Should teams be allowed an unlimited number of roll on roll off subs?

RedTillI'mDead

A Key Tool
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
5,474
Location
London
There is clearly benefit to having some continuity from a team point of view so the benefit of mass changes has a limited benefit.

Thus, would it make it more exciting and with better matches if subs could roll on and off. It could be managed by the 4th referee so that the referee didn't have to be distracted all the time.

Also, no longer would stoppages be needed for subs which just disrupts play and causes extra time anyway.

I can only see upside to this. Weaker teams in the league wouldn't suddenly be dominated in the second half, which would give all teams a better chance and more even games.

More players would be involved so a happier squad and more opportunities for fringe players to get a chance.

If a manager didn't get plan a right, they could entirely change the line up to make it work, thus keeping a game interesting.

Injuries would be far less likely as you could just swap out even if temporarily and make sure the player is fully ready to come back on.

Happy to hear opinions on this, as I think it's an area of football rarely discussed to the extent it could/ should be.

The extra sub at the world cup for extra time was a step in the right direction, but why not have more?

I understand the stoppage time issue under the current method, but roll on roll off makes a lot of sense.
 
Would be too unfair to the smaller teams I think.
 
No but I wouldn’t mind increasing the number of substitutions to 4.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Why would this happen?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The big teams with the most resources would have even more incentive to ensure they have the best possible players on the bench.

The one thing weaker/less resourced teams have in their favour is that they can match the fitness of the best teams, even if their skill is not on the same level.
 
BluesJr said:
Would be too unfair to the smaller teams I think.
Click to expand...

What smaller teams?

Have people not seen what these so called small teams have been spending? Fulham and Wolves have been a joke. In a league like La Liga you are right it would be unfair on the smaller teams. But in the premier league nearly every team have big squads.
 
Bojan11 said:
What smaller teams?

Have people not seen what these so called small teams have been spending? Fulham and Wolves have been a joke. In a league like La Liga you are right it would be unfair on the smaller teams. But in the premier league nearly every team have big squads.
Click to expand...

Big squads but they don’t have the same quality.
 
No it would completely distort the competition. It would effectively allow the the rich teams to field two first elevens.
 
No, but I would like to see an increase in the number of substitutes that can be named on the bench. Maybe with the proviso that the extra seats must be occupied by players under 18 (or under 21, at a stretch).
 
JMack1234 said:
No it would completely distort the competition. It would effectively allow the the rich teams to field two first elevens.
Click to expand...

Surely that would kill momentum. It can take a while to get into a game. Also, how many teams can afford to have 2 sets of starters as good as one another, or can attract that number of players. The best players will always want as many mins as possible
 
Níl, because competitiveness between the top clubs and bottom clubs would be eroded purely based on squad depth and quality of players on the bench.. Perfect as it is.
 
If this happens time wasting at the end of matches would rise to an unprecedented level. It could be managed if the clock is paused at each stoppage like basketball.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should players be able to pick the ball up and run up the pitch with it? Should we have time outs? Should we change the shape of the ball? Should the managers have an arm wrestling competition at the end of drawn games so that we can have a winner? All great ideas I think.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Surely that would kill momentum. It can take a while to get into a game. Also, how many teams can afford to have 2 sets of starters as good as one another, or can attract that number of players. The best players will always want as many mins as possible
Click to expand...

Well obviously all 11 wouldn't come on at once but what would stop Man City from spending 30+ million on a specialised set piece taker who they'd sub on every time they got a free kick or a penalty?
 
Last edited:
No. Just stop the clock when subs are made to stop them being milked, or make it so players have to exit the pitch via the nearest touchline/byline, and the game can continue whether the sub coming on is ready or not.
 
Maybe every prem side should be allowed 5 games a season where they are allowed a 4th sub... To deal with injuries
 
(
JMack1234 said:
Well obviously all 11 wouldn't come on at once but what would stop Man City from spending 30+ million on a specialised set piece taker who'd they sub on every time they got a free kick or penalty?
Click to expand...

I think that would be what would happen, situational subs on set plays, much like North American sports.
 
deleon said:
No, but I would like to see an increase in the number of substitutes that can be named on the bench. Maybe with the proviso that the extra seats must be occupied by players under 18 (or under 21, at a stretch).
Click to expand...
I like that idea.
 
I wouldn't mind 2 extra subs that can only be used at half time so it doesn't affect the flow of the game. Also would like to see all players in the 25 man squad on the bench.
 
You'd end up with big clubs playing two different 11s for 45 minutes each.
 
No. I think teams should be able to sub off players with a head injury without wasting a substitution though.
 
City would never lose a game. Their squad players are better than most teams first XI
 
It would be awful. A team goes 1-0 up subs off three attackers for defenders to try to to kill the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.