Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: usav on March 30, 2022, 05:22:42 PM
-
So it looks like this will get voted in tomorrow. Any objections here?
There are some games this season I would have happily subbed the entire team off, so I'm ok with it. I see Sean Dyche's point and understand somewhat, but with the amount of games the top players are playing something had to give and this is just a small part of that, IMO.
-
I'll accept the player welfare argument if it's also written into the rules that no player is allowed to play more than a prescribed number of consecutive games.
-
Thought this was a new Five Guys-Subway joint-venture.
-
So it looks like this will get voted in tomorrow. Any objections here?
Same feeling as the season we came up. More subs favours teams with larger, and deeper, squads.
I think we'll benefit from it as a club, but it stinks of pulling the drawbridge up on Championship sides. I'm quite against it.
-
I still think this will allow the top teams to overwhelm lesser ones. The bench for Man City is depressingly awesome, for example. If we progressed in a similar fashion I’d be all for it.
And yes I am a hypocrite.
-
Another excuse for Man City to stockpile players. Shite rule, get it to fuck.
-
I'm for it but I'd like some restrictions to ensure the extra spaces are used to bring youn players through. I'd also like to see limits on how many games players are allowed to play in.
-
I'm for it but I'd like some restrictions to ensure the extra spaces are used to bring youn players through.
I understand the arguments against it but I've come around to it albeit with the above proviso.
-
I'm for it but I'd like some restrictions to ensure the extra spaces are used to bring youn players through. I'd also like to see limits on how many games players are allowed to play in.
The first plan would stifle development by making players stay for the odd five minutes here and then rather then going on loan where they can play all the time while the second sentence sounds like an utterly dreadful idea. Another one which would help the Man Citys of this world. You know that if teams had to rest players in certain games the likes of Burnley and Watford would all choose Man City/Liverpool, etc, making those matches even more unbalanced.
If they want to play fewer games, get rid of the Champions League Group Stage.
-
I'd accept teams using five subs, but only if two of them have to be homegrown.
-
Absolute nonsense transparently designed to give an advantage to the richest teams. It enables teams, already able to stockpile the best players, to promise new recruits game time. There is no other conceivable reason for it.
-
Ok, so, to balance things up, why not tell every club that they MUST all use all five subs, every game. No? That's because the whole thing is balanced for the larger, money grabbing teams and the FA will no doubts cave in, because they have no bollocks.
-
Or just leave it as it is. Players are fitter than ever before, have a better diet and access to better medical and physiological treatment than ever before and play fewer matches than they have for decades. They don't need any more rest. It's another power grab by the elite and if you tolerate this, the cups will be next.
-
I'm fine with it as it is.
I'm not even sure it will actually benefit teams as when more subs are used in friendlies it never improves the games.
-
I’m fine with it so long as it is decided upon before the transfer window opens….integrity (not a word PL are familiar with the definition of) should dictate that rules like this have to be in place to allow all teams to plan appropriately
-
I'm for it but I'd like some restrictions to ensure the extra spaces are used to bring youn players through. I'd also like to see limits on how many games players are allowed to play in.
The latter point is never going to happen, and nor should it.
-
We'll have rolling subs and 'special teams' next. They can get to fuck.
-
Will be terrible for killing any momentum in games in the last 10/15 mins like in the CL currently. Another incentive to be a squad player at title chasing sides. The biggest supporters of this don't even use three subs a lot of the time.
-
We'll have rolling subs and 'special teams' next. They can get to fuck.
While obviously a dreadful idea, I confess to mild amusement at the idea of Man City, Barcelona and Paris St Germain all offering Rory Delap £500k a week to try to tempt him out of retirement.
-
Will they be restricted in the amount of times they can make the subs i.e 3 so that if you want to make 5 changes, you'll have to do double-substitutes?
-
We'll have rolling subs and 'special teams' next. They can get to fuck.
Is the correct answer
-
It's a transparant change to appease the 'Big-6' teams and further tips the balance towards the haves over the have nots.
