They've been doing it in MLS this year, at least. I did see some stats on how different managers have been making use of it (or not)...will have to dig them out.
Championship will have five subs from end of November... (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfctommy
- Start date
They've been doing it in MLS this year, at least. I did see some stats on how different managers have been making use of it (or not)...will have to dig them out.
87 n all that
Well-Known Member
From the games I've seen, it's not unusual for there to be 10 minutes or more of stoppage time.
Anyway, here's how various teams have been using it:
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Not sure the 30 seconds is a rule...
Its just an estimate that people use for how many minutes could possibly be added. Been to many a game where 6 subs have been used and time added on is only 3 mins... (that means none added for any stoppages - pretty rare!)
87 n all that
Well-Known Member
Refs throw it on the things like timewasting, injuries etc. Agree that it’s an estimate though. Hope refs stop when a player is subbed and the sub is where he needs to be on the pitch.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
While I agree in general this is another rule to suit those with the biggest pockets, I don't think it'll make that much difference. Can you really bring on 5 players without completely upsetting the rhythm of a team?
SkyblueDad
Well-Known Member
BornSlippySkyBlue
Well-Known Member
I’ve never understood why they don’t literally stop the clock the second a team announces a substitution. Instantly you’d get zero time wasting (from subs) and almost no point in bringing on 3 subs in the last minute (apart from to disrupt the pattern of the game).
Every team does it, but if they knew the time taken would literally (and I mean literally) get added back on it would remove a lot of the incentive.
Every team does it, but if they knew the time taken would literally (and I mean literally) get added back on it would remove a lot of the incentive.
87 n all that
Well-Known Member
It would make sense but if you’re the team that is losing it might open a can of worms along with timewasting on goal kicks, set pieces, throw in etc. Brings me back to when Accrington scored within 3-4 mins against us a few years back and then 2 mins later they won a corner and their player took literally 2 mins to walk to take the corner. Not one of our players even mentioned it to the ref (Doyle wasn’t playing) and they did the same thing all game. Seeing as were usually losing and not streetwise in a lot of the divisions we’re in I doubt we’ll ever be the beneficiary of time wasting.
BornSlippySkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Other time wasting time goes on anyway, not convinced removing the option for substituting to waste time would necessarily increase other forms, but if so clamp down on it. A lot of the issue is refs allowing blatant time wasting anyway. Even after the rule that players had to leave at the closest edge of the pitch was introduced half the refs ignored it as the player slowly wandered over to the far side.
In theory they have the ability already to stop general time wasting, substituting players they can’t prevent and if there’s 5 of them...
stupot07
Well-Known Member
But isn't that down to the lack of quality in the squad rather than the quality of the bench?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes I think we’ve kept for example Godden or McCallum on because we don’t have better on the bench. Or what we do have is unfit (Walker). In AM Robins only trusts Shipley and Allen. The likes of Kasta and Bapaga aren’t going to be used for more than a couple of minutes.
Only the Reading bench could you legitimately argue we had 6 players who we could bring on.
But please, tell me more about how Baka Pask and Kastaneer are Championship quality players
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Look on the bright side it means we don’t need to waste a sub after Hamer inevitably gets warned he’s on his last chance 50 minutes in
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Watford brought on Deeney, Chalobah (signed from Chelsea for £5m rising to £7m) and Ngakia (signed from West Ham on a free).But please, tell me more about how Baka Pask and Kastaneer are Championship quality players
Junqueira de Jesus (signed for £2m from Fluminense), Quina (signed from West Ham for £1m) and Sierralta (signed from Udinese) were unused subs.
I'm not sure us being able to bring McFadz and Baka on is quite the advantage some seem to think!
BornSlippySkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Pioneers once again!
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
He's frantically trying to work out how he can bring on 3 wingbacks in injury time.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Yes, but sod's law says it's the game you gamble you need them. Like us against Stoke years ago. Didn't put a keeper on the bench and we needed to put Stephen Hughes in goal for over an hour.
