5 subs in EFL?

SantaClaus

If the number of subs can be arbitrarily increased why not look at shrinking the pitches or playing with 12 or even 13 a side?

MuttleyCAFC

Timewasting has become an artform simply because timekeeping is such a finger in the air job.

shine166

Addick Addict said:

But clubs in the position we were in last season with our squad size and the number of injuries we had would (and rightly should) be against it

Tough shit, wage kap works against us, which they all voted for.

Sage

paulie8290 said:

Sage said:

The questions should be more about why did the Premier League and therefore, EFL, think they were so special and against the 5 subs in the first place when everyone else across Europe have 5 subs.

The amount of injuries we are seeing across the board means something needs to be done, and it’s quite obvious that they’re not going to reduce the games by internationals or domestic cups, they bring in too much money from sponsors across the world.

I also don’t understand the argument about increasing risk of Covid, the amount of people who travel to games is huge when you consider the medical, sports science, coaching and then players. Two more players are not going to make any difference, especially when they’re already spending time with everyone else who would normally travel anyway.

Until games are back to normal a bit, so next season, something has to be done. If subs are used in a similar way to post-lockdown, as in 3 times per game + half time, it won’t make a difference in breaks of play.

I am all for the idea, if it protects the players and keeps the quality of football we see at a high as possible standard, why wouldn’t anyone be in favour?

It was the Premier League Clubs that voted against it, they asked the clubs to vote who wanted to keep the 5 subs and I obviously dont know who voted against and who voted for but against won and they went back to 3 subs, now managers have seen we are the only league that went back and are picking up injuries they all want 5 subs again 

I know, and that’s why I don’t know why they thought they were so special and against the idea? They would’ve known other leagues are voting for it, they would’ve known in European competitions it was staying, so why did the vote go against to then get non-stop complaining about the prevalence of injuries? It should’ve been kept on from the start.

MuttleyCAFC

A big reason why you get ill thought out rule changes in football is that the clubs that vote, at all levels, identify what they believe is best for them, before deciding what is sensible and best for the game.

Sage

ElliotCAFC said:

Sage said:

The questions should be more about why did the Premier League and therefore, EFL, think they were so special and against the 5 subs in the first place when everyone else across Europe have 5 subs.

The amount of injuries we are seeing across the board means something needs to be done, and it’s quite obvious that they’re not going to reduce the games by internationals or domestic cups, they bring in too much money from sponsors across the world.

I also don’t understand the argument about increasing risk of Covid, the amount of people who travel to games is huge when you consider the medical, sports science, coaching and then players. Two more players are not going to make any difference, especially when they’re already spending time with everyone else who would normally travel anyway.

Until games are back to normal a bit, so next season, something has to be done. If subs are used in a similar way to post-lockdown, as in 3 times per game + half time, it won’t make a difference in breaks of play.

I am all for the idea, if it protects the players and keeps the quality of football we see at a high as possible standard, why wouldn’t anyone be in favour?

Because it’s adding in new rules partway through the season that will disproportionately benefit the biggest clubs in each division. 

I’m not against it necessarily, it just massively changes the dynamic of the season when we’ve already played 10+ games. 

Changing the number of subs is no different from post lockdown, and it’s no different to a change in the law of offside or handball being implemented throughout the season. If it needs changing, which injuries are showing it does, there is no harm.

Everything in football is always going to favour those with bigger squads and more money in each division. Again it makes no difference. Unfortunately, as much as we would like to think it is, football isn’t as level playing field as it maybe should be. 

ElliotCAFC

Sage said:

ElliotCAFC said:

Sage said:

The questions should be more about why did the Premier League and therefore, EFL, think they were so special and against the 5 subs in the first place when everyone else across Europe have 5 subs.

The amount of injuries we are seeing across the board means something needs to be done, and it’s quite obvious that they’re not going to reduce the games by internationals or domestic cups, they bring in too much money from sponsors across the world.

I also don’t understand the argument about increasing risk of Covid, the amount of people who travel to games is huge when you consider the medical, sports science, coaching and then players. Two more players are not going to make any difference, especially when they’re already spending time with everyone else who would normally travel anyway.

Until games are back to normal a bit, so next season, something has to be done. If subs are used in a similar way to post-lockdown, as in 3 times per game + half time, it won’t make a difference in breaks of play.

