Field hockey goalkeeping is a specialized position where goalkeepers react to spatial and temporal cues. From an ecological dynamics perspective, goalkeepers’ performance emerges through continuous interactions between the performer, task, and environment. Understanding how novice goalkeepers perform across goal areas provides insights to the start of goalkeeping performance. This exploratory study aimed to examine save performances and temporal behavior in novice field hockey goalkeepers. Seventeen participants (9 females, 8 males) attempted to save 15 shots each (3 shots × 5 goal areas of Bottom Right, Bottom Left, Center, Top Right, and Top Left). From the video recordings of the 255 trials, the number of saves, average movement initiation time and average movement time were analyzed. Results showed significant differences between number of saves across goal areas (χ² = 19.34, p < 0.001, W = 0.434), with more saves in center area compared to bottom areas. Significant differences were also seen in average movement initiation time between goal areas (χ² = 10.43, p = 0.034, W = 0.243), showing differences between Bottom Left and Top Left goal areas ( p = 0.039). There was no significant difference in average movement time ( p = 0.160). No significant correlation was seen between number of saves with average movement initiation time ( p = 0.165) or average movement time ( p = 0.160), as well as between movement initiation and movement times ( p = 0.208). Differences in save performances across goal areas reflect how task constraints influence affordances available to novice goalkeepers. In conclusion, these findings provide baseline metrics that allow coaches to develop training programs focusing on goalkeepers’ weaker areas. Future studies should look to examining other factors such as shot speed, shooter variability, and perceptual motor-cues to assess how they influence save performances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: