RowlattsFox Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 We didn't have one on Monday, good idea or not??? Also, if Fulop did get injured, who do you reckon would have gone in goal? My moneys on Kisnorbo.
Bert Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 The chances are very slim, but whilst there's still a chance, it's best not to take the gamble imo. Saying that, it's Ollies choice, and i reckon Big Gaz McAuley would be the keeper.
The Stig Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 I'd always put a sub keeper on the bench as if not, and your keeper gets injured you've basically lost the game. That is you have an outfeild player who is half decent in goal. I'd have Hendo on the bench, if not the mighty Nielsen. Hume or Cort for keeper.
Ric Flair Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Jonathan Hayes. He can scare police horses with his looks, so keeping a few crap strikers at bay shouldn't be a problem for him.
demon_dog Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 hume. Oh yeah, we'll shrink the goalposts by about two feet then shall we.
jonw88 Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Those were the days! How about Nikos Dabizas? (aka Dab-his-ass... did anyone else get that about his name or just me?)
Staf Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 I dont think there is any need in sub goalie just put a player in goal
syston_fox Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Saying that, it's Ollies choice, and i reckon Big Gaz McAuley would be the keeper. Yeah - does anyone remember his diving save at QPR away last season that gave away the penalty? Full length dive to turn it round the post
Thracian Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 I dont think there is any need in sub goalie just put a player in goal Quite agree. For the rare occasions we need one it's just not worth it. Fulop seems as economical in his movement as it gets for goalkeepers. He's so tall I don't think he gets directly challenged nearly as much as smaller goalkeepers anyway and, although he can make the odd spectacular save, he's hardly the Peter Bonetti type so he never looks likely to get injured anyway.
Staf Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Quite agree. For the rare occasions we need one it's just not worth it. Fulop seems as economical in his movement as it gets for goalkeepers. He's so tall I don't think he gets directly challenged nearly as much as smaller goalkeepers anyway and, although he can make the odd spectacular save, he's hardly the Peter Bonetti type so he never looks likely to get injured anyway. Exactly it is just a waste of a sub
maddog Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 You rarely have your keeper injured unless your Paddy Kenny. There's no need for a keeper on the bench. It's worth having that extra attacking player on the bench who could win you the game. That extra player could earn you an extra 6 points say in a season. Not having a keeper would only cost you 1-3 points and it may only happen once every 5 seasons or so anyway. Fulop won't get injured We may have jynxed it though with this thread
Joe. Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 It's a gamble I wouldn't like us to take to be honest. If something should happen to our keeper, unlikely as it is, it effectively would lose us the game.
DB11 Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Newton couldn't do any worse than his current position
Milans Foxes Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 It's a gamble I wouldn't like us to take to be honest.If something should happen to our keeper, unlikely as it is, it effectively would lose us the game. Sorry, totally disagree. Even if the keeper did get injured/sent off, it would have to be very early in the game for it to have any impact. Games are often decided say 70 minutes into the game. It is just a waste of a sub and it would be much better to have an attacking or defensive outfield player to give the boss more options to either get a goal or shut the opposition out depending on how the game is going. For example, say we are 2 or 3 nil up (or down), having to put an outfield player in goal will have little or no impact on the final result.
rugbyfox jnr Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Don't see a real need for a keeper on the bench, opens the door to another attacking option. Just not to sure what attacking options we have atg the moment.......
Simi Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Certainly is a risky game, but it's down to the gaffer I suppose. I'd hate it to backfire on us! I have faith in Ollie though. Not sure whether it's a policy he used at Plymouth? Anyone shed light?
Milans Foxes Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Certainly is a risky game, but it's down to the gaffer I suppose. I'd hate it to backfire on us! I have faith in Ollie though. Not sure whether it's a policy he used at Plymouth? Anyone shed light? Yeah. He hasn't had a keeper on the bench since the first couple of games this season! So maybe he has recently decided it or it depends on who is available.
WetFlannel Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 the chances are slim but i dont really see many subs to warrant a place over a keeper
Micky Ruddle Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Yeah - does anyone remember his diving save at QPR away last season that gave away the penalty? Full length dive to turn it round the post Genius. Got a reet good clapp when he trudged off
SouthLondonFox Posted 30 November 2007 Posted 30 November 2007 Sorry, totally disagree. Even if the keeper did get injured/sent off, it would have to be very early in the game for it to have any impact. Games are often decided say 70 minutes into the game. It is just a waste of a sub and it would be much better to have an attacking or defensive outfield player to give the boss more options to either get a goal or shut the opposition out depending on how the game is going. For example, say we are 2 or 3 nil up (or down), having to put an outfield player in goal will have little or no impact on the final result. I think you might be wrong here. In the run up to winning the League Cup in 99/200, Theo Zagorakis stood in for Tim Flowers and, if memory serves me, we were winning 3-1 and it was well into the game. We then conceded 2 goals that Flowers would have kept out and drew 3-3. Fortunately we won the return leg 4-2. Having said that, it's such a rare occurrence that the risk might be worth taking. I hate to say it, but isn't one of Neil Warnock's preferred (in fact his only) tactic?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.