More substitutions in football

Teams become more disjointed tactically if you bring on too many subs. Even just changing 2 players changes the dynamic of the team. 5 subs would be a bit chaotic.

That said, if they ever did increase it, they really should make them happen like in Rugby. i.e. take the quickest route off the pitch during a stoppage, and get on quickly before the game restarts. The purposefully standing on the far side of the pitch, limping the full width of the pitch, stopping to pull your sock up, applauding the fans, that would get out of hand with 5 or 6 subs. I think subs should be Rugby style anyway even with just 3 subs. Or stop the clock. Can't stand time wasting subs, but you just know time wasting would go through the roof with 5 or 6 subs.
 
duffer said:
There should be fewer, not more.

More subs would lead to bigger squads and the rich teams stockpiling even more of the best players, making it harder for the smaller clubs to compete.

Plus all the stop starting would be annoying.

There should be 2 outfield subs allowed, 1 goalie.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but that first point sounds like utter nonsense. An extra sub per game wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference in the player market. You make it sounds as if they'll introduce an extra player on the pitch.

And to your second point; They could keep it as it is with only three subs allowed, but being allowed to switch four players in total. Like a 1-1-2-swap system. No more and no less stop starts than before.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
Teams become more disjointed tactically if you bring on too many subs. Even just changing 2 players changes the dynamic of the team. 5 subs would be a bit chaotic.

That said, if they ever did increase it, they really should make them happen like in Rugby. i.e. take the quickest route off the pitch during a stoppage, and get on quickly before the game restarts. The purposefully standing on the far side of the pitch, limping the full width of the pitch, stopping to pull your sock up, applauding the fans, that would get out of hand with 5 or 6 subs. I think subs should be Rugby style anyway even with just 3 subs. Or stop the clock. Can't stand time wasting subs, but you just know time wasting would go through the roof with 5 or 6 subs.
Click to expand...

Look, they don't HAVE to sub anyone if they don't want...
 
Only logical change i would like is a 4th sub, only for goalkeepers. But then that can be misused again? To waste time maybe in the final minutes? You can say its only allowed when theres an injury, but the keeper can fake an injury too. So i don't think any change is needed.
 
I've long thought that there should be more subs in any cup competition after it enters the knockout phase and extra time occurs. However, I think they should only be allowed in extra time so as to encourage a result from play on the pitch and to prevent teams from simply playing out time to get to penalties. It'd be very simple. Two additional substitutes per team per half of extra time.

I would even be okay with allowing additional substitutions in league matches in case of injury -- provided that the player removed as "injured" is prohibited from playing in the next match if a team has already used all three of their allotted tactical substitutes. This way teams aren't forced to play a man down due to a late injury, but are also discouraged from faking an injury to game the system and get an extra substitution.

But those are the only situations in which I think it's acceptable to have additional substitutions. Otherwise, leave it at three. Like others have said, it's up to the manager to pick the right team and then either live with his choices or make his adjustments.
 
rio's upper lip said:
Excuse me, but that first point sounds like utter nonsense. An extra sub per game wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference in the player market. You make it sounds as if they'll introduce an extra player on the pitch.
Click to expand...

It's only the rich clubs who can afford to have multiple 20 or 30 million pound players on the bench who would want this change for tactical reasons. It would be of most benefit to them.

The number of subs is fine. The people wanting more are the same ones who want fewer games and winter breaks whilst at the same time not rotating their first XIs using their already massive squads and burning their own players out.

Where does it end? Rolling subs? Shorter games?
 
rio's upper lip said:
Look, they don't HAVE to sub anyone if they don't want...
Click to expand...

They don't, but if there's 5 or 6 subs available, then I assume they're going to be used for the most part. It's very rare you see a team not use all 3 of their subs. All we can do is speculate, but I predict all 5 or 6 would mostly get used. Especially if time needed to be wasted. Imagine if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go and you haven't made a sub yet. Pretty much no football would get played between the 80th and 90th minutes. You'd just make a sub every 2 minutes.
 
duffer said:
It's only the rich clubs who can afford to have multiple 20 or 30 million pound players on the bench who would want this change for tactical reasons. It would be of most benefit to them.

The number of subs is fine. The people wanting more are the same ones who want fewer games and winter breaks whilst at the same time not rotating their first XIs using their already massive squads and burning their own players out.

Where does it end? Rolling subs? Shorter games?
Click to expand...

Ah, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Please lay out your argument for how those things are inevitable if they tweak the subs system. Do you also think people eventually will be able to marry their pets because gay marriage is legal?

Who said anything about the value of the players on the bench? They already have seven players there. Wouldn't change. Same for every club, whether you'll take advantage of that opportunity or not. Let's play a full season of 4 subs, and then see if the smaller teams felt that they benefitted from it at some point during the campaign. I think you'd be surprised...

And have you thought about the fact these changes increases the chances for youth players to get a late match look in? They did increase the number of subs for 5 to 7 partly because of this.

