jimbojones10 Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 I saw yesterday that west ham didnt name a keeper on the bench and went with five outfield players. It made me think that its time we did the same, when have we last had to substitute our keeper? we have good players who can't get in the match day squad, yesterday falque, lee, barnard, butterfield and then when more players come back from injury even better players like harding mayb dc or deano are probably going to be missing out all together. Thoughts?
Saintjersey Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Whilst I agree in principle, I can just see Kelvin getting injured in the 6th minute against West Ham.
Matthew Le God Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 With 17 games left and the league very tight it will be touch and go for the rest of the season. One poor result could be the difference between automatic promotion and playoff or playoffs and not in playoffs. To not have a sub keeper is a huge risk and not one worth taking as it could result in a match which costs Saints the whole season. Five subs with one being a keeper is enough to give options from the bench.
the saint in winchester Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 It would be daft. Do you have insurance on your car? When did you last claim? Even so, you need to have it in case anything happens. We need to have a sub keeper - its a specialist position ... unless you have an outfield player on the pitch who is a damn fine keeper in private.
Appy Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 No chance. What if this scenario happened at the skates at home? I'm sure we'd prefer a GK on the bench.
Badger Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 With 17 games left and the league very tight it will be touch and go for the rest of the season. One poor result could be the difference between automatic promotion and playoff or playoffs and not in playoffs. To not have a sub keeper is a huge risk and not one worth taking as it could result in a match which costs Saints the whole season. Five subs with one being a keeper is enough to give options from the bench. That of course is the critical issue. All the more reason why we should have brought another GK in during January, or the forthcoming loan window.We need a GK on the bench in case of emergency but we need a competent one who can be relied upon and not dissolve in to a bag of nerves.
Hopkins Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 It a ridiculous idea to have 5 players on the bench let alone 5 outfield players.
sotonjoe Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 isn't it Holloway who always names 5 outfield subs and avoids a sub gk?
Window Cleaner Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 isn't it Holloway who always names 5 outfield subs and avoids a sub gk? perhaps he has someone who can do a real keeper's job in case of need. Like Warnock had Jagielka.
jimbojones10 Posted 5 February, 2012 Author Posted 5 February, 2012 apparently richardson is very handy between the sticks
Badger Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Who was the last outfield player to go in goal for us ? My recollection is Colin Clarke at home to Arsenal c1986 or 7.
Matthew Le God Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 (edited) Who was the last outfield player to go in goal for us ? My recollection is Colin Clarke at home to Arsenal c1986 or 7. Dexter Blackstock played in goal in February 2006 FA Cup game at Newcastle after Bialkowski went off injured. Edited 5 February, 2012 by Matthew Le God
LGTL Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 (edited) Who was the last outfield player to go in goal for us ? My recollection is Colin Clarke at home to Arsenal c1986 or 7. See above Edited 5 February, 2012 by LGTL beaten to it
Badger Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Dexter Blackstock played in goal in February 2006 FA Cup game at Newcastle after Bialkowski went off injured. Yes, of course.
Ziggy Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Yes, of course. And if I remember correctly that game started our decline from our peak under Strachan.
Dimond Geezer Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Dexter Blackstock played in goal in February 2006 FA Cup game at Newcastle after Bialkowski went off injured. He looks like a kid trying on his dads shirt & gloves. LeTissier was pretty useful between the sticks, I remember he would often go in for the pre-match warm up. Did he ever do it in a match?
OfnPanad Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Who was the last outfield player to go in goal for us ? My recollection is Colin Clarke at home to Arsenal c1986 or 7. And who can forget David Howells commanding performance between the sticks against Charlton at the Valley....we lost 5-0 as I recall
krissyboy31 Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 perhaps he has someone who can do a real keeper's job in case of need. Like Warnock had Jagielka.Yep Warnock did it with Jagielka but he was the 2nd best keeper on the Blades books after Paddy Kenny. If we can sign him then yes, otherwise we'll have to settle for Bart on the bench.
