Subbing your keeper for penalties

redlanered

I have a book called The Complete Book of the World Cup. Writer is Cris Freddi.

For the 1990 Semi, he writes:

"Just a thought here. Dave Beasant was in the squad. Much taller than Shilton and a well-known shot-stopper. Two years earlier his penalty save in the Final had won Wimbledon the FA Cup. Imagine the criticism if Robson had sent him on in the last minute of extra time and England had still lost the shoot-out. Yes, but maybe it was the kind of imaginative thinking England needed. Instead, Shilton went the right way for every kick but couldn't reach them"

Louis read that, maybe?

AddicksAddict

I always thought Shilton should have been subbed for that shoot-out.

tangoflash

I reckon he'd seen the 96 play-off final when Leicester city brought on their giant of a keeper on 120 mins....................only for Claridge to shin the winner in moments later. I don't buy into all this about Krul being the better for the job, just think it was mind games to unsettle Costa Rica. Paid off.........................

Charltonparklane

Shilton has a massive massive ego, would have been the hissy fit to end all hissy fits.

Think hes come across as a bit of cock on anything Ive seen him on.

kielyskickingboots

I've also always thought Shilton should have been subbed for that shoot-out, though always had Chris Woods in mind. Shilton was too old-school - the last keeper to still be waiting for the ball to be kicked before diving (as per the rules). Gave himself no chance.

I'm surprised this kind of tactic isn't used more often - not least because of the element of surprise on the takers, who study the keepers too these days.

Ormiston_Addick

Would not have mattered who was in goal for those German penalties, every one was hit hard and went right in the corner - nobody could have stopped them.

The Germans had practised their penalties quite hard in training....we had not.

theeenorth

Has LVG played the biggest con trick here? Krul is a big lad but bringing him on made him look like he's a specialist even if he isn't. Boost for the Dutch, doubt for Costa Rica. As it was thought he got to Ruiz with the verbals etc and ref was weak allowing Krul to wander the box at will.

thai malaysia addick

I wonder when goal line technology will be used to check that the keeper stays on his line. Have you ever seen a referee order a penalty shoot out kick to be re-taken?

shirty5

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/20957231

I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY

I remember Leicester done it about 20 years ago by replacing kasey Keller with kalac but they scored anyway to beat the nigels.

Kap10

I have a vague recollection that either Elliot or Randolph were brougt on for a penalty shoot out while on loan at Accrington, many years ago.

cfgs

theeenorth said:

Has LVG played the biggest con trick here? Krul is a big lad but bringing him on made him look like he's a specialist even if he isn't. Boost for the Dutch, doubt for Costa Rica. As it was thought he got to Ruiz with the verbals etc and ref was weak allowing Krul to wander the box at will.

I actually thought the same, it says I kept a sub back for this exact scenario and now you don't stand a chance. Mind games of the highest order.

Bournemouth Addick

Don't really have a problem with subbing the keeper in principle because teams have been bringing on 'specialist' penalty takers in the last few minutes for decades.

I had more of a problem with the way he behaved when he got on and maybe that was what he is better at. I have no doubt the striker would have been booked if they'd delayed the kick, wandering up to the goal line to give Krul verbals, etc.

smudge7946

The way to win a shoot out is to have your hardest player take the first pen. Regardless of whether he scores or not he then runs up to the keeper and punches him as hard as he can knocking the keeper out.

Obviously he would get a red card, but the other team no longer has it's first choice keeper available and subs are not allowed during a shoot out, thus handing the advantage to the offenders team.

cafcfan

What happens if the keeper gets sent off during the shoot-out?
All the subs have been used, so would an outfield player have had to go in goal? I mention this because of two bits of behaviour by Krul. First his mind games with the penalty taker - getting right in their faces - could have been interpreted as unsporting behaviour and he could have been booked. Second his bouncing the crossbar about prior to a kick being taken. I admit this was years ago but my old man, who was a ref, told me that intentionally reducing the size of the goal was a bookable offence. Clearly hanging off the cross bar does precisely that and so, I guess, should not be allowed.

