@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
There's clearly no talking to you about how the game has developed in terms of intensity, or how research has shown that by being taken off 20-30 minutes before the end of the game can significantly reduce the amount of muscular injuries we see.
You can come back and say, oh well in the 1960s games were played on one day and then again on the next, but that is completely beside the point. That was 50-60 years ago where they did not have the post match warm down to the extent we do now, where training is not as intensive in short distances which cause stress in ways that they wouldn't have performed 50 years ago.
If you can't see how players nowadays have to be athletes, have to run at high intensities and with such frequency, doing that every 3 or 4 days most weeks, plus the gym work on top, all in a time where from post lockdown to the end of next season in May 2022, there are going to be players who have around 6 weeks off in 23 months, well, that simply is not my fault that you fail to see this.
You could be shown all the data in the world to show what happens in the modern game, compare the amount of games played throughout an entire season to what was played 50 years ago, but you just don't see it. I don't think you completely understand the term intensity and loading and frequency of those sprints.
How can you compare the intensity that players continually run at throughout a match, throughout training, every week, to a wicket keeper in cricket? It's completely different. The two roles in the two sports do not correlate in any way, shape, or form. You also mention how we have more stoppages in football now, but is cricket not a slow game where many will be standing around for a long time?
It has also been mentioned by someone else on this forum that just because a 100m runner does 10 seconds of flat out sprinting does not mean that they can perform and do that every single day. The work that the modern game requires has such load on the body physiologically that introducing two more substitutions in the game can help enormously. But the rest of Europe and the sports scientists and medical teams at each club who have been pushing for some form of change, which the subs rule allows, they must be wrong, aye.
To be honest, when you look at the old big match shows, it is clear that the players then do not stack up athletically to those of today. Whether that is good or not doesn't matter. The modern game demands athleticism.
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
There's clearly no talking to you about how the game has developed in terms of intensity, or how research has shown that by being taken off 20-30 minutes before the end of the game can significantly reduce the amount of muscular injuries we see.
You can come back and say, oh well in the 1960s games were played on one day and then again on the next, but that is completely beside the point. That was 50-60 years ago where they did not have the post match warm down to the extent we do now, where training is not as intensive in short distances which cause stress in ways that they wouldn't have performed 50 years ago.
If you can't see how players nowadays have to be athletes, have to run at high intensities and with such frequency, doing that every 3 or 4 days most weeks, plus the gym work on top, all in a time where from post lockdown to the end of next season in May 2022, there are going to be players who have around 6 weeks off in 23 months, well, that simply is not my fault that you fail to see this.
You could be shown all the data in the world to show what happens in the modern game, compare the amount of games played throughout an entire season to what was played 50 years ago, but you just don't see it. I don't think you completely understand the term intensity and loading and frequency of those sprints.
How can you compare the intensity that players continually run at throughout a match, throughout training, every week, to a wicket keeper in cricket? It's completely different. The two roles in the two sports do not correlate in any way, shape, or form. You also mention how we have more stoppages in football now, but is cricket not a slow game where many will be standing around for a long time?
It has also been mentioned by someone else on this forum that just because a 100m runner does 10 seconds of flat out sprinting does not mean that they can perform and do that every single day. The work that the modern game requires has such load on the body physiologically that introducing two more substitutions in the game can help enormously. But the rest of Europe and the sports scientists and medical teams at each club who have been pushing for some form of change, which the subs rule allows, they must be wrong, aye.
That's absolute rubbish - clubs played as many games and had smaller squads too. You never had players "rested" in the 70s and 80s!!!!
And the modern game allows far more cheating. But, aye, all the experts are right in allowing it aren't they? God knows how some of these footballers would have survived against the likes of Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.
It is remarkable to think that over the years we've gone from no substitutes whatsoever to half the starting outfield players not playing 90 minutes
Exactly. I thought they were meant to be elite athletes? Yet Dave works 5 days a week, plays 5-a-side 2 nights a week, and 11-a-side on a Sunday morning after being out on the piss on Saturday night.
Elite athletes my back side....the only thing elite about them is their over sized wage packets .
Bale claims he is back in love with football having been sitting around for a year getting millions on a bench.
But the only thing elite is his wage packet. Okay then, he clearly is not an elite athlete who dedicates his life to the game and ensuring he is in as best shape as possible. He may be paid a lot, he may like golf, but that is completely irrelevant. Who cares how much players get paid? The amount of money in football now is astronomical. The players are always going to be paid well because of it. That doesn't make him, or anyone else any less of an elite athlete.
