5 subs

[brownblade]

Not a fan to be honest. I understand the arguments FOR. But it's too far removed from tradition and most importantly suits richest clubs in all leagues.

 

[Bath Blade]

It probably suits us as one of the (currently) wealthier clubs in the Championship, but I don’t like how disjointed games become when too many substitutions are made (even though clubs are still only allowed three substitution events).

 

[brownblade]

The 3 substitution events is a good rule in fairness, a slight saving grace. But still the fresh legs of richer teams will be considerably higher quality x5 not just x3.

 

[diode_blade]

Nautilus
U471
Stingray
K41
Jimmy Muir

 

[Athens Blade]

We have five subs in Greek footy

 

[Panini]

I don't really have a problem with it.

The introduction of concussion subs is obviously open to abuse, in the same the original sub rule in 1965 was supposed to only be for injuries but was manipulated so they were quickly allowed for any reason. I see 5 subs in the same way, they can be a leveller just as much as an advantage.

One rule related to this I would like to see introduced: substitutions allowed up until the injury time board goes up, but not after. If your man coming on isn't stood next to the 4th official when he raises the board, he's not coming on.

 

[Breakingblade]

Got to be good news for us; pretty big squad, players who can only manage an hour, OAPs up front, at least one injury a match...

 

[jt64]

Not a fan to be honest. I understand the arguments FOR. But it's too far removed from tradition and most importantly suits richest clubs in all leagues.

Tradition? It was only about 30 years ago that you were first allowed a keeper in addition to two subs. But yeah, you are right, it just widens the gap between the best clubs and the worst, especially at the highest levels

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Do we have a particularly big squad? With 3 subs we were struggling to fill the bench with likely to play players for a lot of the season

 

[Houston_Blade]

If the refs are going to add time on for blatant timewasting subs it would help, but they won’t.

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

Gives more flexibility to change things if things go pear shaped so I'm in.

 

[Rusty]

How the fck did we get by with 1 sub back in the day? Also I don't recall many games where we finished with 10 men apart from sending offs...

 

[BigBed]

Not a fan to be honest. I understand the arguments FOR. But it's too far removed from tradition and most importantly suits richest clubs in all leagues.

It means atleast 5 u23s will get a game though

 

[jt64]

How the fck did we get by with 1 sub back in the day? Also I don't recall many games where we finished with 10 men apart from sending offs...

The game was nowhere near as fast or physically intensive, so seems less likely anyone would pick up pulls/strains at anywhere near the rate they do today

 

[brownblade]

Tradition? It was only about 30 years ago that you were first allowed a keeper in addition to two subs. But yeah, you are right, it just widens the gap between the best clubs and the worst, especially at the highest levels

True about subs not being around forever. But what happens in a another 30yrs? Rolling subs? 30 minute matches? I'm not necessarily being really dramatic.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

The game was nowhere near as fast or physically intensive, so seems less likely anyone would pick up pulls/strains at anywhere near the rate they do today

Madness. Football was a far more physical game before the mid-90s. Crunching tackles were second only to goals for getting the crowd excited.

 

[jt64]

Madness. Football was a far more physical game before the mid-90s. Crunching tackles were second only to goals for getting the crowd excited.

You'd still get crocked by an awful tackle, yes, but I'm talking about continual calf/hamstring strains from playing at 100% today, a rate of exertion you really didn't see as much. That, and back in the day players would actually know the art of riding a challenge rather than going down to draw a foul, and also because a leg breaker was often a career ender rather than a temporary setback

 

[originaltrueblade]

Before you know there will be 11 subs

 

[Berlin Blade]

I don’t particularly like it but it’ll be good for us.

 

[Whiston Blade]

I don't have a problem with it and if it gives the younger lads a chance then that's only a good thing. Plus I guess it could reduce injuries. Though staggering three time wasting subs in the 90th+ minute may become even more tedious.

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

Crunching tackles were second only to goals for getting the crowd excited.

I'm confused. If at all, I thought that might have happened in the Currie/Woodward era, but I can't find anywhere where we were awarded a goal for getting the crowd excited.

 

[3Cheers4Ramirez]

As long as the 5 can only be brought on in 3 changes its no great problem imo

 

[broomhillblade]

How the fck did we get by with 1 sub back in the day? Also I don't recall many games where we finished with 10 men apart from sending offs...

Some of us old 'uns remember when there were no subs. A crocked player would be expected to hobble up and down the wing. Bert Trautmann played on in a cup final with a broken neck.

 

[3Cheers4Ramirez]

In my day it was cold

 

[Whiston Blade]

As long as the 5 can only be brought on in 3 changes its no great problem imo

Why would they do this?

 

[3Cheers4Ramirez]

Why would they do this?

That's how they've been doing it everywhere isn't it - no more than 3 stoppages, so little changes

 

[Whiston Blade]

That's how they've been doing it everywhere isn't it - no more than 3 stoppages, so little changes

I don't know..

 

[dellasthunderbolt]

This may come at a good time for us - we are (hopefully) facing the dilemma of having a crop of talented youngsters emerging ripe for the 1st team over the coming years and five subs will allow the to be given game time without compromising shorter term priorities (ie next three points). At the moment bringing on an untried youngster is doubly risky - they may not be good enough AND use up one of three vital subs. This frees up (somewhat) one of those concerns.

 

[bakeblade]

Not a fan to be honest. I understand the arguments FOR. But it's too far removed from tradition and most importantly suits richest clubs in all leagues.

I'm not sure about it, obvious downside is opportunities to time waste.
What I don't understand is the jump from 3 to 5, I'd have just in increased it to 4 and monitor for a season.

 

[brownblade]

In terms of player heath, it's an easy decision/change. I get that. But I'm not sure it's actually good for the traditional game... Players don't have to be unbelievably fit and never stop running, for football to be beautiful, passionate, enjoyable and of high quality.

But at some point players will stop being flogged to the point of collapse/regular injuries. Maybe then we can go back to 3 subs...

N.B. Yes I know in the past it was zero subs/1 sub/2 subs
I remember two subs from a bench of 3 personally.