Maybe with the amount of time our players spend feigning injury, it's just karma that they actually need to suffer one now and again to balance things out.
he has a broken finger and you can sign a playing on emergency loan inside or outside the transfer window. BR does not count as a professional goalkeeper for the club so won't stop us loaning one if SB gets injured again,
I don't think there's anything wrong with the club's approach at all.
Essentially they are saving themselves from employing another professional goalkeeper - and instead spending that chunk of the playing budget on another outfield player, say Max Muller or Nick Freeman.
The flipside of that is that they run the risk from time to time that Scott Brown won't be able to finish a match due to injury or being sent-off. In those instances Barry will have to complete the match.
However, they would then be able to sign another goalkeeper on a loan basis (and there's no shortage of them on the books of Premier League and Championship clubs) if Scott is injured or suspended.
I think that's a risk worth taking as over the course of a season they'll get much more from the additional outfield player.
@StrongestTeam. Whilst I agree with you to a point, the dilemma is whether a young keeper is going to "develop" here whilst permanently sitting on the bench with no reserve/youth matches to play in.
Nevertheless, it's ridiculous to have only one goal keeper. A backup keeper as mentioned by @aloysius, provided competition for the 1st team spot and comradeship at least. Also after a match day, the subs and those who managed 20 odd minutes, a goal keeper to train against.
It's a gamble, I don't think is necessary, as emergency keepers, got limited time to get to know our back line and how we setup.
there arguments in favour of one keeper and arguments in favour of two or even three (Plymouth for example have actively sought the latter).
Some of your arguments in favour of two are among the weaker ones, comradeship - well SB can get that from BR and from outfield players, after a game BR or any old player can go in a goal for a warm down if they need a GK at all. Knowledge of our back line and how we set up are a relatively minor benefit for a GK. So lets park those flimsy arguments and focus on those that matter.
WWFC have a limited playing budget and hence a small squad. The question comes down then to do you spend some of that budget on a second goalkeeper or an additional outfield player. You cant have both.
It is relatively unlikely but possible that SB may get injured during a match and have to come off or may get sent off. In those circumstances it is likely that a second GK would perform better than an aging BR for that match.
It is desirable that there is competition for places, although it is doubtful how much real competition a presumably cheap inexperienced GK would realistically provide (and no doubt if form was really bad, Brown could suddenly become "conveniently" injured anyway).
On the other hand that money could provide an outfield player who may very well play a significant contribution. Most likely your second GK would not play all season.
Where injuries to SB occur in training, there should be ample time to source a loan replacement. The same would apply if SB was banned following a sending off. The quality of that replacement now guaranteed a game is likely to be significantly higher than one we can attract with the intention of being on the bench.
Were brown to be clearly out for a few games, that higher quality loan replacement may be very valuable indeed whereas under the new rules if your second choice probably lower quality goalkeeper qualifies, then we maybe precluded from bringing in a loan replacement for the duration of Brown's injury. that could be 8, 10, 15 games who knows.
There are arguments both ways, but now that it is clear that BR registration does not preclude bringing in a loan keeper when Brown is unavailable, personally unless a very promising cheap GK that we don't want to pass up becomes available, I would stick with just the one.
I am getting a headache reading all of these threads, interesting as they are,but I do think we should have two keepers. Is it not possible for another player in the team to take on a keepers role if necessary or is that not allowed in the rules of the FA.
@DevC; I don't care if my argument is weak. One full time keeper at the Club is a joke, end off.
No one I have noticed has confirmed if any other Professional Football League Club, runs a one keeper policy? I put a chunk of tenners, we are the only one keeper Club.
A good non-league keeper will do. I prefer Lynch back, then see Baz in goals again. Odds on, it will strike us down again (keeper concussed or injured during this season).
I hate to be negative but imho the best bet was always going to be getting as good a loan keeper as possible on a season loan, with a cheap, young 'development' of a keeper of our own.
