GrahamC Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I'm sure that the vast majority who use this forum were at Saturday's match but unfortunately I wasn't able to make it so listened to the radio commentary. I was interested to hear on Radio Bristol that Steve Phillips had been receiving treatment on an injury as late as Friday and also noticed that the reserve keeper Clint Davis travelled up with the team, for what I think was the first time. Early on it appeared that Steve was struggling was his kicks and the WDP summariser Nathan Jones then said that there had been some doubt over him playing. I wonder therefore what exactly it is going to take for us to put a keeper on the bench? At Chesterfield the other week Steve gave away a penalty and could have been deemed the last man by the ref and given a red card, leaving us with no keeper on the pitch with an hour to go. It just seems so unnecessary to me and I reckon it will eventually cost us points, surely we could cope with one less outfield player on the bench, particularly with the likes of Clayton Fortune as a sub, who is able to play in most outfield positions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_C Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I always thought it was better to have all outfield players on the bench because its rare that steve gets injured etc. until yesterday that is i was at the psv vs ajax game and both keepers were carried off and both teams had replacement keepers( just as well) so my opinion has changed somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I don't see the point in having a keeper on the bench for the hell of it, but if they knew Phillips was struggling it would have made sense to forgo one outfield player and whack a reserve keeper on the bench, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 There is always a risk that your goalkeeper could get injured during a game, especially at a corner when there are so many people in the box. It's not very often that a subsitute goalkeeper would be used, it's just that most teams name one as a precaution - you never know what is going to happen when you step out onto the pitch. If Philips was struggling leading up to a game and was a slight doubt, then I'm sure Tins would put Davis on the bench just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 When was the last time you saw a sub keeper used? It's once or twice a season, tops. Maybe we'd lose one game by not having one. On the other hand, Walsall fans seem to be of the opinion that our substitutions changed the game, gaining us at least 2 points if not 3. We will gain more points by having the subs available to turn 1 point into 3, or 0 into 1, than we will ever lose due to an injury to Phillips. Nobody worried about sub keepers when only 3 subs were allowed. I don't see why it should be any different now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 it is a bit of a worry having no keeper on the bench but then again we do have tins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltshoveller Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Tinnion did say at the start of the season that he has played over 600 games and out of those there has been a need for a sub keeper in only 2 of them So after that watch Phillips get sent off on saturday v colchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Phillips did seem to be struggling a little in the second period at Oldham as I reported here: http://www.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=916&p=2&stid=8363139 he was patrolling the edge of the box and seemed to be shaking his leg frequently. I reckon Tins is aware that his young guns of Orr and Wilkshire are about ready to take over his central midfield slot, the only way he can remain on the bench and extend his playing career is as a multi role player midfield/goalkeeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collis Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would like to see a keeper on the bench to calm my nerves. Its happened so many times - like when Phillips seemed injured against Everton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cidergal Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would like to see a keeper on the bench to calm my nerves. Its happened so many times - like when Phillips seemed injured against Everton ← I agree. I know that the chances of us actually needing one are very slim but I get so worried! Often I manage to convince myself that Steve will definately get injured and get really nervous. Can't recall the last time he was injured though, since he came back from that long period out. (was that even for an injury or was Stowell keeping him out?) I know this might sound awful because I don't know but who is our reserve keeper? Is it Clint Davis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elhombrecito Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I know this might sound awful because I don't know but who is our reserve keeper? Is it Clint Davis? ← Yep, it is indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collis Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Stats like only 2 games out of 600 are absolutely meaningless. It could be 2 on the trot - 6 points down the drain. How many times have we used all the subs in a game ? So why shouldn't an unused sub be a keeper just in case ? It's a bit stupid not to have a keeper on the bench regardless of Tinnions own experiences - especially if we don't use all of 'em. ← I agree with you. Gillespie and heffernan have been on the bench for the last few games but have failed to make an appearence so surely it makes sense to replace one of them with Clint Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Stats like only 2 games out of 600 are absolutely meaningless. It could be 2 on the trot - 6 points down the drain. How many times have we used all the subs in a game ? So why shouldn't an unused sub be a keeper just in case ? It's a bit stupid not to have a keeper on the bench regardless of Tinnions own experiences - especially if we don't use all of 'em. ← It's not a question of how many are used, it's the range of options available. Having 5 outfield players allows a bigger range of options, so more chance of changing the game successfully. Yes if Phillips got injured, and Davis got injured the week after that we would lose 6 points, but I reckon the odds against that happening must be pretty incredible. Even if it happens we only have to turn 3 draws into wins thanks to our extra option on the bench and the lost points have more than been made up for. It's simple statistics, and Tinnion has got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 With regards to this, I always feel that most professional footballers would be able to perform to a decent standard in goal anyway. The way you make it sound is that if Phillips went off injured, the goal would be unprotected for the rest of the game. I'm sure that the adrenalin rush alone, would be enough to see most outfield players through a period in goal, plus the defence would tighten up considerably to help protect him. Having said ALL that, I would prefer to see a keeper on the bench, but Tins thinks otherwise and thats good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember when substitutes were increased to three , or was it five, that one of them had to be a keeper although he could only be used in the event of injury, not because the first choice was having a mare. Or did I dream it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.