@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.
So games should be shorter!
Or just have two halves each lasting an hour with completely different players in each half.
I hate inequality, the wasting of talent, pampered sportsmen and cheats. I see five subs as the removal of a level playing field and something that will slow the game down even more, players wasting their talent and expecting football to owe them a living and the constant cheating that goes on in order to gain an advantage. Football is meant to be "the beautiful game" but all of that seems to have been accepted over time. Six shots on target by a side is the exception and not the norm and in some games teams don't even have one. How is that beautiful? The improved fitness in players and emphasis on pressing has actually made the game more congested and harder for teams to create.
I am old school in that respect. I do understand that science moves on but I do believe that there is a balance. The ball is in play far less than it has ever been as demonstrated when I used a stop watch to show that many games are actually of less than 60 minutes duration. The other main difference is that players used to play far more carrying injuries. I'm not saying that was right but they did and were prepared to do so. And there are plenty of other sports where you have no choice other than to play with niggles.
That said I'm not totally blinkered so far as the fitness requirements of a sportsman are concerned - we don't have a conservatory because it is now a gym completely fitted out with multi gym, spin bike, dumb bells, chin up bar, gymnastic hoops, ankle weights, forearm weights, a weight bench with a barbell plus extensive weights and a squat rack stand. This is not a room that I ever frequent! But Seb has been training four or five times a week since the end of the last cricket season with a view to building muscle - so he can hit the ball further. And I listen to him as to how he hopes to achieve that and the training regime that he is using to do this. So I'm not a total dinosaur!
I hate inequality, the wasting of talent, pampered sportsmen and cheats. I see five subs as the removal of a level playing field and something that will slow the game down even more, players wasting their talent and expecting football to owe them a living and the constant cheating that goes on in order to gain an advantage. Football is meant to be "the beautiful game" but all of that seems to have been accepted over time. Six shots on target by a side is the exception and not the norm and in some games teams don't even have one. How is that beautiful? The improved fitness in players and emphasis on pressing has actually made the game more congested and harder for teams to create.
I am old school in that respect. I do understand that science moves on but I do believe that there is a balance. The ball is in play far less than it has ever been as demonstrated when I used a stop watch to show that many games are actually of less than 60 minutes duration. The other main difference is that players used to play far more carrying injuries. I'm not saying that was right but they did and were prepared to do so. And there are plenty of other sports where you have no choice other than to play with niggles.
That said I'm not totally blinkered so far as the fitness requirements of a sportsman are concerned - we don't have a conservatory because it is now a gym completely fitted out with multi gym, spin bike, dumb bells, chin up bar, gymnastic hoops, ankle weights, forearm weights, a weight bench with a barbell plus extensive weights and a squat rack stand. This is not a room that I ever frequent! But Seb has been training four or five times a week since the end of the last cricket season with a view to building muscle - so he can hit the ball further. And I listen to him as to how he hopes to achieve that and the training regime that he is using to do this. So I'm not a total dinosaur!
You are forgetting the players that turned out game after game with injections to keep them going and are now crippled because of it, and players who careers were finished prematurely. Fine for a bit of banter to talk about players who carried on playing with a broken leg, but it was bollox. The game now is way beyond what was played in the 60’s. Players even in the 70’s had no understanding of diet and afternoons were spent in pubs and betting offices. Players smoked and Charlie Wright had the odd puff during a game. Graham Moore was on 200 a week. Steve Brown could get showered and changed and be in the bar quicker than anyone. Different era, different game.
I hate inequality, the wasting of talent, pampered sportsmen and cheats. I see five subs as the removal of a level playing field and something that will slow the game down even more, players wasting their talent and expecting football to owe them a living and the constant cheating that goes on in order to gain an advantage. Football is meant to be "the beautiful game" but all of that seems to have been accepted over time. Six shots on target by a side is the exception and not the norm and in some games teams don't even have one. How is that beautiful? The improved fitness in players and emphasis on pressing has actually made the game more congested and harder for teams to create.
