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

Bwuk

Full Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
13,336
I'm all for it, and I'd like to go one further and say if you use all 5 subs at least 2 of them have to be players from your academy/home grown.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
39,279
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
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.
Huh?
 

Tel074

New Member
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
1,531
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 agree with this point of view but the smaller clubs have also got a stacked schedule and they more than the bigger clubs can't afford many injuries .
 

Wilt

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
1,675
I do think you shouldn’t change rules once the season has started. If so how about getting rid of VAR now, for example?

For Pep to say “it is not about one club” ....well it so obviously is, or why say it? Five subs is obviously a huge advantage to the clubs with the big in-depth squads, so in the same vane they should be able to afford to rotate their players.

I think I’m with the little guys on this one and no doubt if Utd happened to be one of the smaller clubs (heaven forbid), we’d all be telling Pep to feck off and stop whinging.
 
Last edited:

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
39,279
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
I do think you shouldn’t change rules once the season has started. If so how about getting rid of VAR now, for example?

For Pep to say “it is not about one club” ....well it so obviously is, or why say it? Five subs is obviously a huge advantage to the clubs with the big in-depth squads, so in the same vane they should be able to afford to rotate their players.

I think I’m with the little guys on this one and no doubt if Utd happened to be one of the smaller clubs (heaven forbid), we’d all be telling Pep to feck off and stop whinging.
If the rules are stupid to begin with, sticking with them through the season doesn't make much sense.
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
762
Location
Boston, MA
For Pep to say “it is not about one club” ....well it so obviously is, or why say it? Five subs is obviously a huge advantage to the clubs with the big in-depth squads, so in the same vane they should be able to afford to rotate their players.
The clubs with the biggest squads are the ones facing the toughest fixture congestion as well. Westbrom aren't playing two games a week for months on end for example. If anything, not having five subs is unfairly kneecapping the bigger clubs to favor the smaller ones.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
6,399
I do think you shouldn’t change rules once the season has started. If so how about getting rid of VAR now, for example?

For Pep to say “it is not about one club” ....well it so obviously is, or why say it? Five subs is obviously a huge advantage to the clubs with the big in-depth squads, so in the same vane they should be able to afford to rotate their players.

I think I’m with the little guys on this one and no doubt if Utd happened to be one of the smaller clubs (heaven forbid), we’d all be telling Pep to feck off and stop whinging.
Size of club doesn't matter when it comes to health of players. Yes, you are looking at Man City as an example, but we cannot ignore teams like Leicester who are also in Europe, so really they are being punished for finishing higher in the league? How does that makes sense?

Have a look at smaller clubs that are getting injuries, we are also forgetting covid. Players coming back from covid will not be at full fitness.

E.g. Antonio gets injured when 3 subs are made, he is out for 6 weeks but if they can make an extra sub, he may only be out for 2 weeks. In the long run the benefits are not just for the bigger clubs, smaller clubs can manage injuries better.

Bigger clubs have an advantage because they have bigger squads, but in truth the quality drop of from 3 subs to 5 is still the same.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
11,523
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
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 heard the exact same argument back in the mid 90's when subs on the bench increased from 3 to 5 no doubt it was the same when teams were first allowed only one sub for injuries, then 1 for tactical reasons also, then 3 on the bench but only 2 could be brought on etc. etc.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
38,781
Location
Chelsea fan.
I heard the exact same argument back in the mid 90's when subs on the bench increased from 3 to 5 no doubt it was the same when teams were first allowed only one sub for injuries, then 1 for tactical reasons also, then 3 on the bench but only 2 could be brought on etc. etc.
And those arguements were right back then as well.

Managers should use their massive squads, not play the same 11 into the ground and then whine about fatigue and muscle injuries.
 