Although to be fair he kept a clean sheet.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I've said for a long time I'd like the game to become an hour long with a stopped clock for when the ball isn't in play, controlled by a timekeeping official rather than the ref.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It may help with our injuries, but we'd be making subslargely due to fitness issues rather than to change a game, knowing the player coming on was probably weaker but the extra energy will compensate. 'Bigger' teams can do so but also have sufficient quality to still be a potential gamechanger, so they get quality and energy and it's once again advantage them. They're the teams who truly get to rest players, are less likely to pick up injury and thus remain a strong, stable team.
Same with youth. Winning comfortably you can afford to give a youngster some experience that allows them to progress. How often would we be in a position to do so?
Frostie
Well-Known Member
Definitely be interested to hear Robins' thoughts on this, I can't see how it will benefit us or the other lower end clubs in the league.
I get the idea with the increased injuries coming but you have to have the quality to go like for like without disrupting performance on the pitch. The likes of Bournemouth & Watford can do this but could we or Wycombe?
I get the idea with the increased injuries coming but you have to have the quality to go like for like without disrupting performance on the pitch. The likes of Bournemouth & Watford can do this but could we or Wycombe?
Football's five substitutes rule doesn't benefit the big clubs – and here's why | Ignacio Palacios-Huerta
The academic and former Athletic Bilbao head of talent ID Ignacio Palacios-Huerta explains why the issue is not as simple as it appears
Last month I was chatting to my friend Ernesto Valverde, the former Athletic Bilbao and Barcelona coach who I got to know well when I was Athletic’s head of talent ID. For once we were disagreeing. He, like many in football, thought that the temporary rule change to allow five substitutions from an extended bench of nine players favoured the big clubs. I insisted it wouldn’t.
At the time it felt like the debate didn’t matter much either way, given the rule was only expected to last until the end of the season. Now, however, Ifab has agreed to extend it, to the dismay of many. Burnley’s manager, Sean Dyche, and Aston Villa’s Dean Smith are prominent critics – and one well-regarded journalist recently claimed it “really does not take the brains of Lloyd George to work out that it is a rule which will favour richer clubs who have squads packed with larger numbers of higher-quality players”. However, this issue really is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Let me explain why.
From starters to five: a short history of football substitutions
Read more
My starting point is this: if being able to use five substitutes favoured the big clubs, you would expect them to make more changes compared with smaller teams. However, since the season resumed that hasn’t been the case. After lockdown was relaxed in the Bundesliga, for instance, the top four teams used 4.03 substitutes per game, while the bottom four teams used 4.59 substitutes per game. In the Premier League, Manchester City and Chelsea used fewer substitutes on average than Bournemouth and Norwich.
So what is going on? My argument is that the change in the number of substitutions neither harms nor benefits the teams according to their quality, but depends on other considerations.
Let me explain using a scenario I have discussed with a number of coaches, players, and analysts in the Premier League and La Liga. It is far simpler than real life, but hopefully it captures the essence of the situation.
Let’s take two hypothetical situations. In Situation A, substitutions during the game are forbidden. Teams start and end the game with 11 players. In Situation B, meanwhile, it is mandatory to replace the starting XI at half-time, and no other substitutions are allowed. Going from A (“No subs”) to B (“All subs”) means going from 0 to 11 substitutions, something undoubtedly much more drastic than going from three to five substitutions.
In Situation B, each team experiences a change in the quality of its players in the second half. The difference between the second half and the first half depends only on how good each team’s substitutes are relative to the starting XI.
In other words, whether a given team benefits depends on how its own relative change compares with the relative change of its opponent. Note that the words “strong team” or “weak team” are not used here, and therefore whether one team has a better or worse squad than another is irrelevant.
Let me put it another way. Let’s assume that every team’s first team and substitutes’ bench has a quality that is measurable and can be assigned a number from 0 to 100, with 100 being best.
Now imagine a match between a strong and a weak team, in which all the players are replaced at half-time. The strong team has 11 players of quality 100 and another 11 who are 60. On the other hand, a weak team has 22 identical players, all of quality equal to 20.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Burnley’s manager, Sean Dyche, has spoken out against the five substitutes rule. Photograph: Getty Images
When the starting players have to be replaced at the break, the strong team plays with quality 100 in the first half and quality 60 in the second half, while the weak team plays with quality 20 in both halves. Contrary to what many might think, under these conditions, it is clear that the weaker team prefers the situation where there are more substitutions.
