5 subs allowed from this weekend

grepo

Active member
Joined
20 Mar 2005
Messages
1,665
Reaction score
38
Location
Bradford
This should help us ease back players like Pontus from injury and help reduce further injuries within our squad given the density of games, as well as helping us to blood some of the younger talents. I think this should suit us well.
 

Simon C

Moderator
Joined
6 Feb 2001
Messages
18,305
Reaction score
196
Location
'slow
This should help us ease back players like Pontus from injury and help reduce further injuries within our squad given the density of games, as well as helping us to blood some of the younger talents. I think this should suit us well.
I would have thought centre back is one of the areas we are least likely to use an additional sub for. Only likely if we have got the initial line up wrong ala Stoke or injury
 

HaylingBee74

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2020
Messages
480
Reaction score
130
Location
Hayling Island
I kept saying it would happen but kept being told this has already been voted upon.
But they were mistaken when they voted. We need 5 subs for sure, rest those players who are suddenly knackered after an hour.
 

Mr Cynical

Well-known member
Joined
1 Jul 2000
Messages
11,962
Reaction score
825
Location
London
It's total b***ock*s. It favours big clubs with bigger squads. A sad day.
Yes, it's a moot point as to whether this will have helped us at all over the last month or so given injuries etc but it's a boon for clubs who stockpile players.
 

Mr Cynical

Well-known member
Joined
1 Jul 2000
Messages
11,962
Reaction score
825
Location
London
Aren’t all Championship teams limited to a squad of 25 players, so bigger clubs dont have more players to use
Doesn't include u21 players but it's more about the quality of the players in the squad. Bigger clubs are more likely to have real first team quality on the bench. We're likely to have at least one or two B teamers at the moment..
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,319
Reaction score
323
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
Doesn't include u21 players but it's more about the quality of the players in the squad. Bigger clubs are more likely to have real first team quality on the bench. We're likely to have at least one or two B teamers at the moment..
Exactly. It lets the likes of Chelsea get away with their disgusting stockpiling. I don't see a reason for more than two subs and am prepared to die on that hill.
 

Ealing Bee

Active member
Joined
5 Jun 2002
Messages
9,395
Reaction score
327
Location
Now Chiswick (proud to be a YIMBY)
If it were to be retained after all this Covid virus fixture congestion were over, then yes, I'd be against it.

But I don't think it will be, since it wasn't automatically renewed for the start of this season. Rather it seems to be genuinely justified by the increased injury count just now.

Besides, there is a case for arguing that clubs with smaller squads need protection from injury at least much as bigger clubs. Imagine, for example, if Sheff Wed were to lose Bannen for a run of games, or Fulham Mitrovic ?

Such clubs need to protect their key players with tactical substitutions, otherwise they may be forced to rest them from some games entirely and replace them youngsters who are clearly not up to it.
 

Simon C

Moderator
Joined
6 Feb 2001
Messages
18,305
Reaction score
196
Location
'slow
With 5 subs you might as well go the whole hog and allow players who have been taken off to come back on again. :fishing:
 

jlove

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2002
Messages
32,783
Reaction score
399
Location
Vaison-la-Romaine
It will favour clubs that have a consistent formation and style of play so that the entire squad are fully practiced in their positional roles and responsibilities. There may be some clubs with many 'names' in their squad but, if those players want to play their own game and not within the team, bringing a few on will cause serious disruption.
 

Paul O'Brien

Active member
Joined
9 May 2001
Messages
4,780
Reaction score
26
Location
Middlesex
I'm on the fence about this move. While it's (possibly) necessary for the protection of the players at the moment, it may be a way to make this a permanent thing for the future. We've got decent subs, but it could affect many clubs in years to come.

It does remind me of a player that London Broncos brought in during the late 90s. I think it was Mark Carroll in 98 but could have been Mick Seaby the year before. He came in with amazing performances behind him in Australia's NRL. However, it was immediately apparent that he was totally unfit. The reason was, it turned out, that Oz RL had unlimited interchanges. As a result, Carroll would come on, play hard for 10 minutes and then go off for half an hour before coming back for another stint. (Not sure what my point is here, but what the hey!)
 

Indian Bee

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2001
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
257
Location
Manhattan
Good we have got 13 games in the next 6 weeks. No brainer for me.
 

JCMcBee

Active member
Joined
19 Apr 2013
Messages
9,204
Reaction score
101
....more drama...more theatre........VAR........... now this.......the beautiful game gets a makeover....its all getting very ugly.
 

grutter

Active member
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Messages
7,280
Reaction score
328
Location
Orpington
Tin hat time, but I really felt TF didn't know how best to use the 5 subs rule (although he made the best of the water break rule). I've never found him to be a 'pro active' substitute man, too often waiting until his designated time to make changes, rather than being a bit more reactive. As far as I can see, having 4 or 5 subs will disrupt our play, rather than enhance it based on subs made this season so far.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
70,996
Reaction score
1,397
Location
London
I am sure we would have been against this, as we were in the first place. This just gives those teams with more money a competitive advantage.