Many City will be able to change half their outfield players with world class talent. Burnley (or other simiar teams) will have a bench full of journeyment and the kids who haven't been hoovered up by the rich clubs.
It's a fucking disgusting change and anyone proposing it or voting it through should hang their heads in shame. Bastards.
-
It's a transparant change to appease the 'Big-6' teams and further tips the balance towards the haves over the have nots.
Many City will be able to change half their outfield players with world class talent. Burnley (or other simiar teams) will have a bench full of journeyment and the kids who haven't been hoovered up by the rich clubs.
It's a fucking disgusting change and anyone proposing it or voting it through should hang their heads in shame. Bastards.
I agree - stupid idea and disapointed were backing it
-
I have witnessed a 3 man change all in one hit, i wonder if a team would be brave to do a complete 5?
Having 7 subs with the ability to use 3 and 1 extra for medical reasons (concussion) surely is enough
Clearly smacks of assisting the larger squads and i am glad that Purslow voted against it originally (allegedly)
-
I have witnessed a 3 man change all in one hit, i wonder if a team would be brave to do a complete 5?
Having 7 subs with the ability to use 3 and 1 extra for medical reasons (concussion) surely is enough
Clearly smacks of assisting the larger squads and i am glad that Purslow voted against it originally (allegedly)
no change for me,if it didn't benifit the super 6, they would vote it down,
-
Much as what most of us here are saying, it benefits the big teams by allowing them to change the outcome of any game, if it's not going their their way with the starting 11 on the pitch.
Weren't subs initially allowed as back up for injuries during the game? 3 with 1 for concussion is more than enough.
This change may probably relegate nearly all 3 of newly promoted teams on a regular basis, as they are unlikely to have the squad depth/quality to compete, so much for healthy competition.
-
Premier League clubs agree to five substitutes from 2022-23 season - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60945430
-
If they want to play fewer games, get rid of the Champions League Group Stage.
[/quote]
This. Just this.
-
Oh well, at least Morgan and Kienan will still feel involved.
-
Rotate your 25 world class players you utter c*nts.
-
I have witnessed a 3 man change all in one hit, i wonder if a team would be brave to do a complete 5?
Having 7 subs with the ability to use 3 and 1 extra for medical reasons (concussion) surely is enough
Clearly smacks of assisting the larger squads and i am glad that Purslow voted against it originally (allegedly)
Reading some of our match threads, a lot of people on here will welcome changing five players at once, although as we have another Manager who doesn't do subs we will probably leave it until the 87th minute.
-
Turkeys voting for Christmas again.
Another shit rule change that will spoil the principle of 11 v 11. Effectively clubs will now be able to literally change half their (outfield) team in a game.
There will be so much additional time wasting with 10 subs happening.
-
Well at least there can still only be a maximum of 3 stoppages per side during a game for the 5 subs, so that's the same as now.
-
I'm not sure this favours big clubs as much as most people think.
Lets take Norwich and Man City as examples (i.e. the best and worst teams in the league).
Man City beat Norwich in almost any circumstance from 0 subs to 11 subs if both have their full squad to select from so the chances of this changing the result is tiny.
The fringe case is that Norwich have held on for 70minutes at 0-0 with no subs made. Man City will have been dominating possession so, on average, the Norwich players will have worked harder than the man city players. Both teams make 5 subs and suddenly 5 tired Norwich players are replaced with 5 who want to see the job through, whilst Man City are shuffling in a few different world class players to see if they can find a spark. Man City are still favourites to win but they always were but the biggest 'risk' for Norwich is that they get tired and make sloppy mistakes, you see this regularly where the richer teams score a goal or 2 in the last 10-15 minutes as the pressure finally tells.
The other argument is that it'll make players more likely to join clubs like Man City (or at least stay with them) but again I don't know if that's true. Plenty of players have moved to clubs where they knew it was going to be tough to get a game, the slightly higher chance of getting a few minutes off the bench won't really make any difference to them so I don't see it having any impact on the transfer market.
