Too many subs is the problem should they be reduced

[worcestersauce]

As we march relentlessly into another frantic period of transfer speculation and some action no doubt Spurs and some other clubs will try to buy players only to lose out to one of clubs able to pay a small fortune and we'll be left feeling hopelessly inadequate I have been mulling over a possible solution.

I was watching Setanta on the Sunday after the Cup Final and they had Lawrie Sanchez on and he made what I thought was a very good point.
I don’t know what people think of Sanchez as player or coach but he is a clever and knowledgeable guy and I thought what he said made sense.

Sanchez made the point that in 1987 Wimbledon finished 7th and Liverpool were all conquering and had won the title at a stroll which made Wimbledon proper underdogs; this year however Everton were even bigger underdogs even though they finished fifth only two places lower than Chelsea who finished third emphasizing the huge gap between the top finishing four clubs and the rest.
His theory as to why the disparity is so great is that as we all know money talks and the top four finishing clubs have a huge advantage through CL and other channels but not because they can buy and pay the top players for their team but because they can buy and pay the top players for their squad.
Obviously that makes sense as you have better players as cover and they have effectively two top teams so the other teams are basically competing for the 2nd and 3rd tier of player however his point was that this is only possible because most of the squad players get to be involved quite regularly even if they don’t start a game or at worst even if they are only part of the first team on the sub’s bench, what makes this possible is that teams are now allowed to bench seven subs.
What he said was that if teams were only allowed three subs on the bench, which is all they can use anyway, then a good third or more of the squad would never make the bench or even see the inside of the stadium and however much they are paid many of them would not be willing to stay as nothing more than a reserve team player prefering to leave and play regularly at another club.

I think this has some merit as the squad system skews the whole league, imagine three top players from these sides leaving and being added to other sides wouldn’t that level things up significantly?

 

[spurs mental]

When the 7 sub rule came in, or was being lobbied, I think we were one of the clubs who were actually asking for it to be brought in.

 

[3Dnata]

I say no!

 

[Dibby]

No. It gives us more chances to bring in some youth players.

 

[Michey]

No

 

[worcestersauce]

But why No? What benefit is there in having 7 substitutes?

Dibby, fair point but how often does that happen in Premiership games

 

[C0YS]

7 subs is a must. every other country seems to do it, so why shouldn't we do it!

 

[robbiesavagehasbreasts]

But why No? What benefit is there in having 7 substitutes?

You have more room for young promising players on the bench.

If player gets injured you should have at least 1 player on the bench to cover that position. Like: GK, FB, CB, CM, LM, RM, FW.

More players are happy because you can have 18 players in the squad, that take part in the game, whether they start, come on or unused subs. There's a big difference being an unused sub or sitting up in the stands.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

You have more room for young promising players on the bench.

If player gets injured you should have at least 1 player on the bench to cover that position. Like: GK, FB, CB, CM, LM, RM, FW.

More players are happy because you can have 18 players in the squad, that take part in the game, whether they start, come on or unused subs. There's a big difference being an unused sub or sitting up in the stands.

I agree it is good to give the youth a chance to be on the bench and it brings the Premiership in line with other leagues.

Talking of too many subs, last night in the U21's, England had 2 keepers in their 7 subs. They brought on their 5 outfield players and then Cattermole got injured. So keeper Joe Lewis came on as a sub striker after 75 mins. :grin:

I don't know if that has happened before. Interestingly this is the same Joe Lewis who made the England squad when he was playing in League 2 after being called up from the U21's as cover a couple of seasons ago.

 

[worcestersauce]

7 subs is a must. every other country seems to do it, so why shouldn't we do it!

Fine that's fair enugh so it should be a Uefa or Fifa decision but why 7 subs? why not 3 subs?

You have more room for young promising players on the bench.

If player gets injured you should have at least 1 player on the bench to cover that position. Like: GK, FB, CB, CM, LM, RM, FW.

More players are happy because you can have 18 players in the squad, that take part in the game, whether they start, come on or unused subs. There's a big difference being an unused sub or sitting up in the stands.

But how often are young players used in the league and why should there be one player to cover each position anyway because logically that wold mean there shold be 11 subs.

I agree more players are happy that's what I said in my first post but if they weren't happy because they were in the stands or plying reserves then they would go to other clubs which is the whole point of my arguement.
It's that happiness that means they stay and so the rich clubs prevent other clubs having them in their teams and competing with them.
In effect it's not the players on the field that win titles now it's the ones on the bench and therefore not at another club providing real competition.

 

[SpurSince57]

When the 7 sub rule came in, or was being lobbied, I think we were one of the clubs who were actually asking for it to be brought in.

We were, and Bill Nicholson was one of those pushing hardest for subs to be introduced into the English game back in the 60s. It started with just one being allowed, and only for injury; tactical substitutions were introduced a couple of years later.

 

[mil1lion]

I dont see an issue with having 7 subs. It is a squad game afterall. Maybe they could have a rule where 3 of those players must be under-21 and homegrown though.

 

[worcestersauce]

I dont see an issue with having 7 subs. It is a squad game afterall. Maybe they could have a rule where 3 of those players must be under-21 and homegrown though.

I don't see why it is or should be a squad game rather than a team game but I like your idea of at least three kids onthe bench that would help perhaps.

 

[bjholmem]

The best clubs can rotate their squad and keep more players happy because they play more games, not because they are allowed to have seven substitutes on the bench. In any match, only 14 players will be involved in playing action no matter how many you put on the bench.

 

[worcestersauce]

The best clubs can rotate their squad and keep more players happy because they play more games, not because they are allowed to have seven substitutes on the bench. In any match, only 14 players will be involved in playing action no matter how many you put on the bench.

But they rotate through the bench and if you are on the bench you are more involved if players were rotated to play Barnsley reserves it would be different.

If only three subs were allowed it may well be that clubs would use versatile players able to fill a number of positions which means there will be even less opportunity for the third and fourth strikers for example, which means less rotation and less satisfaction with playing in the reserves, players moving to other clubs and therefore greater competition.