5 Subs allowed from 22-23 season

[Danny]

As reported by The Athletic.

Personally think it’s a good move and will open the game up more for teams who press aggressively to keep up those levels of performance. With so many teams playing European football now it’ll be helpful for fixture congestion too.

[Azeem]

Good move

[LFCMike]

It was the only option with everywhere else doing it.

[Lucas]

I know it makes sense, but it still annoys the fuck out of me it panders to the better equipped teams.

I'd feel better about it if this was happening but the proviso was you had to have a minimum of two home grown youth players amongst the match day squad.

At least then, there would be compassion for players welfare as well as encouragement on youth coming through at clubs where they don't get too many chances at, as well as 'evening up' the playing field.

[Dr. Gonzo]

This is only necessary because they keep adding more and more matches in football.

[Stan]

I expect the bigger clubs and their managers/fans to moan far less frequently when this is implemented and they still don't use 5 subs per game.

Pep and Klopp don't even use 3 per game sometimes...

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Stan said:

I expect the bigger clubs and their managers/fans to moan far less frequently when this is implemented and they still don't use 5 subs per game.

Pep and Klopp don't even use 3 per game sometimes...

When was the last time Klopp didn’t use all 3?

[Happy Blue]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

I expect the bigger clubs and their managers/fans to moan far less frequently when this is implemented and they still don't use 5 subs per game.

Pep and Klopp don't even use 3 per game sometimes...

Pep doesn't even make a sub some games 

[Bluewolf]

34 minutes ago, Lucas said:

know it makes sense, but it still annoys the fuck out of me it panders to the better equipped teams.

That's why I am not a fan of it.... The amount of game changing talent sitting on the benches of say City, Chelsea & Liverpool for example are a mile away from anything Leeds could field.. It does give another advantage to the bigger sides.. 

[LFCMike]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

When was the last time Klopp didn’t use all 3?

When Klopp's had the option of five subs this season he's generally used four or five, three on a couple of occasions.

And what if a manager doesn't use three? Surely it depends on the schedule? Early in the season when you're playing one game a week there's often no need for all three subs. This stage of the season when it's a game every three days is when it's useful

[Stan]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

When was the last time Klopp didn’t use all 3?

 

10 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

When Klopp's had the option of five subs this season he's generally used four or five, three on a couple of occasions.

And what if a manager doesn't use three? Surely it depends on the schedule? Early in the season when you're playing one game a week there's often no need for all three subs. This stage of the season when it's a game every three days is when it's useful

Off the top of my head, absolutely no idea. But I definitely remember, when this topic was last debated, a few managers weren't using the full 3 subs, and Klopp was one of them. 

@LFCMike the last part of your sentence is where it favours the bigger clubs with the bigger squads (because they have a lot more money to spend etc...). Because there are far more games, those sides benefit through the option of rotation (and therefore the option to keep their better players fresher). 

Maybe going on pre-season friendlies around the world should be stopped. I would say instead, but now this 5-sub rule has been given the go ahead, maybe it's those games that should be fucked off. The option of those global friendly games that quite obviously benefit the tourist fans for £££££ as opposed to the players is what needs to change. I just saw the other day that Man Utd will be playing Liverpool in Indonesia this summer. What's the point? It's for commercial reasons only. 

To be fair it's why football is gradually yet consistently heading the wrong way to manufacture an environment that suits the massive clubs and line the pockets of various individuals that sit at the top. 

[Bluewolf]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

the last part of your sentence is where it favours the bigger clubs with the bigger squads (because they have a lot more money to spend etc...). Because there are far more games, those sides benefit through the option of rotation (and therefore the option to keep their better players fresher). 

I could agree that this is helpful for teams competing in more games if it helps reduce tiredness and risk of injuries but if that was the basis for it then the 5 sub rule should only kick in at a certain point in the season in my opinion, That way it remains fair for all the other teams in the league and would only benefit teams that were competing in Europe still where the amount of games for those sides goes well beyond what was average.. Also would it not be a bot fairer to have 5 subs in those particular competitions that clubs are still in?? 

[LFCMike]

9 minutes ago, Stan said:

 

Off the top of my head, absolutely no idea. But I definitely remember, when this topic was last debated, a few managers weren't using the full 3 subs, and Klopp was one of them. 

@LFCMike the last part of your sentence is where it favours the bigger clubs with the bigger squads (because they have a lot more money to spend etc...). Because there are far more games, those sides benefit through the option of rotation (and therefore the option to keep their better players fresher). 

Maybe going on pre-season friendlies around the world should be stopped. I would say instead, but now this 5-sub rule has been given the go ahead, maybe it's those games that should be fucked off. The option of those global friendly games that quite obviously benefit the tourist fans for £££££ as opposed to the players is what needs to change. I just saw the other day that Man Utd will be playing Liverpool in Indonesia this summer. What's the point? It's for commercial reasons only. 

