.

[Adam456]

Not a fan of this. Seems obvious to me that it substantially benefits the big clubs. The only counter-argument seems to be that smaller clubs will be better able to block an equaliser in the unlikely event that they take the lead and are still winning after 60-70 mins. Those players that they bring on will still need to be good defensively against world class attackers rather than any old duffer who can simply 'run arrrand a bit'

 

[stonecolddeanaustin]

0 subs up to 1958
1 sub from 1958
2 subs from 1988
2 subs + a GK from 1994
3 subs from 1995

At any of these points the comment in bold could have been used as an argument against it. Better teams are generally always going to have better subs. But there are so many nuances around matches played, current injuries, match situation, weather conditions etc that can be a leveler in any given match.

The game evolves, its quicker and more physically intensive and whilst it will undoubtedly on balance favour the better, richer teams... thats life right?

I see your point but it's got to stop somewhere hasn't it? Or else we'll be at ten subs by 2040. The game does evolve but if the players can't manage 90 mins at the intensity required with the levels of fitness they have then maybe it's the tactics that should change rather than the rules.

 

[EQP]

That's a false equivalence. Being able to bring on a few extra plodders to hold on to a lead is nothing compared to being able to make more use of a superstar bench. Bielsa's Leeds would also benefit nowhere near as much as the big clubs - the quality of sub will just not be of the same standard as the starters.

I don't think anyone is overlooking that. It's one of few levelers the smaller clubs have with the big clubs. Another is the fact that the bigger clubs can only play 14 of their 20 odd superstars during a given match. That's soon increasing to 16.

How can it be a false equivalence when the likes or Burnley have won games doing just that, same as City have made subs to help win their games? Should we discount any wins that Burnley have gained from sitting back and soaking pressure? You can't have it both ways and say that smaller clubs will be victims of this change, when they've matched up with the bigger teams on gameday and have made themselves tough to beat, while also making sure to take their chances when they can.

 

[EQP]

I see your point but it's got to stop somewhere hasn't it? Or else we'll be at ten subs by 2040. The game does evolve but if the players can't manage 90 mins at the intensity required with the levels of fitness they have then maybe it's the tactics that should change rather than the rules.

COVID was the reason for the change. We still don't know what the long-term health effects that COVID will have on players. Kimmich suffered a bout of COVID last year and is now only getting back to full fitness. Truncated seasons, international fixtures, international competitions etc the option to have more players to call from is smart given that we don't want to overtax players.

After suffering lung problem due to Covid, Joshua Kimmich says he should have been vaccinated | CNN

Bayern Munich star Joshua Kimmich says he should have been vaccinated sooner after suffering a lung problem due to Covid-19.

www.cnn.com

 

['O Zio]

Although it set out to help the bigger clubs, I’m sure last time it helped teams that were defending deep in the last ten mins hold on for points.

It wasn't set out specifically to help bigger clubs, that's just plain wrong. Iwas introduced as a measure to prevent too many injuries as a result of players going from not playing at all for several months to suddenly playing twice a week every week to make up the lost matches etc.

It may or may not disproportionately benefit bigger clubs depending on how you look at it, but to say that's the whole reason it was introduced conspiracy-theory level bollocks.

 

[EQP]

It wasn't set out specifically to help bigger clubs, that's just plain wrong. Iwas introduced as a measure to prevent too many injuries as a result of players going from not playing at all for several months to suddenly playing twice a week every week to make up the lost matches etc.

It may or may not disproportionately benefit bigger clubs depending on how you look at it, but to say that's the whole reason it was introduced conspiracy-theory level bollocks.

This. How have people forgotten that COVID impacted football so significantly? This change, which has been adopted by every other league and competition, is about protecting player health and preventing clubs from postponing games due to lack of options.

 

[stonecolddeanaustin]

How can it be a false equivalence when the likes or Burnley have won games doing just that, same as City have made subs to help win their games? Should we discount any wins that Burnley have gained from sitting back and soaking pressure? You can't have it both ways and say that smaller clubs will be victims of this change, when they've matched up with the bigger teams on gameday and have made themselves tough to beat, while also making sure to take their chances when they can.

It's a false equivalence because the two takes are not equal. For starters when defensive teams are holding on to a lead they're less likely to make many subs as they don't want to upset the system that's working. This is kind of beside the point though.

The likes of Man City have two very good players for every single position. They can afford this due to their obscenely high wage bill. The midtable teams tend to have 2 or 3 very good players, 10 decent players with a gradual drop in quality thereafter. The subs man city can be bring on will be nearly as good as their starting players so they can now bring on fresh legs in five positions (half of the outfield team!) with minimal drop off in quality. Yes, the midtable team can also bring on five subs but the drop off in quality is going to be much more significant.

I just don't see how anyone can genuinely claim that all clubs are advantaged by the rule change equally.

 

[chinaman]

More subs mean more advantage to the moneybag teams.

 

[spurs9]

Truly fucking stupid idea. Can these twats just once try and come up with something that doesn't just benefit the richest clubs?
They're systematically killing competition, the dream that someday your team can be the best or actually win something.
Its claimed the EPL is so popular because on any given day anyone can beat anyone. Well this will go some way to stopping that.
Honestly what will be the point of watching football oncethis and the new cl qualifying laws come in?
They'll kill the golden goose before long and people will lose interest.
What happened to having to pick your best 11 to win a game and having to make good tactical substitutions. Now you'll be able to fuck it up completely and then change half the outfield players!
Ridiculously shit idea imo.

