Substitute Keeper

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Neil Warnock did start doing this i think - but that was after people not putting a keeper on the bench when it was only 3 subs. The one thing you have to have if you're not naming a keeper on the bench is a displined keeper in the sticks - it's no use him taking out the striker and getting sent off early in the game.

Of course the other reason we might not have a keeper on the bench - the rest of our keepers are shite anyway! Equally as good a reason!

[SamL]

Very rare that a keeper has to come on a substitute. Can't remember the last time we had to bring a keeper on.

Yeah it's a risk but at least we have more options to choose from on the bench if people aren't playing very well.

[Jack]

Very rare that a keeper has to come on a substitute. Can't remember the last time we had to bring a keeper on.

Yeah it's a risk but at least we have more options to choose from on the bench if people aren't playing very well.

Ye I agree with this, it is very unlikely that we will have to be bring a substitute on and this would give an opportunity to put another outfield player on the bench.

[morris1234]

fuc* it dont play anybody, we might beat burnley then!!

[Babylon]

It's a small risk at the moment so i'm not bothered... if it was a big game then I wouldn't gamble. We are currently mid table shite so it doesn't matter.

[filbertway]

Substitute keepers are over rated, that extra attacking player is more likely to earn more points over a season than having a keeper on the bench who'll be called into action at most 3/4 times a season.

[Asha]

Porter?

[Floating Fox]

Theo Zagorakis

Greece

[Royston.]

6 subs. All teams must have a recognised keeper on the bench.

No, screw that idea, its rubbish.

[Geo V]

Im not sure about not having a keeper on the bench but that aside, I am more worried about our poor form will hardly convince someone like Fulop to sign a permanent deal and then we`ll be really fooked.