Number of substitutes and making multiple substitutions, does it benefit the game?

[Garage_Doors]

Having a number of substitutes and being able to make multiple substitutions and been so long in the game now a lot of younger fans will not probably know that it was once limited to one.
“back in the good old days” teams were allowed just one substitute. the managers would have make a decision whether to have a striker,midfielder or defender on the bench.
And if the goalie got injured or sent off an outfielder would have to take his place.
I can’t remember the last time i saw a non goalkeeper between the sticks.
Obviously it benefits individual teams as it gives the manager more options to change a game, but does it benefit the game in general, if a keeper is sent off then they just put the one on the bench on removing the advantage form the opposition, albeit a man down but not a keeper down.

But is it an improvement?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Perhaps the finance side of things would be better with two only...

From a player's pov it's a chance to stake a claim,return from injury

As fans it's nice to have a breath of change..

Managers can run down the clock..

 

[wellquickwoody]

The OP has started a very good thread. 3 named subs with 2 being used would be plenty.

 

[Rogero]

Until 1965 there were no substitutes.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Until 1965 there were no substitutes.

And this meant that if a player was injured, the team was down to ten men. In an era when it was hard to get booked, let alone sent off, hatchet men were worth their weight in gold.

To answer the question, though, I think three named substitutes, all of who could be used, is sufficient - plus a goalkeeping sub, who could only be used if the goalkeeper was injured.

 

[Everest]

I can’t remember the last time i saw a non goalkeeper between the sticks.

Graeme Smith?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Until 1965 there were no substitutes.

I don't think there were substitutes in the 1966 World Cup.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I don't think there were substitutes in the 1966 World Cup.

You are right - which was why Jimmy Greaves couldn't get on at all, once Hurst had been picked.

But the first league substitute was 1965.

 

[Acker79]

In this age of sports performance science, players have evolved to peak performance. This is great when everything is fine and everyone is on form, but it also makes them more vulnerable to injury. Slight knocks or tight muscles affect performances way more now than robust challenges did in the past. This means there will be a greater number of injuries than in the past when only one or two subs were needed.

With out available substitutions, too many games would result in one team being weakened due to an injury, at least. Some may have more than one injury, the injury may be so bad as to leave the team down to 10 men. I have little patience for commentators who talk about a sending offs as if the ref is responsible for keeping the game 11v11, but that in red card instances it is punishment for one of your team breaking the laws of the game. When it's injury, that's not about trying to cheat someone, it's bad luck, and that shouldn't dictate games more than it already does.

We've seen with international friendlies the damage making wholesale changes can do, so I wouldn't like to see more substitutes permitted. But you do need to allow for changes to account for injuries.

I also think the tactical options it gives managers shouldn't necessarily be discounted as an improvement. Before you'd set the team up before the game, and you'd only be able to work with those 11 players to respond to how the game is playing out, whereas with the selection of players on the bench, it opens up a host of other changes you can make to the team, giving greater scope for a tactical battle between managers.

It is also better for the development of talent. If you have seven spaces on the bench you can pick a youngster or two, so that should the game be lost or won with time to spare, you can give them game time without limiting your options for tactics/injuries too much. This allows greater development of younger players.

 

[BensGrandad]

The Premier League want to name all of their 25 man squad and pick any 3 from them.

 

[Prince Monolulu]

We're gonna need more heated Recaros.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It'll be rolling subs soon, like in youth football...or American Football. Not long until teams will have a specialist free kick taker, who will come on to take the kick, then be subbed back off again.

So let's not get rid of Holla just yet...

 

[The_Viper]

I can’t remember the last time i saw a non goalkeeper between the sticks. .

Loads

Matt Harold last year at Crawley even won MOTM for it
John O'Shea
John Terry
Filipe Melo
Harry Kane
Angel Rangel
Henri Lansbury
Tuncay


These are a few that I've just found after a very quick google in the last 10 years, plus others I'd never heard of.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Interesting question, but I'm at the total end of the spectrum. I think it's time we brought in having the whole squad on the bench as they do in Serie A or international tournaments.

Keep the amount of subs at 3 by all means, but give a manager his whole squad to choose from. We'd see more youngsters being given a chance and we'd likely see managers able to take risks as they'd have more diverse options available to them.

To go back to a situation where there were no subs, or just two or three, is regressive thinking to be honest. It doesn't benefit a game in any way - if anything, it's likely to negative most games as [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] described.

 

[Beach Hut]

It nearly mucked it up today at Minis game, far too many subs by the tinkerer manager but they won 1-0

 

[studio150]

It'll be rolling subs soon, like in youth football...or American Football. Not long until teams will have a specialist free kick taker, who will come on to take the kick, then be subbed back off again.

