Rage Online

Keeper develops injury during second half, opposition clearly aware due to not taking goal kicks, no keeper on bench, only two subs used, late goal goes in which a fit keeper maybe could have reached, has this annoying and unnecessary gamble been our undoing?

Yes, always. It drives me mad.

Yes

For me this should never have to be debated, the maximum number of subs should never have been voted down from 7 to 5 in the first place seeing as you didn't have to name 7, then everyone would have a keeper on the bench.

To be honest I don't see why you need a limit in how many subs you can name as long as you can only bring on three.

Is there any point in having Wayne Brown on the books!

I'm not sure which way to go on this so playing devil's advocate......

Not having a keeper on the bench possibly cost us 2 points on Saturday. I think that is the first time anyone can say that this season. Now, how many times has a substitute come off the bench to win us points this season (I'm not sure that it happens all that often under Wilder but go with it.......? If we had a keeper on the bench then that man may not have been there to come on and win us a game. Therefore, over the course of a season, do we win more points by having more potential game changers on the bench than we lose by not having a sub keeper?!

&quottheox&quot wrote:I'm not sure which way to go on this so playing devil's advocate......

Not having a keeper on the bench possibly cost us 2 points on Saturday. I think that is the first time anyone can say that this season. Now, how many times has a substitute come off the bench to win us points this season (I'm not sure that it happens all that often under Wilder but go with it.......? If we had a keeper on the bench then that man may not have been there to come on and win us a game. Therefore, over the course of a season, do we win more points by having more potential game changers on the bench than we lose by not having a sub keeper?!

But the couterpoint question is 'how many times this season has the match-winning substitute been in the most likely four of the five subs?' - i.e if Wilder had picked a sub 'keeper, would the sub who came on and won the game likely be the one who was dropped?

Am I the only person that thought Clarkey did really well to even nearly save Torquay's second goal? I'm not saying that if fully fit he wouldn't have completed the save, but to assume that anyone else (let alone a keeper we've hardly seen at all) wouldn't have been troubled by Atieno's shot seems strange - it was hardly a routine stop, was it?

Here's a question we'll never know the answer to - was Clarkey so badly hurt that he would have been subbed had Brown been on the bench? Surely if he was that bad Asa would have gone between the sticks again...

&quotBista yellow&quot wrote:Is there any point in having Wayne Brown on the books!

If Clarke is injured, then it looks a very sensible move to have a half decent and experienced keeper on the books.

Yes always.

Also playing devils advocate here.

My first reaction on seeing the teams on Monday was that at least we had a decent bench. So if Morgan/ Mantano were misfiring ala Morecambe then at least we had JPP and Johnson to come on. Ditto Rendell/ Beano.

I guess that you always need some defensive cover and there was also the midfield player on the bench. So from an outfield player perspective, it covered all of the options.

Of course in reality we didn't need JPP as the wide men did their bit.

Clarke clearly couldn't kick, but I wonder if Brown had have been on the bench whether he would have come on anyway?

Having now seen the 2nd Torquay goal again on the BBC website it looks to me that the shot is actually going wide and Clarke palms it in. Could just be the angle though.

Depending on the injury, keeping Clarke out there for longer might have resulted in him damaging himself further and missing the run in. Given keepers are prime candidates for sending off (as well as injury) I think I'd want a keeper on the bench in almost all circumstances.

&quottheox&quot wrote:Having now seen the 2nd Torquay goal again on the BBC website it looks to me that the shot is actually going wide and Clarke palms it in. Could just be the angle though.

Yes, having seen it again I do think he would probably have saved it if not injured. Although Clarkey throws one into his own net most seasons, so who knows?

I'm still not convinced Brown would have come on had he been on the bench though.

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:Also playing devils advocate here.

My first reaction on seeing the teams on Monday was that at least we had a decent bench. So if Morgan/ Mantano were misfiring ala Morecambe then at least we had JPP and Johnson to come on. Ditto Rendell/ Beano.

I guess that you always need some defensive cover and there was also the midfield player on the bench. So from an outfield player perspective, it covered all of the options.

Of course in reality we didn't need JPP as the wide men did their bit.

Clarke clearly couldn't kick, but I wonder if Brown had have been on the bench whether he would have come on anyway?

Do we really need three attackers on the bench? When would all three come on? JPP could easily have been replaced by Brown.

That said, as others have made the point, I can't believe he would have come on