gasroom.co.uk - You are misguided

Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.

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 extra couple of places mean more chances for this.

Drivel.

Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.

Back to 7 subs for next season (nm) — JcL, Mon May 28 11:29
- was ridiculous to change it back down to 5 — Tase, Mon May 28 18:36
  
  really not sure what it was meant to achieve. Especially not with the way things had gone, with 7 in the Prem remaining, and international football having a whole team on the bench.
- common sense prevails! (nm) — Lee Hagger, Mon May 28 13:09
- - What Lee said. (nm) — Jonny King, Mon May 28 18:00
- Re: Back to 7 subs for next season — Baba, Mon May 28 11:52
  
  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.
- - how many times last season did not having a keeper on the — Lee Hagger, Mon May 28 13:07
    
    bench cost us?
  - - back to seven subs — deardsie, Mon May 28 18:13
      
      perhaps mr waddock can buy a clock so he can use his subs a bit more effectively.
    - Re: how many times last season did not having a keeper on the — Baba, Mon May 28 13:59
      
      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.
    - - Yes but it's not a huge mistake — Lee Hagger, Mon May 28 14:31
        
        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
      - Are you suggesting that playing without a keeper — Ed, Mon May 28 14:27
        
        would be life threatening?
      - Re: Are you suggesting that playing without a keeper — Baba, Mon May 28 14:53
        
        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... more
        because — Lee Hagger, Mon May 28 15:16
        
        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
        Re: because — Baba, Mon May 28 21:04
        
        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
        perhaps I'm being a bit of a pedant — Lee Hagger, Wed May 30 13:14
        
        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
        The outfield player who would go in goal last season btw — My Only Wycombe, Mon May 28 21:48
        
        would have been Ben Strevens I think. The good news is we shouldn't have to even think about that next season.
        really? — bluestar, Tue May 29 14:03
        
        my sources informed me it would have been winfield or donnally (when he was playing)
        My belief was Donnelly was number one, but — My Only Wycombe, Tue May 29 18:27
        
        as you rightly state he hardly played so most of the season, it was Strevens.
  - ... — Baba, Mon May 28 11:55
    
    By 'not having to worry' I mean - not having to worry that we have to put Winfield in goal, or something.
  - - I tend to agree and it will give Matt Ingram — Benny, Mon May 28 12:01
      
      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.
    - - The extension of the subs bench .. — Ed, Mon May 28 12:20
        
        .. benefits no one.
      - with 7 subs do our dugouts need extending? (nm) — old sage of Bojo, Mon May 28 15:28
        
        the reduction in travelling — Anonymous, Mon May 28 13:35
        
        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 that were the case, it begs the question why — Benny, Mon May 28 12:31
        
        the clubs have chosen to revert back to seven.
        Because they are misguided — Ed, Mon May 28 12:44
        
        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
        You are misguided — Bilversack, Tue May 29 12:12
        What an embarrassing post (nm) — Ed, Tue May 29 12:46
        
        Why embarrassing? — Bilversack, Tue May 29 13:36
        
        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
        You should be embarrassed for having .. — Ed, Tue May 29 14:02
        
        ..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
        I totally understand your point — Bilversack, Tue May 29 15:10
        
        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
        There is no assumption .. — Ed, Tue May 29 16:15
        
        .. 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
        Re: There is no assumption .. — Bilversack, Tue May 29 19:51
        
        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
        I really don't understand your point — Ed, Wed May 30 08:41
        
        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
        Ed. You are right. — Bilversack, Wed May 30 18:56
        
        We ultimately disagree.
        Do you HAVE to include seven subs? (nm) — Anonymous, Mon May 28 13:11
        
        No, you could go in with no subs at all if you wished — Ed, Mon May 28 13:50
        
        Obviously, that would be even more of a disadvantage from an on-field perspective.
        so how many subs would you have, Ed? (nm) — our frank, Mon May 28 12:46
        
        3+1. I would also cap squad sizes to make a fairer — Tory Goon, Mon May 28 17:21
        
        Playing field.
        not very non-interventionist, let market forces decide — eric plant, Mon May 28 20:05
        
        of you TG? that said, you've always been far less Thatcherite when it comes to football, otherwise you'd be fully supportive of MK Dons
        I'd go back to 2(+1) — Ed, Mon May 28 13:52
        
        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
        Spot-On, Mr Ed. I Totally Agree With That — Eddie Monsoon, Mon May 28 16:12
        
        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

Click here to receive daily updates

Return to the front page of the Gas Room - www.GASROOM.co.uk