merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 14, 2008 3:07:30 GMT
 I remember that when the 5 man substitute ruling came in a few years ago the justification was that although only three could continue to be activated, having the extra margin would allow clubs to always have a specialist keeper on the bench. The main advantage of that was to minimise the number of times injured keepers would be required to play on with injuries and probably make their own situation worse. Then we began to see a trickle of managers circumnavigating the spirit of that regulation and having a bench of 5 outfield players. Personally, I hate to see a bench minus a keeper and am always suspicious that an unscrupulous manager will take advantage of that and instruct his team to "do" our keeper (I used to frequently "accidentally" tread on a keeper's toes at corners just to see what I could get away with when I played) and thus gain the advantage. I would like to see either of two things.....................the competition (in our case the BSP) insist that every bench include a specialist keeper, or that benches may consist of all other registered players not selected to start whilst adhering to the limitations(3) of players able to be utilised plus a specialist keeper at any time.This would then do away with the farce of Poke and no other keeper and the near disaster we faced the other night. Thoughts please. 
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2008 15:20:54 GMT
As it is not my wish to get what you are saying wrong, I have gone over your post several times. So forgive me If I'm wrong here, but you seem to be saying we should have a proper keeper on the bench, for our matches.
So why did you say this.
Quote from Merse.
"Hodges has the ability, and a track record of having gone in goal before for Argyle; so there really is no problem. Rice will be a better number two for having regular competitive match practice and (I guess) a happier person for the experience".
So having Hodges is OK, but he is not a specialist keeper is he? So he went off injured, on Tuesday,Poke gets clattered and if he had not been able to carry on we would have been in trouble. So yes I do agree with you that we need to have a specialist keeper on the bench, but fail to understand the part of your post I have quoted.
You then went on to say
quote from Merse
"Let's look forward with optimism rather than back with regret. Let's not undermine the manager's credibility nor deny him the respect he is due. Let's celebrate the fact we have acquired the services of an excellent goalkeeper and be relieved we are shot of one with too many deficiencies; and let's be happy that we have an outfield player who has the versatility to allow the manager an extra option with his choice of substitutes..................how many of our rivals can truly claim that?"
So it seems your are saying that by moving our second specialist keeper out on loan to Truro, gives the manager the extra option with his choice of substitutes.
You last line how many of our rivals can truly claim that, is a Merse classic rubbish remark. I will ask you how many of our rivals would want to claim, they sent out on loan, the only other specialist keeper and only have the back up of a midfield player, who had a go in goal once. I do not know why we have signed so many midfield players, not sure why we are playing a midfielder as a centerback, when we have three spare, I will trust that Paul has his reasons. But I do not understand or agree, with Rice being put out on loan.
So now please tell me, was it now a mistake to send Rice out on loan? this does seem like another famous Merse u-turn again to me. One thing you have got correct, in all your confusion you seem to have now, was that Poke may well become a target, by players from the other teams we play.
We all know how Caldwell was targeted, to try and get him sent off. There will be managers who will tell their players, to try and get Poke out of the game. Why because they will know we do not have a specialist keeper on the bench, you know the one, he is Rice, who got Merse's blessing going out on loan, only now Merse seems he is now not so sure it was a good move.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 14, 2008 16:12:22 GMT
Dave, my opening post on this thread was aimed at the game in general NOT just Torquay United. I am sure that Bucks has seen enough of Hodges goalkeeping skills in training to have made the decision he has. The "near disaster" I was referring to was because the push in the back by the Woking forward caused injury to both our keeper and his expected replacement. If the competition was proceeding under my proposal of having ALL unused players on the bench then we would have had Wayne Fisher sitting there wouldn't we. The chances of the nominated goalkeeping replacement also getting injured ARE increased when that replacement is already playing granted, but there again a sub keeper could also face injury or a sending off once he has come on so I don't think that devalues my argument made on this thread one iota. Now instead of yet another bout of "Bucks doesn't do this right, Bucks doesn't do that right"; how about addressing the points I raised and the constructive suggestions I made instead of jibing about u-turns?
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2008 16:30:52 GMT
I may well answer your points, once you state that not having a specialist keeper on the bench at our club, is a mistake.
That is what we need to talk about and not the game in general.
There was not a jib about your u- turn, simply pointing out, how you say one thing in one post and the opposite in another post.
I also do not believe this is
another bout of "Bucks doesn't do this right, Bucks doesn't do that right post. I said I do not think it was the correct thing to do and that is my view and surly one that I can hold.
It can only be be one way or the other Merse, you think we should have a specialist keeper on the bench, or you think we can get away with a midfielder, who fancies himself in goal.
I bet the away manager could not believe is luck on Tuesday, why? because his forward caused injury to both our keeper and his expected replacement. Two birds with one stone.
