Five Substitutions, are we considering the full implications?

[Mike Oxlong]

Could have just given Man City and Liverpool a 20 point start and kept it at 3 

[foxsake]

10 hours ago, tom27111 said:

My Mrs wants an air fryer and I don't really know why.

 

I'm up for an old school deep fat fryer so I can make some banging onion rings and the occasional deep fried Mars bar.

I wanted one but apparently you might as well roast whatever it is in the oven, or shallow fry and finish in the oven.

 

Oven is a great finisher, hoping for at least 20 meals a season..

 

[lcfc sheff]

Didn’t lille win the French league last season with 5 subs being at allowed? Doesn’t necessarily mean the “bigger clubs” will have a huge advantage. I mentioned this before but really 5 subs could be took one step further with perhaps 1 or even 2 of the 5 subs having to be academy products?

[foxinsocks]

when I was a kid there was just one sub allowed. It made for great entertainment.  After a club had made a substitution then if another player got injured then he limped on.  if the goalie had to go off then one of the outfield players put on his shirt.

 

More subs allows the manager to revise their initial  tactics - it allows them to shut up shop, it prevents the game from becoming stretched as payer tire.  Clubs with a bench of international players will of course be at an advantage.

 

Few subs favours more flexible players, fitter players.

 

WE should be looking at measure to even things up between rich and poor clubs.

Edited 14 May 2022 by foxinsocks

[majaco]

With 5 subs, I would like to see us adopt a policy of having at least prospect on the bench.   

 

ITKs say the we have an array of youngsters who could make it.  Giving them a few minutes could help with their development.

 

I know some will be out on loan. Mentions have been given to Alves, Braybrooke, Wormleighton, Wanyamarcal, Popov, Nelson,  Maswanhise, Pennant and Pennant.  Who have I missed

[lcfc old boy]

 5 subsitutions will just allow clubs to manipulate the time wasting tactics that clubs employ these days , just look at head injuries brought in to protect the players , now any chance the players get to feign a head injury to stop the game and take pressure away or waste time they will do it. and thats to go with 30-45 seconds a goal kick, 10-15 seconds to kick the ball out after falling on the ground after taking a simple catch, all to the detriment of the paying customer

[coolhandfox]

36 minutes ago, lcfc old boy said:

 5 subsitutions will just allow clubs to manipulate the time wasting tactics that clubs employ these days , just look at head injuries brought in to protect the players , now any chance the players get to feign a head injury to stop the game and take pressure away or waste time they will do it. and thats to go with 30-45 seconds a goal kick, 10-15 seconds to kick the ball out after falling on the ground after taking a simple catch, all to the detriment of the paying customer

No because because the substitutions can be made on three occasions during a match, or at half time.

 

 

 

[FoyleFox]

33 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

No because because the substitutions can be made on three occasions during a match, or at half time.

 

 

 

In theory, I agree, but it'll be 3 shirts to find, 3 lots of shin pads, 3 to get a drink and all the other stuff subs suddenly discover they need to do when the 'surprise' is revealed that they are actually pitch bound.

[He aint bald]

16 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

How's he going to fit 5 subs in only 30 minutes.

1-2.2, 1-1-3, 1-4, 1-3-1, 2-1.2, 2-2-1, 2-3, 3-1-1. 3-2, 4-1, 5.   Please dont ask about 4 subs 

16 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

More time wasting when the ref does not add enough time on

The same as now really, just 3 breaks in play, per team. Potential 0.6 more time spent sauntering back, board flashing  and stud checking though

14 hours ago, lcfc sheff said:

Am I the only one who likes the idea of 5 subs?

You know the answer

4 hours ago, majaco said:

With 5 subs, I would like to see us adopt a policy of having at least prospect on the bench.   

 

A policy, at last

[He aint bald]

7 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

In theory, I agree, but it'll be 3 shirts to find, 3 lots of shin pads, 3 to get a drink and all the other stuff subs suddenly discover they need to do when the 'surprise' is revealed that they are actually pitch bound.

True, a lot of bench faffing but that shouldnt effect game time. 

see the fully kitted up subs in flared onesies thread

Edited 14 May 2022 by He aint bald
onsies

[Scotch]

I like the idea. Sure, it will suit the bigger teams with the better squads but there are benefits in it for us too. 

 

Young players may get more game time. 3-0 up at Newcastle with 15 to go and two more subs allowed? Throw on the yung'ins. 

 

It will allow more tactical changes. We could start with a diamond for example with Barnes and Lookman on the bench, change to wingers without needing ayers to play out of position.

 

We can press harder and play higher energy knowing that we can replace half the team when they tire, who can then come on and play just as hard. 

 

We cam utilise more quality players within the same sized squad. Having to quality players on the same position is less of a problem. 

