Should we bother with a substitute keeper?

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

West Ham hardly ever name a substitute keeper on the bench, and apparently Blackpool don't often name one either. Are we missing a trick? It's so rare to actually need to use the substitute keeper maybe it's a better use to have another outfield player on the bench instead?

Yay or Nay?

 

[Nottseagull]

Yes - and it should be Brezovan.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

With only 5 subs I wouldn't have a goalkeeper on the bench. Okay maybe once or twice in the season you may regret it, but the chances are that if the gk does get injured it may be lateish in the game. So let's assume a total of 1.5 games we wouldn't have a first choice goalkeeper. And it's only for a sending off or an injury, you virtually never see a goalkeeper substituted tactically.

Assuming we have a player who is vaguely competent in goal, we might lose 3 or 4 points max in a season. Substitute goalkeepers don't necessarilly lose a game, especially if the defence have practiced playing with a defender in goal.

Contrast that with the benefits of having an extra sub for every game. How many points would that win us in a game? 6 or 7 minimum I would say.

Those extra two or three points could be the difference between promotion or just missing out.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

I voted yay, but if you have an outfield player trained as a keeper who could fill in if needed - then that could maybe remove the need for it