Ryan Clarke

[recordmeister]

What a game yesterday surely the best goalie we've had since Whitehead?

[slappy]

What a game yesterday surely the best goalie we've had since Whitehead?

I thought he went down injured first half, definitely was struggling.

[Dartford Ox]

What a game yesterday surely the best goalie we've had since Whitehead?

I thought he went down injured first half, definitely was struggling.

And if he was injured? There was no GK on the bench yesterday. Is that yet another role for Andrew 'Mr Versatility' Whing?

[Baboo]

What a game yesterday surely the best goalie we've had since Whitehead?

I thought he went down injured first half, definitely was struggling.

And if he was injured? There was no GK on the bench yesterday. Is that yet another role for Andrew 'Mr Versatility' Whing?

If I were manager I would have a goal keeper on the bench every game.

[John Byrne's Underpants]

Had his best game for a while on Saturday.

Yes he hit the post with his shoulder whilst making a save I think. Thought for a bit that he was in real trouble, luckily he wasn't. Definately think we need a reserve goalie on the bench.

[JoeyBeauchamp]

It's one of the major disadvantages of only having three subs now, as opposed to five. If you look at Saturday's subs

Kinni, Hall, Smalley, Haworth, Payne

you can see why he wanted all of those, although I suppose Hall and Payne do duplicate to some extent.

[GodalmingYellow]

It's one of the major disadvantages of only having three subs now, as opposed to five. If you look at Saturday's subs

Kinni, Hall, Smalley, Haworth, Payne

you can see why he wanted all of those, although I suppose Hall and Payne do duplicate to some extent.

You mean 5 subs instead of 7.

Even with 5 subs, I can't see the point of not having a replacement goalkeeper.

[Aylesbury Rich]

Ahh...for the halcyon days of 2 subs!

[BigCrompy]

Ahh...for the halcyon days of 2 subs!

...or for the halcyoner days of one, or none!

I'm with Baboo on wanting a keeper as one of the five. I struggle to conceive which game you could successfully chase with the fifth option when the fourth has failed you (can only field three in any case), whereas the value in protecting a lead when your first choice GL is accidentally incapacitated, is palpable and clear, measured in points.

[Ancient Colin]

Talking of substitutions, wtf was the plan there then? &quotWe're losing control of the midfield, so let's lose control of it even more&quot? &quotI've got a stand-in one footed centre back playing on his wrong side, so let's take off the guy screening the defence&quot? Glass half empty yeah, yeah, best side to play us at home this season, blah, blah. But, really ...

[JoeyBeauchamp]

It's one of the major disadvantages of only having three subs now, as opposed to five. If you look at Saturday's subs

Kinni, Hall, Smalley, Haworth, Payne

you can see why he wanted all of those, although I suppose Hall and Payne do duplicate to some extent.

You mean 5 subs instead of 7.

Even with 5 subs, I can't see the point of not having a replacement goalkeeper.

[Mooro]

Ahh...for the halcyon days of 2 subs!

...or for the halcyoner days of one, or none!

I'm with Baboo on wanting a keeper as one of the five. I struggle to conceive which game you could successfully chase with the fifth option when the fourth has failed you (can only field three in any case), whereas the value in protecting a lead when your first choice GL is accidentally incapacitated, is palpable and clear, measured in points.

Absolutely agree, plus there is also the danger that without a sub keeper the one on the field may stay on the field after getting a knock thus making it worse meaning he is out for longer.

[Baboo]

Talking of substitutions, wtf was the plan there then? &quotWe're losing control of the midfield, so let's lose control of it even more&quot? &quotI've got a stand-in one footed centre back playing on his wrong side, so let's take off the guy screening the defence&quot? Glass half empty yeah, yeah, best side to play us at home this season, blah, blah. But, really ...

Summed up in a few lines what I've waffled on about here

http&#58//www&#46rageonline&#46co&#46uk ... ws_id=2974

[Isaac]

I disagree with a spare keeper must be a sub idea. As I see it there are 3 reasons for substitutes.

1) Tactical changes
Changing a keeper is never tactical. The only vaguely &quottactical&quot reason would be if the keeper is having a complete nervous breakdown - but then I think this would come under.....

2) Injury
Keepers very rarely get injured. They're the best protected players on the pitch, so are unlikely to get impact injuries and they don't get fatigue injuries as they cover less ground than every other player.

3) Sending off - intuitively more likely, but actually how often does it happen? Can't remember the last time an Oxford keeper was sent off for instance.

So pick a keeper on the bench and he's basically there to cover something disastrous happening to one member of a team of 11. Outfield players are more likely to be needed to replace an injured/tired player, are more likely to be used tactically and can usually cover more than one position (including the goalkeeper position in the case of the disaster happening).
So I can easily see the benefit of having 5 outfield players to provide greater tactical and injury cover, rather than 4. I'd say the tactical benefits you might gain (i.e. you're more likely to be able to make a subsitution that has a positive impact on the game) from the extra player, outweigh the risks of having an outfielder in goal.

What's interesting is that once you get to 7 subs, every manager picks a keeper - would this change if the manager was allowed to make 5 changes, rather than 3?

[Isaac]

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?