[Guest Lcfc82]

6 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

when I was a kid there was just one sub allowed. It made for great entertainment.  After a club had made a substitution then if another player got injured then he limped on.  if the goalie had to go off then one of the outfield players put on his shirt.

 

More subs allows the manager to revise their initial  tactics - it allows them to shut up shop, it prevents the game from becoming stretched as payer tire.  Clubs with a bench of international players will of course be at an advantage.

 

Few subs favours more flexible players, fitter players.

 

WE should be looking at measure to even things up between rich and poor clubs.

Just watching FA cup rewind on BBC 1 now. Got an old final between Everton and Liverpool on, only allowed to name 1 sub in that.

 

Absolutely no need for teams to be making 5 subs and naming 9. Should be name 5 and can use 3, would stop all the PL club’s stockpiling players.

[FoxyLeon]

Why not allow 2 extra Subs, but they can only be current academy players?

[Sly]

15 minutes ago, FoxyLeon said:

Why not allow 2 extra Subs, but they can only be current academy players?

This is a sensible option. 

[JimJams]

19 hours ago, goody2028 said:

Hate the idea of this. Another design to suit the big teams. 

Good job we’re a behemoth then!

[baldeagle]

11 hours ago, majaco said:

With 5 subs, I would like to see us adopt a policy of having at least prospect on the bench.   

 

ITKs say the we have an array of youngsters who could make it.  Giving them a few minutes could help with their development.

 

I know some will be out on loan. Mentions have been given to Alves, Braybrooke, Wormleighton, Wanyamarcal, Popov, Nelson,  Maswanhise, Pennant and Pennant.  Who have I missed

Wound be good if they enforced a rule where one sub has to be a youth prospect 

[ARM1968]

Just another big club boost dressed up as care and consideration for the players. Those with incredible squads will no doubt do well out of this. The rest, as usual, not so much. 

[Soar Fox]

6 subs potentially when you include the concussion substitution. 
 

Unless we seriously improve our squad in the summer this won’t be beneficial for us.

[Royston.]

Would it increase cynical fouls?

 

For example, Vestergaard could trip Kane and get a yellow card.

 

Normally, Vestergaard would then be ripe for a red but with more subs, we could afford to just replace him.

 

Thus cheating to stop a potential goal scoring chance for spurs whilst going unpunished?

[gurru991]

On 13/05/2022 at 15:55, lcfc sheff said:

Am I the only one who likes the idea of 5 subs?

No you are not. I think it's a great move to protect players from prolonged injuries.

[Vardinio'sCat]

I'd rather stick with 3, but if not 4 would be far better than 5.

[sacreblueits442]

6 hours ago, Royston. said:

Would it increase cynical fouls?

 

For example, Vestergaard could trip Kane and get a yellow card.

 

Normally, Vestergaard would then be ripe for a red but with more subs, we could afford to just replace him.

 

Thus cheating to stop a potential goal scoring chance for spurs whilst going unpunished?

...that happens now with weak referees!!!

  You would also be using up a window to make the substitution, or if he is part of a multiple change then you can't do this more than once.

 

 

[sacreblueits442]

5 hours ago, gurru991 said:

No you are not. I think it's a great move to protect players from prolonged injuries.

.. is a prolonged injury classed as a player who has come back from an injury and given limited game time or a player who has incurred an injury in a game, not forced to continue as we would be a man down!!!

  The only people who this benefits would be a big club with even bigger resources. 

 Any caveats such as a development player to be used as one of the five, also makes little sense as they (the big boys) are also well stocked in that department.

[majaco]

On 14/05/2022 at 06:42, UniFox21 said:

I'm still baffled by this in all honesty, 3 goals and 3 subs and we get an extra minute. 

Almost as if officials do not apply the rules with adequate professionalism.

[Guest ttfn]

I don’t really care if it’s beneficial for us, I care about whether it’s beneficial for the sport.

 

This will just further the divide between the haves and have nots. In the grand scheme of things we are a “have” and will benefit compared to clubs lower down the food chain but our aspirations will suffer in the long run because of this. Fears of a lack of game time for star players at mid-table sides moving to “big 6” teams are easier to soothe with the prospect of 5 subs, not to mention that the likes of Man City and Liverpool will regularly have 2-3 £30m+ signings as unused subs under the current 3 sub system who can now be used as fresh legs when needed.

 

This has come about from the ridiculous intensity that the likes of Klopp get their players to play at. They knew the rules were 3 subs per team but chose to adopt a style of play that would threaten player welfare if used over an entire season, then complained that 3 subs and fixture congestion (which gives them the bazillions of pounds they have to fill out their bloated squads) were the problem. Rather than change the style of play, they got the rules changed. Initially this snuck in under the guise of covid - we were promised it was temporary but of course we knew it wasn’t. 

 

This will not stop at 5 subs. I will not be at all surprised if we are at 7+ subs in 20 years time.