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

[Icy Gull]

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

Think that comment in itself is bobbins. Things have changed in the modern era.

We have a manager who can change tactics during a game and the players to do it. You want to take away a big advantage we have over our rivals? Being able to do this and having the players who get it is a big plus and means we can also sub players who have slight injuries, which might get worse, who wouldn’t normally be subbed too.

Contrary to the poll results (which do surprise me) I really hope it comes about

 

[Taybha]

Don't really like the 5 sub thing as a rule but with huge quality squads the Premier league teams have I suppose it gives another 2 players the chance to be involved on matchday .

From a purely selfish point of view I'd rather Izquierdo and Alirieza Jahankbash be kitted up and ready to go than sat at home twiddling their thumbs basically waiting for a team mate to get injured to move up the pecking order .

So voted for 5 subs purely because after Klopp writes his letter pleading for more subs you just know the Premier league will revert back to 5 .

 

[keaton]

I would think you'd get more injuries the more subs. In theory they'll be 5 tired players against 5 fresh players for the end of games, surely that would put the players let on the pitch under more pressure?

 

[Easy 10]

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

I'd agree to the idea of 5 subs IF it was for this season only, as its a highly abnormal one.

But we all know that once you introduce something, you're invariably STUCK with it forever, for better or worse. I think we can all mention a prime example currently that has ruined the game as a spectacle for everyone.

 

[Easy 10]

Think that comment in itself is bobbins. Things have changed in the modern era.

We have a manager who can change tactics during a game and the players to do it. You want to take away a big advantage we have over our rivals? Being able to do this and having the players who get it is a big plus and means we can also sub players who have slight injuries, which might get worse, who wouldn’t normally be subbed too.

Contrary to the poll results (which do surprise me) I really hope it comes about

Well you say that, but I can't think of a plethora of examples of GP subs that have altered the tide of a game in our favour. 3 subs should be PLENTY if any manager wants to make some tactical tweaks during the game - the players remaining on the field should also be attuned and capable of adjusting tactically. Thats what "training" should involve. Lobbing on 5 subs to alter half the team during the game isn't tactics, its desperation.

It would make every game like one of Sven's famous International friendlies. One team one half, another team for the 2nd.

 

[nicko31]

Unnecessary

Would also like to see subb'ing banned in injury time (offers nothing to the game)

 

[Swansman]

Well you say that, but I can't think of a plethora of examples of GP subs that have altered the tide of a game in our favour. 3 subs should be PLENTY if any manager wants to make some tactical tweaks during the game - the players remaining on the field should also be attuned and capable of adjusting tactically. Thats what "training" should involve. Lobbing on 5 subs to alter half the team during the game isn't tactics, its desperation.

It would make every game like one of Sven's famous International friendlies. One team one half, another team for the 2nd.

Can you think of a plethora of subs anyone made to change the tide of a game in anyones favour? Its usually pretty easy to forget.

As for Sven I think he is pretty much the reason why they changed it (maximum of 6 changes in international friendlies nowadays). Still, you guys should bring him back. Maybe he would pick Dunk!

 

[Swansman]

Would also like to see subb'ing banned in injury time (offers nothing to the game)

Actually not a bad suggestion generally, but sometimes players gets seriously injured and it would be silly not to allow them to replaced. Another issue with this is that once every now and then bad injuries happening at some point in the game causes 15-20 minutes of injury time, and then its a different story. And also, lets say someone makes a horrendous tackle on someone in the 85th minute and it takes six minutes to get the player off the pitch, shouldnt they be allowed to replace him?

I think a better way of solving the problem is to punish time wasting a lot harder. If the player coming off does not take the shortest route or is in any way wasting time on his way off, immediatly give him a yellow. As it is now the refs usually tell them to hurry up multiple times before actually showing the card.

 

[Mr Putdown]

We have a manager who can change tactics during a game and the players to do it. You want to take away a big advantage we have over our rivals?

Ive seen this comment mentioned regularly on here and, looking at the stats GP does consistently utilise his subs far more than most other teams. But is it actually a big advantage over your rivals in terms of points gained?

 

[Icy Gull]

Ive seen this comment mentioned regularly on here and, looking at the stats GP does consistently utilise his subs far more than most other teams. But is it actually a big advantage over your rivals in terms of points gained?

Nope but we do create plenty of goal chances, we just don’t take them. We are very seldom second best....apart from the most important bit..scoring. But for me that doesn’t detract from Potter’s tactics.

If/when we start taking our chances being able to change things will help us imo. Plenty on here disagree with me though

 

[Pavilionaire]

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.

Look at it from the point of view of a club with a small squad, like Burnley. Their 4th and 5th subs are either Max Thompson, Jimmy Dunne or Kevin Long. For Man Utd the 5 subs they have are Pogba, Cavanai, Matic, Van de Beek and Daniel James. 3 blokes that cost nothing vs £300 million of talent. Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[Wellesley]

...

 

[warmleyseagull]

Look at it from the point of view of a club with a small squad, like Burnley. Their 4th and 5th subs are either Max Thompson, Jimmy Dunne or Kevin Long. For Man Utd the 5 subs they have are Pogba, Cavanai, Matic, Van de Beek and Daniel James. 3 blokes that cost nothing vs £300 million of talent. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes, I do as the big clubs need stronger strength in depth because of European competition. We saw how Burnley struggled when in Europe. And, arguably, that therefore possibly accentuates the difference in League games.

But we all know that the respective starting lineups of Man U and Burnley are also way out of kilter. All you are saying is that Man U have a better squad than Burnley. And you can turn the argument on its head, the teams in lower half of League play fewer matches so should have squads that are fresher and less likely to suffer injuries.

Let's be honest: we are all wasting time and energy on something that NSC has naff all power over. What will be, will be.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

Yes I am in for it. For one thing we have a few players who can produce nice little cameos at the end of the game but are far less impressive when they start ie AJ, Trossard, McAllister and it would also probably benefit our new Swiss striker.

 

[Icy Gull]

Five subs back from this weekend!

GET IN, this is good for the Albion under Potter

 

[Frankie]

Good (I think) , players would much rather feel involved on a matchday than just sitting at home watching Super Saturday .

 

[Frankie]

Five subs back from this weekend!

GET IN, this is good for the Albion under Potter

I thought it was just the EFL ?

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Yes, just EFL, which is a shame. It would definitely be a good thing for us. Our squad is bigger than most of our direct rivals', and if it helps to keep our players fresher and gets more involved in every match then it has to be good for team spirit.

 

[zefarelly]

I thought it was just the EFL ?

All except the PL . . . . Liverpool have appealed . . .they don't have 5 fit subs at present!

 

[Is it PotG?]

EFL only.