Jump to content
IGNORED

Five subs - a good or bad thing?


Lanterne Rouge

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Ifab: Football law makers recommend five substitutes - BBC Sport

It`s being proposed that five subs be allowed in the future after they were during Covid. You can change half your team.

Thoughts.

I reckon , once again, it would help the bigger clubs who could afford to bring on quality subs as the opposition were tiring .

Down with this sort of thing.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather 3 from 9, then you could have the concussion protocol properly used by having a like for like positional sub. Plus , if like us last year when we had 2 head injuries in the first half, it covers that, as many as needed. 

5 basic subs is too many IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 1960maaan said:

I would rather 3 from 9, then you could have the concussion protocol properly used by having a like for like positional sub. Plus , if like us last year when we had 2 head injuries in the first half, it covers that, as many as needed. 

5 basic subs is too many IMO.

That's a good suggestion I like that one ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting technical but 3 from 7 however you can make an additional 2 subs if they're home grown academy players who've played less than x amount of games before the season starts, ie for City we could make 3 subs then bring on a Conway/Bell/Towler. Would limit it to 10/15 games as a way to ensure its very new players to first team level to try to keep having young players brought up. If you don't have young players you deem good enough don't name any on the bench and stay with 3. Just rewards good academies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, myol'man said:

Bloody substitutes ?

Back in my day you had to stay on and play on unless you'd been carted off to A&E in the back of your mates van.

Quite right too - no subs for me.  Bert Trautmann even played on in a Cup Final with a broken neck. Don't remember players having ham strings or metatarsals then either. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Personally I think the fairest thing would be to be allowed three tactical subs but also to be allowed as many injury subs as you needed, with the proviso that anyone brought off as an injury sub cannot be selected for the next game (to prevent injury subs being exploited)

Next 3 games not just 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan. 3 from 7 is fine, with the concussion protocol as the exception for a 4th.

Just an excuse to disrupt the game more, & as the original reason given for it was player fatigue due to Covid resulting in virtually back to back seasons, I don’t get the logic now.

Probably is more down to the big clubs wanting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people saying it'll favour the big boys which is a fair take. But it won't be all bad, there's also reason for it to benefit smaller clubs, fans and players. E.g.

- more room for tactical changes in games to push for a draw or shut up shop
- increased likelihood of youngsters getting game time. This will benefit smaller clubs as they can still offer academy players more game time than the big sides. 
- already overworked footballers will likely get more rest, increasing performance levels we see and more importantly not running players into the ground. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think (and I've not fully read the article) that if it changes to 5 subs, and let's be honest, it will, then it should be restricted to 3 changes plus an additional at HT if that makes sense? So can change 5 players but have to make the changes in a maximum of 3 stoppages during 90 mins game time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, arrytheb said:

I think (and I've not fully read the article) that if it changes to 5 subs, and let's be honest, it will, then it should be restricted to 3 changes plus an additional at HT if that makes sense? So can change 5 players but have to make the changes in a maximum of 3 stoppages during 90 mins game time

That's exactly what the proposal is.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t be mad at 4 with the concussion sub still available if need be. Think 5 pushes it too far in favour for clubs with more money. We think oh it is a small change but keep getting these small changes that favour clubs with money. Need to push back imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Couldn't you get round the time wasting aspect by not allowing any tactical substitutions after the 90th minute? 

Concede in the 91st minute then can't bring on an attacking player to change the outcome? And we all know time wasting starts much earlier than the 91st minute

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Not a fan. 3 from 7 is fine, with the concussion protocol as the exception for a 4th.

Just an excuse to disrupt the game more, & as the original reason given for it was player fatigue due to Covid resulting in virtually back to back seasons, I don’t get the logic now.

Probably is more down to the big clubs wanting it.

Cue some clubs giving lessons on how to "fail" the concussion protocol on the correct sign from the touchline...even with an enforced layoff for following matches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Calculus said:

Quite right too - no subs for me.  Bert Trautmann even played on in a Cup Final with a broken neck. Don't remember players having ham strings or metatarsals then either. 

Broken neck? That’s nothing mate, I know a bloke who had a broken neck and dislocated shoulder, he played the full 90 mins and added time. Went back to the pub after the game and had a few pints as well  

They don’t make um like that anymore. 

Edited by swanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Why can’t the 11 already on the pitch try and change the outcome?

Why should you have to use your subs before 90 mins? As said we all know time wasting occurs a lot earlier, all you'd get is a load of mysterious injuries so its not a tactical sub, not much you can do about cramp etc. Referees need to actually just follow through and be stricter on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...