The rules should be 5 subs, one must be a keeper, now would you want a trainee or a trained specialist keeper, sat on the bench, after all are we not trying for promotion.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 14, 2008 16:54:21 GMT
1- It can only be be one way or the other Merse, you think we should have a specialist keeper on the bench, or you think we can get away with a midfielder, who fancies himself in goal. 2- The rules should be 5 subs, one must be a keeper, now would you want a trainee or a trained specialist keeper, sat on the bench, after all are we not trying for promotion. 1- If I was the manager, yes I would; but that I am not. Rice's situation is that he facing the second successive season of having little meaningful action, he needs to be a better keeper and he won't become that sitting on the bench week in week out. Therefore the loan makes sense especially with the 24 hour recall clause. 2- Do you know the standard of Fisher? because I don't. Now you are agreeing with my suggestion for a change to the rules. But the dilemma remains, what is the priority between Rice getting much needed sharpening up or sitting on the bench; because if the manager believes it is the former he would have Fisher on the bench whilst Rice is down at Truro anyway wouldn't he! |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2008 17:40:31 GMT
No I do not agree there needs to be a rule change, I just picked that change as the best one, should the rule was to be changed.
I will make one more quote from your first post on this thread
This would then do away with the farce of Poke and no other keeper and the near disaster we faced the other night.
The only reason it was a near farse, was because we did not have a keeper on the bench. Its no good trying to come up with rule changes to prevent any such farse Merse, we have rules that are just fine(well most of them)
It used to be three subs on the bench, this was changed to five, so one can be the keeper. You would then have four other players sat on the bench, providing you had most of the squad to choose from, then you would have no problem, covering the defense, midfield and forwards. It could be a case of a player being injured, or just a tactical move on the part of the manager,
I'm sure Rice wants to play, I think he may well of made that clear early last season and yes I agree he does need some sort of games he can play in to keep himself sharp and ready. The problem is the needs of the first team to ensure we get the correct results, need to come first.
Am I wrong in thinking we were having a reserve side this season?, if I am wrong, then that is what we need to be looking at, not loaning our only other keeper out.
The final point, It is perfectly fine to have an opinion, on any action the manager takes, just because one might disagree with any decision taken by any manager, does not mean, your are criticizing, simply you don't agree with his action. That is what having a point of view is and why forums exist, so you can air your views.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2008 21:03:52 GMT
So you admit defeat Merse? you can't really have any logical answer to my last post  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2008 22:22:39 GMT
I think dave r has shown that there would not be any farce or near disaster if we did have had a keeper on the bench. No need for any rule changes just make sure you have a keeper on the bench not having one could be the difference between winning and losing games.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 15, 2008 2:58:51 GMT
So you admit defeat Merse? you can't really have any logical answer to my last post I've no problem agreeing with your points, I started this thread to gauge other people's thoughts and suggested a couple of rule changes that might be desirable to have (and have already stated that if I were the manager I would have a keeper on the bench) to prevent circumnavigation of the spirit of the present allowance which is by no means unique to Paul Buckle. I didn't start it (and indeed don't generally post) to receive wall to wall agreement - that's not my style as you are well aware! York City tonight were a good example...................already starting with their second string keeper in goal, they lost him to a dislocated finger and had included their third choice keeper amongst the subs - no problem to bring him on then and they retained their one goal advantage without drama. We did start without a keeper on the sub bench last season on occasions and don't ever let's go back to the days not so far off when we couldn't even fill a bench! What has highlighted things now is the loaning out of Rice (albeit with a 24 hour recall clause) but I feel to claim (as you have) that acceding to Rice's need for match practice are putting him above those of the First Team are a little wide of the mark..................surely the needs of the second string keeper ARE also the needs of the First Team because if he is called upon to play and is NOT match sharp it is the First Team that struggles. Just many of the things that a manager needs to weigh up and decide upon....................but again in finally concluding this thread as far as I am concerned, I would ALWAYS want a keeper amongst my bench and if that meant allowing Rice his match sharpness then I would utilise Fisher. Let's not hope the manager assessment is that Fisher's goalkeeping skills are less than Hodges'..................if that is the case,then Hodges must have put on some display in training or Fisher is way off the mark at present! |
|
|
|
Post by graygull on Aug 15, 2008 3:46:25 GMT
Odd thing us I agree with both sides of this debate, we should have a real keeper on the bench and yes Rice needed to go out on loan for match seasoning, just maybe a third keeper in place of one thos extra midfielders we seem to have gathered up this year.
|
|
I remember that when the 5 man substitute ruling came in a few years ago the justification was that although only three could continue to be activated, having the extra margin would allow clubs to always have a specialist keeper on the bench. The main advantage of that was to minimise the number of times injured keepers would be required to play on with injuries and probably make their own situation worse.
