• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Breaking News Blondy Nna Noukeu signs on Loan

But who drops off the bench to make way for a sub keeper? I don't think Collin consistently made the bench did he? So maybe we continue with no sub keeper. 'spare' keeper is to step and in and be familiar with defence for suspension or injury?
I’m really not clear in why NL only allows 5 subs given that all (as far as I know) clubs are professional as per L2. Surely this needs to be reviewed
 
"I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Southend game when the result has changed because the keeper was injured during the game.'

Simple thing is we'll never know.

Would a keeper have saved the pen? Would the draws have ended in wins with a pukka shot-stopper etc? You get the idea.

The point is do we want to gamble without a spare? Kev doesn't want to any longer. Hence, the new arrival.

I've had a cursory look at the weekend's EFL fixtures, and I can't find any team without a bench keeper. There may be one/some, I've missed, but I can't be arsed to run a forensic check.
If so many teams think a second keeper is needed for match days, they think it DOES make a difference.
It’s not entirely relevant to compare our situation to EFL teams as they have seven substitutes to our five, so there’s absolutely no question there’s space for a sub goalkeeper. Looking at this weekend’s National League fixtures, 11 of the 24 teams had a goalkeeper on the bench, so just below half.

Others have mentioned there should be more substitutes available in the National League; I don’t subscribe to that view. We’re already in a situation where some of our staff haven’t been paid, so I don’t understand why we would want to take on additional employees, and we would consider ourselves one of the bigger clubs at this level. I would not expect other clubs within the National League to vote for an increase as it benefits the bigger clubs.

Five substitutes is plenty enough; it then becomes a decision about whether it is worthwhile to have a goalkeeper amongst them. Now we have one, he’ll travel with the squad, so that covers any injuries in the warm-up. It’s then just about whether you cover for an injury/red card for the starter. I agree with you that there’s enough flexibility with players like Taylor (when fit), Demetriou, Ralph, Mooney, even Bridge, for us to cover most eventualities within the four remaining spots, so we could now name one, but I suspect the management team might pick and choose maybe some of the more important games and generally not name one. Andeng Ndi wasn’t regularly on the bench when Arnold played, and that was with a goalkeeper that has a history of injury problems.
 
It’s not entirely relevant to compare our situation to EFL teams as they have seven substitutes to our five, so there’s absolutely no question there’s space for a sub goalkeeper. Looking at this weekend’s National League fixtures, 11 of the 24 teams had a goalkeeper on the bench, so just below half.

Others have mentioned there should be more substitutes available in the National League; I don’t subscribe to that view. We’re already in a situation where some of our staff haven’t been paid, so I don’t understand why we would want to take on additional employees, and we would consider ourselves one of the bigger clubs at this level. I would not expect other clubs within the National League to vote for an increase as it benefits the bigger clubs.

Five substitutes is plenty enough; it then becomes a decision about whether it is worthwhile to have a goalkeeper amongst them. Now we have one, he’ll travel with the squad, so that covers any injuries in the warm-up. It’s then just about whether you cover for an injury/red card for the starter. I agree with you that there’s enough flexibility with players like Taylor (when fit), Demetriou, Ralph, Mooney, even Bridge, for us to cover most eventualities within the four remaining spots, so we could now name one, but I suspect the management team might pick and choose maybe some of the more important games and generally not name one. Andeng Ndi wasn’t regularly on the bench when Arnold played, and that was with a goalkeeper that has a history of injury problems.

I don't necessarily agree we'd have a bigger playing squad (and hence wages) if we could name 7 subs. We have enough first team squad members not making the bench now - I don't see why we'd sign more players
 
I don't necessarily agree we'd have a bigger playing squad (and hence wages) if we could name 7 subs. We have enough first team squad members not making the bench now - I don't see why we'd sign more players
I think there’s always a tendency to want cover for injuries and suspensions (and I appreciate you can dip into the loan market for that), and if you need to name 18 players in a squad rather than 16, you’ll want extra bodies around that matchday squad.

The Wrexhams and Chesterfields can afford that excess; other clubs won’t want them to have that advantage, so I wouldn’t expect them to vote for it. In an ideal world you might suggest a larger matchday squad means more opportunities for Academy players, but the realist in me doesn’t think that would happen and many clubs would try to live beyond their means.

I just feel you should be capable of covering almost every eventuality with five substitutes, and it rewards those with some tactical acumen if you need to be a bit more inventive. Seven subs is something of a luxury, as well as a potential financial burden.
 