Look, I'm not saying that they definitely should do it. It doesn't matter much to me. But the arguments against it doesn't really hold much water so far IMO.
 
3 subs are good enough for 90 min. If there is extra-time, yeah provision for 1 more sub can be made. If player burnout is the reason, top clubs specially can't complain as many of top clubs have squad good enough to put out two XIs. So, as a manager, rotate your squad better if you feel squad is burning out by playing in 4 competitions.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
They don't, but if there's 5 or 6 subs available, then I assume they're going to be used for the most part. It's very rare you see a team not use all 3 of their subs. All we can do is speculate, but I predict all 5 or 6 would mostly get used. Especially if time needed to be wasted. Imagine if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go and you haven't made a sub yet. Pretty much no football would get played between the 80th and 90th minutes. You'd just make a sub every 2 minutes.
Click to expand...
Well, as I mentioned in another post; a 1-1-2 sub system would remedy this issue. Four subs, but only three actual stops in the game.
 
I'm against anything that gives Jose more opportunities to bring Fellaini on.
 
rio's upper lip said:
Well, as I mentioned in another post; a 1-1-2 sub system would remedy this issue. Four subs, but only three actual stops in the game.
Click to expand...

6 stoppages, if both sides are using all their subs. I think time wasting is already an issue with only 3 subs, and it's never punished, nor is it ever adequately added back on. So long as they manage the time wasting aspect of it (which I think they should do anyway, whether they expand the subs or not) then I don't see a problem with more substitutions.
 
rio's upper lip said:
Ah, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Please lay out your argument for how those things are inevitable if they tweak the subs system. Do you also think people eventually will be able to marry their pets because gay marriage is legal?
Click to expand...

Its not a fallacy. Football started with no subs. Then one from a bench of one. Then one from a bench of 3. Then 3 from 5, Then 3 from 7. Now people want more. Where does it end?

If Pep wants to marry his gay dog then that's fine with me. I just don't want to watch football with a billion subs.
 
My main gripe with subs is the length of time it takes for them to happen. The likes of the 30 second stroll that you see in the Madrid match yesterday and that Mourinho employs in big games shouldn't happen. The ref should restart the game within 10 seconds of the sub being allowed to come on.

There's far too much bullshit that happens in football just because that's the way it's always been.
 
Definitely not.

You can already change 30% of your outfield team, and every team has a big squad, if you're worried about players then rotate them. 5 subs would allow 10 prolonged stoppages per game, most likely used when winning late on, where subs are already used to waste time and kill tempo.

The only possible situation a new sub should even be considered is a 4th for an injured goalkeeper, and even that is pushing it
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
6 stoppages, if both sides are using all their subs. I think time wasting is already an issue with only 3 subs, and it's never punished, nor is it ever adequately added back on. So long as they manage the time wasting aspect of it (which I think they should do anyway, whether they expand the subs or not) then I don't see a problem with more substitutions.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. IMO this needs to be much more urgently addressed than an umpteenth sub. I would love a pioneer study in a lower tier league to actually stop the game every time the ball isn't into play. I'm pretty confident players would in no time stop all efforts to waste time.
 
Scarecrow said:
Pep said today that he'd like to see a change in the rules to allow for 4, 5 or 6 substitutions in a single game. You can read the whole article here:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38270906

I am inclined to agree with him. Why are substitutions limited to just three per game? I think six is a bit excessive but one or two extra would definitely help the players and teams, in the increasingly congested calendar.

What do you think? Pros and cons.
Click to expand...
One positive would be that the managers would have more influence on the game. Which would lead to it being easier to determine the true tactical knowledge from managers.
 
Crossie said:
Totally agree. IMO this needs to be much more urgently addressed than an umpteenth sub. I would love a pioneer study in a lower tier league to actually stop the game every time the ball isn't into play. I'm pretty confident players would in no time stop all efforts to waste time.
Click to expand...
I don't think that could happen nowadays. The big leagues have to conform to TV broadcasters and I imagine they wouldn't want any uncertainties over the duration of games.
 
SirAnderson said:
But the point is not only about the challenge, its about the health and wellness of the modern day player, as was Pep's concern, which made him give the suggestion of alleviating it a bit by perhaps increase the amount of subs. From a purely player management perspective, it makes sense and is reasonable to increase it to 4. From a purely tactical challenge point of view, most definitely it will take some serious tactical genius to pre-think what changes you will need to have only 3 changes on the bench and get it right before even seeing how the game pans out. I'm not to sure there is a manage in the world that can predetermine how every match will play out to get it right even half of the time.

But then again, back to the point of the demands on players these days, I think they need some kind of protection, whether increasing the subs makes a slight difference or not, I agree to the principle that something must and can be done to make our beautiful game even more beautiful by keeping the players playing at the peak form most of the time and at the same time keeping the tactical challenge that is engraved in any great sport.
Click to expand...

Rotate the team to give players rest, of course that might lead to teams stockpiling the best players, which would also be the argument against 6 substitutions per game.
 