I am all for the idea, if it protects the players and keeps the quality of football we see at a high as possible standard, why wouldn’t anyone be in favour?

Because it’s adding in new rules partway through the season that will disproportionately benefit the biggest clubs in each division. 

I’m not against it necessarily, it just massively changes the dynamic of the season when we’ve already played 10+ games. 

Changing the number of subs is no different from post lockdown, and it’s no different to a change in the law of offside or handball being implemented throughout the season. If it needs changing, which injuries are showing it does, there is no harm.

Everything in football is always going to favour those with bigger squads and more money in each division. Again it makes no difference. Unfortunately, as much as we would like to think it is, football isn’t as level playing field as it maybe should be. 

Not sure I agree with you there mate, changing a handball or offside law doesn't favour Manchester City or Liverpool any more than it favours West Brom. Allowing an extra two substitutes completely changes the dynamic of games and the powers at be should have had the foresight to implement this rule from the start - chopping and changing the rules 10+ games in slightly discredits the integrity of the league for me. 

What's changed since the start of the season? Everyone knew players would be injured a lot more this year, so why now? The most sensible course of action would be to cancel non-essential games and space out the fixtures, but profit is more important than player wellbeing so we have to go down this route. 

You're right that football isn't a level playing field, but this is swinging the pendulum too far in one direction for my liking. 

letthegoodtimesroll

Addick Addict said:

But clubs in the position we were in last season with our squad size and the number of injuries we had would (and rightly should) be against it

It might have helped us last season and allowed us to manage giving the youngsters and those returning from injury some much needed ‘minutes’ in the pitch rather than throwing them in at the deep end when we had no their option but to 

StigThundercock

If it's to be brought in for this season, and there is a cogent argument for, then it needs to be 1) no more than 3 substitution interruptions per team (as last term) and 2) a temporary amendment just for this season.
Increasing the numbers of permitted substitutes up to 3 has brought about craven timewasting and dilution of the entertainment.
As Charlton fans we know it's perfectly possible to overhaul 3 goal deficits and win matches when already a man down through injury.
The compression of this season is a special case, the impact on player injuries is clear to see.
If the current conditions persist and next season is to be interrupted as well, then it can be reviewed again in the interval.
Does it favour the better resourced teams with bigger squads?  No more than the fact they have bigger squads already and can rotate players from fixture to fixture.  Their financial clout is their potential advantage - how they utilise it is in no way guaranteed to be successful. 

soapboxsam

Bilko said:

As long as we don’t bring more defenders on and go more negative when we are in control of the game. 

When Bowyer sent on Aneke and Smyth for Bogle and Williams and we were successful I would hope that is the way forward as I'm not a fan of Inviting the ball into our area where the ball can break and end up like a pin ball with lady luck coming into play.

Last season in the Championship was more understandable but if we do it against the like of Rochdale and Burton then it's just plain wrong. With a competitive 23 odd players including enough attacking players it really shouldn't happen if we are a quality team worthy of finishing in a top 2 position.

5 subs this season should be advantageous as we have a well balanced 18 with potential game changers on the bench.

killerandflash

We've more or less swapped an entire starting midfield between games, so even without 5 subs having the squad depth is a massive benefit

Ross

killerandflash said:

We've more or less swapped an entire starting midfield between games, so even without 5 subs having the squad depth is a massive benefit

But the big teams who seem to be moaning about it want to play their strongest XI every game. It's their own fault. Especially as they're not using all their subs during every game either.

golfaddick

shine166 said:

Addick Addict said:

But clubs in the position we were in last season with our squad size and the number of injuries we had would (and rightly should) be against it

Tough shit, wage kap works against us, which they all voted for.

This 100%.

Addick Addict

golfaddick said:

shine166 said:

Addick Addict said:

But clubs in the position we were in last season with our squad size and the number of injuries we had would (and rightly should) be against it

Tough shit, wage kap works against us, which they all voted for.

This 100%.

I'll lay any price you like that you would soon change your tune should we have a run of injuries comparable or even worse to that of last season.

rananegra

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

shine166

Addick Addict said:

golfaddick said:

shine166 said:

Addick Addict said:

But clubs in the position we were in last season with our squad size and the number of injuries we had would (and rightly should) be against it

Tough shit, wage kap works against us, which they all voted for.

This 100%.

