No sub keeper not a gamble

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

I understand what  LJ thinking was behind it -  unlike the majority of posters on here.........

Thats not to say that it’s a calculated gamble. As I posted earlier, I’d love to see the stats when a keeper has been replaced during a match. 

I imagine it’s very very rare.

Go on then enlighten me about LJ's thinking?

[The Bard]

5 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

This. If you cant cover all positions with the 6 outfield subs then you have problems, especially when several players can play in more than one position. I wonder, in the 2 recent games who the sub was who replaced Marinovic on the bench, and if he got to get on. I bet not.

You can from 3 subs let alone 6.  It's a load of tosh isn't it?  Personally I think LJ is better as a manager when given as little choice as possible.  It seems to focus his mind to the more pragmatic side of the game and forces him to stop trying to be a tactical genius.

[Robbored]

18 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Go on then enlighten me about LJ's thinking?

He explained it - you should pay attention when he does interviews.............

[The Bard]

4 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

Of course it’s a gamble. Literally..!

If it goes wrong it’s a lost gamble, but the odds on the amount of times a sub keeper is ever needed, makes it a valid gamble. 

It’s not one I’d take myself, personally, but for people to brand it as “wrong” or “absurd”, well, it wasn’t, was it. Because we didn’t need a sub keeper. It will only be wrong, if it leaves us without a keeper. 

It's a 1/25 shot isn't.  24 times all is fine.  Trouble is that 25th time when it goes pear shaped.  Given the flip side is losing your 7th choice outfield sub option when you can only use 3 subs, it's completely bonkers. 

[johnwilkinson]

Does Dave Richards' inaction from the bench in 2014-15 not support the OP's argument?

[ChippenhamRed]

1 hour ago, johnwilkinson said:

Does Dave Richards' inaction from the bench in 2014-15 not support the OP's argument?

Obviously not, it was merely good fortune that he wasn’t required.

[BCFC OF SWEDEN]

9 hours ago, bristolcitysweden said:

Tomas Kalas is a great keeper and would do fine. Also Lloyd Kelly and Marlon Pack are decent keepers. 

Why does every  profesionell team in the world have a sub keeper? At least 99% have one on the bench, perhaps not Lidingö

Having 7 players on the bench and we can only  put in 3 means that we can afford a goalie. 

You can for example have 2 defenders, 2 midfielders and 2 forwards as subs. Should cover everything. A few of them can play in many positions, but not as a goalkeeper.

Playing Kalas or Kelly in goal is Fawlty Towers for me!

 

[sglosbcfc]

8 hours ago, New Dazzler said:

I remember Stefan Maierhofer, a tall striker we had on loan from Wolves in 2010 going in goal, possibly for Dean Gerken.  He actually did better in goal than he did as a striker!  Also, think this was mentioned yesterday during a thread re us playing Sheffield Weds. a few seasons ago  Lee Peacock went in goal at Hillsborough, think he saved a penalty..

Lee Peacock went in goal for Wednesday against us if my memory is correct. He took a lot of light hearted banter from the City fans and joked back with us. I think we won the game and Luke Wilshire scored past him with a penalty.

[redsquirrel]

17 hours ago, 22A said:

This is my fiftieth season of supporting City. Anyone else my age feel free to correct if my memory is slipping.

John Galley took over when Millwall crocked Mike Gibson at AG. Brian (the cat) Tinnion took over during an away game and I think there may have been a third game where one of our outfielders took over.  If correct that's just three time in fifty years.

back in Gibsons day,there was only a number 12, can anyone remember the sequence of increased subs? didn't it rise to 2,then 3 before getting dafty with over half a team on the bench?

[Selred]

12 hours ago, johnwilkinson said:

Does Dave Richards' inaction from the bench in 2014-15 not support the OP's argument?

Pretty sure the fact we’ve played 4 different keepers this season shows we aren’t as lucky this year.

[Red7]

17 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Didn’t Max come in for Maenpaa v Brentford if memory serves ?

Max started the game at Brentford.

[pongo88]

19 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

Max is young and less likely to be injured than the other two, have to say I'm no longer worried about him being in goal, doing a great job.

