Keeper on the bench?

killerandflash

West Ham last night won 4-1 despite playing with ten men and midfielder Henri Lansbury in goal for 35 minutes after Green was sent off. Blackpool had no keeper on the bench either.
Is this a risk work taking? Taylor can play in goal, and that would free up space on the bench for another outfield player (e.g. Hughes or Russell).

RedArmySE7

Funnily enough I said exactly the same to @Plaaayer last night. I'm firmly in the camp that you don't need a keeper on the bench. Even more so now we only have 5 subs, that extra attacking option is far more valuable imo.

Deadred

Funnily enough I said exactly the same to @Plaaayer last night. I'm firmly in the camp that you don't need a keeper on the bench. Even more so now we only have 5 subs, that extra attacking option is far more valuable imo.

Agree with the principle here but we had two strikers and a wide man on the bench last night! What we lacked was a utility man (Hughes) IMO.

RedArmySE7

Funnily enough I said exactly the same to @Plaaayer last night. I'm firmly in the camp that you don't need a keeper on the bench. Even more so now we only have 5 subs, that extra attacking option is far more valuable imo.

Agree with the principle here but we had two strikers and a wide man on the bench last night! What we lacked was a utility man (Hughes) IMO.

That can still be classed as an attacking option though, having someone like Hughes on the bench can free up other players on the pitch to attack more. For example taking off one of the centre mids and slotting Hughes in allows the other one to get into more forward areas as was proved with Hollands' goalscoring form with Hughes next to him earlier in the season.

Deadred

Funnily enough I said exactly the same to @Plaaayer last night. I'm firmly in the camp that you don't need a keeper on the bench. Even more so now we only have 5 subs, that extra attacking option is far more valuable imo.

Agree with the principle here but we had two strikers and a wide man on the bench last night! What we lacked was a utility man (Hughes) IMO.

That can still be classed as an attacking option though, having someone like Hughes on the bench can free up other players on the pitch to attack more. For example taking off one of the centre mids and slotting Hughes in allows the other one to get into more forward areas as was proved with Hollands' goalscoring form with Hughes next to him earlier in the season.

Fair point but did we really need two strikers and a wide man who can also play off the striker on the bench? With only four outfield options the logical choices would be 2 forwards(either 2 strikers or a striker and wide man) a CM and CB. Hey ho, what do I know, SCP is the man!

North Lower Neil

Been saying it since November:

http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/44206

I think it's a good option with the 5 on the bench rule.

DaveMehmet

Funnily enough I said exactly the same to @Plaaayer last night. I'm camp

THEMCA

Was s topic of debate in 5live last night. I agree Hughes for Sullivan, the time we have needed a keeper this year was Orient a game we lost anyway

Charltonparklane

And the most important thing is its bloody entertaining seeing an outfield player in goal for wither side.
I loved it when it happened, something my kids will see once a decade!!!

Elthamaddick

isn't it either Morrison or Taylor who are supposedly fairly handy between the sticks?

LenGlover

isn't it either Morrison or Taylor who are supposedly fairly handy between the sticks?

Taylor was in goal for Burscough when they won the FA Trophy (or was it Vase)

It was the FA Trophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taylor_(footballer)

MuttleyCAFC

I think having Taylor would make it a viable option although it is a risk. A stupid rule really and needs chnaging.

Siv_in_Norfolk

24 when he converted!

Garrymanilow

I'm going to curl into a ball now. Hamer is a mentalist. He's completely insane. He does mad things all the time, mostly involving goal kicks, sometimes involving opposition players and all too often the edge of his box. Did anyone see him against Bury where he misjudged picking the ball up and it was just barely in the box? The look on his face would have been funny were I not having heart palpitations. He's going to do something nuts again before the season is up, maybe before the month is up, and not having youself covered in that eventuality is a mistake. Hammers got lucky that Blackpool didn't turn up yesterday. All the people who said Sullivan had a shocker/looked shaky against Orient would have to invest in new trousers if we had to put Taylor in goal. It's not worth the risk, and the fact one or two teams get away with it every so often is not a reason to go for it. The post-match reports say Lansbury wasn't tested by Blackpool, but usually if a team sees you go down to 10 and stick your defender in goal they'll smell blood in the water and put you under huge pressure. It's stressful enough watching Charlton, I definitely don't need that

heavenSE7

Reading Taylors wikipedia was interesting. Can't believe he played over 100 games in goal! One of them live on sky infront of 15,000 at Villa Park. He must be living the dream playing for us lot!

