Anyone else concerned about the lack of a keeper on the bench? I know that they very rarely get used, but if Bull got injured then we are certain to lose the game. Fingers crossed that will never happen but I can't help thinking we might be shooting ourselves in the foot on this.
With 7 subs tonight I'm sure we'll see Ingram on the bench however with just 5 subs for the league I think the benefit of having an extra option outweighs the small chance that a sub keeper will be needed. It hasn't happened so far in the 50-odd games Bull has played for us and if he eventually does go down then being disadvantaged for just 1 game is probably a risk worth taking for every game where he doesn't get injured.
I would still prefer to see a sub keeper. Before it changed to 7 subs teams usually had a keeper on the bench so don't see why the thought behind that would change now it's gone back to 5. We've got players who can adapt to other positions if needed but goalkeeping is different. That one game where Bull might go off could cost us the points needed to stay up. Or get promoted
I think we should be having a sub keeper on the bench. 4 other subs is plenty to cover each position - the keeper's job is such a specialist position that another outfield player cant just be expected to step in. That is, unless Waddock knows something we dont and one of our outfield players is a useful goalie. I remember Simon Hutchinson from our non-league days. I believe I saw him play in every position for us (inc keeper) with varying degrees of success.
I think not having a sub keeper is a risk worth taking, especially with only 5 substitute slots available.