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
There's clearly no talking to you about how the game has developed in terms of intensity, or how research has shown that by being taken off 20-30 minutes before the end of the game can significantly reduce the amount of muscular injuries we see.
You can come back and say, oh well in the 1960s games were played on one day and then again on the next, but that is completely beside the point. That was 50-60 years ago where they did not have the post match warm down to the extent we do now, where training is not as intensive in short distances which cause stress in ways that they wouldn't have performed 50 years ago.
If you can't see how players nowadays have to be athletes, have to run at high intensities and with such frequency, doing that every 3 or 4 days most weeks, plus the gym work on top, all in a time where from post lockdown to the end of next season in May 2022, there are going to be players who have around 6 weeks off in 23 months, well, that simply is not my fault that you fail to see this.
You could be shown all the data in the world to show what happens in the modern game, compare the amount of games played throughout an entire season to what was played 50 years ago, but you just don't see it. I don't think you completely understand the term intensity and loading and frequency of those sprints.
How can you compare the intensity that players continually run at throughout a match, throughout training, every week, to a wicket keeper in cricket? It's completely different. The two roles in the two sports do not correlate in any way, shape, or form. You also mention how we have more stoppages in football now, but is cricket not a slow game where many will be standing around for a long time?
It has also been mentioned by someone else on this forum that just because a 100m runner does 10 seconds of flat out sprinting does not mean that they can perform and do that every single day. The work that the modern game requires has such load on the body physiologically that introducing two more substitutions in the game can help enormously. But the rest of Europe and the sports scientists and medical teams at each club who have been pushing for some form of change, which the subs rule allows, they must be wrong, aye.
That's absolute rubbish - clubs played as many games and had smaller squads too. You never had players "rested" in the 70s and 80s!!!!
And the modern game allows far more cheating. But, aye, all the experts are right in allowing it aren't they? God knows how some of these footballers would have survived against the likes of Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.
But, as I have said, why stop at 5?
Back in 1963/64, Charlton played a total of 44 matches in all competitions. That included 7 fixtures from 1st December to 1st February.
This season, we started late and we will have 14 fixtures (likely 15 as we have to play Rochdale) from 1st December to 1st February.
We also have more international fixtures, which make the season further condensed, and should we get into the play-offs and win them, we will have played 55 matches in all competitions, at a higher intensity in a shorter amount of time than 57 years ago.
But my point is absolute rubbish
Now you're trying to bring a completely different matter into the situation. What has 'cheating' got to do with absolutely anything? What has it got to do with the physical condition the players are put under which is why they've voted in to increase the number of subs?
It's a minor change to help protect the well-being of players who are asked to consistently hit those high intensities and standards. Your question of why stop at 5 is strange. Things have moved on from when there were no subs, if an increase of 2 subs per match for the time being until the footballing schedule sorts itself out, reduces the risk and prevalence by even 10%, it would have been worth it.
Following consultation with Clubs, the EFL Board has agreed to increase the permitted number of substitutes to five in all Sky Bet EFL fixtures taking place from 12 noon on Friday 20 November for the remainder of the 2020/21 season.
Regulation 33.4 has been amended to permit:
Championship Clubs to name up to nine substitutes in their matchday squad, with five permitted to take to the pitch in any fixture.
League One and League Two Clubs to name up to seven substitutes in their matchday squad, again with five permitted to take to the pitch.
Following consultation with Clubs, the EFL Board has agreed to increase the permitted number of substitutes to five in all Sky Bet EFL fixtures taking place from 12 noon on Friday 20 November for the remainder of the 2020/21 season.
Regulation 33.4 has been amended to permit:
Championship Clubs to name up to nine substitutes in their matchday squad, with five permitted to take to the pitch in any fixture.
League One and League Two Clubs to name up to seven substitutes in their matchday squad, again with five permitted to take to the pitch.
That's a shame for us as it would've been good to have the two extra subs on the bench, but I suppose it just helps out the smaller clubs in the league. They might not have the depth of squad, but can still bring on 5 subs if they choose to.
Be interesting to see if clubs decide to go more attacking or defensive on their bench or whether they're going to just keep the same but use more options.