Anyone got a picture of him in goal?

Definatley don't think we need a sub keeper now with only five subs, but Powell has already said in the past that he will always have a sub keeper.

Oggy Red

Goalkeeper is a specialist position.
And you need a specialist to cover in goal.

For crying out loud, the performance suffered enough last night by playing a leftback on the right.

It's not rocket science - players play best ......in their best positions.

Addick Addict

Goalkeeper is a specialist position.
And you need a specialist to cover in goal.

For crying out loud, the performance suffered enough last night by playing a leftback on the right.

It's not rocket science - players play best ......in their best positions.

For all we know Oggy, Keeper might be Taylor's best position ;-)

As I've said on the other three threads on this subject it is such a rare event to lose a keeper that I believe it would pay to have another specialist postion available on the bench. We lost Hamer at Orient and apart from GD it couldn't have made any difference having Taylor in goal. Last night West Ham put someone in goal with no keeper experience whatsoever.

Equally, imagine if you were limited to 5 subs and you had Brad Friedel on your bench. You would have wasted almost 300 consecutive opportunities to make a match changing substitution.

The stats simply don't add up and when you think we have someone who has over 100 apperances at semi pro level in our side (who could for a few hours a week train with the keepers to keep his eye in for that potential one match a season) I really do think an extra outfield player is warranted and had we had done this last night it would have potentially freed up a player to come on at RB or LM.

Ask yourself why the likes of Allardyce, Warnock and Holloway (all successful Managers) have regularly done it?

Todds_right_hook

Generally I'm in favour of a sub keeper but when your centre back has played over 100 games in goal then why not take the risk. we have to play 5 of the bottom half at home, are they coming to attack or to park the bus and frustrate??? Park the bus. If the opposition are not going to attack and look for a point then why not take the gamble and free up another place on the bench. Huddersfield away then have sullivan

GretnaGreenAddick

If we did not have Taylor i would say keep a GK on the bench but with him in the team i think its worth taking the risk.

Exiled_Addick

I'm going to curl into a ball now. Hamer is a mentalist. He's completely insane. He does mad things all the time, mostly involving goal kicks, sometimes involving opposition players and all too often the edge of his box. Did anyone see him against Bury where he misjudged picking the ball up and it was just barely in the box? The look on his face would have been funny were I not having heart palpitations. He's going to do something nuts again before the season is up, maybe before the month is up, and not having youself covered in that eventuality is a mistake. Hammers got lucky that Blackpool didn't turn up yesterday. All the people who said Sullivan had a shocker/looked shaky against Orient would have to invest in new trousers if we had to put Taylor in goal. It's not worth the risk, and the fact one or two teams get away with it every so often is not a reason to go for it. The post-match reports say Lansbury wasn't tested by Blackpool, but usually if a team sees you go down to 10 and stick your defender in goal they'll smell blood in the water and put you under huge pressure. It's stressful enough watching Charlton, I definitely don't need that

I'd take Stevie Brown over pretty much every keeper we've had since Carson (Randolph excluded) and I'm only half joking about that.

One thing I'd like to see Powell do in games like last night's is throw caution to the wind a little. He could have left Green and BWP on, say, and thrown Clarke and/or Hayes and/or Waggy on to effectively play 4 up front and still keep one of our more creative players and our top goalscorer on the pitch.

Man Utd used to regularly finish games with Yorke/Cole/Solksjaer/Sheringham all on the pitch together and no-one scores more late winners than Utd.

North Lower Neil

If we did not have Taylor i would say keep a GK on the bench but with him in the team i think its worth taking the risk.

This.

philcafc

I'd always have a keeper on the bench after what happened at Orient and bearing in mind a possible injury, but i'd like to see mostly attacking players on the bench.

SaoPauloAddick

I'd always have a keeper on the bench after what happened at Orient and bearing in mind a possible injury, but i'd like to see mostly attacking players on the bench.

We did lose the Orient game though, so you could say that if even when the sub keeper is called upon we don't benefit (points wise), maybe that's an argument for not bothering and using the extra outfield option?

Stig