5 subs, good or bad for us?

[Addison]

How many games are you envisaging where a comfortable lead means we can suddenly lift the core of our team to give them a breather? This isn’t something we are likely to benefit from at all. We have a squad where we have some good replacement options if they’re sprinkled into the team while maintaining the bulk of the XI. But the more changes we make, the more disjointed we look. Freshen up half of the top squads in the remaining games against either our less fresh first team or one where we’ve made 4 or 5 changes and it’s a completely different game.

We’re not stupid, Wilder & Knill will have carefully considered the pros and cons of this change in terms of how it might affect games going forward. If the difference was thought to be negligible from our point of view we wouldn’t have voted the way we have.

I'm looking at the opportunity to use 5 subs as added insurance against the risk of injury in an unprecedented situation LB. For the first time ever our players are being asked to endure two pre seasons during one actual season. This is the longest they have ever been without playing competitive matches. The players body clocks this time of year are on the beach yet they are being asked to start a new mini season with the intensity of an end of season fixture list. From a fitness perspective this is uncharted territory for all the conditioning and medical teams at each Club.

The EPL have said the Bundesliga is being used as a bench mark of how to get football back up and running. There have been a higher number of injuries in the games so far than normal and that has been with the use of 5 subs. The increase in injuries may be because of a lack of intensity in games because of no crowds.

I have no doubt we have one of the best conditioning teams in the EPL but the stats so far indicate the risk of injury has increased playing behind closed doors. We don't have to use all 5 subs and probably won't but the opportunity to do do seems to be more of a positive than a negative. I'll await with interest CW's reasons for voting against.

As for the 9 players on the bench rule agree no need for it so can understand our objection to this.

 

[BladesOnToast]

Subs scored a high percentage of our goals at the start of the season - Billy at Bournemouth, Moose at Chelsea (sort of) Everton and W Ham, McB v Leicester - at that stage substitutes had netted 5 out of our first 9 premier league goals. Not sure if this means anything however , and to be fair i don't remember subs directly baling us out again apart from Bournemouth at home.

In fact, far from being "found out" (having looked back over the season's results for the purpose of this post) as we bedded in at the highest level in English football we got stronger and dominated games more effectively earlier without having to rely on the super-sub like in the first few matches.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

I just loved the way we used it as away of saying
Bring it fucking on ,we' ll take anyone

 

[Not_a_Cheat]

They don’t have larger squads. We all have the same, 25.

I may be wrong, probably am, but don't under 21s or 21 and under not require registration in the 25 man squad. If so many clubs have larger squads than ourselves....

 

[bonnet de douche]

5 subs ....not enough time on the pitch for some to get up to speed....big squads or not ....personally cant see it having a major effect at all

 

[Foody]

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but there is another rule change too: a player can now play for 3 clubs in a season.

Can't see this affecting us at all, but does this not technically mean that Duffy could legally play for us? Even though he only has about a week left on his contract by the time we start.

 

[XM657]

It’s got to be voted on first hasn’t it? I think there is a real chance this won’t get the 14 votes needed.

You look at some of the players the big 6 have on the bench at times, it’s gotta be a greater advantage to them than the rest of the league.

I’d vote against it personally.

When I first heard this I thought, break in season, probably they are thinking more injuries as players are not quite as fit as they would be with continual games. At that it seem reasonable but on second thoughts its wrong to change rules of anything half way through anything.
It would also favour the big six for reasons previous posters have stated. They will probably drive it through.
Wrote this before realising it had been pushed through. Disgusting, FA showing how corrupt they are again.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

This is probably one of the main reasons we voted against it originally, because realistically once it was in there would be suggestions of keeping it. We knew it wasn’t as helpful to us now as to other teams, and we probably saw the danger that it might be brought in for good. The PL teams will need to vote on that again, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t more or less the same as the vote before the restart. Extremely annoying.

Exclusive: IFAB to extend five substitutes rule to cover all of 2020-21 season

Football's law-makers are set to extend the temporary rule allowing teams to make five substitutes in a game for the whole of 2020-21

theathletic.com

 

[Greg.]

This is probably one of the main reasons we voted against it originally, because realistically once it was in there would be suggestions of keeping it. We knew it wasn’t as helpful to us now as to other teams, and we probably saw the danger that it might be brought in for good. The PL teams will need to vote on that again, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t more or less the same as the vote before the restart. Extremely annoying.

Exclusive: IFAB to extend five substitutes rule to cover all of 2020-21 season

Football's law-makers are set to extend the temporary rule allowing teams to make five substitutes in a game for the whole of 2020-21

theathletic.com

Yeah just saw that, another rule that favours the larger teams, great.

 

[metalblade]

Not good for us I'd say. The big six can rotate their squads with very little impact on the quality of the players on the pitch, we are not at that level yet if any of our regulars are out or subbed you notice a drop in standards. Another rule change that makes it harder for teams to break into the top six places, it does get boring after a while Liverpool, the Manchester clubs, Chelsea, Spuds and Arsenal same old shit every year apart from Leicester causing a shock. Take note how it is all falling into place again this season unless ourselves and Wolves can edge out the two North London teams.

 

[HeySethUTB]

It depends on whether European qualification happens (doubtful), if it does, 5 subs would help in times of fixture congestion. loved playing a side this season that had just done a European tour always gave us an edge.

I feel Without Europe they are no real benefits for us having an option of 5 subs. This could kill parts of the transfer market because teams may be tempted to keep hold of players that may have been sold/fringe players, might also ruin a few youth prospects from the top clubs.

 

[PokerBlade]

Any rule that eliminates chance from a game favours the more skilled side. More subs means forced changes are less impactful on a manager's tactical decisions. It favours greater squad depth both in terms of having quality players on the bench and in the terms of the tactical changes you can make.

To be fair, we've seen the number of players picking up knocks and strains since the restart and it does look like the quality of games would be hurt by not having the extra subs. Long term though, this is only better for the richer teams. They have players we can't afford waiting to come on and we have empty spaces on the squad sheets.

 

[Speedracer]

I don't think it is good news for us at all, it certainly favours the biggest clubs with the biggest budgets & that is so clear & obvious, makes the already uneven playing field even more uneven, but if it happens there isn't a lot we can do about it.
Something that bothers me more is the introduction of drinks breaks in each half. It quite literally makes football a game of 4 quarters not of 2 halves & interrupts the flow of the game, & I can see it being allowed to stay, which is the foot in the door for advertisers to clamour for a commercial break.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Get in.

 

[Scarebus]

Be a shame to see the end of this.....

 

[finlaytheblade]

Get in.

Cus the money bags clubs would vote for 5
The selfish bastereds !!!!!!!.
Not interested in a level playing field they want all the goodies to themselves BASTEREDS !!!!
rant over !!!!!!!!!

 

[bromtom]

Haha fuck you Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Man City, and whichever other 3 clubs embarrassingly thought they were also big.

Fairness prevails.

 

[Original United]

Haha fuck you Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Man City, and whichever other 3 clubs embarrassingly thought they were also big.

Fairness prevails.

Know 2 of the other clubs, Wednesday & Wednesday reserves. So that just leaves the 1 to guess