Man City boss Pep Guardiola leads calls to allow five substitutes again

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,600
Why does English football enjoy handicapping itself relative to the rest of Europe like this? First it was ending the transfer window before every other country, and now it's being the only league not allowing five substitutes during the most fixture congested season this century.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
21,282
I can't recall this many people being in favour of it when it was discussed in the summer.

It's such an obviously bad idea I'm shocked any football fan is in favour.
 

Pink Moon

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
7,366
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Celtic
I think it’s an unfair advantage to the bigger clubs with better squads. More game changers to come off the bench.

They could maybe allow one extra substitution, but only from the 75th minute or something like that.
I hate this argument. The bigger clubs have better squads to choose from in the first place so is that an unfair advantage?

The bigger clubs' 3 subs are generally going to be better of better quality than Burnley's or whoever's 3 subs are.

There is no "unfair advantage" by simply being better.
 

432JuanMata

Full Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,191
Location
Dublin
He’s right the CL is 5 subs and PL is one of the few top leagues that plays the winter. I like 5 subs as long as you have to use them in 3 gos max as 5 single subs slows down the game
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
22,573
Why does English football enjoy handicapping itself relative to the rest of Europe like this? First it was ending the transfer window before every other country, and now it's being the only league not allowing five substitutes during the most fixture congested season this century.
I'm tempted to make a Brexit comparison but I'll resist.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,600
I'm tempted to make a Brexit comparison but I'll resist.
:lol: It didn't even cross my mind, but generally when you look back at the history of football on the whole, the powers that be in English football always seem to have sought to make things as difficult as possible for English teams, as opposed to the other leagues where the governing bodies usually try to help.
 

Footy van de Geek

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
437
I hate this argument. The bigger clubs have better squads to choose from in the first place so is that an unfair advantage?

The bigger clubs' 3 subs are generally going to be better of better quality than Burnley's or whoever's 3 subs are.

There is no "unfair advantage" by simply being better.
It's a legal advantage. Nothing stops clubs from building squads made up of 20 world class players if possible. FFP failed. But they can usually only use 13 players (keep 1 sub in case of injury) in any given match. Now that increases to 15. 16 if they really want to. If chasing a game late on. It's not hard to grasp that the better teams gain an advantage.

Celtic would find it even easier if allowed to use all four of Edouard, Griffiths, Ajeti and Klimala regularly.
 
Last edited:

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
820
3 subs will hurt PL teams in CL during KO stage when every other top league allows 5.
 

Pink Moon

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
7,366
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Celtic
It's a legal advantage. Nothing stops clubs from building squads made up of 20 world class players if possible. FFP failed. But they can usually only use 13 players (keep 1 sub in case of injury) in any given match. Now that increases to 15. 16 if they really want to. If chasing a game late on. It's not hard to grasp that the better teams gain an advantage.

Celtic would find it even easier if allowed to use all four of Edouard, Griffiths, Ajeti and Klimala regularly.
That part would be a disadvantage for us tbf :lol:
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
20,182
Is there no players union that has an influence on this matter? Why can't the players have a vote on this?
 

manutddjw

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
3,407
Location
Canada
It should’ve been done. I’m not in favour of changing the rule permanently, but with the lack of break this year, Euros coming in the summer and the farcical World Cup in the winter after that it would’ve been beneficial to the players and not just those at the top clubs.
 

Mindhunter

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
2,933
It will definitely favor the rich teams with abundance of riches sitting on the bench. I can see the rationale behind not implementing it so that the difference in quality isn't further exacerbated by the ability to replace tired players with fresh players who are far more talented.

I agree that fixture congestion is a problem but no body is forcing any club to compete in 5 or 6 competitions. It's a choice the club has made. I do think that increasing the number of subs will ensure that there will be far less competition and the top 5-6 clubs are guaranteed to win all their games against the bottom feeders.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
739
Location
New York, NY
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says the Premier League should allow five substitutes per match again because of a rise in muscle injuries this season.
Guardiola said there has been "47% more muscular injuries" this year compared with the same stage last season.
Premier League clubs voted against continuing to permit five substitutions for the 2020-21 season in August.
The rule was brought in when the 2019-20 season restarted after lockdown in June to protect player welfare.
When asked if the Premier League should revert to allowing five substitutions instead of three, Guardiola said: "They should 100%."
City have been affected by injuries to several players this season, including Sergio Aguero, Gabriel Jesus, Benjamin Mendy and Nathan Ake.
"It is not about one club," added Guardiola.
"In the Premier League players have 47% more muscular injuries than the previous season, due to no preparation for most of the teams and the amount of games.
"All the leagues - Germany, Spain, everywhere - allow five substitutions to protect the players, not to protect one team.
"Hopefully they can reconsider and do what the rest of the world does because we have to adjust to the pandemic situation."



link




I agree with him. I would actually bump it up to 6 subs - the amount of games they play in so little time is madness. Other top leagues have allowed 5 subs, it's always English football that make it difficult for themselves.
A hundred percent agree with him. If not at least make it four but still - the schedule is condensed and it’s just crazy to do it to the players.
 

treble_winner

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
237
I think it’s an unfair advantage to the bigger clubs with better squads. More game changers to come off the bench.

