Sunny Jim
Full Member
100 % in support of 5 changes. This also means more time for Young players.
ThisEvery other major league is doing it and fixture congestion is insane. No Brainer.
I hate this argument. The bigger clubs have better squads to choose from in the first place so is that an unfair advantage?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'm tempted to make a Brexit comparison but I'll resist.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.
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.I'm tempted to make a Brexit comparison but I'll resist.
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.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.
That part would be a disadvantage for us tbfIt'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.
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.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.
Well the cup itself has different rules, it’s consistent for any team in the competition (5 subs)3 subs will hurt PL teams in CL during KO stage when every other top league allows 5.
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?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.
One of the biggest myths in football this.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?
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.Well the cup itself has different rules, it’s consistent for any team in the competition (5 subs)
I'm surprised they don't.2+goalie. Lets go more hardcore.
All players play in black and white vertical striped uniforms?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
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.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
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.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.
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 .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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
*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.
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.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.Obviously only big clubs would profit from it but should have been allowed for health reasons anyway.
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.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.