IFAB to extend five substitutes rule to cover all of 2020-21 season

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Smart decision.

I mean in a world where:
- La Liga has been won by somebody other than Barcelona/Real just once in the last 15 years
- PSG have won 7 of the last 8 Ligue 1 seasons
- Bayern has won 8 Bundesligas in a row
- Juve has won 9 Serie A titles in a row, and would probably have won a lot more if they hadn't been caught cheating

It's clear the big teams definitely need a helping hand.

I genuinely don't know how you could watch some of those leagues. It will be even worse if the big clubs can now for all intents and purposes maintain two separate teams to play different tactics.

similar to my post. Completely agree.

 

[Globule]

Gives an advantage to the wealthiest clubs, so I hope it doesn't stay beyond next season.

For us though it should be a good thing. Keeps our best players fresher, means we have more opportunities to change the outcome of matches that are not going our way and should mean more playing time for young prospects.

 

[Globule]

I also wonder how this is going to impact smaller/lower league teams. A lot will already be in financial trouble due to the lockdown so may have been looking at the loan market to freshen up their squads, but now Prem teams will be unlikely to loan out as many players because they need the depth.

 

[Saffron]

I just don’t watch the second half of any non-United match anymore. 10 subs in 45 minutes is just too tedious and disrupts the flow of the game.

 

[mancan92]

Pretty stupid idea. Basically means all top teams have a ridiculous advantage. Where's the logic?

 

[SirAF]

I like it. Allows managers more freedom to influence the match, also accounts for injuries that may come about due to fatigue or fixture buildups. Not to add, it'll give younger players more of a chance to showcase their ability.

Agreed.

 

[Dave Smith]

This is BS. Only benefits the large clubs as a) they can afford the deepest squads, b) it will allow them to hold on to more players. This is one of those things that you just know will stay after next year now.

If they actually wanted to do something helpful, they would change the time of the game from 90 mins to 70 mins but with the clock stopping when the ball goes out of play. That rule would essentially get rid of time wasting and teams just hoofing it down the pitch/out of play to eat up time.

 

[P-Nut]

This is BS. Only benefits the large clubs as a) they can afford the deepest squads, b) it will allow them to hold on to more players. This is one of those things that you just know will stay after next year now.

If they actually wanted to do something helpful, they would change the time of the game from 90 mins to 70 mins but with the clock stopping when the ball goes out of play. That rule would essentially get rid of time wasting and teams just hoofing it down the pitch/out of play to eat up time.

The players would end up playing the same amount of time though, the reason for the added subs is to allow more players to play less minutes.

If it's strictly for next season then I agree with it, otherwise we'll see loads of top players breaking down after playing 13-14 months solid. Hope it doesn't stay beyond that though.

 

[ariveded]

It wont help young players neither tactical flexibility. It just helps the eco-system.

EPL when changed from 5 to 7 subs only meant teams wanted larger squads, more first team players even on the fringes, thus wider distribution of wealth.

 

[Ace of Spades]

On one hand, I like it for the fact that this could he used to give younger players a chance to get some game time. This will help in youth development as loans can be hit and miss.

On the other hand,teams like City and Chelsea will get a huge advantage with the amount of players they have.

It has its pros and cons, but I do hope that teams use this to give young players a chance rather than stockpile top players and the young players just rot away in reserves or endless loan moves.

 

[sun_tzu]

The players would end up playing the same amount of time though, the reason for the added subs is to allow more players to play less minutes.

If it's strictly for next season then I agree with it, otherwise we'll see loads of top players breaking down after playing 13-14 months solid. Hope it doesn't stay beyond that though.

Top clubs will see this as a reason to strengthen squads I think - and most players have contracts of 3 -5 years ... so i doubt its going to be only one season

 

[Penna]

I'm really in two minds about this. It'll disproportionately benefit the clubs who have talent in abundance (rich clubs) and although the argument will be "all the clubs will have the same number of subs", it doesn't really wash.