Chipper

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
2,967
I heard the exact same argument back in the mid 90's when subs on the bench increased from 3 to 5 no doubt it was the same when teams were first allowed only one sub for injuries, then 1 for tactical reasons also, then 3 on the bench but only 2 could be brought on etc. etc.
Well the big teams have become more and more dominant as the number of subs allowed to sit on the bench and number allowed to come on has grown. It's not 100% the cause of it, but there's correlation there and intuitively it would make sense if it has played a part in that.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
3,635
Supports
Chelsea
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.
The fans of English clubs are just as bad!
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
3,635
Supports
Chelsea
I do think you shouldn’t change rules once the season has started. If so how about getting rid of VAR now, for example?

For Pep to say “it is not about one club” ....well it so obviously is, or why say it? Five subs is obviously a huge advantage to the clubs with the big in-depth squads, so in the same vane they should be able to afford to rotate their players.

I think I’m with the little guys on this one and no doubt if Utd happened to be one of the smaller clubs (heaven forbid), we’d all be telling Pep to feck off and stop whinging.
I don't think it's as big a disadvantage to most of the the lesser sides as people think. Take Burnley as an example, apart from Pope and McNeil are their alternatives really that much worse than their starters? If they've used 3 subs and are clinging on for dear life at Old Trafford being able to bring on a for example a fresh Lowton to deal with Rashford for the last ten as opposed to having to leave Bardsley who's dead on his feet out there will improve their chances of holding on not weaken them!
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
11,523
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
And those arguements were right back then as well.

Managers should use their massive squads, not play the same 11 into the ground and then whine about fatigue and muscle injuries.
I would mostly agree though i think the 5 subs per game should have been allowed this season due to the hectic schedule.

Well the big teams have become more and more dominant as the number of subs allowed to sit on the bench and number allowed to come on has grown. It's not 100% the cause of it, but there's correlation there and intuitively it would make sense if it has played a part in that.
I would say it has as it allowed big teams to keep more players happy which then of course enables bigger squads to be assembled and maintained.

There is definitely some validity in the argument that 5 subs per game would favour big clubs, but just like back in the mid 90's i doubt anyone raising that concern will stop it eventually being introduced.
 

reddevilz007

Full Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,050
Gives more players the chance to actually play, hence justifying their wages. and it would increase the level of internal competition, knowing that half the squad can be subbed off.

This would give managers the ability to completely change their tactics, which could make it very interesting and entertaining.

More rest time to recover in this condensed schedule also.

I’m all for it.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,797
It will soon be like American football where they have players swap all the while. The big teams already have an advantage with a better squad of players. Rotate the squad more. It's managers who run the players into the ground by not doing this..
 

Crimson King

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
730
It will soon be like American football where they have players swap all the while. The big teams already have an advantage with a better squad of players. Rotate the squad more. It's managers who run the players into the ground by not doing this..
This is a response grounded entirely in personal bias and grievances, rather than reality.

Not sure if this has already been included in the thread, so sharing again:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...oes-not-benefit-the-big-clubs-and-here-is-why

The data from operation restart actually showed that the so called 'big six' clubs actually used substitutions less than the 'smaller clubs'.

They might have bigger squads and players of better quality, but there's normally still a drop off from their preferred XI. This drop in quality is much bigger and impacts the team a lot more than when, for instance, Burnley take off one average player for another average player with relatively the same skillset (i.e. running a lot), but perhaps a different length beard.

Therefore, managers at bigger clubs are less likely to make more changes when chasing a game, preferring to stick with their best players, and only really use the extra subs when a result is in the bag so they can rest some players... Which is exactly the idea behind the extra subs!

Also, smaller clubs don't have European matches in midweek or a squad full of international players, so they're actually just trying to hamstring the clubs that do to gain their own advantage. However, this years calendar is going to be packed for everyone and some of those clubs have started to see the injuries mount up too, which is why a few of them have changed their tune.