I’m not sure of  the logic ref age. The other two goalkeepers are only 31 and 34 respectively, which is hardly ancient. A goalkeeper can easily get injured colliding with an opposition player, for example, where age is irrelevant 

[ashton_fan]

16 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

How does being young stop you getting clattered and knocked unconscious by an opposition centre back at a corner?

In the age of 7 subs, it’s madness. If the best argument in favour of this is someone saying that Kalas, Pack and Kelly are apparently decent keepers (how the hell he knows that is beyond me), then that only confirms again what madness it is.

When's the last time we had a keeper injured in this way? I've been watching BCFC nearly 50 years and have never seen it happen. In 90% of cases the keeper strains a muscle following a kick-out (as with Frankie and Nikki), Max is less likely to do this since he isn't over 30 like the other two. You also have to take into account the quality of the replacement keeper, how much better would the NZ guy be than Kalas or whoever? I don't think it's much of a gamble.

[AppyDAZE]

1 minute ago, ashton_fan said:

When's the last time we had a keeper injured in this way? I've been watching BCFC nearly 50 years and have never seen it happen. In 90% of cases the keeper strains a muscle following a kick-out (as with Frankie and Nikki), Max is less likely to do this since he isn't over 30 like the other two. You also have to take into account the quality of the replacement keeper, how much better would the NZ guy be than Kalas or whoever? I don't think it's much of a gamble.

If this is a serious statement, who the **** did the research on the bringing the guy in in the first place. Unbelievable.

[AppyDAZE]

also If Kalas goes in goal, we lose a great defender. All a bit silly really.

Keeper today please, Lee

[AppyDAZE]

6 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

I’m not sure of  the logic ref age. The other two goalkeepers are only 31 and 34 respectively, which is hardly ancient. A goalkeeper can easily get injured colliding with an opposition player, for example, where age is irrelevant 

or be red-carded

[ashton_fan]

1 minute ago, AppyDAZE said:

If this is a serious statement, who the **** did the research on the bringing the guy in in the first place. Unbelievable.

Since we couldn't sign an emergency loan we were limited to out of contract players, ie we had to take whoever was available

[AppyDAZE]

2 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

Since we couldn't sign an emergency loan we were limited to out of contract players, ie we had to take whoever was available

and someone who Kalas and Wright or whoever could teach a few things about goalkeeping was the ONLY available option? 

Put the guy on the bench. He is a goalkeeper ffs.

[ashton_fan]

2 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

and someone who Kalas and Wright or whoever could teach a few things about goalkeeping was the ONLY available option? 

Put the guy on the bench. He is a goalkeeper ffs.

LJ has seen them all in training so is the best person to make the judgement, our opinions are based on guesswork

[Akira]

12 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

LJ has seen them all in training so is the best person to make the judgement, our opinions are based on guesswork

Come off it, you can't tell me a keeper we've signed, a professional goalkeeper, isn't as good as a few of our outfield players..? That's ridiculous. 

[ashton_fan]

15 minutes ago, Akira said:

Come off it, you can't tell me a keeper we've signed, a professional goalkeeper, isn't as good as a few of our outfield players..? That's ridiculous. 

That's not the question, it's the balance of risk of the keeper being injured against the benefit of having an extra outfield player available so the bench can cover more eventualities during the match

[Akira]

1 minute ago, ashton_fan said:

That's not the question, it's the balance of risk of the keeper being injured against the benefit of having an extra outfield player available so the bench can cover more eventualities during the match

But having 6 outfield players is enough, surely? You can only make 3 subs after all. Having the 7th sub as a keeper is an absolute no brainer for me, and boggles me how anyone wouldn't have a keeper on the bench. If a keeper is sent off or injured, then you're f*cked without a backup, I don't care how good people think the outfield players might be. If they were that good, they'd be a goalkeeper, not an outfield player. 

[ashton_fan]

6 minutes ago, Akira said:

But having 6 outfield players is enough, surely? You can only make 3 subs after all. Having the 7th sub as a keeper is an absolute no brainer for me, and boggles me how anyone wouldn't have a keeper on the bench. If a keeper is sent off or injured, then you're f*cked without a backup, I don't care how good people think the outfield players might be. If they were that good, they'd be a goalkeeper, not an outfield player. 