I am old school in that respect. I do understand that science moves on but I do believe that there is a balance. The ball is in play far less than it has ever been as demonstrated when I used a stop watch to show that many games are actually of less than 60 minutes duration. The other main difference is that players used to play far more carrying injuries. I'm not saying that was right but they did and were prepared to do so. And there are plenty of other sports where you have no choice other than to play with niggles.
That said I'm not totally blinkered so far as the fitness requirements of a sportsman are concerned - we don't have a conservatory because it is now a gym completely fitted out with multi gym, spin bike, dumb bells, chin up bar, gymnastic hoops, ankle weights, forearm weights, a weight bench with a barbell plus extensive weights and a squat rack stand. This is not a room that I ever frequent! But Seb has been training four or five times a week since the end of the last cricket season with a view to building muscle - so he can hit the ball further. And I listen to him as to how he hopes to achieve that and the training regime that he is using to do this. So I'm not a total dinosaur!
You are forgetting the players that turned out game after game with injections to keep them going and are now crippled because of it, and players who careers were finished prematurely. Fine for a bit of banter to talk about players who carried on playing with a broken leg, but it was bollox. The game now is way beyond what was played in the 60’s. Players even in the 70’s had no understanding of diet and afternoons were spent in pubs and betting offices. Players smoked and Charlie Wright had the odd puff during a game. Graham Moore was on 200 a week. Steve Brown could get showered and changed and be in the bar quicker than anyone. Different era, different game.
Not disagreeing with you and did say "I'm not saying that was right".
The athleticism of modern players, and indeed in all sports is light years ahead of what it used to be. Players are faster and stronger, with a corresponding effect on impact injuries, and the muscle injuries caused by the fast sprinting needed now
70s footballers looked like ordinary blokes, even 1st divisions ones. Now even National League players will be fitter and stronger than them
The athleticism of modern players, and indeed in all sports is light years ahead of what it used to be. Players are faster and stronger, with a corresponding effect on impact injuries, and the muscle injuries caused by the fast sprinting needed now
70s footballers looked like ordinary blokes, even 1st divisions ones. Now even National League players will be fitter and stronger than them
The amazing thing though is, given how much fitter and stronger they are, how much easier it is for them to be knocked over!
I saw Bowyers comment about 9/10 times you wont use all 3 subs anyway and thought I would do some research lol, we have used 3 subs 7 times and 2 subs 3 times, obviously a couple would have been late time wasting subs, put them all below with times in brackets
So the 7 times we made 3 subs, the Crewe and Wigan games u could say the last sub was a time wasting sub, not sure about Sunderland as it was 0-0 that was more about getting Maddison minutes rather than time wasting lol
But still reckon we have used 3 subs more than Bowyer realises himself lol
Blackpool we made an extra change after a sending off, Northampton we made an extra change for Doughty’s injury and the same for Pompey with Akin Famewo
If the argument for having 5 subs is to prevent injury why would any Manager not use all 5? And I don't believe you can count any sub that comes on in added time because they are only being used to run down the clock and disrupt play.
Good, 5 subs is too many as it turns football into rugby, with players picked to last only 60 minutes or as impact subs
This should put an end to what often Curbs referred to as "finishers", the players who would come on for the last 10-20 minutes of a match to see the team through to the end either to protect a win/draw or get us back into the game e.g. Chuks.
I fully expect the Football League to reverse this decision after the opening weekend when Innis and Famewo ("the Mountain and the New Enforcer") completely marmalise the Massive forward line in the first half and Wendy runs out of subs resulting in a major (Massive?) whinge to the authorities that it was unfair they had to finish the game with nine men ...
Good, 5 subs is too many as it turns football into rugby, with players picked to last only 60 minutes or as impact subs
This should put an end to what often Curbs referred to as "finishers", the players who would come on for the last 10-20 minutes of a match to see the team through to the end either to protect a win/draw or get us back into the game e.g. Chuks.
I fully expect the Football League to reverse this decision after the opening weekend when Innis and Famewo ("the Mountain and the New Enforcer") completely marmalise the Massive forward line in the first half and Wendy runs out of subs resulting in a major (Massive?) whinge to the authorities that it was unfair they had to finish the game with nine men ...
