Goalkeeper on Bench

[scotty8612]

What are peoples views on putting a Goalkeeper on the Bench?

I decided pretty early on that it wasn't necessary, very rarely do Goalkeepers get injured, and I've never seen one get sent off. They just seem to take up a space on the bench that can be used for an outfield player.

In 3 years, i have had only 2 games where i have needed to put an outfield player in goal, one was on 85 minutes when 4-0 up so no problem, the other was after 5 Minutes but managed to keep the opposition from having a shot on target.

[BiggusD]

It's not necessary.

[ReggaeBwoy]

I always have a GK on the bench, once in a match my goalkeeper randomly picked up a knock and I was forced to replace him, always valaube having one on the bench IMO

[Ackter]

There's more than enough room on most subs benches to include a keeper, so why not?

[aderow]

Always had one. Always will.

Sure its rare but it happens and it happens to me at the worst possible times.

[wackettdagenham]

I do agree that it is very rare for the goalkeeper to be injured or sent off, but I always have/had a keeper on the bench.

[massij]

i never..ever put a keeper on the bench...i hardly ever have a reserve keeper in the squad xD but then when i do its a star xD ..right know my reserve keeper is asenjo (just got him for free so looking to sell him next window...and then adler is coming for free xD

[markyosullivan]

If I only can have 5 subs, i never select a GK.

[fcunitedfan]

If I am allowed seven subs, I have a keeper on the bench. If I'm only allowed five, I don't.

[Fabio MVP]

I always have goalie as a number 1 sub.

[Bracken]

I always have one as sub, I've been caught out before when I didn't have one on the bench.

[rancer890]

There's no reason not to have one if you have 7 subs to work with.

[o JaY]

Always, when its happened in the past, its at the worst of times - usually in big, key games. Even in some leagues/games (can't remember which league/club) where you are only allowed to name 3 subs, I still have a GK. But I will admit, it is extremely rare, probably too rare but better safe than sorry.

[Robert the Spud]

Always do, even if just for sentiment.

[nbrethe]

Never have a keeper on the bench. In all the games I've played on FM10 and 11, I can only remember one game where I needed to sub my keeper.

[Dune297]

My goalie has been injured three times in the last 2 years. I've also seen the opposition goalkeeper get sent off twice in the last 2 years. (Ingame time.)

[BiggusD]

I like to be sure that I have a substitute for all positions on the field, so all 7 slots on the bench are very valuable. Since players get knocks, injuries, yellow cards, become tired, plays badly, becomes nervous/complacent/loses discipline almost every match and the keeper is so rarely involved in any of that, I never even consider bringing with me a keeper sub.

[Keyzer Soze]

i always put a gk on the bench.

Reason: Because i like to make my games as real as i can!

[MarcWeir]

i dont think i have ever played a game without a keeper on the bench even if i have had to put a youth keeper on the bench

[Andrew!]

I always put a keeper on the bench, one time my backup was injured, so was the next best, ended up putting some 17 year old youth player on the bench, even though i've never had to sub a keeper on fm10

[Bradley21]

Never, theres just no point. In fact i only ever have 1 keeper in my squad, if i get an injury ill use a kid or bring in a loan.

[Eugster]

Always put a keeper on.

[troy.maxcy]

I guess this argument comes down to realism versus playing a video game.

I always have a GK as #1 sub on the bench, because this is what would really be done around the world.

Example of needing this in real life; LA Galaxy #1 goes off injured, #2 sent off and then and only then was an outfield player put in net.

[shirajzl]

Always, when its happened in the past, its at the worst of times - usually in big, key games. Even in some leagues/games (can't remember which league/club) where you are only allowed to name 3 subs, I still have a GK. But I will admit, it is extremely rare, probably too rare but better safe than sorry.

Did you ever think of having a GK on the bench only for big, key games?

[juve_curr]

If I'm allowed 7 subs, I always have a keeper on the bench. If it's 5 or less subs, I never do.

Just yesterday, I was managing St Albans in the BSS. I was 1-0 up after about 30 minutes and my keeper gets injured. I put a striker in goals and go on to win 3-0.

[ArsenalFan7]

Usually use 1 GK, 2 DEF, 2 MID, 2 ST on the bench but recently have been placing another midfielder or versatile player in that 1st sub spot.

Example of needing this in real life; LA Galaxy #1 goes off injured, #2 sent off and then and only then was an outfield player put in net.

1 in 1000

[Richey2008]

I don't even put a goalkeeper in the starting XI. I just don't believe in them. But I always have 7 spare keepers on the bench.

[nbrethe]

To be fair it's not unrealistic to have no keeper on the bench. Warnock never used to have a keeper on the bench (I noticed now he does)

[tom180]

I always have had a Goalkeeper, and probably always will

[Swills417]

I only ever include a keeper on the bench if I allow the AssMan to pick the subs bench, it is usually the first subsittue I sacrifice for a better player or youth player.

[nyandoro]

There's more than enough room on most subs benches to include a keeper, so why not?

Try Wales.

[abfielder]

Always, I also have 3 keepers in my squad at all times. Used to be 2 but I got badly stung when both keepers got injured at the same time.

