Bwuk
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,338
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.
Huh?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.
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 .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.
If the rules are stupid to begin with, sticking with them through the season doesn't make much sense.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.
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.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.
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?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 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.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.
And those arguements were right back then as well.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.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.
The fans of English clubs are just as bad!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 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!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 would mostly agree though i think the 5 subs per game should have been allowed this season due to the hectic schedule.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 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.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.
This is a response grounded entirely in personal bias and grievances, rather than reality.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..
Other leagues support their better teams and want to see them do well in Europe. In England everybody wants to cut everybody else down.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.
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.Other leagues support their better teams and want to see them do well in Europe. In England everybody wants to cut everybody else down.
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.The data from operation restart actually showed that the so called 'big six' clubs actually used substitutions less than the 'smaller clubs'.
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.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!
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.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.
There are large chunks of this truncated season where three games a week will be the case for every teamI 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.
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.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It just proves that it’s not about player welfare. It’s about having an advantage, when he needs it, over smaller squads.It wasn't actually that obvious what sub could be made today. Despite it being comfortable at 2-0 it wasn't game over until they got a 3rd which never came. They'd no striker on the bench so Jesus had to stay on. Mahrez was having a great game, KDB and Sterling both had a goal and an assist each and you don't make subs at the back unless there's an injury. It does make him look silly though, if he cared so much about fatigue changes would have been made
ExactlyIt just proves that it’s not about player welfare. It’s about having an advantage, when he needs it, over smaller squads.
Yup, the man is a joke.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
yeah the world revolves about these 2 managers . they knew the rules when they came here, they knew the way we do the xmas period and both have tried to change that, both managers have run these teams in to the ground over the last 2/3 years and now is why they are getting more injurys for example why do not all teams have massive injury list like these 2 supposedly have ?If Pep said he wanted only 3 subs some of you cnuts would be crying that their should be 5 and 3 suited City.
Pep and Klopp have been very clear, they can't use subs as they are afraid of injury late in games. So instead when games are won, they are reverting to playing at walking pace with little to no changes.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...p-five-subs-would-not-be-for-tactical-changes