VectisSaint Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 One of many bad things about modern football. Before subs were allowed (or when only one was allowed) an outfield player would take over from an injured keeper, there were always players who were reasonably competent between the sticks and the chances were it happened in the last few minutes anyway. Still, it would have been a problem in the Cup Final in Cardiff when Niemi was injured. It means that 50% of professional keepers hardly play a competitive game all season, and some good keepers sit on their arses week after week. Makes more sense in many ways to just have a kid with a pair of gloves than a decent keeper. BUt given only 3 subs are allowed then really there is not much to be gained by having a keeper warming the bench, if you can't cover 3 players from 4 then there is something wrong.
Dig Dig Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 This 5 player rule is a ****ing disgrace! Just who exactly does it benefit? It limits the development of youngsters which I thought was an aspiration in the country and leaves clubs throwing money down the drain on players they can't utilise. Yet another poor decision by the powers that be.
Tamesaint Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 And if I remember correctly that game started our decline from our peak under Strachan. Sorry no. This game was 2 years after Strachan had left. We had Gorgeous George as our manager. Surely the OP's question can only be answered by knowing whether one of the outfield players is a decent keeper. If frazer is that good why not risk it with 5 outfield subs when Frazer plays.
krissyboy31 Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 He looks like a kid trying on his dads shirt & gloves. LeTissier was pretty useful between the sticks, I remember he would often go in for the pre-match warm up. Did he ever do it in a match?Seem to remember Le Tiss playing in Goal in a testimonial with Dave Beasant playing outfield.
Over land and sea Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Seem to remember Le Tiss playing in Goal in a testimonial with Dave Beasant playing outfield. Any excuse to save energy! And in response to original post, bad idea. If we had 3 subs then perhaps but not with 5.
Dr Who? Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 No very good for keeping the reserve keeper involved with the first team, but perhaps it would be more beneficial for them to get 90 minutes every week under their belt, than sitting on a bench. I kind of like games when an out field player has to go in goal.
trousers Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 I saw yesterday that west ham didnt name a keeper on the bench and went with five outfield players. It made me think that its time we did the same, when have we last had to substitute our keeper? we have good players who can't get in the match day squad, yesterday falque, lee, barnard, butterfield and then when more players come back from injury even better players like harding mayb dc or deano are probably going to be missing out all together. Thoughts? My gut feel is not to have a goalie on the bench as my hunch is that you're more likely (over the course of a season) to get an improved result by having an extra outfield player on the bench than you are to get a worse result by not having a spare keeper to bring on. That said, I've no idea if the statistics and mathematical probablities back-up my hunch, or shoot it down in flames.
alpine_saint Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Its the football equivalent of an ice-hockey team going "empty net" in the last couple of minutes of a game..
Dr Who? Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Every team has at least one player who fancies themselves as a bit of a keeper.
Badger Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Every team has at least one player who fancies themselves as a bit of a keeper. Does Forecast still fall in to this category , or has he realised his limitations yet ?
Ziggy Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Sorry no. This game was 2 years after Strachan had left. We had Gorgeous George as our manager. Surely the OP's question can only be answered by knowing whether one of the outfield players is a decent keeper. If frazer is that good why not risk it with 5 outfield subs when Frazer plays. **** my memory is going. I am convinced in my mind that we got hammered at home in the Cup and it was the game that Dexter played in goal. Oh well, looking forward to my cocoa and biscuits!
Draino76 Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 If that fat c unt ASIIsdaice does not go with a reserve keeper; I would charge one of our players to break Rob Greens legs. It's a great trade for just 1 red card.
suewhistle Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 Do what my team do, have me on the bench! I've been doing specialist goal-keeper training this year as reserve keeper but still come on as an outfielder occasionally as sub (big centre-forward type - well, I'm big for Italy!). I'd prefer to play outfield but it can be quite fun doing keeper training and throwing yourself around.
