5 Subs Allowed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Hopefilly its only due to short preseason and its goes back to nornsl after
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
Phew, CC4L is back to nornsl.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yet more advantages for the richer clubs, farce of a game
Nick
Administrator
Imagine Man City making 5 changes!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Getting ridiculous. That's potentially 10 stoppages for substitutions. Bet all that time doesn't get added on.
They're saying its just for next season as the season could be shorter meaning more games per week but I can't see it being rolled back if it does come in over here for a full season.
They're saying its just for next season as the season could be shorter meaning more games per week but I can't see it being rolled back if it does come in over here for a full season.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Football needs to be football. I'm all for goal line technology as a must (who remembers Frank lampards 'goal' against the Germans?) and 3 subs has been a success, but 5 subs, drinks breaks, var stoppages - it's all spoiling the game. It's not the start stop game of NFL Football.
Nick
Administrator
There will be a sponsor for it all no doubt.
Sponsored VAR break
Sponsored Water break
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="400px" width="400px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
more like the nfl each year.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It needs to be implemented to reduce time wasting and breaking up play.
So rules like:
3 tactical subs allowed, 2 injury.
Limited to 3 changeover opportunities (+ HT)
Any player as an injury sub is automatically not eligible for next game in that competition.
No subs allowed in injury time and only 1 opportunity allowed in final five minutes
So rules like:
3 tactical subs allowed, 2 injury.
Limited to 3 changeover opportunities (+ HT)
Any player as an injury sub is automatically not eligible for next game in that competition.
No subs allowed in injury time and only 1 opportunity allowed in final five minutes
CanadianCCFC
Well-Known Member
No the rule is each side can only stop the game 3 times for subs (not including half time) due to time wasting. They have to make multiple subs at once if they want to use all 5
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
I think you have to make 2 at HT would be alright, then 3 in play.
Personally, think it's a shite decision though.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I used to think increasing the amount subs allowed was a good idea. However, I’m not so sure it is a good idea.
For the weaker teams, they can make use of subs to make them more difficult to breakdown, limiting fitness as a factor. The probably result is less goals in the last 30m of games.
For the stronger teams, they can make of use their resources by bringing on 2-3 super subs. Also, would allow the best teams to strengthen their monopoly on talent as ‘substitutes’ become ‘finishers’ instead, as is the case with rugby.
To use a comparative example with rugby, because you can sub half the team, players are generally conditioned for 50-60m match fitness. Which limits the impact on fitness, and less chances created for scoring. As a result, there are calls to decrease the subs allowed for some of these reasons.
For the weaker teams, they can make use of subs to make them more difficult to breakdown, limiting fitness as a factor. The probably result is less goals in the last 30m of games.
For the stronger teams, they can make of use their resources by bringing on 2-3 super subs. Also, would allow the best teams to strengthen their monopoly on talent as ‘substitutes’ become ‘finishers’ instead, as is the case with rugby.
To use a comparative example with rugby, because you can sub half the team, players are generally conditioned for 50-60m match fitness. Which limits the impact on fitness, and less chances created for scoring. As a result, there are calls to decrease the subs allowed for some of these reasons.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It does increase the possibility of making it that some players are 'designed' to last 60 mins or as a impact sub for 20 mins and their effort and workrate is based on that. So if a player then has to go beyond that but their training isn't designed for it could make the risk of injury or overexertion a bigger problem.
It is supposedly just for the one season but you never know.
It is supposedly just for the one season but you never know.
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
I see a use for Kastaneer next season after all...
CovLis86
Well-Known Member
I liked the idea of it meaning academy players can get more time, but as others have said the big clubs won't be doing that just means they can tactically bring on more fresh legs late in game and take advantage. I can tolerate it for a season, the drinks breaks need to be ditched though. Its bad enough when you see players swigging from a sports drink packet when there's a minor injury or break in play. I used to play 3 games of football a day when I was at a school!...
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Yeah I don't get the negativity here or how it'll benefit the bigger clubs....really?!
