No footy for us so just wondering why clubs don't sub keepers? I understand why they sit on the bench but we never sub them. 3-0 up and clubs take off a striker and give another a run around for 20 minutes. 2-0 down and the same. Why not the same for keepers? Why not give them 20 minutes of first team action instead of endless ar*e numbing sitting on a bench?
It´s a bit of a pointless sub unless he´s injured or having a real nightmere tbh. Players come on (when behind) to try & change a game, players come on (when hammering a team) to rest a top player or give him (the sub) a run out & a player comes on (when you´re say 1-0 up for i.e) to change the system to hold on to what you have, i.e FOR off DEF MID on & so on. 2nd GK´s know that what I´ve just writen doesn´t apply to them, for the very most part anyway. They´ll get half a game in a friendly that´s about it.
Changing a striker at 3-0 is more beneficial for the subs match fitness, GKs are usually ready for the pace of the game no matter when they are selected, or how long they sit on the bench below Kasper GKs are usually match fit due to development games.
Match fit is one thing but comparing playing development games in front of maybe a couple of thousand to first team and 20k plus crowd must be different. In our case I really hope Kasper stays but if he goes probably a keeper is the most important signing we could make, yet Conrad has barely had an opportunity. If he had got the odd 20 minutes in he may well save us a lot of money. Both posts above raise good points and I think it shows being second choice keeper is probably the least rewarding position in a squad.
Its more important to give outfield players minutes and the back 5 shouldnt be changed during a game unless injury/sending off IMO
I think you'll find a lot of it is to do with the importance of a position. If a striker or midfielder makes a mistake, it doesnt really mater (relatively) as much as if a keeper makes a bad decision or mistake. Thats a lot of the reson you wont see many defenders being swapped or subbed. Im not saying the others arent as important but strikers get paid to score goals whilst defenders & keepers get paid to make decisions. Also as stated, the goal keeper doesnt really change or have an impact on the game that a striker could/would. Intresting thought though. Not sure I'd be brave enough to do it though. How many times this year would any of you of subbed Kasper? I cant think of many occaisions myself. i suppose if you had Brazils No.1 sitting on the bench (like Harry does) then it could make sense..
Good points. I think its probably a no win situation, sub the keeper and he concedes and you have done his confidence no good, sub him in a game you are dominating and he does nothing. Then there is always the risk of injuries so keeping a sub held back just in case would be far better use. Just thought I would ask others opinions.
You are also more likely to make a mistake while you are getting into the rhythm of the game - for goalkeepers that means conceding goals, penalties, getting sent off etc - is a risk not worth taking.
In answer to the OP, here is why you do not sub goalkeepers... Australia were 3-0 up at half-time against Ecuador, subbed their goalie, who proceeded to be sent off within 15 minutes... Ecuador went on to win 4-3... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/wo...-breaks-Socceroos-record-crazy-night-Den.html