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2012 Posted 5 February, 2012 NA was talking in the interview yesterday about how football is moving towards becoming a "non contact sport". Thats an exaggeration, I guess to make a point, but it is true that the game is far less physical than it used to be and the goalie gets far more protection. Cant remember the last time I saw a goalie unable to play on through a match.
Dark Munster Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Bad idea. Unless of course Bart isn't fit: no point in putting Fourpast on the bench.
niceandfriendly Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I think it's a great idea... until your keeper gets injured. So, no.
trousers Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I think it's a great idea... until your keeper gets injured. So, no. So, you'd swap a 'great idea' 99% of the time to cover 1% of the time that a keeper gets injured? (I made those percentages up but probably not far from reality). I won't be convinced that it's a bad idea to not have a keeper on the bench until someone (MLG?) can throw up the statistics and/or mathematic probability that it affects results adversely (on average, over the course of a season)
dronskisaint Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 BTW I hate WestHam more than Portsmouth. Surely an infractable statement on this forum:)?
sussexsaint Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Have I gone mad or do I remember Shearer taking the gloves once for us
shurlock Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 (edited) The last time our GK had to go off was Hartlepool away in November 2009 -i.e. a while back, so its a black swan, low probability event. The pros and cons of naming 5 outfield players depend on the depth and quality of the squad - no point packing the bench with outfield players if they're dross or don't genuinely give us options like Brighton away. On Saturday, there was or would have been no place for Lee, Chaplow, SDR, another CB etc - strong options and pretty big sacrifices on the slim chance that the keeper will get injured. Still need to be convinced but that kind of back-up as opposed to the blooding youth argument is quite convincing. Edited 7 February, 2012 by shurlock
sussexsaint Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I thought Saturday was one of the times when we most needed a backup keeper - frozen ice covered pitch and Kelvin diving all over the place - I'm amazed we didn't get any new knocks
IFHP Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I think it's a great idea... until your keeper gets injured. So, no. So you would never use the 3rd outfiled sub then? Just incase the keeper gets injured after the subs have been made?
derry Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 It's a no brainer. Cover the goalkeeper. Four substitutes are more than enough to cover the ten outfielders. If we lost a match we would have otherwise won with a keeper and didn't get promoted, we would be idiots. Often three substitutes are used only when the game needs changing late on (or to use up injury time) and the choice is usually made with not a lot of time left and a fit goalkeeper on the pitch.
Northant Saint Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Bad idea. Unless of course Bart isn't fit: no point in putting Fourpast on the bench. Interesting point, I expect we have outfield players who could do a better job than Tommy.
once_bitterne Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I'd give it a go. Football teams survived for decade upon decade before teams were able to field a sub keeper on the bench. With the ludicrous 5 sub rule it is a waste to have a keeper on there when in all probability he won't be used all season. I seem to remember that Warnock never used to have a sub keeper on the bench for Championship games.
trousers Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 It's a no brainer. Cover the goalkeeper. Four substitutes are more than enough to cover the ten outfielders. Surprising how many would disagree with that so called "no brainer". I believe even our Nige has bemoaned the reduction of options off the bench. Either it's a problem or it isn't. BTW, does anyone know if Alladice made a tactical choice or was his hand forced by injury to his back up keeper(s)?
shurlock Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 (edited) Surprising how many would disagree with that so called "no brainer". I believe even our Nige has bemoaned the reduction of options off the bench. Either it's a problem or it isn't. BTW, does anyone know if Alladice made a tactical choice or was his hand forced by injury to his back up keeper(s)? They hardly play with a sub keeper (well not for a while anyway). Edited 6 February, 2012 by shurlock
hutch Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Saints bench against Blackpool in December: Martin, Harding, Reeves, Holmes, de Ridder
shurlock Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Saints bench against Blackpool in December: Martin, Harding, Reeves, Holmes, de Ridder Says more about the lack of faith in Fourpast (KD was injured that game, Bart started) than the merits of having five outfield players on the bench.
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