In reality, with three subs a club has a spare keeper and two outfield substitutions - if during the game a manager makes three outfield substitutions because of injuries, he has to hope his keeper doesn't get a knock. It makes it more nail-biting, in a way. With five subs the manager can confidently keep his spare keeper back on the bench and make two double outfield changes.

 

[Jonno]

As a United fan, it's fantastic news. We have a big squad, with young and experienced players. Shame for the smaller clubs, though.

 

[Physiocrat]

The last thing the game needs is to further entrench the gulf in resources between the elite and the rest. It’s a crazy move in an environment where top teams cruise to 90-100 points a season and where the same team wins the league so widely every year. On the rare occasion a smaller team outfoxes or outplays a bigger one? No problem because half the team can be changed to rectify the natural order.

It was always inevitable that once the change had been introduced the big clubs would lobby to have it made permanent. Shame the IFAB has no integrity to withstand the lobbying.

True. We need smaller benches and smaller squads to bring back genuine competition. I'd be happy with three subs from a three man bench and something like 23 man squads excluding under 18s.

 

[El Zoido]

I don’t like it, even though in theory it should benefit us. I understand the reasons as outlined, if we’re almost immediately going in to a new season and then the Euro’s follow, it’s an awful lot of football. But it will definitely impact smaller clubs who can’t build deep squads.

From a United perspective we should be able to utilise this in terms of better squad players and also giving minutes to youth players that might otherwise not see any minutes.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

I guess it makes sense as there will be minimal break between this season and next, followed by an international tournament.

I hope it's not permanent. The limitation of 3 subs is a good dynamic in that you can't just make a wholesale change to your original gameplan.

I'd welcome perhaps a 4th substitution that can only be used for a serious injury when you've already used 3 subs, or if your goalkeeper needs to be subbed. Though I'm sure that would be taken advantage of pretty quickly.

 

[duffer]

On the other hand,teams like City and Chelsea will get a huge advantage with the amount of players they have.

And Man United, be honest!

 

[P-Nut]

Top clubs will see this as a reason to strengthen squads I think - and most players have contracts of 3 -5 years ... so i doubt its going to be only one season

Well its only been announced for next season so far, so I hope they stick to it, however I do find it unlikely myself.

 

[redshaw]

When the crowds are back in a full intense season we could see players pushing the fouling and receiving yellow card. Managers have more flexibility to remove a booked player and therefore the player can take more risks being a cnut and then also bring on the next dirty bastard to foul some more.

 

[GenZRed]

I've always thought five subs should be the rule. Good decision.

 

[Siorac]

And Man United, be honest!

We have a big squad but not a deep one, if that makes sense: sure, we can sub Pogba and Fernandes but their replacements will be Pereira and Lingard.

It would benefit us if we hadn't had an awful transfer record over the last 7 years though, admittedly.

 

[SilentWitness]

We have a big squad but not a deep one, if that makes sense: sure, we can sub Pogba and Fernandes but their replacements will be Pereira and Lingard.

It would benefit us if we hadn't had an awful transfer record over the last 7 years though, admittedly.

Yeah, but you're probably going to improve that squad over the summer so it will benefit you next season.

 

[UpWithRivers]

I was hoping this would happen. Second half is normally screwed but I like the fact we can play our strongest 11 - try blitz the opposition in the first 50/60 mins then give them a rest. Also give more time to young players and squad players.

 

[CM]

As others have said this should actually benefit us. I can see why this could be problematic for the smaller teams though.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

And Man United, be honest!

Lingard, Perreira, Mata, James?

No thanks, not really.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

I like it to be honest, it adds a different dimension to the game as well.

It does benefit the bigger squads but then on the flip side smaller clubs benefit from playing less matches in generally as well.

 

[BigDunc9]

Disgraceful decision. Look at the Norwich vs Manchester United game. How was Norwich expected to hold on to a draw when United was able to sub on Pogba, Martial, Rashford, Greenwood, Matic and Williams. It will kill the F.A cup when the top teams know they can play a back up team and then sub on all the big hitters if they think they are in trouble.