To be fair it's why football is gradually yet consistently heading the wrong way to manufacture an environment that suits the massive clubs and line the pockets of various individuals that sit at the top. 

Ironically it's those smaller clubs who now have 2 or 3 games in hand that would have benefitted most from 5 subs had they voted for it before the start of this season.

Wonder why they voted against initially but have voted it through now?

[Stan]

6 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Ironically it's those smaller clubs who now have 2 or 3 games in hand that would have benefitted most from 5 subs had they voted for it before the start of this season.

Wonder why they voted against initially but have voted it through now?

From games that were cancelled by COVID? What difference would 5 subs have made there?

[LFCMike]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

From games that were cancelled by COVID? What difference would 5 subs have made there?

They're now having to fit those games in during midweeks at the end of season when they're only used to one game a week. Being able to make a couple of extra subs when you've got another game a few days later is beneficial.

[Danny]

2 hours ago, Lucas said:

I know it makes sense, but it still annoys the fuck out of me it panders to the better equipped teams.

I'd feel better about it if this was happening but the proviso was you had to have a minimum of two home grown youth players amongst the match day squad.

At least then, there would be compassion for players welfare as well as encouragement on youth coming through at clubs where they don't get too many chances at, as well as 'evening up' the playing field.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Take your lot for example, you’re up against a side who have played 4 games in 2 weeks, you’ve played two with a rest. You can press the oppo into oblivion and then make 3/4 changes at the break and do it again. Bigger clubs will have to think about midweek games, how much pressing they’ll want from certain players within that timeframe.

[LFCMike]

Is there any evidence of this massively benefitting the bigger clubs in every other league that has 5 subs in play this season?

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, LFCMike said:

Is there any evidence of this massively benefitting the bigger clubs in every other league that has 5 subs in play this season?

I don't think so - and tbh 3 or 5 subs, the bigger clubs with more money and better squads have the advantage regardless.

I'm against 5 subs if not for all the extra games added seemingly every couple of years. But they keep adding games and I don't think there's any reasonable choice but to allow more substitutions when they do stupid things like expand the CL or create new international tournaments.

1 hour ago, Stan said:

 

Off the top of my head, absolutely no idea. But I definitely remember, when this topic was last debated, a few managers weren't using the full 3 subs, and Klopp was one of them.  

Most managers make 2.75-3 substitutions on average in the league - Klopp falls into that. He makes 3 substitutions more often than not, the times where he's not made all 3 changes have either been in really close matches where we've had good momentum in the final 10 minutes and he won't make the final substitution because imo he's trying to not do anything that would fuck that momentum up, or when we were in a pretty awful injury crisis and he had kids or 2 keepers to call on.

The managers that average less than 2.75 a game are Dyche, Smith, Guardiola, and Hasselhunt - and Hasselhunt is VERY close to being where most other managers are. So that's 2 relegation battling clubs with small sides - but that also don't play as many matches... and the guy with the biggest and strongest squad.

[Cicero]

To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen a case this season where I thought, "Man, sure wish we could use 5 subs" whilst watching Chelsea. 

In Europe or Cup finals, its different given the context of the occasion, but for league games I haven't really cared for it. Maybe its because our bench has Barkley, Sarr, Alonso, CHO, Werner, and Lukaku 

[Happy Blue]

Should be 7 really, all the bench should have to play at least 10 minutes 

[OrangeKhrush]

I am open to the idea,  it will offer the opportunity for more game time.   I would like to see the rule go further to adopt at least 2 U21 HG players that at least one must be used as a substitute. 

[6666]

When it comes to tactics, managers don't really like making that many changes. This is mainly for when injuries mess up their plans. Don't really know why anyone would be against it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

14 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I am open to the idea,  it will offer the opportunity for more game time.   I would like to see the rule go further to adopt at least 2 U21 HG players that at least one must be used as a substitute. 

I like this idea tbh. I think it's good to promote more clubs in the league developing their young players.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I like this idea tbh. I think it's good to promote more clubs in the league developing their young players.

I am all for promoting youth,  it is for the benefit of everybody.

 

1. Young players ensure financial stability,  the current quota of 8 home grown players is to low and should be raised to around 12 or 15,  this will include dual citizenship.   IMHO it should be players who are either British or have been in a clubs youth system for an accumulated period of 3 years.  
2. Ensuring youth development will benefit all British nations ensuring the best youth have a chance to make it in the most competitive league.    It may also reduce "skill drain" where a country doesn't produce enough talent to remain competitive due to the league being predominantly foreigners. 

[Dan+]

Dean Smith had it right. Keep voting until you get the outcome you want. Corrupt cunts.