Carlisle have only just signed a second goalkeeper, and I don't think they anticipated brown to get injured so quickly. But that doesn't mean by the end of the window we won't have another goalkeeper.
You'd think that, having decided to only go with 1 keeper, that bringing in a guy who hadn't missed a game due to injury in his whole career would be a good bet.
I know we are doomed. Get that reserve keeper in now. That's what I say.
As an aside a few questions
1) given the red kites, I was a little surprised by the game birds (young partridges?) circling the ground including our friend who ended on the pitch. Would have thought the Kites were about to get a little fatter or were they a little too big for a kite? Any ornithologists out there able to shed some light?
2) Is there a shoot in the area they were being bred for?
3) Why is killing a live creature enjoyable and why does it qualify as sport?
Actually, Brittany raises an interesting question. Precedent appears now to be set that if our keeper is injured we can bring in an emergency loan. But what happens if he gets sent off? Should we be rewarded for our player breaking the rules by being allowed to bring in a new keeper, or could part of the punishment be us being forced to play Baz for up to three games?
55.1 If all the Professional Goalkeepers at a Club are unavailable as a result of having been:
55.1.1 certified by an independent medical practitioner as being unfit to play;
55.1.2 suspended; or
55.1.3 called up to play for his national association representative matches in accordance with the requirements of FIFA as laid down from time to time,
a Club may register (either before or after the deadlines laid down in Regulation 41.6 and 41.7), a further goalkeeper on a short term basis in accordance with the following provisions.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#oEP6lei0ryAfp6bG.99
Comments
Indeed.
Perhaps there is a jinx? The ref had to call it a night during the second half too. Another fairly rare occurrence.
Maybe with the amount of time our players spend feigning injury, it's just karma that they actually need to suffer one now and again to balance things out.
he has a broken finger and you can sign a playing on emergency loan inside or outside the transfer window. BR does not count as a professional goalkeeper for the club so won't stop us loaning one if SB gets injured again,
@Chris Ingram got sent off last season too. By the same ref we're hosting on Saturday as it happens.
When was the last mid-game keeper injury though? Before Ingram at Northampton.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the club's approach at all.
Essentially they are saving themselves from employing another professional goalkeeper - and instead spending that chunk of the playing budget on another outfield player, say Max Muller or Nick Freeman.
The flipside of that is that they run the risk from time to time that Scott Brown won't be able to finish a match due to injury or being sent-off. In those instances Barry will have to complete the match.
However, they would then be able to sign another goalkeeper on a loan basis (and there's no shortage of them on the books of Premier League and Championship clubs) if Scott is injured or suspended.
I think that's a risk worth taking as over the course of a season they'll get much more from the additional outfield player.
@StrongestTeam. Whilst I agree with you to a point, the dilemma is whether a young keeper is going to "develop" here whilst permanently sitting on the bench with no reserve/youth matches to play in.
Nevertheless, it's ridiculous to have only one goal keeper. A backup keeper as mentioned by @aloysius, provided competition for the 1st team spot and comradeship at least. Also after a match day, the subs and those who managed 20 odd minutes, a goal keeper to train against.
It's a gamble, I don't think is necessary, as emergency keepers, got limited time to get to know our back line and how we setup.
there arguments in favour of one keeper and arguments in favour of two or even three (Plymouth for example have actively sought the latter).
Some of your arguments in favour of two are among the weaker ones, comradeship - well SB can get that from BR and from outfield players, after a game BR or any old player can go in a goal for a warm down if they need a GK at all. Knowledge of our back line and how we set up are a relatively minor benefit for a GK. So lets park those flimsy arguments and focus on those that matter.
WWFC have a limited playing budget and hence a small squad. The question comes down then to do you spend some of that budget on a second goalkeeper or an additional outfield player. You cant have both.
It is relatively unlikely but possible that SB may get injured during a match and have to come off or may get sent off. In those circumstances it is likely that a second GK would perform better than an aging BR for that match.
