PL clubs reject 5 subs rule for next season

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,203
Good decision but it could screw us. Not much rest if us and City go far in Europe, whereas the scousers have an almost full break and pre season.
 

Alemar

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
7,528
Bad decision. It’s better with more substitutions
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
5 subs rule made sense during this time period due to the circumstances but going forward it's better that it goes back to 3 subs.
Exactly this.
While people say it hurt little clubs it also gave some teams the option of negative tactics knowing you could rotate fouls and be at less risk of sending offs.
 

meamth

New Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
5,946
Location
Malaysia
Good decision but it could screw us. Not much rest if us and City go far in Europe, whereas the scousers have an almost full break and pre season.
Didn't realize that. Feck me. I can't see them lift another PL trophy, I'd be dead.
 

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
31,670
Location
Miracle World
Supports
Luton Town
I think it should have been 3 subs plus two extra if a player gets concussed or stretchered off.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,502
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
You'd have players faking injuries more than they already do.
Maybe just add a rule that a player has to be designated as an injury substitution and that the player subbed off is ineligible for the next 3 matches? Reckon that'd cut faking out pretty quick and there aren't many injuries requiring substitution I can think of that would allow a player to return inside of 3 weeks.
 

Andersonson

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
3,768
Location
Trondheim
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.
Maybe make it U21 or U19. I just thought the idea could be good for development. Also in the lower leagues
 

Andersonson

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
3,768
Location
Trondheim
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.
Some clubs, dont have the resources to gamble on youth or even have the infastracture. I think championship and league one would benefit if a rule like that existed
 

Andersonson

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
3,768
Location
Trondheim
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.
You could add homegrown to the rule. Then they have to be at the club for atleast 3 years before they count on that rule
 

DBT85

Full Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
638
Teams without big or decent squads are not playing 50+games a season.
Plenty here would say our squad is not good enough and we'll be playing that many. Leicester spuds and wolves will be playing that many too.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Good to hear. Very rare you see top clubs take a decision that retains competitiveness rather than further reduces it.

Unless you're a fan of a superclub with loads of squad depth, there is basically no argument for 5 subs. All it would have done was encourage stockpiling and young talent swallowed up on the benches of big clubs rather than out on the pitch getting game time for smaller ones.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,138
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Plenty here would say our squad is not good enough and we'll be playing that many. Leicester spuds and wolves will be playing that many too.
Your squad is good enough to not need to play Pogba or Maguire when you're 5-0 up against LASK. Managers take the piss.

Lampard is the same, plays Mason Mount in 50 odd games and then moans about not enough rest.
 

Bebestation

Im a doctor btw, my IQ destroys yours
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
11,862
Though I can see why the drink break is not enjoyed by many; I have to say that I kind of really like it.

It gives the manager an ability to bring all his players together before tactically changing the game every 22.5 mins and I have loved seeing that ability more than ever before. Tactically waiting for half time to talk in comparison seems like there has been too many things to have happened in 45 mins to fix it all in one go for the next 45.

I can see why it's not the most eye catching break but it's great to wonder and eventually see when things are changed due to the management looking at the opposition whilst the game progresses rather than just waiting for the half of it; by which time the damage could have been done.
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,620
Its not just the size of the squad its the quality of the squad. For example if you play the Scousers and its 2-1 to them then they take 5 players off then the odds of you getting a draw or a win will be much higher than if the first team stay on the pitch. Yeah there is a gain in fitness with the players that come on but that has to not override the drop in quality. Also smaller clubs if they are smart can also use it to their advantage i.e. if they are a goal up they can bring on 5 fresh defensive players and try and hold out. Its not as clear cut as just benefiting the teams with big squads.

I like the 5 subs just because we can try and hammer a team in the first half then give game time to younger players. Yeah the quality drops but I enjoy watching to see how the younger players perform.