To sum up, I don't think it'll make much difference beyond giving teams that get to the last 10-20minutes with a clean sheet a better chance of holding on.
-
Yeah. But the quality of the players Man City bring on will be far superior to the replacements Norwich can. So their chance of victory will be increased.
-
Man City versus the bottom team is a bit of a red herring, it's them versus anybody who might make things difficult for them, like Spurs, Arsenal or (hopefully) us.
-
That's just over analysing. Just looking at City's last two games they can bring on 5 of: Foden, Mahrez, Fenandino, Silva & Zichenko // Sterling, Gundogan. Jesus, Fenandino & Zichenko
This is before they've befed uptheir squad to take advantage of the rule change.
Whereas Burnley bring on 5 of: Lowton, Cork, Barnes, Stephens, Rodriguez, Bardsley, Long, Thomas
-
Yeah. But the quality of the players Man City bring on will be far superior to the replacements Norwich can. So their chance of victory will be increased.
I'm not sure that's either true or that it matters as much as people think. the comparison needs to be the players that come off with their replacement rather than the replacements with each other. For example lets switch to Liverpool (because it's clearer with them) if they bring off Salah or Mane does their team get stronger? Even if it does when you get to the 4th and 5th best players on their bench are they as good as the players they're replacing and, will they increase their chances of scoring? When Norwich/Burnley/Watford empty their bench they also have a drop off in quality but because they're more focused, in this scenario, with holding on for a point (and trying to sneak a breakaway goal) workrate and tactics matter more than individual quality (at least potentially).
The short version is I'd be amazed if there are more than 1-2 games a season that are genuinely altered by this change but it will mean clubs like us can give more exposure to their youth players whilst also keeping the senior backup players happy.
Right now I think part of the reason why managers aren't bolder with their use of subs is because they're scared of making all 3 and then getting a injury with 15-20minutes to go so the 3rd sub is often kept back until the last 5minutes. By having 2 extra subs you can make 3-4 changes and still have that insurance if something goes wrong. I think 5 subs leads to managers being much more pro-active in making changes and I think that's a good thing. I do admit to being spoilt by rugby allowing you to name a bench of 8 and use all of them.
-
Don't mind it per se, but the time-wasting that it'll bring needs to be reffed better. Stop the match clock, and it'll be amazing how quickly Burnley's cloggers will eff off the pitch.
-
By having 2 extra subs you can make 3-4 changes and still have that insurance if something goes wrong. I think 5 subs leads to managers being much more pro-active in making changes and I think that's a good thing. I do admit to being spoilt by rugby allowing you to name a bench of 8 and use all of them.
You can't, 5 players can be subbed, but still only during three actual substitutions. So if you've made three substitutions by say the 60th minute, bringing on a single player each time, you can't make any more changes.
-
It seems that there is a constant need to generally fuck about with the rules in recent years for subs, offside, handball etc and for me they can all get fucked with it. The only one that i will admit is a bit tricky is the handball thing with the intent, distance, movement of arms and all that but offside should be daylight as checked by VAR and subs should be 3 max.
-
By having 2 extra subs you can make 3-4 changes and still have that insurance if something goes wrong. I think 5 subs leads to managers being much more pro-active in making changes and I think that's a good thing. I do admit to being spoilt by rugby allowing you to name a bench of 8 and use all of them.
You can't, 5 players can be subbed, but still only during three actual substitutions. So if you've made three substitutions by say the 60th minute, bringing on a single player each time, you can't make any more changes.
That's a pretty huge clause you've had to add there though. 1-2 changes between half time and the hour, 1-2 more about 60-75mins and then the remaining ones are you're insurance for later in the game, this is how loads of managers do things already (with mabye the first change pushed a bit later) but just one player at a time, the 2 extra players gives you a load of extra flexibility even with the 'windows' still being limited (I agree with keeping it to 3 windows as well, to avoid a team ruining the last 10-15 minutes by making a sub at 'every' break in play.
