Do you put a GK on the bench?

[n33712]

Never, unless i have alot of injuries or players banned and i have the free seat on the bench!

[FM_returner]

I always put a keeper on the bench.

[Jonnie]

I only ever have 1 Senior Keeper

Use my youth team keeper as the reserve keeper.. no point in having him if he aint ready to step up at short notice

He only goes on the bench when the youth team have a week off / easy game

[Quackje]

No, so rarely needed. Right now my bench is pretty simple as I don't use wingers.

1. CB

2. FB

3. CB/FB

4. MC

5. DM/MC

6. ST

7. ST

[NZAaza]

Some leagues have specific rules stating you must have a GK on the bench or a GK plus X amount of subs.

I always put a GK on a bench, even when you can only have five subs listed.

Usually goes like this for me:

1 Goalkeeper

2 Fullback

3 Central Defender

4 Defensive Midfielder

5 Central/Attacking Midfielder

6 Winger

7 Striker

Fullback of the side not covered usually has a player on the pitch or the CB on the bench that can play there. Same goes with the winger which means I have cover for ever position on the pitch.

[mojojojo101]

always... lost the Champions League final in fm09 when my keeper got sent off in the first 10 minutes and O'shea had to play in goal...

I try to have my subs bench in the same order all the time (bcoz i have OCD like that... )

Sub 1: GK

Sub 2: DR/L (pref someone who can play both)

Sub 3 DC

Sub 4: DM

Sub 5: AMC

Sub 6: AMR/L (aagain someone who can play bot prefered)

Sub 7: ST

[hursty2]

There is no risk in the game. You wont get fired. The press wont criticize you. The supporters wont call you a fool. Its an exploit because its performing a high risk move with no chance of experiencing any consequences..save losing a match.

if SAF does not list a GK in tomorrows squad list I will walk through Compton naked.

The reason managers always list a sub GK is because its a specialized position and perhaps the single most important single position in the game.

He has a point.

[glenn28]

Yes always just incase my 1st choice keeper gets injuried or sent off.

[chelsea_____Rules]

Always, especially since I've had a keeper become injured taking a goal kick ^_^.

It's is not that unusual , did it to myself today:o!!

[crouchaldinho]

He has a point.

No he hasn't. Don't encourage him.

The game does offer consequences for this choice, just like any other tactical choice that a manager makes. In my example game from the opening post, I got feedback that my fans were very disappointed (they didn't even take into account the fact that my goalkeeper had been injured and that we played a defender in goal for the second-half!) and I got negative feedback from my board for the result. I also lost the three points! Had my position been in question, it could have lost me my job. In some respects, the consequences might even be argued to be too high. The fans don't understand the that I made a tactical decision for the good of the team that carried with it a small risk, which unfortunately occurred on this occasion. If they did, they might well have been more understanding.

[JamieWilliams]

I can put 5 players on my bench and there just isn't room for one that's almost never needed. So in league games I'd rather take the very rare certain loss. In playoff games of course I'll put a GK on.

[ytfc2005]

I usually take the risk with no sub GK, I rarely pick one but if I do It's for the really really important games.

[5legend]

i never put a keeper on the bench unless i have to because of league rules

[Ibrahimagic]

For a seven man bench, I'll almost always have a keeper on the bench. But I'll often opt against it in a five man bench. It all depends on how versatile my squad is. I usually like to keep my options as open as possible with regard to outfield positions, as it allows for greater tactical flexibility. Having a keeper on the bench rarery comes in handy anyway. Keepers almost never get a red injury while playing, and if they see red, which is rare anyway, then you've conceded a penalty and are a man down, so the game is usually over by then anyway, whether you have a proper keeper in goal or not.

I generally like to have at least two forwards on the bench too. Easiest position to have a loss of confidence in, and they usually get tired more easily too. Fresh legs in the final third are vital for turning a game, imo.

[xsmason]

In my first match in FM history I was looking forward to it & rushed the team selection. Forgot the sub GK & my GK got injured in the first half. Total beat down & now I never leave the dressing room without one. I've needed them since too, but only 5 times maybe? Most recently a few days ago my GK cleared a backpass & injured himself. Seemed able to carry on & conceded a shocker. Immediate sub there....won that 2-1 after falling behind to said goal. Dread to what would've happened though.

