Rage Online

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:oh yeah, and the main reason for not having a goalkeeper on the bench is it's entertaining when a player goes in goal. Didn't Scott McNiven do it for us a while ago - and Mike Ford?
And Billy Whitehurst against us for Hull?

Entertaining yes, but hardly conducive to winning football matches.

Yes part of the reason for substitutes are as you have said, but also they are there in case something goes wrong. If Clarke was injured or sent-off early in a game then we are basically admitting defeat by not having a specilaist on the bench.

This sent off/injured early in the game scenario barely ever happens though does it (I know I am tempting fate here)? Keepers rarely get injured in games for reasons I explained, if the keeper gets sent off early the team are already at a considerable disadvantage.

My point is the benefit of covering this very rare event is neglible against the benefit of having the extra outfield option as a substitute in my view.
5 outfield players on the bench is the more attacking option in my opinion.

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:This sent off/injured early in the game scenario barely ever happens though does it (I know I am tempting fate here)? Keepers rarely get injured in games for reasons I explained, if the keeper gets sent off early the team are already at a considerable disadvantage.

My point is the benefit of covering this very rare event is neglible against the benefit of having the extra outfield option as a substitute in my view.
5 outfield players on the bench is the more attacking option in my opinion.

But equally - barring a spate of injuries - what circumstances merits having both Hall (A) and Payne on the bench?

All sorts (well, some). For instance, just after half time Payne is brought on to replace one of the central 3. Then later on, to hang on to a lead, we bring on Hall instead of a striker to gain an extra midfielder. Or as fresh legs.

The point being, you can use the midfielder on the bench to replace any of the outfield 10 to change tactics etc. The Keeper is only ever used in a single particular situation.

&quotIsaac&quot wrote: The Keeper is only ever used in a single particular situation.

Unless you're Alan Fettis, of course

I think you're mixing your Hull memories up with Billy Whitehurst too - he was clean through on goal against Mike Ford in that match, and proceeded to trip over the ball! I don't think Billy ever went in goal against us, though I may be wrong.

Anyway, the point which I'm surprised no-one has made, and which seems key to me, is whether we have any outfield player who can do a half-decent job in goal. I recall that Atkins went through a period of not picking a sub keeper because we had an outfield player who could do at least half a job there (I don't remember who it was - probably McNiven as he ended up doing it once).

If one of our players has a bit of experience between the sticks, then fair enough. If that's not the case, then it's a calculated gamble.

I think Worley is the Sub keeper when not injured

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:under.....

Tut



Hasn't this forum taught you anything?

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:All sorts (well, some). For instance, just after half time Payne is brought on to replace one of the central 3. Then later on, to hang on to a lead, we bring on Hall instead of a striker to gain an extra midfielder. Or as fresh legs.

The point being, you can use the midfielder on the bench to replace any of the outfield 10 to change tactics etc. The Keeper is only ever used in a single particular situation.

I wonder in which situation a manager would kick himself more? Winning a game, keeper sent off, no replacement on the bench, lose the game. Or, losing a game, didn't have a fourth attacking player on the bench, could only bring 3 on anyway, lose the game.

I just think it smacks of managers not knowing who their best players are. I grant not too many folk would agree with me but I still think if you can't win a game with 3 attacking subs on top of the starters, you prob don't deserve to anyway.

If he's never making the bench anyway, I contend we shouldn't be paying the wages of a second professional GK. Should just rely on the youth teamer and emergency loans.