I don't get why it matters to have a squad anymore tbh, there should just be a limit on how many people that can come on and the amount of players named in the overall squad, but we should be able to choose our subs out of everyone available. If we want to bring 15 players with us and our opponent only have 7, we can only bring the same amount on anyway, it won't make that much of a difference really
make it like the NFL .. designated penalty kick taker, just comes on to take the pens than trudges back off .. or go 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go and then bring on five defenders .. no thanks .. forget the fantasy, the reality is that only a few lower league EFL clubs can afford squads with enough depth and experience to allow them to field 5 subs and remain truly competitive .. OK for the Premier/Euro games perhaps but leave the EFL alone
I don't think the two extra subs on the bench is that much of an issue. You basically ensure 1 or 2 subs are versatile to have the same effect. Bowyer seems to like this quality in a player.
make it like the NFL .. designated penalty kick taker, just comes on to take the pens than trudges back off .. or go 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go and then bring on five defenders .. no thanks .. forget the fantasy, the reality is that only a few lower league EFL clubs can afford squads with enough depth and experience to allow them to field 5 subs and remain truly competitive .. OK for the Premier/Euro games perhaps but leave the EFL alone
I personally dont see the issue, no one is forcing teams to make 5 subs, but the option is there if players start to get tired and feel muscles starting to go after playing so many games in such a short space of time with such a little pre season
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
There's clearly no talking to you about how the game has developed in terms of intensity, or how research has shown that by being taken off 20-30 minutes before the end of the game can significantly reduce the amount of muscular injuries we see.
You can come back and say, oh well in the 1960s games were played on one day and then again on the next, but that is completely beside the point. That was 50-60 years ago where they did not have the post match warm down to the extent we do now, where training is not as intensive in short distances which cause stress in ways that they wouldn't have performed 50 years ago.
If you can't see how players nowadays have to be athletes, have to run at high intensities and with such frequency, doing that every 3 or 4 days most weeks, plus the gym work on top, all in a time where from post lockdown to the end of next season in May 2022, there are going to be players who have around 6 weeks off in 23 months, well, that simply is not my fault that you fail to see this.
You could be shown all the data in the world to show what happens in the modern game, compare the amount of games played throughout an entire season to what was played 50 years ago, but you just don't see it. I don't think you completely understand the term intensity and loading and frequency of those sprints.
How can you compare the intensity that players continually run at throughout a match, throughout training, every week, to a wicket keeper in cricket? It's completely different. The two roles in the two sports do not correlate in any way, shape, or form. You also mention how we have more stoppages in football now, but is cricket not a slow game where many will be standing around for a long time?
It has also been mentioned by someone else on this forum that just because a 100m runner does 10 seconds of flat out sprinting does not mean that they can perform and do that every single day. The work that the modern game requires has such load on the body physiologically that introducing two more substitutions in the game can help enormously. But the rest of Europe and the sports scientists and medical teams at each club who have been pushing for some form of change, which the subs rule allows, they must be wrong, aye.
That's absolute rubbish - clubs played as many games and had smaller squads too. You never had players "rested" in the 70s and 80s!!!!
And the modern game allows far more cheating. But, aye, all the experts are right in allowing it aren't they? God knows how some of these footballers would have survived against the likes of Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.
But, as I have said, why stop at 5?
Football in the 70’s and 80’s was a pretty much a different sport to today. An average modern team, leveraging modern fitness and rehabilitation methods would run rings round one of the better teams from that time period using methods & knowledge of the day.
For me the issue with 5 subs is squad size. Teams are now expected to rest the top players and replace them off the bench with players still able to win the game. Oh yea and now a salary cap to work under in a condensed season.
I have been taking an interest in the head injury discussions and the later in life implications. It feels to me that if a team has used all of its subs, there may be a temptation to underplay this type of injury.
Maybe there is a case that an injury substitution can be made no matter how many subs you use but the player taken off should miss a minimum of 2 games. That should stop abuse. That wouldn't be instead of 5 subs but on top of it.
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
There's clearly no talking to you about how the game has developed in terms of intensity, or how research has shown that by being taken off 20-30 minutes before the end of the game can significantly reduce the amount of muscular injuries we see.
You can come back and say, oh well in the 1960s games were played on one day and then again on the next, but that is completely beside the point. That was 50-60 years ago where they did not have the post match warm down to the extent we do now, where training is not as intensive in short distances which cause stress in ways that they wouldn't have performed 50 years ago.