I'll lay any price you like that you would soon change your tune should we have a run of injuries comparable or even worse to that of last season.

Nope, means you can have a kid on the bench that gets more chances. I dont see how losing players to injury makes you want to have less subs. If anything the U18 thats been around the squad and got some minutes, will be even better prepared to fit in.

If anything, teams that have loaned out youth with no recall could be pissed... but its impossible to please everyone all of the time. 

Addick Addict

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

killerandflash

The only problem with having 9 subs on the bench is that you may end up with young players on the bench who end up never playing, as because they might be needed for the first team, they won't be released to play U23 matches

I can see us recalling Davison  for example and him and the likes of Vennings and Henry getting the odd 5 minute cameo here and there instead of decent minutes either on loan or in the U23s

MuttleyCAFC

Addick Addict said:

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

Normally I'd agree with you but these are exceptional times. If there is a proven link to 5 subs meaning less injuries, it has to be re-introduced temporarily.

Addick Addict

MuttleyCAFC said:

Addick Addict said:

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

Normally I'd agree with you but these are exceptional times. If there is a proven link to 5 subs meaning less injuries, it has to be re-introduced temporarily.

The link is a 16% increase in muscle injuries. That is negligible. Less than one extra player out on average per club. That doesn't equate to a 60% increase in the number of subs allowed. Put another way, had injuries been 16% down would anyone have suggested a decrease in the number of subs from three to one? Of course not because it would not be warranted any more than this change is warranted now.

When we had all those injuries last season how would an increase to five subs have helped us when we couldn't even fill the bench and when we did we had nothing but kids on it? But it would have helped those clubs with a bigger squad and made the differential between us and them even greater. This is exactly the reason that Liverpool want it. They want to maintain that differential because, even with their injuries, they can still bring on another five quality players with fresh legs that will still influence the outcome of the game.

Sage

ElliotCAFC said:

Sage said:

ElliotCAFC said:

Sage said:

The questions should be more about why did the Premier League and therefore, EFL, think they were so special and against the 5 subs in the first place when everyone else across Europe have 5 subs.

The amount of injuries we are seeing across the board means something needs to be done, and it’s quite obvious that they’re not going to reduce the games by internationals or domestic cups, they bring in too much money from sponsors across the world.

I also don’t understand the argument about increasing risk of Covid, the amount of people who travel to games is huge when you consider the medical, sports science, coaching and then players. Two more players are not going to make any difference, especially when they’re already spending time with everyone else who would normally travel anyway.

Until games are back to normal a bit, so next season, something has to be done. If subs are used in a similar way to post-lockdown, as in 3 times per game + half time, it won’t make a difference in breaks of play.

I am all for the idea, if it protects the players and keeps the quality of football we see at a high as possible standard, why wouldn’t anyone be in favour?

Because it’s adding in new rules partway through the season that will disproportionately benefit the biggest clubs in each division. 

I’m not against it necessarily, it just massively changes the dynamic of the season when we’ve already played 10+ games. 

Changing the number of subs is no different from post lockdown, and it’s no different to a change in the law of offside or handball being implemented throughout the season. If it needs changing, which injuries are showing it does, there is no harm.

Everything in football is always going to favour those with bigger squads and more money in each division. Again it makes no difference. Unfortunately, as much as we would like to think it is, football isn’t as level playing field as it maybe should be. 

Not sure I agree with you there mate, changing a handball or offside law doesn't favour Manchester City or Liverpool any more than it favours West Brom. Allowing an extra two substitutes completely changes the dynamic of games and the powers at be should have had the foresight to implement this rule from the start - chopping and changing the rules 10+ games in slightly discredits the integrity of the league for me. 

What's changed since the start of the season? Everyone knew players would be injured a lot more this year, so why now? The most sensible course of action would be to cancel non-essential games and space out the fixtures, but profit is more important than player wellbeing so we have to go down this route. 

You're right that football isn't a level playing field, but this is swinging the pendulum too far in one direction for my liking. 

It’s the same for anything though, the big clubs in each league will benefit the most. It’s not like clubs like West Brom have small squads either, clubs in the Premier League all have 2 players for each position now.

If the offside law is to change, the big clubs will benefit more as they’ll be attacking and scoring more goals than the smaller clubs. They’re also likely to get more decisions as there’s no chance there’s an unnatural bias.