Off topic though, do they ever get sent off?? I've never seen one get sent off in any match, except once when it was only in the commentary.

[sjm]

For me, there's no point not having a keeper on the bench with 7 subs. If you don't have 6 players on the bench that can cover all outfield positions, you're doing something wrong (like not training new positions ever). I have been known to sub backup keepers just to get them a few games or if they're promising youngsters, so it's not only about injuries.

When you've only got 5 subs, I sometimes, but rarely, go for 5 outfield players. But again, I tend to prefer having players that can cover a few positions in my team. It gives you so many more tactical options.

What I do like is having one defender who can play DL/R/C, so I can have two strikers, 2-3 midfielders (covering both wings, central, DM). That leaves enough space for 1-2 promising youngsters and a keeper. I rarely sub defenders because they don't lose condition much, so the defender on the bench is really only in case of an injury or an absolutely abysmal performance by one of the starting defenders. The youngsters generally get a chance if the game is already won.

I can't understand how people can say that not having a keeper on the bench is an exploit though. It's a simple risk-reward calculation. The one time you get caught short, you might get pumelled, but it's well within your rights as a manager to do so. But seeing as you only get to make three substitutes, the benefit with a 7-man bench isn't worth it. There's always going to be at least 4 players just warming the bench anyway.

[Lankylars]

I never put a GK on the bench, since in all my FM playing time I've only once had a GK injury, and never a red card. My bench is usually: DC, DL, DR, DM/MC, MC, AMC, FC (keep in mind I play a 4-1-2-1-2).

In real life, if I were somehow a manager, I would never not have a GK sub, because making that mistake and needing the GK would result in ridicule by fans, anger from the board, etc. In FM, the worst that happens in a loss that everyone will soon forget about.

[Johnlc]

I only put goalkeepers on the bench.

[Lambo95]

I just have a DM and put N'Zonzi in the net

[bwfc ok]

My keeper was sent off in one of the first games I played in FM 11 for handling outside the box.I did have a sub keeper as I have had in many versions of FM but this was the only time I have had a keeper sent off.I have subbed a keeper for a bad performance in the first half to try to stop a real hammering over the year so yes always a keeper on the bench.

[craigcwwe]

I always put a keeper on the bench, it is bad management not to imo

[Fancy Gaffot]

Never ever

[DaveDaveDave]

Always. I just know that if I didn't, I'd get screwed. My bench normally looks like this:

1: ST

2: GK

3: Winger/Striker

4: AM

5: CM

6: Full Back

7: DC

[ben_789]

I always have at least two on the bench.

[LFCMatt7]

Yes always, maybe out of habit or just being cautious. The way I look at it is that I can only use 3 players anyway so 6 outfield players is more than enough cover/options.

My bench normally looks likes this:

1.GK

2.CB

3.FB

4.DM

5.AM

6.AMR/L

7.ST

[aderow]

[themodelcitizen]

Had a network game with my flatmates, Real-Barca-Atletico (I was Barca) but Atletico were given a few stars to even things out. Away to Atleti in one of the crucial human v. human games of the season... keeper gets injured early with none on the bench. He tells his team to shoot on sight and Pique in goal can't do anything about it... 6 or 7-1 or something at the end. Since then I've almost always kept a keeper on the bench and have seen a couple of slight knocks since then. Statistically, it's only worth it in games against teams you're in direct competition with, "6 pointers" like top-of-the-table clashes. In the rest of the league games, you're probably better off with the extra outfield sub in the long run

[SuperTimo]

Does keeping Jan Koller in the subs count?

[aderow]

Does keeping Jan Koller in the subs count?

I didn't realise being really tall automatically qualified you as a goalie

[interesti88]

Sub1: GK

Sub2: D(R/L)

Sub3: DC

Sub4: DMC

Sub5: AM(R/L)

Sub6: AMC

Sub7: ST

I just recently changed-up my tactics so I added a Gk to the subs bench incase my starting keeper gets injured.

[Llew_Arshavin23]

I ALWAYS have a keeper on the bench. Much rather a 16 year-old Youth team 'keeper in goal if required than an ARSHAVIN in goal.

[stevie_G_32201]

bugs the hell out of me if a goalkeeper isnt available for the bench. even a youth one is better than none.

[Football Manager.]

i dont either mate unlucky