• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

5 subs revisited - your take?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Modo

A contentious scando
Member


I think it should be implemented. Gives players more opportunities especially youths.
Minimizes the risks of late injuries due to fatigue considering our hectic schedule.

Sure, we won't be seeing players wind up in goal any more.
Also, we might not get those rare advantages of playing against 10 men when all subs are used and one player gets injured.
 
No. Don't like it. I didn't like it when it went from 2 to 3 either.

Agree with concussion substitutes though.

Does it stop at 5? Or shall we just go to roll on roll off.
 
What I like about 3 is that its limited number makes the manager have to use them cautiously. 5 subs will make it like rugby - with the potential of having the entire make up of the side changed from one half to the next.
 
I like the idea tbh..
don’t have to use them all if ya don’t want to ..options good and probably would use :)
 
Lesser teams holding onto a slim lead or a draw will just take their time to waste 1-2 mins per sub x 5 which is at least 5 mins of watching players sashaying off.
 
Being able to substitute half your outfield team over 90' will give even more advantages to rich clubs. Just means a better quality of substitute.

More opportunity for youth - I don't think so.
 
It's fine, and should go ahead. The game is far more intense than it ever was and players often don't stop in International competition years, which ends up causing a lot of muscle injuries, so it makes sense to offer extra protection by being able to swap a couple more during the game.
 
I know there are well intentioned and important reasons for this but i just can’t shake the feeling it’s another advantage to City when they’re naming a bench that cost £350m on the first day of the season.
 
I know there are well intentioned and important reasons for this but i just can’t shake the feeling it’s another advantage to City when they’re naming a bench that cost £350m on the first day of the season.

That is exactly what will happen.
 
Feels like a poor solution to the problem that is too many games in a season (domestic + international). It also clearly favours the bigger clubs, but then arguably only about 6 teams in the PL have truly crowded schedules and they do need some help to get around that.
 
Is there any data that shows us how often 3+ subs are used and by what point in the game?
 
Great for the likes of United, City and Chelsea.. who have 5 quality attacking subs to call upon.

Shite for us, who often have only 1 or 2.
 
What I like about 3 is that its limited number makes the manager have to use them cautiously. 5 subs will make it like rugby - with the potential of having the entire make up of the side changed from one half to the next.

I really prefer the game to be decided by the players that the so-called cleverness of managers during a game.

Obviously, choosing 5 subs is also a manger choice but a less precious one. I prefer the manager having most of their impact on the training field or at halftime.
 
I assume its to prevent any further time wasting by making late substitutions as currently exists.
 
I never understood the time wasting thing with subs. The ref can just pause his watch and add on. Makes no sense at this level.
 


I think it should be implemented. Gives players more opportunities especially youths.
Minimizes the risks of late injuries due to fatigue considering our hectic schedule.

Sure, we won't be seeing players wind up in goal any more.
Also, we might not get those rare advantages of playing against 10 men when all subs are used and one player gets injured.

The other negative is time wasting subs towards the end of the match to break momentum under pressure. I rarely see the correct allotted time added on. I love a ball in play clock instead of the current elapsed time rule.
 
The other negative is time wasting subs towards the end of the match to break momentum under pressure. I rarely see the correct allotted time added on. I love a ball in play clock instead of the current elapsed time rule.
Yeah, I've been calling for that for years.
Problem is, if that clock is implemented we don't see Alisson scoring a goal in added time.
The game would be stopped in the middle of a last minute attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom