The 'no substitute goalkeeper' issue

[Elite_Pie]

It seems there are a few differing opinions on this one, and it was interesting to hear Neal Ardley's reasoning in his post-match interview. I tend to agree with him that it's a risk worth taking. We probably got a bit lucky last night because D&R were so poor, but it has to be looked at in percentage terms. You have to weigh up one of the five bench spaces being wasted 99% of the time against the increased options of covering other positions. What concerned me a bit is that we didn't seem to have an emergency plan - first it was Rodrigues, then Doyle. It seems we are going to carry on not naming a keeper on the bench, so I'd like us to be more prepared next time. We should have a couple of designated players who do an hour on goalkeeping basics with Jake Kean every week. I always assumed this happened when we dropped the sub keeper last season, but it didn't seem the case from what Doyle said.

[Bushwacka]

I think we got away with one, despite how well we played. D&R should have been pumping balls into the box from the minute Doyle went in goal, but they didn't until the last 15 and the defence held firm.

Need NCFCOG for this one, but Ardley very rarely uses all 3 subs and when he does make subs it seems to usually be Sam/Knowles and one of the midfielders. There's no reason he can't have a keeper, a full back, a centre half, a midfielder and a forward on the bench. Better to have an outfield player out of position than Doyle in goal against one of the more clued up teams in the league.

[laddo]

Regardless of lasts result and performance I must admit I thought it was madness not to have GK on bench. I automatically thought almost all clubs had one on the bench just in case.

However after hearing the explanation from the manager it made a lot of sense and he admitted that his approach sometimes would work sometimes it won't.

Agree with Bushwacka, forget shoot on sight when you have an outfield player in goal , chuck it in the mixer as much as possible as I strongly suspect Doyle and any alternative will be better at shot stopping than coming for crosses and commanding their box.

[countygump]

Am I right in thinking, as it stands, you can name 5 subs but use 3?

Ardley would prefer that you could name 7 but use 3?

I'd have thought 5 would be enough actually.

A forward C/F
A winger
A midfielder, defensive
A defender C/H
A keeper.

Personally I would always have a keeper on the bench and as has been said, there are often times Ardley doesn't use all his allotted 3.

[Mapperleypie]

It would be interesting to know how many times Ardley has used all 3 subs at his disposal.

[St Kitts Magpie]

Am I right in thinking, as it stands, you can name 5 subs but use 3?

Ardley would prefer that you could name 7 but use 3?

I'd have thought 5 would be enough actually.

A forward C/F
A winger
A midfielder, defensive
A defender C/H
A keeper.

Personally I would always have a keeper on the bench and as has been said, there are often times Ardley doesn't use all his allotted 3.

Agree fully with this

[the_anticlough]

Am I right in thinking, as it stands, you can name 5 subs but use 3?

Ardley would prefer that you could name 7 but use 3?

I'd have thought 5 would be enough actually.

A forward C/F
A winger
A midfielder, defensive
A defender C/H
A keeper.

Personally I would always have a keeper on the bench and as has been said, there are often times Ardley doesn't use all his allotted 3.

Me too, should always have a keeper.
I didn't go along with what he said last night...he seems to think everything needs 'covering', showing his safety first mentality. The league says 5 subs so get on with it, have players on the bench who can adapt, have players on the pitch who can adapt...

I can't remember when English football didn't have subs (some on here will), but for me it was always 1 sub...like David Fairclough...

[Bushwacka]

It would be interesting to know how many times Ardley has used all 3 subs at his disposal.

8 out of 18 games, after a quick look at this https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/tea...amTabs=results (just click on the (i) for each match.

From this https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/tea...&season_id=153 he's made 41 subs across 18 matches. 25 'forwards', 11 'midfielders' and just 5 'defender' subs.

[cher1]

How many times a season have we had to replace the keeper I wonder? Presumably it's a 0. something number. The last goalkeeping injury I remember clearly was when Steve Mildenhall was knocked out, but presumably there have been a few since?

[Killerkline]

I understand NA’s view and the stats behind it. I also understand that, in theory, there should be enough subs to cover all bases. However, 5 subs don’t provide flexibility e.g injuries and why should there be less subs in the NL than the tiers above.

In answer to the original question, I’d take on a game by game basis. To some extent we did get away with it last night due the quality of the opposition. So against perceived tougher opposition or big games e.g. play offs, I’d have a keeper on the bench.