I don't think it does benefit rich teams more. A lot of the financially poorer teams tend to play a more physical game, with a higher intensity and as a result drop off in the last 10 mins, this would enable them to swap out 5 key players and potentially keep the intensity for 90 mins.

The teams that it will benefit the most are those who tactically adapt to the rules quicker and tbh, that tends to people like Dyche and Allardyce (in his peak) rather than people like Guardiola and Klopp, who tend to believe in their way and stick to it.

 

[JCRD]

I think the five subs rule is the right way to go about it. There are so many games now, more money and bigger squad so it is only right. I wouldnt mind if they went with the extra two subs being academy or the youth, that would help things for the future I think and give more opportunities to the younger groups.

 

[Serpico]

Truly fucking stupid idea. Can these twats just once try and come up with something that doesn't just benefit the richest clubs?
They're systematically killing competition, the dream that someday your team can be the best or actually win something.
Its claimed the EPL is so popular because on any given day anyone can beat anyone. Well this will go some way to stopping that.
Honestly what will be the point of watching football oncethis and the new cl qualifying laws come in?
They'll kill the golden goose before long and people will lose interest.
What happened to having to pick your best 11 to win a game and having to make good tactical substitutions. Now you'll be able to fuck it up completely and then change half the outfield players!
Ridiculously shit idea imo.

...and even more time wasting. All Substitution the clock should stop. It frustrating seeing coaches use players to waste time.

 

[Joshua shepherd]

I think people are overrating the benches of other teams. It’s highly unlikely that Zinchenko would ever be a good option from the bench to replace cancelo for instance.

In fact speaking solely to full backs, there are very few replacements that are close to being equal to the starters and therefore worth bringing on.

It’s also all relative, yes the weaker teams have smaller squads but their replacements are often more similar in quality than the bigger teams.

Look at us or arsenal, supposedly big clubs, however, our benches have next to no quality on them meaning we don’t even tend to make changes until the last 10 minutes of the games simply because the drop off is huge.

Whereas palace for instance, could bring on Edouard for Mateta, or Eze for Olise and the difference in quality hardly changes.

 

[smallsnc]

Do think this is good for the players, as it is really silly the number of matches that top players are expected to play in year.

 

[coyspurs18]

...and even more time wasting. All Substitution the clock should stop. It frustrating seeing coaches use players to waste time.

Aren’t they still just allowed 3 windows to sub though?
Fully agree that they should just stop the clock and do away with only 1 person knowing exactly how much time is left in a match.

 

[Rosco1984]

Moany Klopp got his way. why adjust your playing style later in the season when you've exhausted your players when you can cry like a b and get the rules changed.

 

[kaz Hirai]

seems beneficial for all clubs, since the World cup mid season in the desert heat is gonna knacker players out more

 

[Styopa]

Setting aside player fitness, it will be interesting to see how this plays out and what effect (if any) it will have on matches. When lots of subs are introduced during friendlies this tends to disrupt the rhythm of a match, albeit it would be unlikely for a team to introduce 4 or 5 changes all in one go which is fairly typical in friendly matches. Still, it is feasible that the last twenty minutes of a match could be played with 9 or 10 players who didn't start the match.

As others have pointed out, the extra breaks in play for subs coming on and off will also likely be noticeable, especially if we are chasing a game and the opposing team waits until the last ten min to start making their substitutions.

Like VAR, I can see a strong argument for the introduction of additional subs in the modern game. However also like VAR I imagine it will almost inevitably lead to more disruption to the flow of matches, albeit not to the same degree as VAR.

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

0 subs up to 1958
1 sub from 1958
2 subs from 1988
2 subs + a GK from 1994
3 subs from 1995

At any of these points the comment in bold could have been used as an argument against it. Better teams are generally always going to have better subs. But there are so many nuances around matches played, current injuries, match situation, weather conditions etc that can be a leveler in any given match.

The game evolves, its quicker and more physically intensive and whilst it will undoubtedly on balance favour the better, richer teams... thats life right?

It doesn't nullify your point, but substitutes were first allowed in the Football League and FA Cup in the 1966-67 season. In earlier years the "Wembley jinx" was well known in Cup Finals where bad injuries left one of the teams with ten men. Len Chalmers of Leicester was a case in point in 1961 against Tottenham.
Cliff Jones was Tottenham's first (unused) substitute in an FA Cup Final in 1967. Also, initially, substitutions could only be made because of injury, but then under Tommy Docherty, Chelsea players started to get strange injuries in the tunnel at the end of the first half and be replaced for the second half. So, the injury aspect was scrapped because it was so easy to circumvent.
We currently have the facility for extra subsititutions for head injuries. We'll see how long that lasts.

 

[Serpico]

Aren’t they still just allowed 3 windows to sub though?
Fully agree that they should just stop the clock and do away with only 1 person knowing exactly how much time is left in a match.

Whatever , the rich clubs benefit -time will be wasted and most supporters will lose out.

 

[coyspurs18]

Whatever , the rich clubs benefit -time will be wasted and most supporters will lose out.

Time is wasted constantly anyhow, this won’t change that. Maybe supporters will win out if clubs are able to keep their players healthy.