Probably with it hasn't happened in the PL, because all but the top 6 would be voting against playing against them with more players.
 

w7 bee

Active member
Joined
18 Jun 2013
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
17
I am sure we would have been against this, as we were in the first place. This just gives those teams with more money a competitive advantage.

Probably with it hasn't happened in the PL, because all but the top 6 would be voting against playing against them with more players.
Thought TF happy with it?
 

Indian Bee

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2001
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
257
Location
Manhattan
I am sure we would have been against this, as we were in the first place. This just gives those teams with more money a competitive advantage.

Probably with it hasn't happened in the PL, because all but the top 6 would be voting against playing against them with more players.
Not sure why we would be against it. We had to make early substitutions in 3 of our first 4 games this season due to injuries. It then restricts our ability to make tactical substitutions later on or give game time for others when we could only use 2.

I don't buy the money argument, this season it won't be the strongest team that goes up but the strongest squad. Despite what others say on here and I appreciate the weaknesses we have we nevertheless have a strong squad IMO that we will strengthen.
 

HaylingBee74

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2020
Messages
480
Reaction score
130
Location
Hayling Island
How close are we to the rules changing re head injuries? The medical staff shouldn’t be rushing players back on or the team being a man short while checks are carried out.
This must be even more likely with former footballers and dementia being in the news currently
 

Bill Benn

Well-known member
Joined
2 Mar 2001
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
164
Location
Just Cheltenham
Tin hat time, but I really felt TF didn't know how best to use the 5 subs rule (although he made the best of the water break rule). I've never found him to be a 'pro active' substitute man, too often waiting until his designated time to make changes, rather than being a bit more reactive. As far as I can see, having 4 or 5 subs will disrupt our play, rather than enhance it based on subs made this season so far.
It’s not compulsory and with the ridiculous amount of games coming up over the coming months I’m very happy with this.
 

bridport bee

I'm not from Bridport.
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
240
Reaction score
10
I believe this rule has been reinstated due to the amount of injuries that have occurred this season.

I think if it was made permanent it would definitely benefit clubs with more money, but I do also think it may benefit youth players to a small degree.

I am quietly pleased right now because I think it will benefit us, we’ve got a good squad and the option to rotate and rest would be good for players both in and out of the current ‘first’ team.
 

Mr Cynical

Well-known member
Joined
1 Jul 2000
Messages
11,962
Reaction score
825
Location
London
I believe this rule has been reinstated due to the amount of injuries that have occurred this season.

I think if it was made permanent it would definitely benefit clubs with more money, but I do also think it may benefit youth players to a small degree.

I am quietly pleased right now because I think it will benefit us, we’ve got a good squad and the option to rotate and rest would be good for players both in and out of the current ‘first’ team.
I guess if they made it permanent they could put a caveat that the extra 2 spaces would have to be under 21s to aid development. That would still favour the big teams though and probably encourage their already rife stockpiling of young talent.
 

bridport bee

I'm not from Bridport.
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
240
Reaction score
10
I guess if they made it permanent they could put a caveat that the extra 2 spaces would have to be under 21s to aid development. That would still favour the big teams though and probably encourage their already rife stockpiling of young talent.
I like your thinking, and I agree with your reasoning.
No further questions.
Thumbs up emoji.
 

Indian Bee

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2001
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
257
Location
Manhattan
I am sure we would have been against this, as we were in the first place. This just gives those teams with more money a competitive advantage.

Probably with it hasn't happened in the PL, because all but the top 6 would be voting against playing against them with more players.
Interesting to see that TF is fully supportive of the idea. I don't see how one could not be.
 

Castleview

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
681
Reaction score
16
I assume so, but because you have the option for 5 doesnt mean you have to use them. :idea:
I understand it in the current climate but not when it's back to normal. To me it's a sign of poor management from the start. The manager should select a side to win over 90 mins, not change almost half the team cos things aren't going well.
 

Leedsbee

Active member
Joined
17 Nov 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
86
Sensible with games every three or four days.Hope we've crunched the numbers and have worked out an improvement on sub at 60, 80 and 90+1 whatever the state of the game.Half each for players close to each other in terms of form?
 

Old B

Active member
Joined
3 Feb 2002
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
20
Location
Anywhere, roots in Hanwell
I appreciate it is sensible with the current fixture situation but wouldn’t support this in “normal” times, it does seem to favour a club with more financial resources and managers who just toss the dice. Imagine Karanka 1-0 up and how he would bolster his defence!
 

Stanley

Well-known member
Joined
10 Jan 2001
Messages
13,646
Reaction score
104
I often think bringing on too many subs can disturb the rhythm and flow of the team particularly if they are in the lead. We have all seen in friendlies how that happens.

MA used to tinker with the team near the end of the game for no obvious reason and often without a positive outcome.

Which is why I think clubs will use more than the normal 1 or 2 with caution, making wholesale changes near the end could lead to disaster.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom