By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Plenty of times in the past when our first team goalkeeper has been having an awful game, a la Tony Roberts, or Jo Lumley with an assist or three for the opposition, and yet they still remain on the pitch, despite having an absolute shocker.
Also different goalkeepers have very different qualities. Nardi can shot stop but claiming a high cross - not for him - so a change of goalkeeper, when the opposition are overloading the box with 6 foot 4 giants, makes sense. They are only ever subbed though, if they are injured.
I mean, currently we are in the highly unusual position of having had three different goalkeepers start over the last two months, when all have been available at some points within this two month period.
Now, that there are five permissible substitutes in any given game, that can be made, why not occasionally sub a goalkeeper for tactical or performance issues. Its almost like we dont want to hurt the goalies feelings.
Its a position on the pitch like all the other ten players in the team. And we are never not worried about hurting all of the ten outfield players' feelings. Substitutes are generally made, so we can change the outcome of a game in our favour or to preserve the status quo, unless forced on us, by way of injuries.
So, is anyone ITK, as to why this scenario always persists, and the reasoning, as to why goalkeeping substitutes are never made - injuries permitting - even when the net custodian is having an absolute mare ???
I'd never actually thought of it, but you're right you never see a keeper hooked while playing poorly in the same way as outfielders do you? It is a bit odd if you think about it.
Actually, it has happened, and it didn't go very well.
This post has been edited by an administrator
2
Subbing a Goalkeeper - Why is it only done for Injuries ?? on 15:41 - Dec 28 with 588 views
Difficult to sub a goalie if he's not injured because it can only be an indication that he's had a mare and it can't be good for their confidence. Apart from subbing one at the end of a cup match because you have a penalty-saving specialist on the bench (like the Dutch did), it's like incest, the last taboo.
0
Subbing a Goalkeeper - Why is it only done for Injuries ?? on 15:43 - Dec 28 with 583 views
You occasionally see teams make goalkeeping substitutions in tournament football, if they are facing a penalty shoot out but I can't think of a time I've ever seen a keeper hooked for having a 'mare.
'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'
0
Subbing a Goalkeeper - Why is it only done for Injuries ?? on 16:52 - Dec 28 with 484 views
Subbing a Goalkeeper - Why is it only done for Injuries ?? on 16:52 - Dec 28 by Northernr
Unless Redknapp's in charge.
Well one of Warburton's games, to make a point to Les and the Board, he named two goalkeepers on the bench.
It is very strange goalkeepers only brought on if an injury and the reason given for meaning its risking a goalkeeper not being in reserve anymore if that goalkeeper is a sub himself.
Well how often do we see goalkeepers replaced because of a an injury, once or twice every five seasons at best.
I wonder if there is also a written rule prohibiting replacements for tactical reasons. Am assuming there must be.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