Garrymanilow

I love the mind games nonsense keepers try. Krul will now claim he's some kind of psychological genius but the reality is all keepers guess, and if a penalty is struck well enough it can't be saved. The Dutch penalties were a good example of this; they were nearly perfect, right in the corner every time. Krul did well to make the saves but in my eyes he just looks like a bit of a cock. Well, he already did with that haircut but it's worse now. I just wish one of the Costa Ricans had chipped it down the middle like Pirlo did in the Euros when Hart was behaving like a prat.

JiMMy 85

Krul had nothing to lose, hence the sledging. He doesn't care if he gets a yellow or winds people up. I do think there's a good chance he was more effective in training, and maybe he was told to spend a day studying the CR takers.

ValleyGary

The fact that the Dutch media have been banging on about Van Gaal being some kind of revolutionary coach because he plays a 3-5-2 makes me think this was only done to increase his own ego.

It worked, but it was hardly risky. If CR had one, it would be easy to get out of.

Redskin

I'm probably old - fashioned, but Krul's antics made me puke.

I thought the sportsmanship and dignity of the Costa Ricans when they lined up to shake the Dutch team's hands was a credit to them.

NomadicAddick

redlanered said:

I have a book called The Complete Book of the World Cup. Writer is Cris Freddi.

For the 1990 Semi, he writes:

"Just a thought here. Dave Beasant was in the squad. Much taller than Shilton and a well-known shot-stopper. Two years earlier his penalty save in the Final had won Wimbledon the FA Cup. Imagine the criticism if Robson had sent him on in the last minute of extra time and England had still lost the shoot-out. Yes, but maybe it was the kind of imaginative thinking England needed. Instead, Shilton went the right way for every kick but couldn't reach them"

Louis read that, maybe?

Beasant was in the squad but not on the bench. In Italia 90 you still had to nominate subs, 5 it was, and Woods was on the bench in the semi. It was not until USA 94 when you could bring anyone from your squad on as a sub.
So hardly the Complete Book of the World Cup is it? Pretty poor research and proof reading.

MuttleyCAFC

I'm like a worn record with the subbing Shilton for Beasant theory. I use it as an example of the conservatism within football that really frustrates me. Bobby Robson was a great manager, but I think you need to think out of the box sometimes. The only thing that was a slight negative- the plan should have been discussed earlier- the Dutch no1 got upset and had to apologise, which was a bit needless. I think if you have a tall keeper you should do this every time as it adds something for your opponents to think about, and the more they have to think about, the more likely they are to make an error.

The other one for me is why don't teams put a player on the line for free-kicks? I think Kiely only let one free-kick in during our premiership years and that is when Henry rifled it over the player on the line's head at the Valley. On a Junior Reds Q&A at the Valley a few years back, I asked my son to ask Chrissy why we don't do this. I was expecting an answer that suggests that statistics show it is better not to have a player on the line. But the answer was, that he left decisions like that to his keepers. Which suggests that statistics are not used to determine what is the most effective option, which doesn't surprise me with football. Not a dig at Chrissy btw.

Charles Hughes may be partly to blame. He is always much derided for his use of statistics to advocate the long bal game - but I think he was visonary. The reason he got the wrong result from his analysis was because he used British players who were not that skillful on the ball. So th eresult was right in the sense that if a team can't string 5 consecuticve passes together, it should try to get from A to B in less!

But we shouldn't be afraid of statistics, we just need to get the sample right. And Charlton's premier years under Curbishley provide excellent defending free-kick data to analyse. Just wish football managers would be a little more imaginative. I think we are missing a trick.

redlanered

NomadicAddick said:

redlanered said:

I have a book called The Complete Book of the World Cup. Writer is Cris Freddi.

For the 1990 Semi, he writes:

"Just a thought here. Dave Beasant was in the squad. Much taller than Shilton and a well-known shot-stopper. Two years earlier his penalty save in the Final had won Wimbledon the FA Cup. Imagine the criticism if Robson had sent him on in the last minute of extra time and England had still lost the shoot-out. Yes, but maybe it was the kind of imaginative thinking England needed. Instead, Shilton went the right way for every kick but couldn't reach them"

Louis read that, maybe?

