[Albion] Are you in favour of five subs in the PL

[Insel affe]

Oh yeah, let’s vote for something that ultimately benefits larger wealthier clubs....


feck NO

 

[schmunk]

"Sub when you're winning, you only sub when you're winning..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5IJQ23HmPo

To this melody? Struck me instantly as perfect to replace the chorus "you die young, you die when youre young"

Errr, no.

 

[Live by the sea]

Yes because although it massively favours the big 6 teams with their squads , I think our squad favours well against the bottom 8 teams because it gives us more options when we are losing or drawing which at the moment is quite often !

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

No. Slows the game right down.

Why not 4 subs if it needs to be increased?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[blue-shifted]

Bad for football.

Good for Brighton

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Small]

No. With Potter, it will give him the chance to get more (slow) centre midfielders and centre backs on meaning we finish the game full of them. Alzate will still be sat on the bench of course.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am. I thought it would benefit the 'big' clubs, and it does to degree. But it also benefits managers that are able to re-think tactics mid-game. There were several times last season, after the restart, that I though Potter was excellent in using subs to change a game.

In fact, I wonder whether the 'five subs' rule is one of the reasons that the latter part of last season was one of the best periods in our Premier League time. It is the one period under Potter that we played well whilst also picking up decent results.

Exactly.

It wouldn't have mattered a tuppeny damn to the likes of Sven, whose pony had barely one leg let alone more than one trick.

We, on the other hand, are like football ninjas. Fact.

 

[GT49er]

Yeh, let's change football again. New offside rules, new handball rules, new definitions of fouls, VAR, 5 subs - yeh, let's carry on with changes until we don't recognise the game any more And let's make sure that PL football rules are so different to grass roots football that they'll have to be registered as two entirely different sports.

I'm in the NO camp.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It obviously will favour the big clubs with stacked benches, but just as importantly I think it 'dumbs down' the tactical side of the game.

You're playing Man Utd, they're having an off-day, it's 0-0 and Solkjaer can't break down that stubborn defence, so he brings on Cavani, Van Der Beek, Greenwood, Mata and Daniel James. So that's 10 offensive players a manager needs to counter in his planning, rather than 8.

 

[Seasider78]

No I do not like the idea of nearly half of the team being changed in the life of a game and we are already seeing 5-7min added time being the norm with 3 subs so don’t want that extending either. Three is more than adequate to change or influence a game

 

[dazzer6666]

No I do not like the idea of nearly half of the team being changed in the life of a game and we are already seeing 5-7min added time being the norm with 3 subs so don’t want that extending either. Three is more than adequate to change or influence a game

If they follow what they did before it won’t, as you can only make substitutions on 3 occasions ?

 

[Jeremiah]

Yes I am.

I think it favours us - we can replace a fairly decent player with another fairly decent player.

 

[Swansman]

Oh yeah, let’s vote for something that ultimately benefits larger wealthier clubs....


feck NO

40% increase in muscle injuries this season, meaning that in a way it also benefits teams that dont have 20 top players. And definitely would be positive for the players.

 

[Stat Brother]

This they did this it would completely ruin the game we all love and grew up with...







... hang on sec!

 

[mreprice]

I liked the Paul Barber interview where he said he votes on what's best for the Albion. Same here. So it's a yes from me.

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using Tapatalk

 

[warmleyseagull]

It obviously will favour the big clubs with stacked benches, but just as importantly I think it 'dumbs down' the tactical side of the game.

You're playing Man Utd, they're having an off-day, it's 0-0 and Solkjaer can't break down that stubborn defence, so he brings on Cavani, Van Der Beek, Greenwood, Mata and Daniel James. So that's 10 offensive players a manager needs to counter in his planning, rather than 8.

Que? Surely it enhances tactics as give managers more cards to play.

The objections about time are not sustainable as rules will remain that you can have a maximum of three substitution occasions.

I think it would be a real addition; once the idea is embedded we would see far more HT substitutions. It would give losing mangers more firepower to 'double or quits'. Bring it on, I say.

