Would you have a keeper on the bench vs Boreham Wood?

[Jeekay56]

I dislike threads where a question is asked but the OP doesn't give an answer until he/she/they/them see what posters are saying. With this in mind, I would like to see Tiernan Brooks on the bench on Sunday.

[Elite_Pie]

On balance, yes. I get the potential benefits of not having one in a 46 league game season, but it's a bit different in a playoff game.

The risk v reward is magnified, so I've voted for Archie Mair narrowly over Tiernan Brooks.

[BigFatPie]

Yes. Slocombe has a fairly recent history of being injured and having to go off injured. Though if BW can just go and get another first choice NL keeper when they have a reserve we should be able to bring Brooks or Mair on even if they’re sitting in the stand.

[1955pie]

Archie Mair for me.

[the_anticlough]

Absolutely

And not just for essential cover. If there's a better penalty saver on the bench, you should make the sub, no hesitation

[the_anticlough]

On balance, yes. I get the potential benefits of not having one in a 46 league game season, but it's a bit different in a playoff game.

The risk v reward is magnified, so I've voted for Archie Mair narrowly over Tiernan Brooks.

Quantifying the risk side of the equation is interesting.
If not having a keeper sub costs you something in 1 round of a 46 game season, in a one-off knock-out, going to penalties potentially, could it be that the risk is 46 times greater?

[legs77]

Yes 100% I would I’d edge towards Mair as he played a few games recently but have no issue with Brooks.

[the_anticlough]

Of the 4 quarter-finalists only Woking had a goalkeeper on the bench.
Bromley don't have a 2nd keeper in their squad!

[jackal2]

Yes. Definitely.

I get a bit sick of hearing managers say five substitutes isn't enough to be able to accommodate a goalkeeper. Utter tosh. I remember the days of just one or two subs being allowed. You need back-up for the specialist position of goalkeeper, especially in a winner-takes-all game, and if you can't cover most eventualities with a choice of four outfield substitutes, then as a manager you need to question your selection abilities or the balance of your squad.

[the_anticlough]

Yes. Definitely.

I get a bit sick of hearing managers say five substitutes isn't enough to be able to accommodate a goalkeeper. Utter tosh. I remember the days of just one or two subs being allowed. You need back-up for the specialist position of goalkeeper, especially in a winner-takes-all game, and if you can't cover most eventualities with a choice of four outfield substitutes, then as a manager you need to question your selection abilities or the balance of your squad.

Agree - a defender, midfielder, attacking midfielder/wideman, striker allows you 3 useful subs whether you're chasing or defending the game and enough to cover all positions if there's an injury...

Tomorrow that'd achieved by

Mair - Slocombe covered
Brindley - Nemane, Rawlo, Baldwin, Cameron
O'Brien - Palmer, Bostock
Vincent - Chicksen, Austin, Cameron, Rodrigues
Scott - Langstaff, Austin

All while insuring against a sure-fire disaster of losing a keeper in a knock-out game that, if you were lucky, ends in penalties.