If you can't see how players nowadays have to be athletes, have to run at high intensities and with such frequency, doing that every 3 or 4 days most weeks, plus the gym work on top, all in a time where from post lockdown to the end of next season in May 2022, there are going to be players who have around 6 weeks off in 23 months, well, that simply is not my fault that you fail to see this.
You could be shown all the data in the world to show what happens in the modern game, compare the amount of games played throughout an entire season to what was played 50 years ago, but you just don't see it. I don't think you completely understand the term intensity and loading and frequency of those sprints.
How can you compare the intensity that players continually run at throughout a match, throughout training, every week, to a wicket keeper in cricket? It's completely different. The two roles in the two sports do not correlate in any way, shape, or form. You also mention how we have more stoppages in football now, but is cricket not a slow game where many will be standing around for a long time?
It has also been mentioned by someone else on this forum that just because a 100m runner does 10 seconds of flat out sprinting does not mean that they can perform and do that every single day. The work that the modern game requires has such load on the body physiologically that introducing two more substitutions in the game can help enormously. But the rest of Europe and the sports scientists and medical teams at each club who have been pushing for some form of change, which the subs rule allows, they must be wrong, aye.
That's absolute rubbish - clubs played as many games and had smaller squads too. You never had players "rested" in the 70s and 80s!!!!
And the modern game allows far more cheating. But, aye, all the experts are right in allowing it aren't they? God knows how some of these footballers would have survived against the likes of Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.
But, as I have said, why stop at 5?
Back in 1963/64, Charlton played a total of 44 matches in all competitions. That included 7 fixtures from 1st December to 1st February.
This season, we started late and we will have 14 fixtures (likely 15 as we have to play Rochdale) from 1st December to 1st February.
We also have more international fixtures, which make the season further condensed, and should we get into the play-offs and win them, we will have played 55 matches in all competitions, at a higher intensity in a shorter amount of time than 57 years ago.
But my point is absolute rubbish
Now you're trying to bring a completely different matter into the situation. What has 'cheating' got to do with absolutely anything? What has it got to do with the physical condition the players are put under which is why they've voted in to increase the number of subs?
It's a minor change to help protect the well-being of players who are asked to consistently hit those high intensities and standards. Your question of why stop at 5 is strange. Things have moved on from when there were no subs, if an increase of 2 subs per match for the time being until the footballing schedule sorts itself out, reduces the risk and prevalence by even 10%, it would have been worth it.
Again you're being selective.
Last season only Tom Lockyer, of the outfield players, started more than 35 games in all competitions and we used a total of 37 players. We have already used 41 players this season and 27 have started in the League!!! Pratley is the only outfield player to start more than 9 games this season and we've been playing for 10 weeks. 35 games = one a week on average.
In the 60s we probably used no more than 20 players which means that, actually, they played more and not less than players do nowadays.
@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.
Is 16% that negligible? It's not 3-4%, it's an increase of almost a fifth, that seems like a lot to me.
And we're only in November, we haven't gone through the hectic christmas schedule and winter months yet. I'd guess that 16% figure will rise.
@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.
Is 16% that negligible? It's not 3-4%, it's an increase of almost a fifth, that seems like a lot to me.
And we're only in November, we haven't gone through the hectic christmas schedule and winter months yet. I'd guess that 16% figure will rise.
At least the first team squad will only have League games to play though - 36 games in 25 weeks. Or. put another way, 11 weeks where we will play twice a week and 14 where we will play once
@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?
More football is played now in the modern game than there ever was before. In terms of intensity, and at the moment, year long with barely any rest, what other sport in the world has this much of it to the intensity they perform at?
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
Blimey they get TWO days off a week already. But an extra 15 minutes is too much!
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
Sports science has shown in quite some detail that in most cases (yes there are some players whose fitness is just a freak of nature) coming off 15 or even 10 mins before the end massively aids recovery to the point where it is the difference between being fully fit for a game a few days later or needing to be on the bench/have minutes managed.
Comments
Playing twice a week, they’ll have two days off, plus the travel and the lighter sessions and then working on shape and tactics. Where do you propose they have an extra day off without missing out on what’s needed, on the 8th day of the week?
In the 60s we used to play on Boxing Day AND the next day, In 1960 we played Plymouth at home on Boxing Day and then travelled 250 miles to Plymouth to play at their ground the next day. With not a single sub allowed in either game. In a coach that would not compare to those of today in terms of comfort. But I know that it was walking football in those days and it's so much more intensive now.
