Who else thinks its a good idea to have five outfield players on then bench

[IFHP]

  adriansfc said:

Every point is vital for us from now. We'll have a good first 11 a couple of attacking options on the bench. If those 13 aren't cutting it in a game, what are the chances this extra attacking substitute, who wasn't deemed good enough to be 12th or 13th, will make the vital difference?

 

It's possible, but unlikely. But the odds of losing a game where you have to play with no keeper seem very high. Imagine it's the playoffs, would you risk it then? Doubt it, so don't risk it now. Just seems like very little to gain and a lot to lose.

 

But it shouldn't be an issue. If there'd been any sense it'd remain 7 subs. They suggest they want chances for young players after all.

 

So, what do you do then, its the play-off final Saints are under the cosh protecting a 1-0 lead with 20 mins to go. Do you replace a striker with another midfielder and pack the midfiled? Do you replace a striker with another striker to add fresh legs to the attack? Maybe add a defender and play 5 accross the back? or do you leave it just incase the goalkeeper gets injured?

[IFHP]

  IFHP said:

So, what do you do then, its the play-off final Saints are under the cosh protecting a 1-0 lead with 20 mins to go. Do you replace a striker with another midfielder and pack the midfiled? Do you replace a striker with another striker to add fresh legs to the attack? Maybe add a defender and play 5 accross the back? or do you leave it just incase the goalkeeper gets injured?

 

I should add Saints have already used 2 subs.

[sussexsaint]

  hutch said:

Saints bench against Blackpool in December:

 

Martin, Harding, Reeves, Holmes, de Ridder

 

Jordan tweeted at the time that the cover in goal was Richardson for that match

[Dark Munster]

  shurlock said:

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 impact 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.

 

Another point: if we had no backup goalkeeper it could encourage dirty, cheating managers ( Poyet ) to instruct one of their thugs to target Kelvin with some "accidental" collisions.

[Dark Munster]

  adriansfc said:

Every point is vital for us from now. We'll have a good first 11 a couple of attacking options on the bench. If those 13 aren't cutting it in a game, what are the chances this extra attacking substitute, who wasn't deemed good enough to be 12th or 13th, will make the vital difference?

 

It's possible, but unlikely. But the odds of losing a game where you have to play with no keeper seem very high. Imagine it's the playoffs, would you risk it then? Doubt it, so don't risk it now. Just seems like very little to gain and a lot to lose.

 

But it shouldn't be an issue. If there'd been any sense it'd remain 7 subs. They suggest they want chances for young players after all.

 

I'd go further and also have the goalie counted as a separate sub, allowed to come on if the first choice GK gets injured, even if all 3 outfield subs have already been used.

[Sour Mash]

  Dark Munster said:

Another point: if we had no backup goalkeeper it could encourage dirty, cheating managers ( Poyet ) to instruct one of their thugs to target Kelvin with some "accidental" collisions.

If it was that easy, keepers would be taken out every game. Doesn't happen and wouldn't happen. Fair few other teams haven't had that problem going without a keeper.

[The9]

I don't think the concept of using a third substitute when chasing a game in the last 20 minutes is at all comparable to not having a goalkeeper on the bench for an entire match on the off-chance that a situation arises where you could really do with a specific outfield player who wasn't deemed vital enough to be named in the first 4 subs.

 

Always name a keeper if you can, 4 subs is enough to cover for outfield injuries and with a flexible squad should be able to cover all positions. You'll note that most of the time earlier in the season Adkins didn't name Harding as a sub for Fox or vice versa, because they're pretty much specialist left backs - though as we've been forced into picking Harding at right back and occasionally left midfield the "only a left back" has become regarded as a little more flexible and now worth a spot on the bench.

 

Basically with a bench of GK, CB, midfielder, striker, utility player you're covered for all eventualities. If you have utility players on the pitch already then you are even more flexible (eg Cork is alleged to also be a right back, though I remain unconvinced, but having him in the 16 means Butterfield isn't needed on the bench).

 

Also, we played with 4 CBs at Bournemouth (or was it Orient?) for the last 15 minutes in one match last season.

 

The argument that Adkins was complaining that we needed 7 meant that "5 wasn't enough" isn't necessarily the case either, a side with a big squad will benefit from having the options available, but that doesn't mean they're going to be used - and having got used to 7 subs, it's always going to be more awkward to slim back down to 5. Not a problem tonight though, you can still have 7 subs in the FA Cup, presumably thanks to the Prem teams being involved.

Edited 7 February, 2012 by The9

[The9]

  Sour Mash said:

If it was that easy, keepers would be taken out every game. Doesn't happen and wouldn't happen. Fair few other teams haven't had that problem going without a keeper.

 

Has everyone forgotten that we used a sub goalkeeper IN THE FA CUP FINAL ??? Imagine playing 2003 Arsenal with Chris Baird in sticks for half an hour...

[La BoIS Saint]

  The9 said:

Has everyone forgotten that we used a sub goalkeeper IN THE FA CUP FINAL ??? Imagine playing 2003 Arsenal with Chris Baird in sticks for half an hour...

 

Er, we lost anyway so doesn't really support having a sub keeper

[Nexstar]

There you go!

[Matthew Le Tissier]

If we had a sub keeper against Blackpool he would have been put on at half time.

 

Bart was bloody dia.

[Lighthouse]

  La BoIS Saint said:

Er, we lost anyway so doesn't really support having a sub keeper

 

That's like saying my friend was killed in a car crash, so there really is no point in seat belts or air bags.

 

FWIW the last time we used a sub 'keeper was Poke replacing Davis in a game at Wolves under Pearson. Would have been 2008 I guess. Vignal was sent off for nothing what so ever and we equalised with a corner with the last kick of the game.

[Badger]

  La BoIS Saint said:

Er, we lost anyway so doesn't really support having a sub keeper

 

Perhaps the difference betwenn losing 1-0 and 5-0 , might not do the GD or confidence a lot of good at this end of the season.