[Kenco]

13 seasons into my current game, never had a GK on my bench, never needed one.

GKs do get the odd injury, but I am happy to take the chance. I have been compiling stats on my players recently and noticed that no GK has even had so much as a yellow card, let alone red, in 13 seasons.

[nickdc]

13 season game for me too, and once had to put an outfield player in. That extra spot normally goes to a young gun who I can blood should the result be going my way.

[BML]

I also never have a 'keeper on the bench, I would much rather free up an additional spot for a midfielder/forward.

[BiggusD]

I play a 4-2-2-2 with two defensive midfielders and two wingers. So I want to cover for all positions, and therefore I need:

1 right back
1 centre back
1 left back
2 defensive midfielders
2 wingers
at least 1 striker

So depending on how versatile my players are, I need at least two of those positions to be covered by one player.

Right now I have, if I play a pure 1st 11:

1 D RC *
1 D L
2 DM C
1 AM R
1 AM L
1 S C

If, however, I wanted to include a GK substitute, I would have to have two players covering four positions:

1 GK
1 D RLC *
1 D/DM C *
1 DM C
1 AM R
1 AM L
1 S C

I don't have any players natural in both D C and DM C positions, and I don't have a player who is natural in all defender positions. I don't have full backs who are also natural DM C. I don't have strikers natural in AM R/L positions. There are no DM C/S C in the game (of necessary quality).

So no room for a GK, since I want to be sure I have +75% condition DM C's until the 75th minute the earliest. Without being rude, the arguments for including a GK have been purely subjective and emotion-based, so far. The arguments for leaving him out rational and based on statistical fact (although not scientifically proven through actual statistical analysis. I'd argue that continued mass observation of the rarity of the -need- of a GK substitute should be proof enough).

[Galvanize]

I always have a GK on the bench, apart from when I possibly can't down to suspensions/injuries.

There's six other places on the bench which can adequately cover all of the positions on the pitch.

[Fabio MVP]

If I have 5 subs then: GK, DC, MCa or MCd, AMR or AML and ST.
If 7: GK, DC, DR or DL, MCd, MCa, AMR or AML and ST.

[o JaY]

Did you ever think of having a GK on the bench only for big, key games?

Yeah, I've thought about it but I keep one on the bench for every game now as a just in case. I also like to have versatile/re-trained players who can cover a couple of positions so then I have sufficient cover with enough room for a 'keeper.

To be fair it's not unrealistic to have no keeper on the bench. Warnock never used to have a keeper on the bench (I noticed now he does)

Wasn't that partly down to him usually having Phil Jagielka in the side? I think he played in goal for Sheffield United a few times.

[robbiepope]

I like to have a young up and coming keeper on the bench who I bring on a sub in games where I am winning comfortably. For some reason I hate spending upwards of 10 million on a new keeper so instead like to develop young talent in that area.

[Chilliconcarnie]

I always have a keeper at my #2 sub unless I can only have three subs.

At #2 because my sub keepers are always number 13

[Robioto]

In my past few seasons I haven't bothered, TBH I sold my 2nd keeper and forgot to replace him, bit stupid but instead of bringing up one of my youth keepers I decided to give it a go with only one keeper in the squad. The guy has played every minute for 2 seasons now and I've had no problem with just the one keeper, so far...

[delta force]

never have had a keeper on the bench ! if the keeper gets injured and we lose the game because of it i accept all fault...and possibly sack the ass man in anger :/

[BuryBlade]

5 subs allowed then I risk it without. 7 subs allowed and I will have a GK on the bench.

[Koki]

Only in cup games, especially Europe.

[denizgunu]

I always have a goalkeeper on bench regardless of conditions, it's much realistic and safer that way.

[santa]

I always have a gk on the bench...partly because I might need him and because I can choose 7 subs...but mainly because the league rules says I have to

[x42bn6]

Nah. Where's the fun in that? 7 outfield players is awesome.

The only time I have a goalkeeper on the bench is when the game screws up and calls up all my players for Internationals before a match (in which case I usually don't have enough players so have to put a goalkeeper on the bench), or when one of my goalkeepers is set to retire and I'm imagining him being taken off on the 89th minute.

[Lem]

Always have a goalkeeper, although there seem to be less goalkeeper injuries and suspensions on this version than I've ever seen before. In fact I don't think I've ever subbed my goalkeeper on this version - before I've used them comparatively frequently so it's been ingrained into me.

[stinger061]

It depends for me. Generally if I'm allowed 7 subs I'll have one and if it's a league with 5 subs I wont. However I always include a sub keeper in big league matches or the latter stages of cups because I know I'd be devastated to lose a title because I got my keeper injured (which I'm sure a lot of people would report as a bug despite the fact it's clearly your own fault)

[StevenChap]

I have a GK on the bench to keep squad happy. For example, when Chelsea are winning 4-0 I let Ross Turnbull have a go in goal.

[CGE97]

I never have a keeper on the bench - i see no neeed. My favoured formation is a 4-5-1 (midfield V) so my 7 spots are filled by 3 defenders, (left right and centre) a cm or dm, two wingers and a forward

[albacete66]

I never have a goalkeeper on bench