fiction226
Member
The question originally was are teams better for having a goalie.
Answer: Yes.
The rest is a bunch of stuff you've added for some reason to explain why in some circumstances it might be better to not have one.
Well, ok? In some circumstances it's probably better to have no strikers too. That doesn't mean having them is a bad idea in general.
And maybe you shouldn't say something like "I don't think you can look at the best teams and say they are better teams *because* they have a dedicated "goalie"." The fact that randoms playing with non-elites might be better for not having a goalie doesn't mean this statement, which is what I was replying to, isn't wrong.
Original question was (pay attention to bolded text!) :
"Enlighten me. Has your experience shown that teams are better with a dedicated goalie, or are they better if all players play both sides of the court and leave the goal open? I've had way too many teammates where field position of the ball doesn't matter to them. . There are obvious plays where the goalie can change the field position by clearing the ball out to the other side (closer to the opponents goal), but lots of players seem to be playing just to get the ball away from the other teams immediate striker. In this game hitting the ball towards your own goal is never a means of success"
The question was clearly asked in frustration to playing with random teammates who stink. You are the one brought up elite teams to support your opinion. Elite teams are comprised of elite players (don't stink) and play together all the time (not random). I won't rehash my arguments on this front.
Everything I have been saying applies to 90% of the time. Not just some circumstances. The "bunch of stuff I've added for some reason" supports my opinion.
You have yours and I have mine. Agree to disagree.