It is desirable that there is competition for places, although it is doubtful how much real competition a presumably cheap inexperienced GK would realistically provide (and no doubt if form was really bad, Brown could suddenly become "conveniently" injured anyway).
On the other hand that money could provide an outfield player who may very well play a significant contribution. Most likely your second GK would not play all season.
Where injuries to SB occur in training, there should be ample time to source a loan replacement. The same would apply if SB was banned following a sending off. The quality of that replacement now guaranteed a game is likely to be significantly higher than one we can attract with the intention of being on the bench.
Were brown to be clearly out for a few games, that higher quality loan replacement may be very valuable indeed whereas under the new rules if your second choice probably lower quality goalkeeper qualifies, then we maybe precluded from bringing in a loan replacement for the duration of Brown's injury. that could be 8, 10, 15 games who knows.
There are arguments both ways, but now that it is clear that BR registration does not preclude bringing in a loan keeper when Brown is unavailable, personally unless a very promising cheap GK that we don't want to pass up becomes available, I would stick with just the one.
@DevC how on earth would you know?
Know what?
I'm very much in agreement with @DevC .
@LX1 - yes, know what???
no no no no no no, yes
Exactly.
You're starting to annoy me @LX1 !
I am getting a headache reading all of these threads, interesting as they are,but I do think we should have two keepers. Is it not possible for another player in the team to take on a keepers role if necessary or is that not allowed in the rules of the FA.
@DevC; I don't care if my argument is weak. One full time keeper at the Club is a joke, end off.
No one I have noticed has confirmed if any other Professional Football League Club, runs a one keeper policy? I put a chunk of tenners, we are the only one keeper Club.
A good non-league keeper will do. I prefer Lynch back, then see Baz in goals again. Odds on, it will strike us down again (keeper concussed or injured during this season).
I hate to be negative but imho the best bet was always going to be getting as good a loan keeper as possible on a season loan, with a cheap, young 'development' of a keeper of our own.
Carlisle have only just signed a second goalkeeper, and I don't think they anticipated brown to get injured so quickly. But that doesn't mean by the end of the window we won't have another goalkeeper.
Best laid plans and all that.
You'd think that, having decided to only go with 1 keeper, that bringing in a guy who hadn't missed a game due to injury in his whole career would be a good bet.
Of course not..too easy!
@Bristol_wwfc; lucky I was no where near a bookies.
Plainly Cider your argument "my arguments are weak but ...I am right... - end of" trumps all suggestions to the contrary!
We'll see what the remainder of the window brings. I will trust GA judgment on this one.
Also what happens if the gk gets a red card?.
What if his arm bursts?
What if Brown is ornithophobic and the mere sight of scared/injured/dead birds in his six yard box renders him unable to play on?
Just wait until he sees all the red kites circling above Adams Park.
I know we are doomed. Get that reserve keeper in now. That's what I say.
As an aside a few questions
1) given the red kites, I was a little surprised by the game birds (young partridges?) circling the ground including our friend who ended on the pitch. Would have thought the Kites were about to get a little fatter or were they a little too big for a kite? Any ornithologists out there able to shed some light?
2) Is there a shoot in the area they were being bred for?
3) Why is killing a live creature enjoyable and why does it qualify as sport?
Actually, Brittany raises an interesting question. Precedent appears now to be set that if our keeper is injured we can bring in an emergency loan. But what happens if he gets sent off? Should we be rewarded for our player breaking the rules by being allowed to bring in a new keeper, or could part of the punishment be us being forced to play Baz for up to three games?
No.
55 Emergency Goalkeeper Loan
55.1 If all the Professional Goalkeepers at a Club are unavailable as a result of having been:
55.1.1 certified by an independent medical practitioner as being unfit to play;
55.1.2 suspended; or
55.1.3 called up to play for his national association representative matches in accordance with the requirements of FIFA as laid down from time to time,
a Club may register (either before or after the deadlines laid down in Regulation 41.6 and 41.7), a further goalkeeper on a short term basis in accordance with the following provisions.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#oEP6lei0ryAfp6bG.99