So we can go back to not having to worry if Bull bring someone down as the last man, or worrying (even more) that he might get a knock. Huge mistake, in my opinion, not to have a keeper on the bench.
What a stupid response! How many times did I require a cricket helmet in all the times I've played? Never. Doesn't mean that next week I go out and play I won't get hit on the head.
given that Wycombe didn't have to look to put an outfielder in goal in the last season. It was a gamble, not a mistake, made by Waddock. Many other managers have done it over the years, but I dare... more
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... more
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
some much needed experience within the first team group. The same applies to all of our other younger players. I do hope however that it doesn't prove to be another strain on resources for the Trust.
costs never happened I believe the intention was to reduce costs for away teams. No team dared to traVvel to an away game with a spare keeper even though most were not named among the subs. Equally... more
If every team has 11+x players, each time you increase the value of x, the player pool is subject to further demand and it benefits the top end to the detriment of the bottom end. So, yes, ultimately ... more
how on earth can an enlarged player pool which represents the top players in the squad be detrimental to any part of the squad? The entire squad are aiming to be in the first team and therefore an... more
I fail to see how increasing the first team squad size - which becoming a part of is the aim of every player within a pool - is detrimental. It increases competition for places, makes the game more... more
..come bowling in calling me misguided and dismissing my comments as drivel whilst simultaneously missing the point in spectacular fashion. It's all very well increasing the options available to your ... more
but you are making a couple of incorrect assumptions. 1) You are assuming that both the poorer clubs and richer clubs are starting off at the same level. The larger clubs may well buy more and/or use ... more
.. regarding the starting point of clubs, it would be a bit of a strange assumption to make that everyone is starting off at the same level, did you really think that I was suggesting such a thing?... more
you said yourself there is no advantage in your previous post and therefore you can see where I thought you were assuming that everyone was starting off at the same level. Even without having the new ... more
unless it is to say that the rules will suit the rich clubs, but they are going to buy everything in sight anyway and you can't refuse to update the games rules in order to suit this agenda. Seems... more
Two outfield players and one goalkeeper. No allowance for the +1 becoming an outfield player. All three subs would be permitted to be used during the game under the proviso that the keeper sub were... more
It is sheer madness to go back to seven substitutes. It will stretch the smaller/poorer clubs even more to have to keep up with the "norm" of each team having this amount. I know they don't have to... more