This article is based on an extract from the HQ Coaching webinar delivered by Gianluca Spinelli, then head of the goalkeeping department at Paris Saint-Germain, and has been re-elaborated by gpexe in collaboration with HQC.
The session focused on how external load data can help interpret and compare goalkeeper dive strategies beyond what is visible on the pitch.
How gk tracking differs from outfield monitoring
For outfield players, GPS tracking focuses primarily on locomotor variables: distance covered at different speed thresholds, sprint volume, repeated accelerations, and so on.
This makes sense because the physical demand is dominated by displacement across space.
For goalkeepers, the most relevant actions are not locomotor in nature. They are discrete events:
- dives (with identifiable preparation and take-off phases)
- returns to standing position
- jumps
- accelerations and decelerations over very short distances
To detect these events reliably, we rely mainly on the inertial unit rather than the GPS signal.
The inertial unit samples at a much higher frequency (~100 Hz vs ~18 Hz for GPS), allowing us to capture very fast movements, although precise filtering and event-detection algorithms are needed to manage signal noise.
This added complexity is what makes goalkeeper monitoring fundamentally different.
It enables us to study how the action is performed, not only how much effort is produced.
The structure of the dive
When we look at a goalkeeper’s dive, it’s easy to see the outcome: the save, the direction, the timing.
What is less visible, but decisive, is how the goalkeeper prepares and executes the movement from the moment immediately preceding the dive to the return to standing.
Our goalkeeper-specific device isolates this sequence into distinct phases and quantifies the mechanical load associated with each one.
This allows us to describe how the dive adapts when time, distance, or starting position change.
So, in the gpexe analysis, a dive is divided into:
- run-up: preparatory footwork (micro-adjustments, approach steps)
- push: the final propulsive action initiating the dive
- return: the effort required to regain a ready position after landing
The combination of run-up and push is referred to as the launch load: the mechanical load produced before the goalkeeper leaves the ground.
The full sequence, including the dive and return, is referred to as the total load.
This distinction is essential because the total load cannot be inferred from the landing impact alone: low shots or controlled landings may mask the real cost of the preparatory phase.
Fig. 1. Dive phases (visual representation).
Run-up and push have different functional roles: one manages positioning, the other generates impulse. Their relative contribution describes how the goalkeeper organises the dive.
Why separating run-up and push matters
Understanding this distribution shows how the goalkeeper tends to manage the dive.
Two dives with the same launch load (same overall energetic cost) may be generated with different internal strategies, as shown in the graph below:
Fig. 2. Run-up (X) vs push (Y)
- low run-up + high push → dive produced almost “from the spot” (dive 1, circled in the chart)
- balanced run-up and push → coordinated approach and last push (dive 2, circled in the chart)
- high run-up + low push → more preparatory movement, less explosive take-off (dive 3, circled in the chart)
Two profiles in comparison: Gianluigi Donnarumma and Keylor Navas
In the HQC webinar, Gianluca Spinelli, then PSG goalkeeping coach, presented two contrasting examples drawn from training data collected with gpexe.
These case studies illustrated how the same type of dive can emerge from distinct movement profiles.
- Gianluigi Donnarumma shows a push-dominant profile.
Even with minimal preparatory steps, he produces a high propulsive load and covers large distances quickly from relatively static stances. - Keylor Navas shows a run-up-dominant profile.
His dives include multiple coordinated adjustment steps before take-off, distributing effort across the preparatory phase.
Both strategies are effective. They represent different solutions to the same movement problem, reaching the ball in time under constraints.
Implications for training
Recognising the goalkeeper’s movement preference allows us to:
- design drills that stimulate the underused phase (run-up or push)
- manage intensity without increasing unnecessary volume
- support return-to-play using individual movement baselines rather than generic targets
The objective is not to standardise movement, but to expand the goalkeeper’s awareness and effective options.
Take-home message
Separating run-up and push helps us understand how a goalkeeper distributes mechanical load during a dive, not just how much effort is produced.
This supports defining a more detailed profile of the goalkeepers and, therefore, a more precise training preparation.
References
- HQ Coaching – Full webinar by Gianluca Spinelli on goalkeeper dive mechanics
Author
gpexe educational team, based on insights shared by Gianluca Spinelli during the HQ Coaching webinar.