Re: Are you suggesting that playing without a keeper
Mon May 28, 2012 15:53
Nope. Just making the point that, because you have something in place that isn't required very often, it can still prove very important.
If Bull were to get sent off in a game, not only would we be left with 10 men, but also with whoever the guys think is the best keeper from all the outfield players. Why risk it for an extra outfield sub?
1) a goalkeeper being sent off is a pretty rare event 2) if it happens, the team are down to 10 men and are less likely to win anyway, especially as they'll be more than likely facing an opposition... more
In answer to your points, I'm not saying it isn't a rare event. What happens if your keeper gets injured then? You may not be down to 10 men, but you are not giving your best shot at winning the... more
but my disagreement with you is that Waddock's decision to go without a keeper last season was not a MISTAKE, since it was GAMBLE that never backfired. It was a calculated risk - not a mistake - and... more