That is just one example and i should imagine it's even worse when City or Madrid play.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

In reality this change with small tweak ( 2 players must be homegrown/under 20) should be made permanent, and the effect would be much less drastic than the laments in this thread make it out to be. Players usually find it hard to get into rhythm being thrown into a game at full speed, that’s why supersubs exist, and top players would still want to play every single minute.

Over the course of a season a top team would probably be a few points better off on average, and it could come at the expense of a smaller team being relegated, but for the sport as a whole I think it’s better long term since more youths will get game time and the top players won’t get so burned out most of them play like shit every summer tournament.

 

[acnumber9]

Terrible idea but this was always the worry that once something is implemented that it would be there to stay. Don’t be surprised if it never changes back. Same goes for these time outs because that’s all they are. I’m convinced many of the players don’t even bother drinking water.

 

[RyRoc]

There will be a lot of managers outside the top 10 unhappy with this and rightfully so. Better squads can bring on better players , saw it the other day when Jorginho helped Chelsea see out the last 10 minutes of the game. Don’t like it to be honest , I think what makes the Premier League great is that there are quite often some unpredicted results and I think this helps reduces the chance of that.

 

[RyRoc]

Terrible idea but this was always the worry that once something is implemented that it would be there to stay. Don’t be surprised if it never changes back. Same goes for these time outs because that’s all they are. I’m convinced many of the players don’t even bother drinking water.

if the time outs are here to stay then they need to introduce stopping of the clock because those timeouts are taking considerably longer then the time added on , especially the ones in the first half.

 

[acnumber9]

if the time outs are here to stay then they need to introduce stopping of the clock because those timeouts are taking considerably longer then the time added on , especially the ones in the first half.

Football has taken a series of missteps in the last couple of years. VAR, extra subs, time outs. Have any of them improved the game?

 

[Xaviesta]

I agree with Carlo Ancelotti who said 3 is enough. I'm of the view that 5 subs in a match favours the big clubs too much. I think 4 subs next season and then back to 3 for the 2021-22 season is a fair enough compromise if they didn't want to go from 5 down to 3 in one go.

 

[Cloud7]

Seems like I’m going against the grain here, but I did hope that when this rule was introduced pre covid restart that it would become a permanent thing for me.

The most important thing for me is the quality of the football on display. Being able to change 5 player rather than three means less exhausted players trudging around after 60-70 minutes, so should give better overall quality throughout the match. It also gives managers more room to tweak things if something isn’t working, which again has the potential to make matches more interesting.

Lastly, and this doesn’t happen often, but there are instances where injuries happen even after all the substitutions have been used up, and an injured player is forced to play until the end, or come off and the team finishes with ten men. This would provide a safety net for that.

I can certainly see the argument that this would favor the richer clubs that have more resources, but for my personal experience in watching football there are more positives than negatives associated with this.

 

[Xaviesta]

I'm fine with the cooling breaks if the weather is hot. Last night's Catalan derby kicked off at 10pm and the temperature was 24 degrees. A water break in those circumstances makes sense. With milder weather, the cooling breaks become coaching breaks.

 

[Lay]

I like it, works well in my opinion

 

[SuperiorXI]

Dumb idea. 3 subs was fine.

 

[giorno]

It's a forced decision given the conditions next season will be played under. With a smaller break between seasons(for teams competing in the european cups, almost none), and the compressed nature of the season(start mid-september, end mid may) teams will be forced to play 3 times a week for the majority of the season. For teams in CL/EL we're looking at an entire season of 3 games a week potentially

Players health must be preserved, so it's either this or reduce the number of games...

 

[jymufc20]

Well it seems to be working well for us so far so I am happy with it.

 

[Ace of Spades]

And Man United, be honest!

Not currently, the drop from first team quality to bench is quite big.