potter3 Posted 7 February 2008 Posted 7 February 2008 What's happened to your sig?I disagree btw, teams would want more depth and quality, meaning more stacking would occur. fixed it. Most teams have good players they leave out the 16 on matchday, I don't think they'd buy more than a couple extra if any. At the minute teams will have something like 1GK, 2 defenders, a midflielder and a striker, or solmething like that. With 7 subs they could have a GK, 2 defenders, 2 midfielders and two strikers, giving them more chance to attack etc. if they need to
Simi Posted 7 February 2008 Author Posted 7 February 2008 fixed it.Most teams have good players they leave out the 16 on matchday, I don't think they'd buy more than a couple extra if any. At the minute teams will have something like 1GK, 2 defenders, a midflielder and a striker, or solmething like that. With 7 subs they could have a GK, 2 defenders, 2 midfielders and two strikers, giving them more chance to attack etc. if they need to I'm not denying that there are advantages to the idea, but at the same time it WILL increase the gap. As Lisa has pointed out above. Teams want quality in there squads, as if teams like Everton are going to put youngsters on the bench ahead of the likes of Mattock for example. The quality gap will carry on getting bigger. Also, the development of good young players will be hampered.
AyewJoking Posted 7 February 2008 Posted 7 February 2008 Booooooooooooooooooooooo What a rubbish idea. Dont bother sorting out the offside rule or that malarky where the injured player has to go off before he can come back on again.
act smiley Posted 7 February 2008 Posted 7 February 2008 Promising young players get to sit on the bench for a Big Club instead of playing regularly for a small but decent one? This is meant to be good for anyone outside the top half of the premiership how exactly?
Geo V Posted 7 February 2008 Posted 7 February 2008 Tactically it makes sense to have more players available to come off the bench as football isn't as one dimensional as it used to be. Having different types of midfielders and strikers to choose from to me makes sense as does having a back-up keeper there. Not the worst idea they have had in recent times I suppose.
Sods Posted 7 February 2008 Posted 7 February 2008 Soon we will have a specialised set peice taker on the bench who just comes on for set peices a bit like the NFL.
Joe. Posted 7 February 2008 Posted 7 February 2008 Soon we will have a specialised set peice taker on the bench who just comes on for set peices a bit like the NFL. We need a new one, ours went on loan to Leeds.
Tommy G Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 ....but only in the Premier League.This allows "More creativity for managers". To me, it says more waste of good, young English talent. Well done to the "Premier" League again. Bollocks. It will give 'young english talent' more of a chance. Managers can afford to put 5 experienced players on the bench then a couple of youngsters on as ''wild cards'' so if they are playing well and winning comfortably then they could stick them on for the last 20. I'd say this would be more valuable to them playing with high quality players than pissing off to some lower league club. Theres for's and against for every argument - the fact is football is changing, you've just got to deal with it im afraid.
davieG Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 Bollocks. It will give 'young english talent' more of a chance. Managers can afford to put 5 experienced players on the bench then a couple of youngsters on as ''wild cards'' so if they are playing well and winning comfortably then they could stick them on for the last 20. I'd say this would be more valuable to them playing with high quality players than pissing off to some lower league club.Theres for's and against for every argument - the fact is football is changing, you've just got to deal with it im afraid. That's what they said when they made it 5, the big clubs will just have 7 international on the bench.
LeeCovFox Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 Bollocks. It will give 'young english talent' more of a chance. Managers can afford to put 5 experienced players on the bench then a couple of youngsters on as ''wild cards'' so if they are playing well and winning comfortably then they could stick them on for the last 20. I'd say this would be more valuable to them playing with high quality players than pissing off to some lower league club.Theres for's and against for every argument - the fact is football is changing, you've just got to deal with it im afraid. Not changing. Dying. Becoming a stage show for the rich.
Tommy G Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 That's what they said when they made it 5, the big clubs will just have 7 international on the bench. I actually believe some clubs such at Spurs will play youngsters. Chelski may not - oh well. We won't be in the prem for a long time yet so it won't affect us much, probably benefit if anything in the championship.
davieG Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 I actually believe some clubs such at Spurs will play youngsters. Chelski may not - oh well. We won't be in the prem for a long time yet so it won't affect us much, probably benefit if anything in the championship. They also said when they created the Premier League that it would improve England's chances of winning Trophies
davieG Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 Sir Alex Ferguson Substitute boost Ferguson was "delighted" however that the Premier League will allow a bench of seven substitutes rather than five from next season. He added: "I have said that for years. It should be 11 subs on the bench, as most clubs carry a squad of 22 or 23 players. At least this helps. "Last Sunday at Tottentham we had players sitting in the stands who could have been on the bench contributing something towards the team."
filbertway Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 I can see loads more of the FC United and AFC Wimbledon type teams being formed in the lower leagues, so people can enjoy the game for what ist was in 10/15 years time if more and more changes keep coming in for the top teams.
