Five Substitutions, are we considering the full implications?

[norwichfox]

1 hour ago, ttfn said:

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.

 

 

Fully expect to see the Corner Deeefence 11 come out for the fourth quarter...

[Chrysalis]

It will help teams who have managers that can read a game been played and strength in depth.

 

Teams who will suffer the most who have managers who tend to make bad subs, and dont have strength in depth.

 

Rodgers I think will suffer from it, but another point of view is with our fitness problems it may help us with injuries.

[He aint bald]

OK, we have established most posters dont like it with fair reasons but how will Brendan adapt?

 

Eg, trickier to blood a goalkeeper than a midfielder.

There are 2 threads on Iversen discussing possible game time next season. Some suggest in cup games but I reckon cup runs are equally important.

 

So, use a sub to bring on Iversen for 30 mins at 2 up or 2 down, league and cups, might be a good idea.

Or change sub culture?

Start him occasionally. 

Open plan that he plays 45 minutes or until we concede and he comes off, regardless, 2 min penalty or fluffed catch. This way no shame if hooked.

 

I know, different

[He aint bald]

12 hours ago, Royston. said:

Would it increase cynical fouls?

Vestergaard could trip Kane and get a yellow card.

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

 

I am a worrier and often want to sub booked players, so yeah, but will depend on the 3 windows and might mean sacrificing other tactical plans

11 hours ago, gurru991 said:

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

Again I agree, sptitting feathers watching Vardy hobbling the last 2 seasons but again, it will depend on the 3 windows and might mean sacrificing other tactical plans. Even with 11 subs, used, an injured or fatigued player might be asked to play on for the last 10 minutes

 

EDIT Also with Leicester and no europe, depending on ins and outs, we should have the squad to rest and rotate, we might be overstocked

Edited 15 May 2022 by He aint bald

[BigGibbo]

It's critical 5 substitutes is implemented for the sake of blooding youth due to the quality of first teamers and the amount at stake in the premier league these days as there's too big a gap to bridge between youth team/under 23s and first team.

 

However, there should be a law that 2/3 out of the 5 subs used need to be under 23/have come through the youth team.

[He aint bald]

3 minutes ago, BigGibbo said:

It's critical 5 substitutes is implemented for the sake of blooding youth ........... there should be a law that 2/3 out of the 5 subs used need to be under 23/have come through the youth team.

A popular opinion but again, not part of the actual change.

Apart from benefiting the bigger clubs but it might actually harm younger players at other clubs.

 

Last U23 game I went, ended up in the bar from half time.............  but reading Ric Flair and Co, they often opinionate that some young players are not ready to step up

 

Would Watford and similar forfiet thier extra two options for fear of humilating the young players or weakening the team too much?

 

[BigGibbo]

7 minutes ago, He aint bald said:

A popular opinion but again, not part of the actual change.

Apart from benefiting the bigger clubs but it might actually harm younger players at other clubs.

 

Last U23 game I went, ended up in the bar from half time.............  but reading Ric Flair and Co, they often opinionate that some young players are not ready to step up

 

Would Watford and similar forfiet thier extra two options for fear of humilating the young players or weakening the team too much?

 

 

No, they would just be required to invest in youth as there is now a financial incentive that any player that comes through their youth team (or is brought in under a certain age) will now quality as a 3rd to 5th substitute. Obviously some players are not ready so won't be considered, but there are plenty of players that are ready just not tried and tested and when so much is on the line managers would rather trust a mediocre battle-hardened first teamer than risk a potentially very good but untried youth.

 

I firmly believe Harry Kane doesn't become the same Harry Kane without Tim Sherwood believing in and using him where most managers wouldn't (remember how average he looked on loan with us?) and in my example there would be more opportunities to give similar players more of a chance.

[BigGibbo]

21 minutes ago, He aint bald said:

A popular opinion but again, not part of the actual change.

Apart from benefiting the bigger clubs but it might actually harm younger players at other clubs.

 

Last U23 game I went, ended up in the bar from half time.............  but reading Ric Flair and Co, they often opinionate that some young players are not ready to step up

 

Would Watford and similar forfiet thier extra two options for fear of humilating the young players or weakening the team too much?

 

In terms of the actual change either way it would benefit the richest teams most but without an emphasis on youth it benefits them way more as they can just buy 3 more world class players to bring off the bench.

[He aint bald]

 

4 minutes ago, BigGibbo said:

I firmly believe Harry Kane doesn't become the same Harry Kane without Tim Sherwood believing in and using him where most managers wouldn't (remember how average he looked on loan with us?) and in my example there would be more opportunities to give similar players more of a chance.

I would prefer young players learning their trade getting kicked on a muddy Doncaster pitch than perfecting tactics against other apprentices on a crowdless floodlit lawn

[BigGibbo]

1 minute ago, He aint bald said:

 

I would prefer young players learning their trade getting kicked on a muddy Doncaster pitch than perfecting tactics against other apprentices on a crowdless floodlit lawn

Definitely. I'd prefer the standard route to the first team be;

 

Graduating from the youth team

 

Playing for the Reserves/Under 23s

 

Training with the first team

 

Loan to the football league.

 

3rd to 5th Premier league sub

 

First XI

[twister]

you want a example of how much it ****s with the flow of the game

 

watch the ridiculous extra time between chelsea and lvierpool, chelsea ended up subbing a sub for a sub for the sake of it

 

in these cup ties 34 players between two sides over two hours is ridiculous.

[He aint bald]

No consideration.

[He aint bald]

Brentford, 5 pàirs of fresh legs and change to high tempo

Leicester, 1 change, remove energy from midfield

[He aint bald]

 

Spurs used their subs for tactical, energy and possibly motivational reasons.

 

Rodgers had no idea.

Bringing on Vardy and Kelechi depended on a tired 90 minute midfield being able to dominate a refreshed Spurs midfield.

Inept decision, Spurs had just reorganised to nullify Madders.

 

The more astute out there might analyse reshuffles better but Barnes,  on present form and general lack of a dynamo gear, was the man to come off, not KDH.

Do the other subs not exist other than to sneak Ndidi off with 5 mins to go?

 

To me, the poor use of subs has become a Rodgers failing, finally saying it.

 

Rodgers out

 

 

 

 

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

One of the worst managers we've ever had in terms of using his substitutes astutely. And the new 5 subs rule has only exacerbated the problem. Leaves us at a huge disadvantage.

Edited 18 September 2022 by SouthStandUpperTier

[Deeg67]

10 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

One of the worst managers we've ever had in terms of using his substitutes astutely. And the new 5 subs rule has only exacerbated the problem. Leaves us at a huge disadvantage.

Exactly as some of us said it would.