Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Anyone think that going with 5 outfield players as subs, to give us an extra option during a game might be worth the risk? Must only be a very few games in a season when any club has to sub their keeper whereas the need to replace an outfield player to influence a game or hold on to what you've got is far more frequent. Can't help feeling it's worth the gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 No sub keeper will jeapordise a result and Bart is imho the 2nd best in this league. Every dog has his day but the dogs need to be on the bus in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 No, can't see us ever doing it. The risk of not having a specialist keeper between the posts compared to the potential benefit of having one extra outfield option (when you already have 4 in the first place) just doesn't make it worthwhile IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK the 2nd Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Too risky. Look at Derby on Sat. Keeper sent off on first half. No way would they have gone on to win without a sub keeper ... even against McClaren's losers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 NO, next silly question please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 No! I think it would be absolutely crazy not to have a 'kepper on the bench. True, it is a very rare occasion that one is needed but IT DOES HAPPEN. Look at Derby this weekend! A team is only allowed to use 3 subs from 5, so having 4 outfield players on the bench means at least 1 will be unused anyway. This is ample to have defensive, midfield and attacking options on the bench. And, if needs really must, it wouldn't be terrible to have 1 player out of position for some of the match - heck, even I have played LB, RB, CB, DM LM, RM and CF in my life, I am sure a professional should be able to adapt in an emergency. BUT, having to play in goal if you are an outfield player is a totally different matter. Question to the OP: How would you feel/react if Adkins did this for the match at Nottarf and Kelvin got injured in the first 5 minutes, leaving us to have to play someone like Morgan in goal for the rest of the match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 19 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 September, 2011 NO, next silly question please Ok, why have you named yourself after ex-P*mpey favourite Martin Allen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 19 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 September, 2011 No! I think it would be absolutely crazy not to have a 'kepper on the bench. True, it is a very rare occasion that one is needed but IT DOES HAPPEN. Look at Derby this weekend! A team is only allowed to use 3 subs from 5, so having 4 outfield players on the bench means at least 1 will be unused anyway. This is ample to have defensive, midfield and attacking options on the bench. And, if needs really must, it wouldn't be terrible to have 1 player out of position for some of the match - heck, even I have played LB, RB, CB, DM LM, RM and CF in my life, I am sure a professional should be able to adapt in an emergency. BUT, having to play in goal if you are an outfield player is a totally different matter. Question to the OP: How would you feel/react if Adkins did this for the match at Nottarf and Kelvin got injured in the first 5 minutes, leaving us to have to play someone like Morgan in goal for the rest of the match? Antti was one of our best keepers ever and what use was he when we needed him at Nottarf? In reality, I guess having a broader range of outfield players may mean we're able to adapt to more situations should the need arise which is more likely than losing a keeper for whatever reason. I do take the point that only 3 can play but it might benefit us in more games across a season to have the extra option rather the unlikely situation that our keeper has to go off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Antti was one of our best keepers ever and what use was he when we needed him at Nottarf? In reality, I guess having a broader range of outfield players may mean we're able to adapt to more situations should the need arise which is more likely than losing a keeper for whatever reason. I do take the point that only 3 can play but it might benefit us in more games across a season to have the extra option rather the unlikely situation that our keeper has to go off. I don't see how we're missing out though by "only" having 4 on the bench. Lets look at the subs bench from yesterday; with Bialkowski we had Martin, Schneiderlin, Chaplow and de Ridder. Obviously they are direct cover for the positions they play in. Martin could also play left-back if asked (not ideal granted but he could do it). Cork can play right back if required with Schnederlin/Chaplow moved to CM. So that's all the defensive areas covered in case of injury. De Ridder can play right wing, left wing or up front, and obviously Schneiderlin or Chaplow can play CM or even wide if we're looking to shore things up. So, very easily, we have cover in all areas of the pitch. We also have the ability to change formation very easily; bring on de Ridder and move Lallana/Guly up front to support the front 2 if we're chasing the game, bring an extra CM on if we're defending it. Yes, 5 outfield subs gives us even more options than that, but I don't think we're losing out