Five Subs

[JD]

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.

[Drummond]

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.

[rougegorge]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[Drummond]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[chrisw1]

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

[paul_e]

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.

[exigo]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[Clark W Griswold]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[SoccerHQ]

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.

[Goldenballs]

How many extra games a season would've the European Super League been, vs a team winning the CL? I'm guessing more?

[cdbearsfan]

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.