They could maybe allow one extra substitution, but only from the 75th minute or something like that.
Not this stuff again. British clubs usually do not perform that well in the Champions League because they were already run to the ground in our own League. For once, can we just think of the greater good instead of trying to shoot our own English clubs in the foot?
 

Leroy The Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
13,377
Location
London
Not this stuff again. British clubs usually do not perform that well in the Champions League because they were already run to the ground in our own League. For once, can we just think of the greater good instead of trying to shoot our own English clubs in the foot?
One of the biggest myths in football this.

In the last ten years there have been five English Champions League finalists. A record only beaten by Spain who have eight.
Germany with four and Italy with a measly two.

If you look at the Europa League it’s the same pattern. Spain with seven finalists, England with five. Italy one, Germany zero.

The previous ten years you had an English club in five finals in a row.

England and Spain simply piss all over Europe when it comes to performance in European competition hence the high coefficients.
England, Spain and Italy all have 20 team leagues so I’m very confused as to the comment that English clubs get ‘ran into the ground in their league’. They play a few extra games in the League Cup which most clubs apart from Man City don’t take particularly seriously until they get to a Semi.

You get all these managers moaning about the mythical hard English schedule (mostly foreign managers) and all it boils down to is them having to work during Christmas which they’re not used to and so dont like. That’s the sum of the difference, I mean nobody likes working during xmas.

If you look at the other European leagues though you will also notice that in the second half of the season they tend to have very busy midweek schedules because they have to make up for their lack of league games during the Xmas period.
 

Maciek

Known for "good moanings" not only in the morning
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
11,662
Location
Włocławek, Poland
Just to give my opinion (if anybody cared).

This season five subs should be allowed, because playing every week like this (Premier League - Champions League - Premier League) is tiring and sometimes it's done after 60 minutes, but only this season. I don't care whether this means more youngsters playing senior football or what. Three subs is okay, but not in those strange times when you've got same number of games to play, but in a shorter period than usually.
 

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
820
Well the cup itself has different rules, it’s consistent for any team in the competition (5 subs)
Won't help when you play every three days, over Christmas, two domestic cups and can make 3 subs in those other 50 games after you had 8 day pre-season and played zero friendlies during summer because you had to finish PL+CL during July and August. I'm not trying to make excuses for Pep but I don't think Red Bull+Lyon+possibly even PSG would have made Last 4 in CL if they had to finish seasons days before travelling to Portugal like La Liga and Premier League teams.
 

Xaviesta

Full Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2014
Messages
9,891
Location
Camp Nou
Supports
Barcelona
I can get on board with 4 subs and then back down to three subs next seaosn.
 

horsechoker

Sailor vee, this is a right off.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
17,790
Location
The stable
2+goalie. Lets go more hardcore.
I'm surprised they don't.

Here's what the English authorities want:
- no foreign signings unless they've won a balloon door
- players must be between 21-33
- 1 sub only if a player had sustained a head injury
- players boots must be of lead
- the pitch is to be set ablaze, literally
- a game is to be played every 2 days
- matches are to be 120 minutes
- 2 minutes for half time
 

MattofManchester

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
657
I'm surprised they don't.

Here's what the English authorities want:
- no foreign signings unless they've won a balloon door
- players must be between 21-33
- 1 sub only if a player had sustained a head injury
- players boots must be of lead
- the pitch is to be set ablaze, literally
- a game is to be played every 2 days
- matches are to be 120 minutes
- 2 minutes for half time
All players play in black and white vertical striped uniforms?
 

Glorio

Full Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
450
Managers are asking for it, the other top leagues are doing it, the Champions League is doing it, the EFL is on board, so what's the premier league's reason for not allowing this while players keep dropping like flies to injury. Sometimes they are really just a pointlessly obstinate bunch
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
16,033
Managers are asking for it, the other top leagues are doing it, the Champions League is doing it, the EFL is on board, so what's the premier league's reason for not allowing this while players keep dropping like flies to injury. Sometimes they are really just a pointlessly obstinate bunch
It’s the clubs that vote on it and it requires a majority to be in favour. Each club is looking after their own interests.
 

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
16,515
Location
Where the grass is greener.
If its not before christmas it'll be just after, there's no way we'll go the whole season without this being brought in. Even the teams against it will buckle when their sides get decimated.
 
Last edited:

youmeletsfly

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
1,305
Why does English football enjoy handicapping itself relative to the rest of Europe like this? First it was ending the transfer window before every other country, and now it's being the only league not allowing five substitutes during the most fixture congested season this century.
Because they think football in the UK is some sort of a special phenomenon comparred to other countries. Also the EPL/FA might be ran by a few fecking idiots, this works as well.
 

