It is our title chance. Do not remove that cup!Can they cut the league Cup as well then?
With our vast squad depth?Would have benefitted us / the bigger clubs.
Wouldn’t have benefitted us. Our squad depth is paper thin.Would have benefitted us / the bigger clubs.
Not the worst idea! But it would potentially go the other way. U23 players on the bench instead of starting, since those would be possible to bring in during the game.I think they've looked at this all wrong.
3 subs is fine, but you still should be able to give youth a chance.
Why not 3 subs over 23 years old and 2 extra for U23 ? This could push for more teams bringing youth a chance and eventually boost the national team.
Lingard. Mata, Pereira, Jones. James, Ighalo, mctominay. We could have needed to use this quality bench!Wouldn’t have benefitted us. Our squad depth is paper thin.
feck that. We have given youth chances without 2 extra subs and are reaping the rewards of the risk. If you can't do that then sell the youth and buy finished talent for top dollar.I think they've looked at this all wrong.
3 subs is fine, but you still should be able to give youth a chance.
Why not 3 subs over 23 years old and 2 extra for U23 ? This could push for more teams bringing youth a chance and eventually boost the national team.
This is a good idea and has some sound logic behind it with giving younger players more potential game time. However, there would still be an inherent bias towards the bigger clubs who have their own developed academies and who buy rising talents from a younger age. For example, Ferran Torres, who City just signed, is only 20.I think they've looked at this all wrong.
3 subs is fine, but you still should be able to give youth a chance.
Why not 3 subs over 23 years old and 2 extra for U23 ? This could push for more teams bringing youth a chance and eventually boost the national team.
Definitely. Think of Liverpool/City chasing a goal and being able to bring on 5 fresh players. Ridiculous.Good news for clubs with less squad depth, bad news for high pressing teams.
This. In a way it may have benefited us, that said it definitely would have benefitted the Scousers at the same time so I would have voted against it.Good news for clubs with less squad depth, bad news for high pressing teams.
I think it's mostly City who would've benefited. Liverpool don't have such a deep squad. In fact, I'm sure they would've voted against this given the size of advantage it would've given to City.Definitely. Think of Liverpool/City chasing a goal and being able to bring on 5 fresh players. Ridiculous.
This. If Manchester United or Manchester city reach a European final the will be given 30 days off and start the league late. This means league games for them will be compressed into a short period.Who will be left standing to play the Euros at the end of the season ?
Agree 5 subs terrible for the competition as not fair on clubs with smaller squads.
Need to cut a competition or clubs just play under 21s in the cups? Going to be mountain of injuries next season if try pretend is a normal season.
The managers can rotate a bit then, rather than give some players 50+ appearances per season.I get why they rejected it, but players are going to be gassed to feck next season. Just because they had a 3 month break this season doesn't magic their bodies into coping with finishing this season and not not having much time off before the next one.