 

[Easy 10]

Its bobbins. Any manager who feels the need to change HALF THE TEAM during the game, has fundamentally gone and picked the wrong team.

Look, I get the arguments about muscle injuries etc (although that reason in itself is completely blown out of the water by the two loud main protagonists for this scheme only making 3 subs between them on Saturday, but I digress). This is a weird season. It started late, just 25 minutes after the previous season finished, they're cramming games in all over the shop to get it done and dusted before a (possible) Euros next season. Now is not the time to make alterations like this in such strange times - alterations that we would inevitably end up stuck with.

3 subs is plenty. 5 subs is just a nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Peteinblack]

Its bobbins. Any manager who feels the need to change HALF THE TEAM during the game, has fundamentally gone and picked the wrong team.

Look, I get the arguments about muscle injuries etc (although that reason in itself is completely blown out of the water by the two loud main protagonists for this scheme only making 3 subs between them on Saturday, but I digress). This is a weird season. It started late, just 25 minutes after the previous season finished, they're cramming games in all over the shop to get it done and dusted before a (possible) Euros next season. Now is not the time to make alterations like this in such strange times - alterations that we would inevitably end up stuck with.

3 subs is plenty. 5 subs is just a nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

For me, these are exactly the reasons why I am in favour of allowing 5 subs, for this season only, until normality returns in 2021-22 (hopefully).

Good piece in yesterday's Guardian about how more players are suffering more 'soft' injuries this season - and a list of club-by-club examples (our very Leandro Trossard was one of them) - presumably as a consequence of the short gap between the end of last season and the start of this, and the number of games being crammed-in to finish the late-start season before the Euros. Plus the number of international games, including ridiculous 'friendlies', that some players are involved in.

As a result, too many players' bodies are under more strain than in a normal season, with less recovery or resting time between games, following a shortened summer-break. Hence they are more susceptible to injuries.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...the-injuries-caused-by-a-remorseless-schedule

 

[Swansman]

For me, these are exactly the reasons why I am in favour of allowing 5 subs, for this season only, until normality returns in 2021-22 (hopefully).

Good piece in yesterday's Guardian about how more players are suffering more 'soft' injuries this season - and a list of club-by-club examples (our very Leandro Trossard was one of them) - presumably as a consequence of the short gap between the end of last season and the start of this, and the number of games being crammed-in to finish the late-start season before the Euros. Plus the number of international games, including ridiculous 'friendlies', that some players are involved in.

As a result, too many players' bodies are under more strain than in a normal season, with less recovery or resting time between games, following a shortened summer-break. Hence they are more susceptible to injuries.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...the-injuries-caused-by-a-remorseless-schedule

Yup.

And these "soft injures", when you accumulate a few of them, could create long term issues when you accumulate a couple of them. Especially for young players who still have developing physique.

We have seen with players like Owen and Rooney - and many more - what could happen if you dont get enough rest or get forced to play through minor injuries. Peaking at 23 or 24 and then turning in to full blown has-beens at 28 or so.

A lot should have been done to try to prevent this congestion of games - like abandoning the Cacao Cup and reducing international/contentinental football, but nopes, nothing. So at the very least clubs should get the opportunity to be a bit more liberal with their substitutions.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Its bobbins. Any manager who feels the need to change HALF THE TEAM during the game, has fundamentally gone and picked the wrong team.

Look, I get the arguments about muscle injuries etc (although that reason in itself is completely blown out of the water by the two loud main protagonists for this scheme only making 3 subs between them on Saturday, but I digress). This is a weird season. It started late, just 25 minutes after the previous season finished, they're cramming games in all over the shop to get it done and dusted before a (possible) Euros next season. Now is not the time to make alterations like this in such strange times - alterations that we would inevitably end up stuck with.

3 subs is plenty. 5 subs is just a nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Hear hear ! Quite right..... the game was better in the old days when they only had one substitute. .. especially fun if the 'keeper got injured and an outfield player had to go in goal....