The authorities should’ve have the foresight about this situation, but they decided to be stubborn and think players would be like machines. All competitions have started now, there’s no other way other than making sure we are in line with the rest of Europe and protecting the players by allowing 5 subs per game. 3 intervals each match as well as the additional opportunity to at half time.

Sage

Addick Addict said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Addick Addict said:

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

Normally I'd agree with you but these are exceptional times. If there is a proven link to 5 subs meaning less injuries, it has to be re-introduced temporarily.

The link is a 16% increase in muscle injuries. That is negligible. Less than one extra player out on average per club. That doesn't equate to a 60% increase in the number of subs allowed. Put another way, had injuries been 16% down would anyone have suggested a decrease in the number of subs from three to one? Of course not because it would not be warranted any more than this change is warranted now.

When we had all those injuries last season how would an increase to five subs have helped us when we couldn't even fill the bench and when we did we had nothing but kids on it? But it would have helped those clubs with a bigger squad and made the differential between us and them even greater. This is exactly the reason that Liverpool want it. They want to maintain that differential because, even with their injuries, they can still bring on another five quality players with fresh legs that will still influence the outcome of the game.

Introducing the 5 subs now is to prevent things like what happened to us last season, happening this season to a large amount of clubs.

Scientific research has found that taking a player off 20-30 minutes before full time can significantly improve physical conditioning and reduce the recurrence and prevalence of muscular injuries as much as 54%, specifically hamstring and groin injuries. 

BigRedEvil

We never benefit from these sort of decisions wage caps, points deductions etc so if 5 subs gives us a better chance of promotion then I'm all for it

golfaddick

BigRedEvil said:

We never benefit from these sort of decisions wage caps, points deductions etc so if 5 subs gives us a better chance of promotion then I'm all for it

This.......and what I was referring to earlier @Addick Addict. Yes, we are talking from a position of strength, but only because of TS. Before late September we were royally screwed & no-one, but no-one, gave a shit. At one point we couldn't even sign a player because one of our  17 year olds had the audacity to play 20 mins in a meaningless cup game last season. 

I really hope the 5 sub rule comes in & one of the extra 2 comes on & scores a last minute winner.

Fuck you Accrington, Wimbledon, Rochdale.......

Addick Addict

Sage said:

Addick Addict said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Addick Addict said:

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

Normally I'd agree with you but these are exceptional times. If there is a proven link to 5 subs meaning less injuries, it has to be re-introduced temporarily.

The link is a 16% increase in muscle injuries. That is negligible. Less than one extra player out on average per club. That doesn't equate to a 60% increase in the number of subs allowed. Put another way, had injuries been 16% down would anyone have suggested a decrease in the number of subs from three to one? Of course not because it would not be warranted any more than this change is warranted now.

When we had all those injuries last season how would an increase to five subs have helped us when we couldn't even fill the bench and when we did we had nothing but kids on it? But it would have helped those clubs with a bigger squad and made the differential between us and them even greater. This is exactly the reason that Liverpool want it. They want to maintain that differential because, even with their injuries, they can still bring on another five quality players with fresh legs that will still influence the outcome of the game.

Introducing the 5 subs now is to prevent things like what happened to us last season, happening this season to a large amount of clubs.

Scientific research has found that taking a player off 20-30 minutes before full time can significantly improve physical conditioning and reduce the recurrence and prevalence of muscular injuries as much as 54%, specifically hamstring and groin injuries. 

So why not have 10 subs then? The likes of Liverpool and City could do that. 

If you take anyone off early you significantly reduce the chance of injury after all. In fact, unless they trip up taking their seats they are 100% certain not to get injured!

What isn't stated is the number of times a substitute incurs a muscle injury that isn't obvious by the end of the match. They've been sitting there for up to an hour and a half from the time they warmed up before the game and sometimes in extremely cold conditions. On occasions they don't even have time to do a few stretches before coming on.

Addick Addict

golfaddick said:

BigRedEvil said:

We never benefit from these sort of decisions wage caps, points deductions etc so if 5 subs gives us a better chance of promotion then I'm all for it

This.......and what I was referring to earlier @Addick Addict. Yes, we are talking from a position of strength, but only because of TS. Before late September we were royally screwed & no-one, but no-one, gave a shit. At one point we couldn't even sign a player because one of our  17 year olds had the audacity to play 20 mins in a meaningless cup game last season. 