So let's not get rid of Holla just yet...

I can see this being introduced for the Qatar wprld cup on a trial basis due to the extreme heat but being retained due to the postive feedback.

 

[BensGrandad]

Are we going to go down the route of rugby union where 7 subs are permitted either temporary or permenant ( had to google that as didnt know the answer) they could be used while a player receives attention etc but I would be against bringing one on to take a penalty or such like then taking him off again until the nexf time..

 

[Rogero]

Substitutions have become a very important part of the game.

 

[wolfie]

Perhaps they could think about stopping all substitutions once the added time board has gone up. This might discourage the farcical amount of time wasting that goes on and the ridiculous scenario of a player coming on for 20 seconds or so just to hold play up.

 

[Rogero]

Substitutes article by Niall Quinn.
The first substitutes during football matches were used in the qualifying tournament for the 1954 World Cup, with the very first being Horst Eckel of Germany in their match against Saarland (who?) on October 11, 1953. The history of substitutions in domestic English football started slightly later, and goes like this:

From the 1965-66 season, teams could use one named substitute to replace an injured player
From the 1967-68 season, teams could use one named substitute for any reason
From the 1986-87 season, teams could use up to two named substitutes for any reason in League Cup and FA Cup matches only, still one in the League
From the 1987-88 season, teams could use up to two named substitutes for any reason in League matches
In 1992 the Premier League was formed, and at that point the rules diverged slightly from Football League rules:

Premiership / Premier League

From the 1992-93 season, teams could name three substitutes, one of whom had to be a goalkeeper, and could use any two of them for any reason
From the 1994-95 season, teams could name and use up to three substitutes (one of whom could only be used to replace the goalkeeper) for any reason
From the 1995-96 season, teams could name and use up to three substitutes for any reason with no restriction on positions
From the 1996-97 season, teams could name up to five and use up to three substitutes for any reason
From the 2008-09 season, teams could name up to seven and use up to three substitutes for any reason
Football League

From the 1993-94 season, teams could name and use up to three substitutes (one of whom could only be used to replace the goalkeeper) for any reason
From the 1995-96 season, teams could name and use up to three substitutes for any reason, with no restriction on positions
From the 1999-00 season, teams could name up to five and use up to three substitutes for any reason
From the 2009-10 season, teams could name up to seven and use up to three substitutes for any reason
From the 2011-12 season, the rule reverted to naming up to five and using up to three substitutes for any reason
When subs were first introduced to domestic football in 1965, Leeds always seemed to get an injury around the 70th minute. If they were losing, it was often a defender who was injured. If they were winning it was often an attacker. By reshuffling when their substitute was brought on they could attack or defend more, as needed. Needless to say, injured players always seemed to recover by the following game. This amazing string of coincidences in almost every match probably helped the League to realise that as long as the likes of Don Revie were involved in football, they may as well allow substitutions for any reason. Hence the original rule lasted only two years.

For the record, the first substitute in English football was Keith Peacock, who came on for Charlton on August 21, 1965, replacing his club’s injured goalkeeper after 11 minutes.

But what of Niall Quinn, record breaker? In 1987, the first season of two League substitutions, he came on for Arsenal against Southampton on November 21, 1987. Quinn replaced an injured Perry Groves, also after 11 minutes. Unfortunately, Quinn played badly. Very badly. I was there, I remember it well. After 77 minutes both the crowd and George Graham had had enough. George used his second substitute, Nigel Winterburn, to replace Quinn, who was definitely not injured. And so Quinn became the first Arsenal player to be substituted in the League after being brought on as a substitute, and the first Arsenal player in any competitive game to be subbed as a sub for poor play.

He wasn’t quite the first substitute in domestic English football to ever be substituted for playing badly – at least according to ‘Dixie’ in the comments below. That honour, if that’s the right word, perhaps goes to Neil Adams of Everton, in the 1986 Charity Shield. Thanks for the info.

(I should point out that I had thought Quinn was the first Arsenal sub to be subbed, full stop. But no sooner had I posted this than Andy Kelly, who has the best Arsenal stats site going at http://www.stats.woolwicharsenal.co.uk, commented that in fact on at least two prior occasions Arsenal players had been subbed after coming on as subs. The first was way back in 1978 in a UEFA Cup match against Hajduk Split, and the second in an FA Cup match the season before Quinn. Both these were for injuries, though. See the comments below, and also the Hajduk match details on Arsenal.com: http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/arsenal-1-0-hadjuk-split-1978. Andy thinks two subs were allowed in European matches by the end of the 1960s – if you can confirm, please let me know.)
But, let’s give Quinn a chance to defend himself. Here he is in the Arsenal programme talking a better game than he ever played. This is from September 1987, just two months before his embarrassment.