Surely it will benefit every club and the players equally? Yes there will be more interruptions for sub breaks but it's hardly going to take 5 minutes off the playing time of every game is it.
If next season is shorter (which it will be), then players are likely to be playing more games in a shorter amount of time with many moaning that there's already not enough rest between some games. As hill83 says, it'll give some younger players a chance of game time but most importantly, hopefully reduce the amount of injuries sustained.
Surely a players wellbeing is more important that an extra 2 mins of injury time added on at the end of a game?
Surely it will benefit every club and the players equally? Yes there will be more interruptions for sub breaks but it's hardly going to take 5 minutes off the playing time of every game is it.
If next season is shorter (which it will be), then players are likely to be playing more games in a shorter amount of time with many moaning that there's already not enough rest between some games. As hill83 says, it'll give some younger players a chance of game time but most importantly, hopefully reduce the amount of injuries sustained.
Surely a players wellbeing is more important that an extra 2 mins of injury time added on at the end of a game?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
For me main concern is if it increases the breaks in play. Loses all flow and momentum and football doesn't suit a stop/start game. I can see the TV people wanting the drink break more than anything else because it's another chance for ads, hence chance for more revenue and the powers that be will go along with it for that reason alone.
As for the number of subs it would definitely be of benefit to the bigger teams more because they've got more squad depth. Take Man City yesterday. With five subs they could bring on De Bruyne, Sterling, Mahrez, Laporte and Zinchenko. Bournemouth could bring on Callum Wilson, Harry Wilson, Lewis Cook, David Brooks and Andrew Surman. Do you really think both teams get the same benefit out of that?
If you've got limited resources you've now got to either spread it out further to have a stronger squad, resulting in a slightly weaker team, or continue with a strong first team and weaker overall squad but knowing that they'll be suffering later on in games and in the season as they tire and other teams make changes. The big clubs don't have to do that. Their benches would walk into most other clubs first teams and with the FFP ruling they'll be quite happy to continue laying out fortunes on players, esp if with more subs they'll all get more game time.
I'm all for helping protect the players in what is likely to be a very congested season but I can't see it being used by the teams in that manner. They'll just up the intensity with the knowledge more players can be subbed.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying but it's not really in different to the playing budgets of teams, is it? Man City will have a better squad than AFC Bournemouth. Your squad strength is relevant to your budget. Bournemouth don't have the same resources as City...their 12th-16th best players are still their 12th-16th best players, same as City.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I get that but the difference is that some clubs can afford a decent first team but can't afford or convince decent players to join to be a squad/bench player. The really big teams can afford and convince better players to do so and the drop off in quality to their bench is less pronounced.
So the gap between an average teams first team and squad will be greater than that of a top team and so overall it will be of more benefit to the bigger team.
So lets say a top team's first 11 all have a rating of 85. The decent team have a rating of 80. Each make five subs, but the top teams bench have a rating of 80 and the decent team have one of 70.
The top team would see the average rating of their team drop by around 2.5% to around 83. The decent team would see a drop of over 5% to 75.
Even if you say it goes down five points for both teams and the decent teams bench is 75 and thus the differential between the teams on average remains constant, in percentage terms the drop in quality is slightly higher for the lesser team.
The gap gets bigger and so later on in games (when more goals tend to be scored) is now even more in favour of the bigger team.
Which then leaves the decent team with the choice of reducing the quality of their first team slightly to have a stonger squad to prevent that but with then be more disadvantaged from the start as they've got lower quality players.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="100px" width="100px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
And to the last two posts...totally understand that...but that's just football. Some clubs have the finance to have a squad worth millions, some don't.
There'll still be a difference of £xxm's between the first 11....the same as the bench. Increasing the number of subs allowed doesn't favour the richer clubs anymore than the difference in budgets they already have.
There'll still be a difference of £xxm's between the first 11....the same as the bench. Increasing the number of subs allowed doesn't favour the richer clubs anymore than the difference in budgets they already have.