Should rules be changed so all squad players can be on the bench

[simon789us]

Anyone think it would be a good idea for the rules to be changed so teams could have all their 25 man squads available on match days then pick and choose which 3 are used as subs

[Leicester_Numan]

I wouldn't have a problem with that, it's the next logical step in the progression but there would have to be a reasonable minimum amount for clubs suffering an injury crisis or bout of illness.

[FireFox]

No.

[Mike Oxlong]

Conrad says yes.

[Leicester_Numan]

No.

Just no? Or any particular reason why not?

[FireFox]

Just no? Or any particular reason why not?

It is part of the game. A manager's choice of who gets on the bench is a tactical decision, just like picking the starting 11.

A 14-man bench would give a manger twice the options to choose from. There are limitations for a reason. Why allow a 14-man bench and stop there, why not allow clubs 50-man squads and 6 subs during a match?

[bmt]

If a club had a number of long term injuries it'd be so unfair. I like the tactical decision aspect as it is.

[Babylon]

It is part of the game.

 

It never used to be, would you like to go back to no substitutions as per pre 65-66?

 

 

A 14-man bench would give a manger twice the options to choose from.

 

So?

 

 

There are limitations for a reason.

And what are they? And why have they changed so much over the years?

[Babylon]

If a club had a number of long term injuries it'd be so unfair.

Why would it? You can still only make three subs during the game, the options you'd have are still the same with injuries whether you have 7 or 14 subs.

 

So long as there are things imposed like x amount of positions going to home grown / youth team players I think it could be a good thing. Allowing people to bloody youngsters and give them experience in the first team more.

[Soar Fox]

They have it in international tournaments so why not in the domestic game.

[Captain...]

I would rather see a few extra bench spots for youth teamers than give all the pros a spot. There is also the practical aspect of fitting 7 more seats in the dug-out.

Not for me.

[st albans fox]

May as well go the whole way to american football and stop the game after each attack to bring on our DEFENSE !

can't see it happening

Kramaric would love it though

[Vlad the Fox]

I don't think long term injuries would be a problem as teams could, maybe should, use some of the places for players on the fringe who have come through the academy. Maybe it could be a rule that 2 or 3 would have to be academy products. They might not see much action action unless your team was stuffing someone but it would give them valuable match day experience.

[Leicester_Numan]

This will be proposed at some point so if you object to it, you'd all better start thinking of good reasons why not or come up with some good alternatives or it will happen.

The tactical aspect is only minimal and isn't a good enough reason to stop it but extra spots for youth teamers or home grown players sounds a bit more interesting.

[FireFox]

It never used to be, would you like to go back to no substitutions as per pre 65-66?

So what if it never used to be? It is now, and I think it is fine how it is, less than 7 would be too few, more would be too much imo.

And no, would you like to go back to football without the back-pass rule as per pre 92?

So?

So that means a manager needs to prepare less tactically for a game. He doesn't need to study the opposition as much, he doesn't need to consider different scenarios that may occur and how to best prepare for them, et cetera.

And what are they? And why have they changed so much over the years?

Again, the limitations are, in my opinion, so there is a certain tactile approach managers need to take.

Part of why they've changed (from 5) is actually "[to enable managers] to be more creative tactically". However, go too far and, in my opinion, it takes away from managers having to be as prepared tactically.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/7233663.stm

 

"Additionally, it should also mean that younger players from the academy can be given an opportunity to break into the first team."

Sure, allowing a 14+ man bench, with the full squad and youth players, would allow even more opportunity for youth players, but if that is the only way they get on the bench, they probably aren't ready.

[Vlad the Fox]

I think with the pressure managers are under for results they are not prepared to take the risk on youth team players, they extra space would remove that and allow them to be part of the squad and as a result if you were comfortable winning give them a go. They won't get that chance watching the team cruising at 3-0 on 75 mins while sat in the stand watching.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

How would it work though? Would you have to declare your 25 at the start of the season, and if they pick up injuries, you don't get to replace them? If you get to replace any injuries/loans/transfers with youth or new signings throughout the season isn't that just the same system as we have currently but with 14 subs not 7?