It’s not entirely relevant to compare our situation to EFL teams as they have seven substitutes to our five, so there’s absolutely no question there’s space for a sub goalkeeper. Looking at this weekend’s National League fixtures, 11 of the 24 teams had a goalkeeper on the bench, so just below half.

Others have mentioned there should be more substitutes available in the National League; I don’t subscribe to that view. We’re already in a situation where some of our staff haven’t been paid, so I don’t understand why we would want to take on additional employees, and we would consider ourselves one of the bigger clubs at this level. I would not expect other clubs within the National League to vote for an increase as it benefits the bigger clubs.

Five substitutes is plenty enough; it then becomes a decision about whether it is worthwhile to have a goalkeeper amongst them. Now we have one, he’ll travel with the squad, so that covers any injuries in the warm-up. It’s then just about whether you cover for an injury/red card for the starter. I agree with you that there’s enough flexibility with players like Taylor (when fit), Demetriou, Ralph, Mooney, even Bridge, for us to cover most eventualities within the four remaining spots, so we could now name one, but I suspect the management team might pick and choose maybe some of the more important games and generally not name one. Andeng Ndi wasn’t regularly on the bench when Arnold played, and that was with a goalkeeper that has a history of injury problems.
I agree with a lot you say.
But I'm not sure you can change your team sheet once it's been submitted, which is 2.15pm latest for Saturday games?
So, any travelling keeper has to be named 30 minutes ahead of an injury during the warm-up.
We can find seven subs out of the existing players without extra expense, it's about time the NL brought the league into line with the NL.
 
I agree with a lot you say.
But I'm not sure you can change your team sheet once it's been submitted, which is 2.15pm latest for Saturday games?
So, any travelling keeper has to be named 30 minutes ahead of an injury during the warm-up.
We can find seven subs out of the existing players without extra expense, it's about time the NL brought the league into line with the NL.
Teamsheets must be handed in an hour before kick-off, but League Rule 8.21 covers injuries in the warm-up:
“Any Club altering its team selection or numbering after Team Sheets have been exchanged may be fined. A Player who is named on the Team Sheet may be replaced without fine if he is injured warming up after exchange of the Team Sheet. Any subsequent changes must be notified to the referee and to a representative of the opponents before the actual kick-off.”

Edit:
This is exactly what we did when Arnold was injured during the warm-up for the Oldham game earlier this season and Andeng Ndi replaced him after the teamsheets had been exchanged. Although Collin was on the bench on that occasion, Jon Benton was able to be named as a fifth sub.
 
I agree with a lot you say.
But I'm not sure you can change your team sheet once it's been submitted, which is 2.15pm latest for Saturday games?
So, any travelling keeper has to be named 30 minutes ahead of an injury during the warm-up.
We can find seven subs out of the existing players without extra expense, it's about time the NL brought the league into line with the NL.


Seven subs for the NL is nonsense. So is having a keeper on the bench it should be banned. Young players at this level need to be playing games. Not doing overnight trips for some once every three seasons event.

Besides its always more entertaining when a non keeper pulls on the shirt. Same with a red for keeper, you should not be able to sacrifice some innocent forward for a reserve keeper
 
Seven subs for the NL is nonsense. So is having a keeper on the bench it should be banned. Young players at this level need to be playing games. Not doing overnight trips for some once every three seasons event.

Besides its always more entertaining when a non keeper pulls on the shirt. Same with a red for keeper, you should not be able to sacrifice some innocent forward for a reserve keeper
Nobody should enjoy having a match decided by an early,unforeseen injury to a keeper—though if it’s Arnold,I don’t think we could claim it’s unforeseen !
Having the scope to use 3 from 7 substitutes —for injuries or tactics,NOT time-wasting—makes absolute sense at any level—I disapprove of the present Premier League set-up with more—clubs should be able to give experience to a couple of untried youngsters if that is what they choose.
 
Nobody should enjoy having a match decided by an early,unforeseen injury to a keeper—though if it’s Arnold,I don’t think we could claim it’s unforeseen !
Having the scope to use 3 from 7 substitutes —for injuries or tactics,NOT time-wasting—makes absolute sense at any level—I disapprove of the present Premier League set-up with more—clubs should be able to give experience to a couple of untried youngsters if that is what they choose.

What makes sense at any level is two subs only and no changes after 80mins. Rugby and football have been ruined by to many subs and all the nonsense that goes with it.

The game is 90 minutes and should be played that way….Otherwise why not have a sub for the last lap of the 1500m or the last two rounds of boxing.
 
Back
Top