Beasant was in the squad but not on the bench. In Italia 90 you still had to nominate subs, 5 it was, and Woods was on the bench in the semi. It was not until USA 94 when you could bring anyone from your squad on as a sub.
So hardly the Complete Book of the World Cup is it? Pretty poor research and proof reading.

the point is surely that had Robson used this strategy he's have put Beasant on the bench instead of Woods...

JT

Hup Holland!

Mrs. Brightside

but if you had a player on the line during free kicks you would also have attacking players there as well, as they could not be offside ...

MuttleyCAFC

redlanered said:

NomadicAddick said:

redlanered said:

I have a book called The Complete Book of the World Cup. Writer is Cris Freddi.

For the 1990 Semi, he writes:

"Just a thought here. Dave Beasant was in the squad. Much taller than Shilton and a well-known shot-stopper. Two years earlier his penalty save in the Final had won Wimbledon the FA Cup. Imagine the criticism if Robson had sent him on in the last minute of extra time and England had still lost the shoot-out. Yes, but maybe it was the kind of imaginative thinking England needed. Instead, Shilton went the right way for every kick but couldn't reach them"

Louis read that, maybe?

Beasant was in the squad but not on the bench. In Italia 90 you still had to nominate subs, 5 it was, and Woods was on the bench in the semi. It was not until USA 94 when you could bring anyone from your squad on as a sub.
So hardly the Complete Book of the World Cup is it? Pretty poor research and proof reading.

the point is surely that had Robson used this strategy he's have put Beasant on the bench instead of Woods...

Exactly - It was something he should have planned for!!!!!!

MuttleyCAFC

Mrs. Brightside said:

but if you had a player on the line during free kicks you would also have attacking players there as well, as they could not be offside ...

Yes, so it comes down to statistics as to what option is most effective - and football people don't study them in this context, which is my point. We have an example of Charlton in the Premiership under Curbishley that provides useful data - but football people always know best, even when they don't!

Mortimerician

Beasant could not have been brought on as he wasn't on the bench. Back then you named subs for the bench and he was not there so it wasn't an option

Blucher

I wasn't keen on Krul's antics and the referee should have been firmer and told him to cut it out. In the event, Krul guessed right and they were good saves. I doubt the psychology and sledging had much to do with the misses, as they were decent penalties.

The media have, for me, gone well over the top, crowning Louis van Gaal as some kind tactical genius as a result of the substitution. In truth, he just got lucky. Krul is hardly a specialist on saving penalties - unlike, for example, Pepe Reina. There was also the former Ipswich goalie, Paul Cooper, who saved a lot of penalties, including 8 out of 10 in 1979/80.

As for Shilton in 1990, he was 40 and creaking a bit by then and I think Bobby Robson said that he had toyed with the idea of bringing Beasant on. That said, the German penalties were so good that I doubt that any keeper would have got anywhere near them.

MuttleyCAFC

Typical football answer - of course the possibility of penalties would have been known prior to the naming of substitutes, so the point applies. Just required a bit of flair in the thought process – something that on the whole football people lack from my observations. A very conservative profession!

NomadicAddick

Mortimerician said:

Beasant could not have been brought on as he wasn't on the bench. Back then you named subs for the bench and he was not there so it wasn't an option

This is getting like the Jokes thread.

NomadicAddick

MuttleyCAFC said:

Typical football answer - of course the possibility of penalties would have been known prior to the naming of substitutes, so the point applies. Just required a bit of flair in the thought process – something that on the whole football people lack from my observations. A very conservative profession!

I think the point being made is that since the Dutch game there has been a lot of talk about the '90 semi and even some of the players from then were suggesting that bringing on Beasant was discussed at Extra Time. Makes a good story but the facts needed pointing out. People can get all romantic about the past without actually remembering everything. I have heard that Waddle and Lineker have both been putting the story about.