Xaviesta

Full Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2014
Messages
9,891
Location
Camp Nou
Supports
Barcelona
Managers are asking for it, the other top leagues are doing it, the Champions League is doing it, the EFL is on board, so what's the premier league's reason for not allowing this while players keep dropping like flies to injury. Sometimes they are really just a pointlessly obstinate bunch
In order for the 5 sub rule to be in place, 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs have to agree to it. The big 6 + Leicester will be all for it. I doubt 7 of the other 13 will be keen .
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
7,354
Because they think football in the UK is some sort of a special phenomenon comparred to other countries. Also the EPL/FA might be ran by a few fecking idiots, this works as well.
Mir was taken to a vote was it not? The majority of clubs didn’t want it, and voted to return to 3 subs. Not arguing that the authorities are not self serving, out of date idiots - but here the clubs got what they voted for. You can understand the perspective from the clubs in the bottom half, as 5 subs gives a greater advantage to richer clubs, with bigger squads.
 

youmeletsfly

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
1,305
Mir was taken to a vote was it not? The majority of clubs didn’t want it, and voted to return to 3 subs. Not arguing that the authorities are not self serving, out of date idiots - but here the clubs got what they voted for. You can understand the perspective from the clubs in the bottom half, as 5 subs gives a greater advantage to richer clubs, with bigger squads.
I can understand it from a game management perspective, not allowing a bigger club to use their all world class substitutions. Put as a small club you need to use those 5 subs to rotate your squad and that should be more important than fighting the big clubs, as the risk of losing your own players will damage you more than the other club not being able to use theirs.
 

Turnip

likes to be spanked with games consoles
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
1,784
Location
Beckham's right nipple
*looks at United's bench*

No, I think we're better off without.


In all seriousness I think this should absolutely happen, but either 1 or 2 of the subs that come on have to be under he age of 21 to encourage big clubs to actually use some of their youth.
 

Matthew84!

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
102
Why would any club except the ones in europe vote for 5 subs, makes no sense what so ever, these so called small clubs still are only playing once a week and seeing the big clubs get injuries are equalling the playing field, will be 3 subs all season,
 

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
820
Obviously only big clubs would profit from it but should have been allowed for health reasons anyway.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
7,354
I can understand it from a game management perspective, not allowing a bigger club to use their all world class substitutions. Put as a small club you need to use those 5 subs to rotate your squad and that should be more important than fighting the big clubs, as the risk of losing your own players will damage you more than the other club not being able to use theirs.
potentially, and maybe they will come to that realisation. But these smaller clubs also don’t have European commitments, so will play a lot less games. One would also assume they have far less of their players away on international duty as well.
 

Robindinho

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
220
Location
The North
*looks at United's bench*

No, I think we're better off without.



In all seriousness I think this should absolutely happen, but either 1 or 2 of the subs that come on have to be under he age of 21 to encourage big clubs to actually use some of their youth.

What do you mean? We have one of the best benches in the league...

Say the starting Xl vs Everton stays the same (other than Telles in for Shaw), not bad to then be able to bring on Pogba, Van de Beek, Cavani, Greenwood and then have the option of Matic/Tuanzebe as a defensive change.
 

Havak

Pokemon master
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
6,904
Location
Salford, Manchester
What I have always disagreed with is changing rules during a season as it effects the integrity of the competition. All previous results would have question marks over them.

But I do agree with Pep here. I cannot understand why European Leagues would have such drastically different rules on something so important, particularly when they will be facing each other in the Champion's League/Europa League. Pretty baffling, it should be all agreed in unison at the start of the season before a ball is kicked. Either everyone has five or everyone has three.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
6,399
Obviously only big clubs would profit from it but should have been allowed for health reasons anyway.
If you look at it like that, yes big clubs have an advantage in individual games because of the quality they have in the squad.

However; this does not mean smaller clubs wont get injuries, look at Everton, Leicester or even West Ham with Antonio.

Its fine, bigger clubs will have more quality to bring from the bench but is it worth losing an important player for 8 weeks, when if you had an extra sub, he would be out for 2 weeks?

In the long run, this could impact the smaller clubs more because bigger clubs have a big enough squad to be without 3/4 players for weeks.

Look at United, Shaw is replaced by Telles which does not impact the squad strength.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
27,575
Obviously only big clubs would profit from it but should have been allowed for health reasons anyway.
Not sure about that. The whole premier league have enough depth to fill the bench now. if it means resting somebody at 60 minutes instead of HAVING to play the whole 90 it could potentially save a lot of injuries.

It's not only the PL this is happening either. Loads of spanish / german / italian / french players are getting muscle injuries too.
 

Darlington Padgett

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
782
It will definitely favor the rich teams with abundance of riches sitting on the bench. I can see the rationale behind not implementing it so that the difference in quality isn't further exacerbated by the ability to replace tired players with fresh players who are far more talented.

I agree that fixture congestion is a problem but no body is forcing any club to compete in 5 or 6 competitions. It's a choice the club has made. I do think that increasing the number of subs will ensure that there will be far less competition and the top 5-6 clubs are guaranteed to win all their games against the bottom feeders.
Why? it balances itself with the number of games top clubs are playing. We were playing twice a week while smaller teams just once. Some of our players play 180 mins nearly every week, I get the point that some teams will have better squads than others but that is not a good reason to just risk the players.