I wonder if permanently allowing more subs would have eventually changed the tactics of the game with teams fielding three or more "chasers" in each half knowing they only have to play for 45 minutes.
I think managers were reluctant to really experiment or recruit different types of specialist player last season because they assumed it was temporary.
Hopefully we will never find out how the professional game might change with more or even rolling subs!
Barnsley definitely benefited from 5 subs last season, playing a high intensity game and bringing on replacement attacking players to keep the energy up
Five substitutions in football set to become permanent - proposed at International FA Board panel meeting today and strongly supported. Will put renewed pressure on Premier League to follow the rest of football from next season.
Comments
Or just have two halves each lasting an hour with completely different players in each half.
I hate inequality, the wasting of talent, pampered sportsmen and cheats. I see five subs as the removal of a level playing field and something that will slow the game down even more, players wasting their talent and expecting football to owe them a living and the constant cheating that goes on in order to gain an advantage. Football is meant to be "the beautiful game" but all of that seems to have been accepted over time. Six shots on target by a side is the exception and not the norm and in some games teams don't even have one. How is that beautiful? The improved fitness in players and emphasis on pressing has actually made the game more congested and harder for teams to create.
I am old school in that respect. I do understand that science moves on but I do believe that there is a balance. The ball is in play far less than it has ever been as demonstrated when I used a stop watch to show that many games are actually of less than 60 minutes duration. The other main difference is that players used to play far more carrying injuries. I'm not saying that was right but they did and were prepared to do so. And there are plenty of other sports where you have no choice other than to play with niggles.
That said I'm not totally blinkered so far as the fitness requirements of a sportsman are concerned - we don't have a conservatory because it is now a gym completely fitted out with multi gym, spin bike, dumb bells, chin up bar, gymnastic hoops, ankle weights, forearm weights, a weight bench with a barbell plus extensive weights and a squat rack stand. This is not a room that I ever frequent! But Seb has been training four or five times a week since the end of the last cricket season with a view to building muscle - so he can hit the ball further. And I listen to him as to how he hopes to achieve that and the training regime that he is using to do this. So I'm not a total dinosaur!
The game now is way beyond what was played in the 60’s. Players even in the 70’s had no understanding of diet and afternoons were spent in pubs and betting offices. Players smoked and Charlie Wright had the odd puff during a game. Graham Moore was on 200 a week. Steve Brown could get showered and changed and be in the bar quicker than anyone.
Different era, different game.
70s footballers looked like ordinary blokes, even 1st divisions ones. Now even National League players will be fitter and stronger than them
The amazing thing though is, given how much fitter and stronger they are, how much easier it is for them to be knocked over!
In the league it has been
Crewe-3 Subs(61,76,94)
Doncaster-2 Subs(60, 84)
Lincoln-3 Subs(62,77,77)
Sunderland-3 Subs(45,72,84)
Wigan-3 Subs(63,73,87)
Blackpool-3 Subs(45,64,76)
Northampton-3 Subs(45,66,77)
Oxford-2 Subs(82,93)
Portsmouth-3 Subs(71,71,74)
Fleetwood-2 Subs(72,76)
So the 7 times we made 3 subs, the Crewe and Wigan games u could say the last sub was a time wasting sub, not sure about Sunderland as it was 0-0 that was more about getting Maddison minutes rather than time wasting lol
But still reckon we have used 3 subs more than Bowyer realises himself lol
I fully expect the Football League to reverse this decision after the opening weekend when Innis and Famewo ("the Mountain and the New Enforcer") completely marmalise the Massive forward line in the first half and Wendy runs out of subs resulting in a major (Massive?) whinge to the authorities that it was unfair they had to finish the game with nine men ...
I think managers were reluctant to really experiment or recruit different types of specialist player last season because they assumed it was temporary.
Hopefully we will never find out how the professional game might change with more or even rolling subs!
We can see this as they will be on every other game on Sky.
Five substitutions in football set to become permanent - proposed at International FA Board panel meeting today and strongly supported. Will put renewed pressure on Premier League to follow the rest of football from next season.