Even though, in actual fact, there was more football actually played because you didn't have stoppages for players rolling around on the ground feigning injury. Or for substitutions. Or for taking 30 seconds to take a throw in, Or for a keeper keeping hold of the ball, There are a ridiculous amount of breaks in play these days. And that is even more respite for the footballer.
If we are comparing other sports let's look at the life of a wicket keeper. Someone like Alec Stewart who would have to keep wicket for up to two days in a Test Match and for over a thousand balls. Up and down squat thrusts for each and every ball, having to run to the stumps for a lot of them. And then having to open the batting. He could be in the field for three days solid, concentrating for hour after hour in the heat.
But hey that's nothing like as intense as a footballer having to run six or seven miles in 90 minutes. I doubt very much, however, if many of our outfield players will average much more than one game a week over the course of what will be a 36 week season,
You can come back and say, oh well in the 1960s games were played on one day and then again on the next, but that is completely beside the point. That was 50-60 years ago where they did not have the post match warm down to the extent we do now, where training is not as intensive in short distances which cause stress in ways that they wouldn't have performed 50 years ago.
If you can't see how players nowadays have to be athletes, have to run at high intensities and with such frequency, doing that every 3 or 4 days most weeks, plus the gym work on top, all in a time where from post lockdown to the end of next season in May 2022, there are going to be players who have around 6 weeks off in 23 months, well, that simply is not my fault that you fail to see this.
You could be shown all the data in the world to show what happens in the modern game, compare the amount of games played throughout an entire season to what was played 50 years ago, but you just don't see it. I don't think you completely understand the term intensity and loading and frequency of those sprints.
How can you compare the intensity that players continually run at throughout a match, throughout training, every week, to a wicket keeper in cricket? It's completely different. The two roles in the two sports do not correlate in any way, shape, or form. You also mention how we have more stoppages in football now, but is cricket not a slow game where many will be standing around for a long time?
It has also been mentioned by someone else on this forum that just because a 100m runner does 10 seconds of flat out sprinting does not mean that they can perform and do that every single day. The work that the modern game requires has such load on the body physiologically that introducing two more substitutions in the game can help enormously. But the rest of Europe and the sports scientists and medical teams at each club who have been pushing for some form of change, which the subs rule allows, they must be wrong, aye.
And the modern game allows far more cheating. But, aye, all the experts are right in allowing it aren't they? God knows how some of these footballers would have survived against the likes of Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.
But, as I have said, why stop at 5?
This season, we started late and we will have 14 fixtures (likely 15 as we have to play Rochdale) from 1st December to 1st February.
We also have more international fixtures, which make the season further condensed, and should we get into the play-offs and win them, we will have played 55 matches in all competitions, at a higher intensity in a shorter amount of time than 57 years ago.
But my point is absolute rubbish
Now you're trying to bring a completely different matter into the situation. What has 'cheating' got to do with absolutely anything? What has it got to do with the physical condition the players are put under which is why they've voted in to increase the number of subs?
It's a minor change to help protect the well-being of players who are asked to consistently hit those high intensities and standards. Your question of why stop at 5 is strange. Things have moved on from when there were no subs, if an increase of 2 subs per match for the time being until the footballing schedule sorts itself out, reduces the risk and prevalence by even 10%, it would have been worth it.
https://www.efl.com/news/2020/november/efl-statement-five-substitutes/
Following consultation with Clubs, the EFL Board has agreed to increase the permitted number of substitutes to five in all Sky Bet EFL fixtures taking place from 12 noon on Friday 20 November for the remainder of the 2020/21 season.
Regulation 33.4 has been amended to permit:
Be interesting to see if clubs decide to go more attacking or defensive on their bench or whether they're going to just keep the same but use more options.
This bollocks is running riot!
Maybe there is a case that an injury substitution can be made no matter how many subs you use but the player taken off should miss a minimum of 2 games. That should stop abuse. That wouldn't be instead of 5 subs but on top of it.
Last season only Tom Lockyer, of the outfield players, started more than 35 games in all competitions and we used a total of 37 players. We have already used 41 players this season and 27 have started in the League!!! Pratley is the only outfield player to start more than 9 games this season and we've been playing for 10 weeks. 35 games = one a week on average.
In the 60s we probably used no more than 20 players which means that, actually, they played more and not less than players do nowadays.
And we're only in November, we haven't gone through the hectic christmas schedule and winter months yet. I'd guess that 16% figure will rise.