Five Subs To Become Permanent in Football

[Stan]

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I mean if it's going to go ahead with a World Cup every two years, I think this is probably necessary.

An alternate solution would be to stop proposing more and more fucking games and stop fucking around trying to fix things that aren't broken instead of creating new problems that need new solutions.

[nudge+]

I actually like it, but only because we're so shit, and having more subs available gives me false hope that we might turn the game around and win  

[Viva la FCB+]

2 minutes ago, nudge said:

I actually like it, but only because we're so shit, and having more subs available gives me false hope that we might turn the game around and win  

Just gives you more looks at disappointment 

I actually quite like it. With the sheer amount of games played these days Its a great change. 

[Dave]

I like it to be honest. More opportunities for people and Barnsley of all teams showed how entertaining teams can be if they implement it to there advantage.

[Coma+]

There's a lot of debate out there about how it potentially benefits big clubs with bigger/deeper squads who have a lot of money riding the bench.  I can see the basis for that argument.  Honestly though I've become so used to seeing it over the past 18 months that it's become the norm.

[Smiley Culture]

Fuck five subs. Breaks up the second half far too much and ruins the tempo of games.

I get that it was needed for 19/20, 20/21 and probably a case for it being needed through to 22/23 due to the World Cup in November-December but I don’t want it permanently. I think it’s a poor attempt at a subtle way of covering “player  welfare” while UEFA and FIFA milk the game for all its worth and push through changes to European club Football and International Football. 

[Danny]

Good move for smaller teams who want to press high, can sub on 3-4 players with fresh legs at half time and go again.

[Whiskey]

What a load of shite

 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

36 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

Fuck five subs. Breaks up the second half far too much and ruins the tempo of games.

I get that it was needed for 19/20, 20/21 and probably a case for it being needed through to 22/23 due to the World Cup in November-December but I don’t want it permanently. I think it’s a poor attempt at a subtle way of covering “player  welfare” while UEFA and FIFA milk the game for all its worth and push through changes to European club Football and International Football. 

Fully agree with this. Can see a need for it due to the pandemic & for subsequently condensed seasons. To me this just seems like a way to cover for FIFA/UEFA as they add more tournaments to try to make as much money as they can.

[Tommy]

Good news. I think it makes the game more interesting, and also gives more players the chance to get some playing time. 

[Inverted]

I really am not convinced this is any good for weaker teams. Yeah, they can press more, but all of the really elite teams press too. So, they get an at least equal benefit.

The difference is that the smaller clubs will be bringing on fresh, bench-quality players, whereas there are several clubs which can bring on 5 fresh, elite players.

[Honey Honey]

I remember a long long time ago Bobby Robson used to do treble subs in one go and on a few occasions it led to us winning the game. These days all I see is this approach of making 1 sub, then 10 minutes later another sub, then on the 91st minute another sub. 

[Happy Blue]

On 27/10/2021 at 20:25, Danny said:

Good move for smaller teams who want to press high, can sub on 3-4 players with fresh legs at half time and go again.

Yeah, but teams like ours can bring on Mahrez, Sterling, Bernardo, Gundogan & Greelish off the bench 

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

I really am not convinced this is any good for weaker teams. Yeah, they can press more, but all of the really elite teams press too. So, they get an at least equal benefit.

The difference is that the smaller clubs will be bringing on fresh, bench-quality players, whereas there are several clubs which can bring on 5 fresh, elite players.

It won't be... With smaller clubs that have less depth in their squads you will find that most of their better quality players are already in the first team and on the pitch and everyone else left on the bench is either someone they don't want to risk due to a recent injury or players they use just to cover injuries/other... With bigger squads they have another 5 players or more that could easily be in that first 11 just that there is no room to squeeze them in... 5 subs will allow more opportunity to rotate these players and bring on a game changer... Smaller clubs don't always have them kind of players just sitting around waiting for a chance to get on.. 

[Ploughendplonker]

Slightly odd quirk in the FA Cup 1st round last week in that teams were able to name 9 substitutes. Can't think of this happening before in domestic football (aside from friendly games of course). 

Also seemed a little pointless as most of the teams (including many of the Football League teams involved) couldn't fill a 9 team bench as they work with small squads. 

[LFCMike]

1 hour ago, Ploughendplonker said:

Slightly odd quirk in the FA Cup 1st round last week in that teams were able to name 9 substitutes. Can't think of this happening before in domestic football (aside from friendly games of course). 

Also seemed a little pointless as most of the teams (including many of the Football League teams involved) couldn't fill a 9 team bench as they work with small squads. 

Premier League teams name 9 subs. Pointless as you say. Some clubs, even Liverpool, have named two keepers on the bench in some games which is just a waste of time.

[Ploughendplonker]

Just now, LFCMike said:

Premier League teams name 9 subs. Pointless as you say. Some clubs, even Liverpool, have named two keepers on the bench in some games which is just a waste of time.

Didn't know the 9 subs was a widely used thing now. We can still only name 5 subs for league matches. Whilst I wouldn't want our division to move to being able to make 5 substitutions, I wouldn't mind being able to name 7 on the bench. 

[Spike]

I think benefits players greatly. More chances to play and less burnout leading to injury

[Dan+]

Yet another thing manufactured to favour the bigger clubs dressed up as something that'll collectively help the sport.

[Spike]

19 minutes ago, Dan said:

Yet another thing manufactured to favour the bigger clubs dressed up as something that'll collectively help the sport.

Small clubs get five subs too.

[Mel81x+]

I'd be very interested in knowing how many clubs actually use all 5 subs per game and out of those clubs how many of those players play the maximum possible games in a season. I highly doubt there is any quantifiable data outlining why 5 subs just magically became important when having 3 was okay all this time. Did injuries increase over time? Was that directly proportional to the amount of games a player has to potentially play in a season + off-season from the club? 

[Dan+]

3 hours ago, Spike said:

Small clubs get five subs too.

Smaller clubs have less depth in squads by default and less ability to change a game with subs. This can only be perceived as a benefit to the bigger sides.

[Spike]

2 hours ago, Dan said:

Smaller clubs have less depth in squads by default and less ability to change a game with subs. This can only be perceived as a benefit to the bigger sides.

That has always been the case, even with three. Two extra sets of legs could be massive for a team trying to protect a lead or a win. Don’t really see the big issue, Ross Barkley was never doing much for Chelsea when he was subbed on at 87minutes anyway. 

Injuries, red cards, teams will be better able to adapt and they won’t automatically be a death sentence.