I really hope the 5 sub rule comes in & one of the extra 2 comes on & scores a last minute winner.

Fuck you Accrington, Wimbledon, Rochdale.......

And that's exactly the sort of thing I would expect some fans from Liverpool, City and Man United to say about the likes of Brighton, Villa and Fulham. But as long as it doesn't affect us eh? Although one day, hopefully, we might be a Brighton, Villa or Fulham playing in the Premier League. I'm sure we won't moan when seven subs are brought in at that time will we?

killerandflash

I'm not sure the likes of Liverpool will benefit much going forward, as they have the injuries already, and while they may have 2 players for each position, in many cases the reserve is a significant step down. Liverpool's defence will look really patched up this weekend for example without TAA, Gomez, VVD and maybe Robertson.

Similarly City have nobody at the same level of KDB, and have struggled with Aguero out

Chelsea are probably the team that will benefit most, as they had a top 4 side last season and have since brought in a lot of players. They have massive depth

Addick Addict

killerandflash said:

I'm not sure the likes of Liverpool will benefit much going forward, as they have the injuries already, and while they may have 2 players for each position, in many cases the reserve is a significant step down. Liverpool's defence will look really patched up this weekend for example without TAA, Gomez, VVD and maybe Robertson.

Similarly City have nobody at the same level of KDB, and have struggled with Aguero out

Chelsea are probably the team that will benefit most, as they had a top 4 side last season and have since brought in a lot of players. They have massive depth

They have and do struggle without them but the results haven't matched their below par performances this season given their record of Won 8, Drawn 3 and Lost 1 in all comps. Jesus has been missing during the same period that Aguero has too.

Sage

Addick Addict said:

Sage said:

Addick Addict said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Addick Addict said:

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

Normally I'd agree with you but these are exceptional times. If there is a proven link to 5 subs meaning less injuries, it has to be re-introduced temporarily.

The link is a 16% increase in muscle injuries. That is negligible. Less than one extra player out on average per club. That doesn't equate to a 60% increase in the number of subs allowed. Put another way, had injuries been 16% down would anyone have suggested a decrease in the number of subs from three to one? Of course not because it would not be warranted any more than this change is warranted now.

When we had all those injuries last season how would an increase to five subs have helped us when we couldn't even fill the bench and when we did we had nothing but kids on it? But it would have helped those clubs with a bigger squad and made the differential between us and them even greater. This is exactly the reason that Liverpool want it. They want to maintain that differential because, even with their injuries, they can still bring on another five quality players with fresh legs that will still influence the outcome of the game.

Introducing the 5 subs now is to prevent things like what happened to us last season, happening this season to a large amount of clubs.

Scientific research has found that taking a player off 20-30 minutes before full time can significantly improve physical conditioning and reduce the recurrence and prevalence of muscular injuries as much as 54%, specifically hamstring and groin injuries. 

So why not have 10 subs then? The likes of Liverpool and City could do that. 

If you take anyone off early you significantly reduce the chance of injury after all. In fact, unless they trip up taking their seats they are 100% certain not to get injured!

What isn't stated is the number of times a substitute incurs a muscle injury that isn't obvious by the end of the match. They've been sitting there for up to an hour and a half from the time they warmed up before the game and sometimes in extremely cold conditions. On occasions they don't even have time to do a few stretches before coming on.

That’s just extreme. The point is 5 subs allows for greater rest periods for players who may otherwise be forced to play a full 90 when the schedule really shouldn’t mean they have to.

Players on the bench also have the opportunity to warm up all throughout the time they’re on the bench. Nothing stops them if they are to constantly warm up and rotate the warm up during a game.

If an extra two subs each game can help the well-being of players and protect them a bit more, which research suggests it can and does, why would you not want that? At the moment, if we were to start with Williams, Maddison, and Aneke, you would guarantee that they’d all be the ones to come off. But what about any other player who could do with that 15 minutes rest so they’re not completely run into the ground?

This rule change isn’t extreme, and no one is saying about making a sub straight away to protect a player or better yet not play them. I don’t understand what the issue is with introducing it at a time where games are being played in a condensed season at a ridiculous rate.

