have misunderstood me. It is not void and useless at all and doesnt rely heavily on other attributes - where did i say that, you didnt read my post correctly.

Its part of football, therefore should totally be an attribute and an attribute that is undesirable at a high value at that.

You didnt provide any sort of valid explantion and i refuted it with a better correlation of attributes that you had previously wrongly associated to a keepers rushing out success allied to eccentricty which is quite frankly wrong. The thing is, it doesnt bother me because i know but for other people, they might not realise that you're providing fallacious hypothesis.

Im not having a go though, i really dont want to argue, so lets just leave it at that then...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have misunderstood me. It is not void and useless at all and doesnt rely heavily on other attributes - where did i say that, you didnt read my post correctly.

Its part of football, therefore should totally be an attribute and an attribute that is undesirable at a high value at that.

You don't understand what i'm saying, sorry i'll mash it down and make it easier to swallow ;) If a players ability is judged mainly by the attributes you listed, i.e. his one on one ability is the be all and end all in determining how often/well he deals with a one on one, then there is no need for eccentrictity as that attibute will decide whether he fluffs it or not.

Now that's obviously nonsense, so you're wrong. Eccentricity works alongside each of the attributes you listed, and in doing so can have both positive and negative connotations e.g. 20 for rushing out, comes out thumps ball upfield, but straight into the striker, a GK with 20 eccentricity as well may fein to blast the ball and take a touch past the striker, a positive aspect of eccentricity, working alongside another attribute.

You didnt provide any sort of valid explantion and i refuted it with a better correlation of attributes that you had previously wrongly associated to a keepers rushing out success allied to eccentricty which is quite frankly wrong. The thing is, it doesnt bother me because i know but for other people, they might not realise that you're providing fallacious hypothesis

I'll ignore that and put it down to your inability to understand an alternative perspective. Take it easy son. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand what i'm saying, sorry i'll mash it down and make it easier to swallow ;) If a players ability is judged mainly by the attributes you listed, i.e. his one on one ability is the be all and end all in determining how often/well he deals with a one on one, then there is no need for eccentrictity as that attibute will decide whether he fluffs it or not.
Are you serious? It sounds to me like you don’t understand what eccentricity means. The attribute you described would not be/is not the ‘be all and end all’. Do you think eccentricity relates to rushing out? Why haven’t you used say coming for crosses as well and how eccentricity would affect that? Just so we’re clear, Im not saying one attribute absolutely is the defining factor of success failure in every given situation (except very obvious ones). Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ll take it that you didn’t mean to and just didn’t understand what im getting at.
Now that's obviously nonsense, so you're wrong. Eccentricity works alongside each of the attributes you listed, and in doing so can have both positive and negative connotations e.g. 20 for rushing out, comes out thumps ball upfield, but straight into the striker, a GK with 20 eccentricity as well may fein to blast the ball and take a touch past the striker, a positive aspect of eccentricity, working alongside another attribute.

I do like this example, however I would say that a goalkeeper who had low eccentricity in the same given situation would do better in most cases because his bias to do the un-natural is lower. He would do the sensible and ‘normal’ (anti-eccentric) thing, leaving less room for error then an eccentric keeper (and again this is assuming that all other attributes that are relevant to this situation that you have neglected to factor in like decision making and ball control) are equal. Why would a goalkeeper with low eccentricity ‘thump the ball into the striker’? What possible basis can you and do you base this sentence on? Again this is yet another unfounded, ill-thought out piece of conjecture that is nonsense.

I do agree however that an eccentric keeper would say take an extra touch and try to feint with the ball and it may well work and thus eccentricity ‘could’ be seen as a good thing (I understand your point of view). But you have to weight this up with the consequences of what happens if it goes wrong. Ergo, a high eccentricity rating HAS to be seen as negative due to the higher propensity due to bias towards the un-natural (and thus suffer the consequences). Therefore even though it may well work out, it is not the ‘smart’ thing to do (EVEN though it may work out well) because the higher rate of error exists (due to the higher rate to do the abnormal associated behavior).

If I put it another way for you and use your own example (and assuming as already stated all other attributes and modifiers are equal)

The keeper feints with the ball 5 times out of 10. 4 out of 5 times he is successful say. 1 time his behavior leads to a horrendous error and a goal

The same keeper with low eccentricity instead of feinting with the ball just does the sensible thing and kicks to touch 9 out of 10 times. Although this kick to touch is not as good and the above keeper feinting and being able to kick up field or make a nice pass, it lowers the rate of potential error. The other 1 time he may feint as well and it could or could not lead to a goal. But this ‘risk’ factor is lowered to say 1 (in this example) as opposed to 5 for example.

Im of course not using these figure as some sort of gospel but using them to make it easy to understand why eccentricity cant be considered as desirable (unless I suppose you want it and like the potential benefits)

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Manual - Eccentricity is the likelihood of the Keeper to do the unexpected and act unlike a Keeper, i.e. dribbling out of the box.

Whether it is a good thing or not depends on how you want your Keeper to play and his other attributes - A top class keeper with high eccentricity isn't likely to be a problem as he'll have the attributes to be crazy succesfully most of the time, high eccentricity in a poor keeper would be a no-no in my opinion (he'll be something silly and make a mistake doing it).

Somewhere in the middle is possibly best, and if you are comparing two identical keepers then the lower eccentricity may be best, but a high eccentricity on its own isn't worth rejecting a keeper for. (Think Barthez - his eccentricity may have cost a few goals over the years, but his overall ability made him a better choice than more reliable but worse Keeper).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Higuita was a legend. I used to love watching him back in the day, even when he was being dispossessed by Roger Milla in the 1990 World Cup.

I played a fair bit of keeper myself back in my playing days, but I never did anything half so crazy as Higuita and Chilavert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Eccentricity is not weighted into a GK's CA/PA.

Other than that, I tend to see that attribute similarly to Elrithral's description: basically, I view Eccentricity as a combination of Creativity/Flair for a keeper's skills. So it all boils down to what type of football you're looking for between the posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eccentric goalkeepers are more willing to charge out of their box to get rid of the ball including moving towards your own corner flags to put the ball out for a throw/corner or simply to stop your centre-back from doing the work (think a ball is hoofed up towards your corner flag - non-eccentric goalkeepers will let the centre-back or full-back grab the ball and move it, while eccentric goalkeepers will be delighted to charge out and do the work for them). He'll also be fairly trigger-happy when it comes to receiving the ball "early" out of the box.

I've got Italy's number one with eccentricity 20 (or was it 18?) and he's only made 3 mistakes in his career costing goals - one for Italy (bizarrely trying to receive and pass the ball against one of the fastest strikers in the world) and twice for me through silly passes which I suspect were one-touch as his kicking is awesome. He's 31 now - 3 mistakes in around 10 years of first-team football for me. It helps as he has a high decision attribute.

Would I trade him for a non-eccentric goalkeeper? No. I play an offensive formation and if my centre-backs are higher up on the pitch it's way better for them. My non-eccentric backup makes my centre-backs work extra hard, and I don't like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...