Backward move I think.....agree with Scoham....even if they dont get on the park (young pro's)..there's no substitute for being in and around the first team on match day!! (Excuse the pun!!)
I prefer the current system. Not only does it give the younger members of the squad a better chance of getting some game time, it also gives you more options.
Reverting to five puts more of a premium on players who can play in more than one position (like how Stevie Brown on the bench used to cover four or five positions). Hope this is an eventuality we factored into our purchases, presumably we would have had an inkling in advance that this decision was coming.
That sucks. Football Manager is going to become considerably harder again. And it means the likes of Bover and Harriot won't be as likely to make the squad.
That sucks. Football Manager is going to become considerably harder again. And it means the likes of Bover and Harriot won't be as likely to make the squad.
Yep, my squad is quite big on football manager.
Oh well just going to have to get promotion to the Premier League even sooner so we can go back to 7
Does seem a shame for the youngsters but I've never seen the NEED for 7 subs, other than giving the big boys another advantage, and a chance to make some of their superfluous signings feel more valued. Every manager should really be able to cover all eventualities with a squad of 16 and some clubs have struggled to name 18 realistic options anyway.
Can't understand this. Surely there was a reason to move to 7 subs. Whatever that reason was, is it now invalid?
I think the problem was that some clubs were having trouble finding match-day squads of 18 players. With injuries, suspensions etc it often meant that youth team players were stuck on the bench, that isn't a bad thing, but transporting extra players and their kit and having them stay overnight for some away games was adding to the expense of running clubs.
Can't understand this. Surely there was a reason to move to 7 subs. Whatever that reason was, is it now invalid?
I think the problem was that some clubs were having trouble finding match-day squads of 18 players. With injuries, suspensions etc it often meant that youth team players were stuck on the bench, that isn't a bad thing, but transporting extra players and their kit and having them stay overnight for some away games was adding to the expense of running clubs.
This looks sensible to me.
That's not really a good reason to revert back to 5 in my opinion - if a team cannot name 18 fit, eligible players, surely they just name a smaller number?
I can't see whats wrong with this new change - you can only play 3 subs in any case (and many times last season we didn't use all 3) so why do you need 7 sitting there - 5 is surely enough.
I can't see whats wrong with this new change - you can only play 3 subs in any case (and many times last season we didn't use all 3) so why do you need 7 sitting there - 5 is surely enough.
It gives the manager more options (with some managers maybe that's not a good thing) and it involves more of the squad in the matchday.
It's probably a disadvantage to us as we're likely to have one of the better squads in L1, but I can appreciate the majority of clubs trying to make ends meet would be in favour of it. Only issue is you would need more flexible players in order to be able to vary tactics with fewer bodies available. For example, there may not be room for eg Evina in a five man bench, which might mean switching to a wing-back formation, should the game require it, is slightly harder. And so on.
It's probably a disadvantage to us as we're likely to have one of the better squads in L1, but I can appreciate the majority of clubs trying to make ends meet would be in favour of it. Only issue is you would need more flexible players in order to be able to vary tactics with fewer bodies available. For example, there may not be room for eg Evina in a five man bench, which might mean switching to a wing-back formation, should the game require it, is slightly harder. And so on.
Good points
Henry Irving said 'Five is more than enough IMHO. Might mean no GK on the bench which is great when there keeper is sent off.'
Won't be as bad for us though Henry if Taylor is playing because he used to be a keeper in his younger days.
Good spot. no place for Sullivan on the bench then.
Good job too. Seven is far too many, especially given that only a maximum of three can be used. This is football not 'grid iron' or basketball, keep it simple
I'd like to see 7 subs and let teams use all of them. Could help to invogorate dull games that are going nowhere. Also would be a great way to introduce young players which could ultimately beenfit the national game.
It is true that some teams in financial trouble were unable to fill their bench which embaresses the league so may be a reason behind this.
Comments
Oh well just going to have to get promotion to the Premier League even sooner so we can go back to 7
I think the problem was that some clubs were having trouble finding match-day squads of 18 players. With injuries, suspensions etc it often meant that youth team players were stuck on the bench, that isn't a bad thing, but transporting extra players and their kit and having them stay overnight for some away games was adding to the expense of running clubs.
This looks sensible to me.
I can't see whats wrong with this new change - you can only play 3 subs in any case (and many times last season we didn't use all 3) so why do you need 7 sitting there - 5 is surely enough.
Five is more than enough IMHO. Might mean no GK on the bench which is great when there keeper is sent off.
It's probably a disadvantage to us as we're likely to have one of the better squads in L1, but I can appreciate the majority of clubs trying to make ends meet would be in favour of it. Only issue is you would need more flexible players in order to be able to vary tactics with fewer bodies available. For example, there may not be room for eg Evina in a five man bench, which might mean switching to a wing-back formation, should the game require it, is slightly harder. And so on.
Blame Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.
He goes into management and they reduce the number of subs to accommodate his ample posterior on the bench! :-)
'Five is more than enough IMHO. Might mean no GK on the bench which is great when there keeper is sent off.'
Won't be as bad for us though Henry if Taylor is playing because he used to be a keeper in his younger days.
Good spot. no place for Sullivan on the bench then.
It is true that some teams in financial trouble were unable to fill their bench which embaresses the league so may be a reason behind this.