I also like the drinks breaks - means I can have a break. Toilet Fight, Tea Whiskey, Smoke. Then back to the game. :-)
 

Sylar

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
40,254
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.
Would have liked this as the proposition. Would also benefit the 'smaller' teams.

I think 5 out right would benefit bigger teams / deeper squads overall but was a good idea for the lockdown compressed end of season football.
 

Gopher Brown

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
4,530
Its not just the size of the squad its the quality of the squad. For example if you play the Scousers and its 2-1 to them then they take 5 players off then the odds of you getting a draw or a win will be much higher than if the first team stay on the pitch. Yeah there is a gain in fitness with the players that come on but that has to not override the drop in quality. Also smaller clubs if they are smart can also use it to their advantage i.e. if they are a goal up they can bring on 5 fresh defensive players and try and hold out. Its not as clear cut as just benefiting the teams with big squads.

I like the 5 subs just because we can try and hammer a team in the first half then give game time to younger players. Yeah the quality drops but I enjoy watching to see how the younger players perform.

I also like the drinks breaks - means I can have a break. Toilet Fight, Tea Whiskey, Smoke. Then back to the game. :-)
The drinks breaks are usually about a minute long, you must have some lungs to smoke a cigarette in a minute.
 

FrankDrebin

Don't call me Shirley
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
19,877
Location
Police Squad
Supports
USA Manchester Red Socks
Good news for fans that support teams with poor strength in depth.*cough*
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Good decision. Makes it even more unfair on the smaller clubs as others have pointed out. And 3 subs has been the way for a very long time in football.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,141
Supports
Everton
What's the stance of other leagues? Could they have an advantage in Europe over the PL?
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,502
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
I like that idea
Yeah for me it's almost like getting rid of the double penalty for the last man / red card - it's obviously a blow to lose your starting GK (Kepa excluded) and going to your backup should be penalty enough without it impacting potential tactical adjustments via substitution. Just my 2p, anyway.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,502
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
No way. I love seeing an outfield player in goal.
But this would almost happen more often I reckon! When chasing a game, a manager could opt to replace his starting GK for an outfield player who might be better on the ball but clueless with his hands! Great fun all around!
 

Pretzels81

Not Salty…
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1,766
This goes against natural progress. I guess many visionary folks back in 1992 predicted (crudely, bitterly) the end of football when the back-pass rule was introduced, yet it radically changed football for the better. Like the Bosman rule.

The 3 subs only thing is stupid. The bench is useless. Squad depth is useless. Paying wages to players who won't play because of 3 subs only. Elite players facing 65 club+NT fixtures per season yet 3 subs only. Bizarre situations like a CB forced to play as a GK because 3 subs only. 3 is a random number. Why not 4?
 

Web of Bissaka

Full Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
8,553
Location
Losing to Comeback Winning!
3 subs is right, but I do think they should put a rule in for one injury sub per game. (maybe that the player who is subbed off can't play the next game so it's not abused).

Definitely needs to be something for head injury substitutions.
I like this. Basically 4 subs = 3 subs + 1 conditional sub.

But unfortunately I think it can still be abused if cups game is included with the league games eg. next game is league cup so today's game the player just pretend injury to bring in another defender, he's not going to play next game anyway.
 

Superunknown

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
8,174
Good change. Only tweak I'd make is that replacing your goalkeeper doesn't count against the 3 subs.
I actually like that idea. Would be more than happy to see that rule implemented.

You could add homegrown to the rule. Then they have to be at the club for atleast 3 years before they count on that rule
Yeah, it would definitely need some kind of caveat attached to it, something like that or along those lines. There are benefits there to having such a rule in place and it's also thinking about the national game side of things, too. There must be occasions where a manager wants to play a youth prospect, but doesn't want to use up a sub and instead opts for a more experienced player.
 

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
31,670
Location
Miracle World
Supports
Luton Town
The most important thing here is that 3 subs means less frustration in fantasy league.
 

fps

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
5,478
Hurrah! I enjoy three, each sub is an important tactical move by the manager, more is at stake with each change.