in the slightest by having the security of a specialist keeper if required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 19 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 September, 2011 I don't see how we're missing out though by "only" having 4 on the bench. Lets look at the subs bench from yesterday; with Bialkowski we had Martin, Schneiderlin, Chaplow and de Ridder. Obviously they are direct cover for the positions they play in. Martin could also play left-back if asked (not ideal granted but he could do it). Cork can play right back if required with Schnederlin/Chaplow moved to CM. So that's all the defensive areas covered in case of injury. De Ridder can play right wing, left wing or up front, and obviously Schneiderlin or Chaplow can play CM or even wide if we're looking to shore things up. So, very easily, we have cover in all areas of the pitch. We also have the ability to change formation very easily; bring on de Ridder and move Lallana/Guly up front to support the front 2 if we're chasing the game, bring an extra CM on if we're defending it. Yes, 5 outfield subs gives us even more options than that, but I don't think we're losing out in the slightest by having the security of a specialist keeper if required. Ok, what if it's Lallana & Guly who have gone off injured and we're chasing the game. Chappers does well breaking forward but wouldn't you rather have the extra option of another forward alongside De Ridder on the bench? Personally, I would but that's football - opinions and all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Ok' date=' what if it's Lallana & Guly who have gone off injured and we're chasing the game. Chappers does well breaking forward but wouldn't you rather have the extra option of another forward alongside De Ridder on the bench? Personally, I would but that's football - opinions and all that![/quote'] It's all what ifs though, isn't it? And ion your examply we don't really have much other options in our squad up front right now other than Forte and de Ridder. Or we could put Martin at left back and use Fox at left midfield to replace Lallana. Not having a specialist keeper is suicide IMO, and 4 subs is plenty to cover most situations we will face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Antti was one of our best keepers ever and what use was he when we needed him at Nottarf? In reality, I guess having a broader range of outfield players may mean we're able to adapt to more situations should the need arise which is more likely than losing a keeper for whatever reason. I do take the point that only 3 can play but it might benefit us in more games across a season to have the extra option rather the unlikely situation that our keeper has to go off. In the match against Forest we changed our shape twice, meaning we played in 3 different formations and i believe we changed it to our benefit yesterday at 3-1. So we can clearly do this with only the 4 outfield players available. Why do we need a 5th to the detriment of having a 'keeper on the bench? Who would you have put on the bench vice Bart yesterday? Who would play in goal should Kelvin get injured? Rickie? If so we would miss him up front; Cork or Hammond? We would miss them from the midfield; Fonte or Richardson? I would hate us to have to play any time without the former and we saw how much the latter was missed last week. I do not understand any manager who makes the decision not to have a 'keeper on the bench, and certainly have zero sympathy with them if their 'keeper is injured/sent off and they have to use an outfield player in goal for any length of time. I will admit though, Dexter did well when he was forced to play in goal for 10 minutes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 I don't think NA does 'risk' or 'gamble'. His preparation etc is so thorough that his 4 subs would be calculated to cover all eventualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Anyone think that going with 5 outfield players as subs' date=' to give us an extra option during a game might be worth the risk? Must only be a very few games in a season when any club has to sub their keeper whereas the need to replace an outfield player to influence a game or hold on to what you've got is far more frequent. Can't help feeling it's worth the gamble.[/quote'] Jagielka used to double up as sub goalie at Sheffield Utd I think, they had the luxury of not putting a sub keeper on the bench but I really can't think of another example although there surely must be one or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
influx Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Sods law dictates that the first time we drop the sub keeper it will be the first time we need one. FACT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 Sods law dictates that the first time we drop the sub keeper it will be the first time we need one. FACT! sod's law won't be proved in our case though, it just won't happen.Look at last season, did we not have Forecast on the bench at some time or other? that would seem to indicate that none of our outfield players are as good:lol: as Forecast in goal, so they must absolutely flippin dire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 September, 2011 Share Posted 19 September, 2011 as we have some pretty versatile players at our disposition I don't see 5 subs being much of a problem really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now