It's a very cutting your nose off to spite your face attitude, at the moment, from those still resisting it.
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
79,786
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
Why do they not find these issues if other leagues then ? Not using 5 subs in England, is very stupid IMHO. The reasoning behind it makes no sense whatsoever.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
7,537
Supports
Man City
Why do they not find these issues if other leagues then ? Not using 5 subs in England, is very stupid IMHO. The reasoning behind it makes no sense whatsoever.
Other leagues support their better teams and want to see them do well in Europe. In England everybody wants to cut everybody else down.
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
79,786
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
Other leagues support their better teams and want to see them do well in Europe. In England everybody wants to cut everybody else down.
The whole "it gives an advantage to big clubs" screams of defeatism to me and like it's been said numerous times in this thread, smaller clubs have the advantage of playing a lot less games.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
16,033
The data from operation restart actually showed that the so called 'big six' clubs actually used substitutions less than the 'smaller clubs'.
Where is that data? That article only says Man City and Chelsea used less than Norwich and Bournemouth. I can’t take seriously any complaints about burnout for players from managers who use their best players to get past Barnsley in the League Cup.
 

Chipper

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
2,967
They might have bigger squads and players of better quality, but there's normally still a drop off from their preferred XI. This drop in quality is much bigger and impacts the team a lot more than when, for instance, Burnley take off one average player for another average player with relatively the same skillset (i.e. running a lot), but perhaps a different length beard.

Therefore, managers at bigger clubs are less likely to make more changes when chasing a game, preferring to stick with their best players, and only really use the extra subs when a result is in the bag so they can rest some players... Which is exactly the idea behind the extra subs!
Not really convinced taht there often is a much bigger drop off in quality from a big club's starting XI to bench. There's still a bench full of superstars a lot of the time. If there is, then do they not have a larger variety of players? You mention Burnley only being able to replace a player who runs a lot with another of the same skillset. Big clubs can replace a high quality pacy forward with a high quality target man or a high quality passer if things aren't going well and change their approach. Having different types of players can be the key to breaking down a stubborn defence.

Whether it's to do with subs or not would be hard to tease out but we do know that:

A) Big clubs win more games (kind of obvious but that's why they're big clubs)
B) A higher proportion of goals are scored later on in games than at other times
C) Subs tend to be used later on in games

That the big clubs use subs less often is interesting but I suppose it makes sense. Small clubs will often be chasing the game so more desperate to make changes. Sometimes the game will essentially be over if trailing by 2 or 3, a situation they'll find themselves in more often too so they might give a young player a run-out for experience or a squad player some minutes on the pitch so he feels involved at a time when there's nothing really to play for. Begs the question as to why the bigger clubs might not be doing the same when comfortably in front.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,600
This isn't the sort of thing that should have been put to a vote. It simply should have been enacted.
 

roseguy64

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
7,644
Location
Jamaica
The Athletic basically indicates that 13 managers are in favour and 6 not. Bielsa is the wildcard.

Smith, Dyche, Parker, Wilder, Bruce and Nuno opposing. So it's mostly the British managers refusing.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,208
Supports
Liverpool
The irony is that the five subs thing will actually help the smaller squads. Come January they’ll be without players and very few reserves to call upon.
 

HJ12

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
706
The irony is that the five subs thing will actually help the smaller squads. Come January they’ll be without players and very few reserves to call upon.
I don't think it does though. The smaller teams have more recuperation time between games since they've got no European obligations. So they're less likely to suffer injuries. Unless we take Ole's line of thinking into account that a fatigued player from a team competing in Europe is more likely to make an injury causing challenge to the opposition, in which case they may need to reconsider. I can't see Dyche et al changing their minds though.
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
5,909
Surely Bielsa with his intense play style should be in favour of the five subs.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,208
Supports
Liverpool
I don't think it does though. The smaller teams have more recuperation time between games since they've got no European obligations. So they're less likely to suffer injuries. Unless we take Ole's line of thinking into account that a fatigued player from a team competing in Europe is more likely to make an injury causing challenge to the opposition, in which case they may need to reconsider. I can't see Dyche et al changing their minds though.
There are large chunks of this truncated season where three games a week will be the case for every team
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
32,776
The irony is that the five subs thing will actually help the smaller squads. Come January they’ll be without players and very few reserves to call upon.
It also means the scuffler clubs like Burnley can send out 3-4 players specifically set to work themselves to oblivion for 60 and then get fresher players on.