Someone might work 5 days a week, long hours. But they’re not running at high intensities twice a week for 3 hours, then training and running more, racking up something ridiculous like 25km a week, adding in the gym work and the travel on top. It will quickly become exhausting. Giving 2 players an extra little rest will help things, even if it’s by 10%, that’s a big positive.

Addick Addict

Sage said:

Addick Addict said:

Sage said:

Addick Addict said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Addick Addict said:

rananegra said:

@Addick Addict I think you've misconstrued what Golfie is saying - he's agreeing with the comment that other teams voted for a wage cap which screws us (now ) so we should have 5 subs and take full advantage. 

I can see why smaller squads will be disadvantaged, but I think we will do well out of this if it comes in

I did get what he's saying - I just don't think changing the rules mid season is right. Or the concept of 5 subs. The cap is a separate issue all together. Would we have the same attitude had TS not come in. Of course not. We're talking from our own position of relative strength.

We are heading to make football a sport it never has been and I would question where it stops. 11 players on the bench as in international football? Some clubs in the PL could comfortably do that even with a run of injuries. 

The bottom line is that football has evolved and not necessarily for the best. VAR was meant to be an improvement but it causes more issues than it actually resolves. Time wasting and general cheating has become more and more prevalent because footballers have become more "skilled" at going down at the slightest touch. 

Stay with 3 subs plus a keeper and tells clubs that they should only use them as replacements for injury. 

Normally I'd agree with you but these are exceptional times. If there is a proven link to 5 subs meaning less injuries, it has to be re-introduced temporarily.

The link is a 16% increase in muscle injuries. That is negligible. Less than one extra player out on average per club. That doesn't equate to a 60% increase in the number of subs allowed. Put another way, had injuries been 16% down would anyone have suggested a decrease in the number of subs from three to one? Of course not because it would not be warranted any more than this change is warranted now.

When we had all those injuries last season how would an increase to five subs have helped us when we couldn't even fill the bench and when we did we had nothing but kids on it? But it would have helped those clubs with a bigger squad and made the differential between us and them even greater. This is exactly the reason that Liverpool want it. They want to maintain that differential because, even with their injuries, they can still bring on another five quality players with fresh legs that will still influence the outcome of the game.

Introducing the 5 subs now is to prevent things like what happened to us last season, happening this season to a large amount of clubs.

Scientific research has found that taking a player off 20-30 minutes before full time can significantly improve physical conditioning and reduce the recurrence and prevalence of muscular injuries as much as 54%, specifically hamstring and groin injuries. 

So why not have 10 subs then? The likes of Liverpool and City could do that. 

If you take anyone off early you significantly reduce the chance of injury after all. In fact, unless they trip up taking their seats they are 100% certain not to get injured!

What isn't stated is the number of times a substitute incurs a muscle injury that isn't obvious by the end of the match. They've been sitting there for up to an hour and a half from the time they warmed up before the game and sometimes in extremely cold conditions. On occasions they don't even have time to do a few stretches before coming on.

That’s just extreme. The point is 5 subs allows for greater rest periods for players who may otherwise be forced to play a full 90 when the schedule really shouldn’t mean they have to.

Players on the bench also have the opportunity to warm up all throughout the time they’re on the bench. Nothing stops them if they are to constantly warm up and rotate the warm up during a game.

If an extra two subs each game can help the well-being of players and protect them a bit more, which research suggests it can and does, why would you not want that? At the moment, if we were to start with Williams, Maddison, and Aneke, you would guarantee that they’d all be the ones to come off. But what about any other player who could do with that 15 minutes rest so they’re not completely run into the ground?

This rule change isn’t extreme, and no one is saying about making a sub straight away to protect a player or better yet not play them. I don’t understand what the issue is with introducing it at a time where games are being played in a condensed season at a ridiculous rate.

Someone might work 5 days a week, long hours. But they’re not running at high intensities twice a week for 3 hours, then training and running more, racking up something ridiculous like 25km a week, adding in the gym work and the travel on top. It will quickly become exhausting. Giving 2 players an extra little rest will help things, even if it’s by 10%, that’s a big positive.

Professional footballers have become a bit of a "protected species". And when I say that I say it by comparison to footballers from former eras and also by comparison to other sports' professionals.

But here is a proposal. Rather than coming off for 15 minutes because that would make all the difference how 'bout an extra rest and recovery day for those having to play twice a week?