Joe. Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 "Last Sunday at Tottentham we had players sitting in the stands who could have been on the bench contributing something towards the team." Alex's Ferguson's quote there I'd like highlight. Sorry Alex but how do players contribute something towards the team when they're on the bench? The players were in the stands because he didn't pick them. The only reason he wants this is so he can keep more players happy by them being "part of the squad".
davieG Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 Derby County Bench (yeh I know they wont be there but!)
Guest Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 Tactically it makes sense to have more players available to come off the bench as football isn't as one dimensional as it used to be. Having different types of midfielders and strikers to choose from to me makes sense as does having a back-up keeper there.Not the worst idea they have had in recent times I suppose. It's all about making managers lives easy. It's alright them banging on about tactics, yadda yadda yadda, but surely the mark of a great manager is one who has done his homework, and selected 3 players from which he can change things if needs be. I know that the game has moved on and all that, but I seriously believe that managers were more canny years ago when they had to think about things than now, where everything is handed to them on a plate. He added: "I have said that for years. It should be 11 subs on the bench, as most clubs carry a squad of 22 or 23 players. At least this helps. "Last Sunday at Tottentham we had players sitting in the stands who could have been on the bench contributing something towards the team." Alex's Ferguson's quote there I'd like highlight. Sorry Alex but how do players contribute something towards the team when they're on the bench? The players were in the stands because he didn't pick them. The only reason he wants this is so he can keep more players happy by them being "part of the squad". Exactly. And the first part about his "big squad". You bought the players in. Noone has forced you into buying them.
Geo V Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 It's all about making managers lives easy. It's alright them banging on about tactics, yadda yadda yadda, but surely the mark of a great manager is one who has done his homework, and selected 3 players from which he can change things if needs be. I know that the game has moved on and all that, but I seriously believe that managers were more canny years ago when they had to think about things than now, where everything is handed to them on a plate. I don't know about that Lisa. I can remember Liverpool winning the League using 14 players I think it was in the 70s but the game has moved on with huge squads so it makes sense to get them involved and to earn their money. Bringing on a certain type of player as the game progresses makes sense but I still think that certain players who are happy in picking up their wages and sitting at home or in the stands will soon get disgruntled if they have to actually work for their money or at least inconvenience there plans by actually warming the bench
Guest Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 I don't know about that Lisa.I can remember Liverpool winning the League using 14 players I think it was in the 70s but the game has moved on with huge squads so it makes sense to get them involved and to earn their money. Bringing on a certain type of player as the game progresses makes sense but I still think that certain players who are happy in picking up their wages and sitting at home or in the stands will soon get disgruntled if they have to actually work for their money or at least inconvenience there plans by actually warming the bench The game may have moved on, but is it better? In some respects, it's worse. So what if top flight clubs have big squads. They chose to bring those players in, and the players chose to go there. If the players wanted regular first team football, they could do. However it would probably mean playing for a "smaller" club on lower wages. I mean, what's more important. Grrr. I'm getting worked up again.
davieG Posted 8 February 2008 Posted 8 February 2008 I don't know about that Lisa.I can remember Liverpool winning the League using 14 players I think it was in the 70s but the game has moved on with huge squads so it makes sense to get them involved and to earn their money. Bringing on a certain type of player as the game progresses makes sense but I still think that certain players who are happy in picking up their wages and sitting at home or in the stands will soon get disgruntled if they have to actually work for their money or at least inconvenience there plans by actually warming the bench The main impetus behind having huge squads was allowing 5 subs make it 7 and like as not the squads will get bigger with the big clubs monopolising the best players and under utilising them. A chance to put more England eligible players on the bench.
Ultra Posted 9 February 2008 Posted 9 February 2008 Am I the only one who doesn't mind this? It's what happens in most European leagues anyway, and also in the Champions League and UEFA cup Indeed, and you're not the only one. However, I would have liked a rule similar to the one in the SPL, where three of the seven have to be under 21.
DB11 Posted 9 February 2008 Posted 9 February 2008 As a Referee I don't really care how many people sit on the bench. As long as they don't start messing with the amount of substitutions allowed, what difference does it really make?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.