Of course Team B has a low chance of winning throughout. I am not disputing that. But, crucially, their chances of winning go up when 11 changes are made. The reason is that it has a more homogeneous squad, one with more similar player quality and is able to make more like-for-like substitutions.
Here is another scenario. All players in the strong team have an identical quality equal to 50, while the weak team has a quality of 20 in its first XI and of 15 in its 11 substitutes. Here again the more homogeneous team – which in this case is the strong team – benefits most from a situation where there are more substitutions allowed.
These simple exercises capture the essence of the impact of rule change. A team’s strength does not matter. Squads that can make more like-for-like substitutions are the ones that will benefit most from the possibility of a greater number of substitutions, regardless of their riches and thus overall level of quality of the squad. More uneven squads suffer from the rule change, regardless of how good their overall squad is.
At this point you are probably thinking: “Well, your theory sounds all well and good professor, but in practice the big clubs have more homogeneous squads than smaller ones?” I wouldn’t be so sure.
There is a well-known effect in football which economists refer to as the “superstar phenomenon” – whereby a small number of people earn enormous amounts and dominate the activities in which they engage. Of course it is not specific to football or even sports. There are countless examples from the world of arts and letters and showbiz where there is a strong tendency for rewards to be highly skewed toward the most talented individuals in the activity, with very large rewards at the top and a marked skewness in the distribution of salaries.
The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.
Nearly 40 years ago, Sherwin Rosen, an economist from the University of Chicago, proposed a brilliant theory to explain these general patterns. Applied to football, it means that essentially the best players reap a greater share of payroll, and this reduces the spoils available to the relatively less gifted in the squad. The superstar phenomenon, therefore, tends to increase the salary inequality both within squads and across squads.
As salaries are associated with quality and performance, this pushes richer clubs to tend to have more uneven squads than lesser – in terms of money – clubs. Richer clubs would then benefit less, not more, and tend to use fewer substitutes, which is what is happening. Of course it would make sense to go through each squad individually to make sure this is the case.
SkyblueDad
Well-Known Member
Advantage all the big spenders in the league
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But are those injuries in training freak accidents or muscle tears/pulls that could've been brought on by overwork in games? There is a great more time spent on the practice field than in games so statistically you're more likely to get such an injury in training than games.
So the muscle becomes stressed in the game but holds out, it cools down after the game making it a bit tight then in training later in the week despite warming up and stretching it eventually goes.
If anything for me more in training than matches suggests it is this kind of thing. More match injuries tend to be caused by caused by bad tackles or collisions which are done more intensely in a game situation.
Or in your language you're more likely to go through someone to let them know you're there in a match than in training.
Nick
Administrator
So why is it suddenly overworked in games compared to usual so more subs needed?
If more subs will prevent it, why do we rarely make many?
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Yes I think we’ve kept for example Godden or McCallum on because we don’t have better on the bench. Or what we do have is unfit (Walker). In AM Robins only trusts Shipley and Allen. The likes of Kasta and Bapaga aren’t going to be used for more than a couple of minutes.
Only the Reading bench could you legitimately argue we had 6 players who we could bring on.
But please, tell me more about how Baka Pask and Kastaneer are Championship quality players
Just totally disagree. Regardless of who is starting, those were the benches we had and there's more than 3 players on each bench who could have some sort of impact coming off the bench. To think that they couldn't is naive.
We've got the squad that we've got right. Are Baka, Pask and Kasta Championship level players? Maybe not for 90 mins, two games a week. Could any of them make a difference with 10 mins to go one way or another, yes.
And people need to remember, this has been voted for by the clubs. It's not like there's 71 bigger clubs in the EFL who will benefit more than us. The clubs have voted for this...the majority want it otherwise it would've been rejected for a 3rd time.
The way some people are wetting the bed over this is incredible....