[kingcarr21]

How about if you were allowed only 3 subs but a youth player wouldnt count towards the 3 sub limit. So say if you had used 3 subs but a player got injured and had to come off then a youth player could go on the pitch. Maybe after they hit 20 years old they then become a proper substitute.

 

You would find more youth players getting on the pitch taking over tired players and may impress.

[simon789us]

Just thinking it would give a lot of finge players the hope that they may get on at some point if the game needed it

[Richard]

I really don't see the point. How is making a few youth players turn up a couple times a week to warm up then just sit on the sideline benefiting them? If a player is good enough to come on then he'd be in the 7 selected subs

The reason it works at international tournaments is because the whole squad are always together at the camp/hotel etc so they may as well be active subs. I'd rather have my 4/5 extra players relaxing with their families than forced to sit on the bench when they know they aren't likely gonna get a chance

[Richard]

Also do the 18s not play on a Saturday? So you're actively preventing them from game time by making them sit on the bench

[Captain...]

I also think it will start pissing more players off, if  you are Wasilewski for example, and you know you are behind Benalouane for CB and RDL for RB or third choice goalkeeper and you know that even though you have to go through the motions of being in a match day squad, but you will never get on the pitch. But you still have to eat properly and get an early night, travel half way across the country and run around in the warm up. Keep focussed but you look across the bench of 13 other players and know you will never get on that pitch.

 

Whereas if you are out the squad you can relax on match day or play for the development squad, and then when you are back in the squad like Wasilewski on Saturday you are focussed again.

[Grey Fox]

I can see both arguments. 

 

I quite like the idea of allowing a few youth players to be on the bench (as well).  Maybe something like an age cap on 3-5 additional subs could work? They could even have to be home grown as well.

 

That seems to be the main argument for more subs, so why not enforce it if that is the case?

 

Otherwise I agree that simply allowing the entire squad could take away from the tactical aspect of selecting a match day squad.  7 seems just about right unless the extra subs were there for youth development reasons IMO.

[Babylon]

So what if it never used to be? It is now, and I think it is fine how it is, less than 7 would be too few, more would be too much imo.

Because your argument was that it's "part of the game". Well it never used to be, the game moves on. Every argument you are giving could have been said about going from 3 to 5 to 7 subs.

 

Our subs are virtually the same week in week our barring the odd change. It would barely change the tactical thinking at all. The reality is, when clubs have all their players fit and available. The seven on the bench barely changes as the better players get on there week in week out. With rotation to keep a few people "happy".

 

In all my time on here or listening to and watching football. How often have I heard someone mention picking which players to sit on the bench as a big tactical part of the game? Once, in this thread. Levy's comments you quoted and nothing more than him flogging the idea, because he knows it benefits them with more money and better players to be able to have even more quality to pick from.

 

 

I'm neither for or against the change, 7 gives you enough options already for me. But the arguments against on here so far are pretty weak. Things like bigger clubs stock piling more players, or it giving them even more of an advantage etc being able to call upon even more expensive players are biggers worries.

[Rincewind]

Would it not lessen the motivation of some players? Chelsea have 33 players out on loan. If half of those were on the bench knowing they would not play but still draw wages  the'd have an easy life. A bit like sleeping partners in some companies. Turm up once a year for the AGM when they decide on bonuses.

Do they have the full squad on the bench at internationals? I know for friendlies there is no restriction but I thought it was the normal subs for tournaments.

I remember the time when there used to be a reserve league  which kept the fringe players match fit. Of course they could also pick up injuries which would not be good for the system today Rotation etc. Anyway the manager knows which are his best 16-20 players and after that the quality does not vary much and the extras would be surplus to requirement.

Maybe like someone said allow one extra sub if youth player or maybe even two benches one of senior one of youth. This would give something for both senior and youth players to aim for rather than just draw wages.