-
Yeah. But the quality of the players Man City bring on will be far superior to the replacements Norwich can. So their chance of victory will be increased.
Didn't Man. City make 0 changes when they drew 0-0 at Palace recently?
This was also their bench v us in December:
Zach Steffen, Scott Carson, Luke Mbete, Cole Palmer, James McAtee, Romeo Lavia, Josh Wilson-Esbrand, Foden and Grealish.
Grealish was only sub they made that night and he came on right at the end. So yes Man. City can make 5 subs when 3 or 4 up v Burnley but Pep wasn't exacly going to throw on half the youth team especially as they were clinging on a bit.
Whereas that night we had Jacob Ramsey and El Ghazi as unused subs and either may have scored if we'd had 5 subs.
You look at the bench Arsenal had the other week aswell and it's not like that was overflowing with top quality players either.
I think this should benefit us next season as we really need to give more minutes to Carney, Archer, Kesler and JPB so this should really benefit as most managers use the 5 subs to just take FBs off after 70 minutes so some games could start Kesler and bring on Cash for example.
-
How many extra games a season would've the European Super League been, vs a team winning the CL? I'm guessing more?
-
Not sure, but the Champions League is expanding by at least four games in a couple of seasons. There has yet to be an announcement on how they will squeeze in those games but I've long suspected they'll get rid of the League Cup. Which would be fucking disastrous.
-
Well with Digne likely being a regular again next season you can see one reason why we voted for five subs!
-
we could have changed all 11 today and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of (positive) difference
-
Yeah. But the quality of the players Man City bring on will be far superior to the replacements Norwich can. So their chance of victory will be increased.
Didn't Man. City make 0 changes when they drew 0-0 at Palace recently?
This was also their bench v us in December:
Zach Steffen, Scott Carson, Luke Mbete, Cole Palmer, James McAtee, Romeo Lavia, Josh Wilson-Esbrand, Foden and Grealish.
Grealish was only sub they made that night and he came on right at the end. So yes Man. City can make 5 subs when 3 or 4 up v Burnley but Pep wasn't exacly going to throw on half the youth team especially as they were clinging on a bit.
Whereas that night we had Jacob Ramsey and El Ghazi as unused subs and either may have scored if we'd had 5 subs.
You look at the bench Arsenal had the other week aswell and it's not like that was overflowing with top quality players either.
I think this should benefit us next season as we really need to give more minutes to Carney, Archer, Kesler and JPB so this should really benefit as most managers use the 5 subs to just take FBs off after 70 minutes so some games could start Kesler and bring on Cash for example.
Man City yesterday had Mahrez, Fernandinho, Jesus, Silva, Stones, Zinchenko on the bench.
Liverpool had Mane, Diaz, Fabinho, Milner, TAA, and Oxlade Chamberlain
Chelsea, Lukaku, James, Jorghino, Kovacic and Christenson
We had Young, Luiz, Buendia, Traore, Chambers.
I know whose subs would be able to improve their team more. Even Man Utd had Rashford, Matic, Lingard, Mata and Wan Bissaka.
-
Mata is an old man who can barely move anymore, Lingard has wanted to leave Man. United for last 18 months and Rashford last had a good game in 2019 seemingly so I doubt having 5 subs would've had them challenging for the league given this is worst man. united squad since the 80s.
Next week we'll play Spurs and their backup CF on the bench will be Dane Scarlett.
I think it's a myth clubs in 4th-7th have 20 world class players in their squads, they don't. Chelsea bench will also be weaker next season unless they get another billionaire taking over.
I think it's good for us as we obviously need another LB in the summer. Many will be probably reluctant to join given what we spent on Digne but we can just say to them you'll get regular sub cameos as many managers use the extra subs to change the full backs around the 70th min mark.
-
How many more signings do people feel needed for our bench to have 5 subs of rotational standard?
Gerrard certainly wants that and to finish in top 6-8 we need that extra squad quality.
Also have to take into account with have some absolutely superb young players.