LJ has obviously wanted 7 on some occasions, I trust in his judgement. As I said in an earlier post if you haven't got much faith in the sub keeper anyway then it makes the decision easier to take

[bristolcitysweden]

The simple answer is that Kalas is a better keeper than Stefanovic and Wollacott

[ChippenhamRed]

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

When's the last time we had a keeper injured in this way? I've been watching BCFC nearly 50 years and have never seen it happen. In 90% of cases the keeper strains a muscle following a kick-out (as with Frankie and Nikki), Max is less likely to do this since he isn't over 30 like the other two. You also have to take into account the quality of the replacement keeper, how much better would the NZ guy be than Kalas or whoever? I don't think it's much of a gamble.

I have given one example of how a keeper might get injured. There are plenty of other ways. Are you saying you’ve never seen a keeper replaced in your 50 years watching City?

What about if he was red carded? That’s a more common occurrence. We’ve seen it as recently as last season with Fielding v Wolves. And if you’re down to 10, all the more reason you don’t want to rely on a novice in goal.

To suggest that Tomas Kalas - who we know nothing about as a goalkeeper - is gong to be as good as a keeper with 100s of professional games under his belt, and multiple caps for a country good enough to qualify for a World Cup, is utterly ridiculous. Marinovic isn’t Buffon, but if he was always as terrible as he was on debut he would never have made a living out of football.

And a risk for what benefit? So we can name Watkins on the bench, a bang-average player not even likely to come on ahead of Palmer, Taylor and Walsh?

It’s absolute madness.

[ChippenhamRed]

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

That's not the question, it's the balance of risk of the keeper being injured against the benefit of having an extra outfield player available so the bench can cover more eventualities during the match

What eventuality does Watkins enable you to cover that Palmer, Taylor and Walsh don’t?

I mean something likely to be critical to the outcome, comparable with not having a professional goalkeeper on the pitch for up to 90 minutes?

[ChippenhamRed]

18 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

The simple answer is that Kalas is a better keeper than Stefanovic and Wollacott

Where is this suggestion that Kalas is some sort of uncover Peter Schmeichel coming from?!

The other thing no one seems to consider with this highly dubious theory is that if you’ve got Kalas in goal you haven’t got Kalas in defence. If you’re already without a keeper, I want my back four preserved.

Cant believe this is even a debate!

[New Dazzler]

12 hours ago, sglosbcfc said:

Lee Peacock went in goal for Wednesday against us if my memory is correct. He took a lot of light hearted banter from the City fans and joked back with us. I think we won the game and Luke Wilshire scored past him with a penalty.

Thanks for that, I know there was some confusion on the other thread ie was it Luke Wilkshire who went in goal? and the penalty.  It all makes sense now, I had forgotten that Lee Peacock had gone to  Wednesday.

[pongo88]

2 hours ago, AppyDAZE said:

or be red-carded

e.g. Fielding v Wolves

[ashton_fan]

2 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I have given one example of how a keeper might get injured. There are plenty of other ways. Are you saying you’ve never seen a keeper replaced in your 50 years watching City?

What about if he was red carded? That’s a more common occurrence. We’ve seen it as recently as last season with Fielding v Wolves. And if you’re down to 10, all the more reason you don’t want to rely on a novice in goal.

To suggest that Tomas Kalas - who we know nothing about as a goalkeeper - is gong to be as good as a keeper with 100s of professional games under his belt, and multiple caps for a country good enough to qualify for a World Cup, is utterly ridiculous. Marinovic isn’t Buffon, but if he was always as terrible as he was on debut he would never have made a living out of football.

And a risk for what benefit? So we can name Watkins on the bench, a bang-average player not even likely to come on ahead of Palmer, Taylor and Walsh?

It’s absolute madness.

Obviously we have since we've had keepers replaced this season at least once if not twice. We know nothing about Kalas (or someone else) as a keeper but LJ does which is all that matters.

Regarding Watkins he's very versatile and came off the bench at least a couple of times prior to his injury and had a good effect, from memory scoring on two occasions. I think but for his injury he would have featured a lot more.