Cynical view also says it's a manager wanting more players involved meaning a more content squad meaning an easier job for the manager.

Some of these current managers want to see how difficult it was before the introduction of multiple subs. Squad of 18-20 senior players with just one sub and 6 or 7 often seasoned pros not even involved on a Saturday.
 
duffer said:
There should be fewer, not more.

More subs would lead to bigger squads and the rich teams stockpiling even more of the best players, making it harder for the smaller clubs to compete.
Click to expand...

True. You should only be able to have 3 subs on benches for this reason
 
Scarecrow said:
I don't think that could happen nowadays. The big leagues have to conform to TV broadcasters and I imagine they wouldn't want any uncertainties over the duration of games.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would be a major issue. There are lots of sports that have incredibly varying running times. Baseball, Cricket, American Football can run over schedule quite significantly. Hockey and Basketball too, as overtime can occur in regular season games. I don't think the clock should stop at every stoppage in football anyway, but it should at least for goals and subs, as they are typically the longest stoppages.
 
duffer said:
There should be fewer, not more.

More subs would lead to bigger squads and the rich teams stockpiling even more of the best players, making it harder for the smaller clubs to compete.

Plus all the stop starting would be annoying.

There should be 2 outfield subs allowed, 1 goalie.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, you could guarantee playing time to a lot more players if you could have 5 subs. It would also be terrible for time wasting. Imagine bringing one player on up until the 85th minute then four more on one at a time to kill time.
 
I'm up for allowing an extra substitute for an injured player so that some team won't end up with 10 men on the pitch in case that the manager has already used all 3 he had.

Otherwise think 3 substitutions is quite enough.
 
Fracture90 said:
I'm up for allowing an extra substitute for an injured player so that some team won't end up with 10 men on the pitch in case that the manager has already used all 3 he had.

Otherwise think 3 substitutions is quite enough.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate when that occurs, but that will inevitably lead to players being instructed to feign an injury in order to bring on another fresh player.
 
Red Devil 26 said:
It's unfortunate when that occurs, but that will inevitably lead to players being instructed to feign an injury in order to bring on another fresh player.
Click to expand...

I guessed someone will mention that but sub should be allowed only after ref's rewatch the incident and maybe when a neutral physician tends to that player.
 
Players getting injured and having to be replaced should be free. Other than that 3 is fine
 
Already too many, they're only used to waste time.

2 and a GK, would be plenty.
 
Late game time wasting would reach new levels. Imagine a team holding on to a point and still having 5 subs in the bank.
 
3 subs is plenty. The only time you'd ever need more is if you get unlucky with injuries during a game. Otherwise it's the managers job to manage the squad around the fact you have 3 subs.
 
Would it make football more interesting to watch? I'm not so sure. On the positive side, it will be more fresh legs on the pitch. Few things are more boring than to watch a game were both sides are very tired. On the other hand, it will take away some of the risk connected with substitutes. I fear having 5 subs e.g. enables a manager to park the bus earlier in the game, knowing he can sub back attackers if they concede. In addition, I agree that it will favour the rich clubs. Look at ourselves today, not many clubs have such a bench.

I wouldn't mind getting 1 or 2 extra subs if the game goes to extra time in knock-out competitions. I would welcome opportunities to take more risk in that stage of the game. Since its often incredibly dull to watch.
 
duffer said:
There should be fewer, not more.

More subs would lead to bigger squads and the rich teams stockpiling even more of the best players, making it harder for the smaller clubs to compete.

Plus all the stop starting would be annoying.

There should be 2 outfield subs allowed, 1 goalie.
Click to expand...

Main reason why Im against it. You see the disastrous effect it has in friendlies where it kills the game.

A team could save 3 out of 5 subs for final 10 mins and then make 3 separate substitutions to take all the momentum out of an opposing team.

Might work if you only allowed a team 3 substitute windows within which they had to make all their changes.
 
At the start of this season in Ireland, Sunday leagues have introduced 5 subs. It's near the half way point of the season and it has worked extremely well with more players getting game time.
 
rio's upper lip said:
Ah, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Please lay out your argument for how those things are inevitable if they tweak the subs system. Do you also think people eventually will be able to marry their pets because gay marriage is legal?
Click to expand...

:lol: that is a truly admirable Godwin-esque leap for a discussion about substitutes in football.

4 subs is exactly how Nazi Germany started!

rio's upper lip said:
Excuse me, but that first point sounds like utter nonsense. An extra sub per game wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference in the player market..
Click to expand...

The big teams would have greater justification for buying £30m+ squad players, for one. It's essentially an attempt to give the bigger clubs more chances to correct their mistakes and poor performances against sides with weaker back up.
 
Last edited:
Don't agree but there could/should be an extra sub in extra time.

Extra time is so often filled with slow play from knackered players and players going down with cramp. Getting an unfortunate injury and having to play an extra 30 minutes with 10 players is also a shitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.