This season Hurst has not had a keeper on the bench. Monday night however, there's a possibility of a penalty shootout, so do you think Hurst might put a keeper on the bench as an insurance policy?

Quoted from mimma

This season Hurst has not had a keeper on the bench. Monday night however, there's a possibility of a penalty shootout, so do you think Hurst might put a keeper on the bench as an insurance policy?

For what purpose? Hasn’t Pearson been a keeper before? I wouldn’t waste a sub on a player that won’t play…

Macca, great shot stopper.

Oh hang on.

I started to notice this after McKeowan was dropped - do other NL  teams do this?  At this level it looks like an expensive overhead....

I can see the  logic - what are the odds of the keeper being sent off/inured (*note to self - dont curse the Notts County game)

Would you be happy with an outfield player in goal in a penalty shootout? Is it worth the risk of not having a keeper on the bench when there is a possibility of a penalty shootout?

I get the point about not putting a keeper on the bench for league games, but for a playoff game and possible penalty shootout when the stakes are so high??

Hmmm.... its a good point.  I'm not sure there is a simple answer.  anyone have the stats on how often keepers are used?   surely it must be super-rare?

Another scenario, if Crocombe gets injured/sent off (it happens) does Hurst play young inexperienced Battersby (no offence to the lad) or McKeown who has bags of experience at our current level?

Fine margins.

Hurst didn't bother with a sub keeper the last 2 times we got to playoff finals, I don't expect he will do anything different now..

Quoted from promotion plaice

Another scenario, if Crocombe gets injured/sent off (it happens) does Hurst play young inexperienced Battersby (no offence to the lad) or McKeown who has bags of experience at our current level?

Fine margins.

Has to be McKeown. Having seen Battersby play, I don’t think he is anywhere near ready for first team football.

Hat eating job if there's a sub keeper on Monday night.

Quoted from mimma

This season Hurst has not had a keeper on the bench. Monday night however, there's a possibility of a penalty shootout, so do you think Hurst might put a keeper on the bench as an insurance policy?

No

Would a 'proper' keeper make that much difference in a penalty shoot out? If you look at the Rangers game last night - McGregor is supposed to be a brilliant keeper against pens and didn't save any. The German keeper got a bit lucky with the one he saved as it was too close to him after he dived.

I'd be more concerned about losing a keeper for a large proportion of the 'normal' game when their all round game is more important.

I’m not convinced you’d need a proper keeper for a shootout. I get that they anticipate and practice etc but to some extent, if you’ve got a player like Kane who smashes the granny out of his pens, someone the just jumps in the vicinity has as much chance to save it as a world class keeper…

It's one of them situations that realistically is needed once per season, if that. Not having a keeper on the bench gives you an extra outfield option as you don't know how the game will pan out which is fine for most of the season when there are 3 points at stake and plenty more to play for.

If we don't have a keeper on the bench in the play-offs and Hurst has a track record of not doing so in the play-offs and the keeper gets injured or sent off with a large proportion of the game remaining, that decision is on his head.

Likewise, if the player he chose to bench instead of a keeper comes on and scores the winner, he's a genius.

Who would be a football manager?

Quoted from jamesgtfc

It's one of them situations that realistically is needed once per season, if that. Not having a keeper on the bench gives you an extra outfield option as you don't know how the game will pan out which is fine for most of the season when there are 3 points at stake and plenty more to play for.

If we don't have a keeper on the bench in the play-offs and Hurst has a track record of not doing so in the play-offs and the keeper gets injured or sent off with a large proportion of the game remaining, that decision is on his head.

Likewise, if the player he chose to bench instead of a keeper comes on and scores the winner, he's a genius.

Who would be a football manager?

Yeah i can see him having no sub keeper.  In the Prem how many subs can then have now, 9?, 7 in the EFL and 5 in NL.  The NL really need to catch up, ever since BT Sport have been showing the NL it has become more and more popular.  The majority are full time, the days of treating unfashionable clubs by restricting them needs to be change (thats my view on why there was originally 1 promotion place).

IF we had 7 subs then a keeper would be on the bench.  Or they make a sub keeper as not counting to no of subs.

Pearson goes in goal in extra time after Crocombe gets injured. Match goes to penalties.

10 - 10 on penalties..............

County step up for their eleventh - Saved by Pearson.

Pearson steps up, blasts it into the top corner.

Town win, now for Wrexham.

Absolutely no chance of Hurst naming a sub 'keeper on the bench.

Not an approach I would be taking though.  If we had to spend 80 minutes with an outfield player at right-back I would accept that if we didn't have a suitable option on the bench.

If we had to go into a penalty shoot out with an outfield player in goal I'd expect questions to be asked on that approach.

Four outfield subs is enough to cover your options in terms of injury and freshening it up.  Unnecessary risk in my opinion.