I think 4 subs would've been a decent compromise. 5 was brought in because of a condensed, shorter season due to covid, what's the reason now?
Personally i think 5 is too many, especially if they also keep the 'extra sub in extra time' for cup games rule, as it means you can then change more than half your team.
Will definitely benefit the bigger clubs though, as they can then rotate and keep more squad players happy.
We already see three substitutes used one at a time as a means to waste time or slow down the pace the game, having five makes that legitimate tactic a very negative and boring process.
We already see three substitutes used one at a time as a means to waste time or slow down the pace the game, having five makes that legitimate tactic a very negative and boring process.
The 5 subs can only be made at 3 intervals/stoppages though, so technically that hasn't changed from when teams could only make 3 subs.
We already see three substitutes used one at a time as a means to waste time or slow down the pace the game, having five makes that legitimate tactic a very negative and boring process.
The 5 subs can only be made at 3 intervals/stoppages though, so technically that hasn't changed from when teams could only make 3 subs.
Oh…..I didn’t realise that, thanks for the info CfS.
Then ball is in play for 60 odd minutes now, and the players aren’t exactly standing around doing nothing in those other 30 minutes.
player welfare is important, I know there are a few on here who think they should just suck up injuries and mental health problems, but I’d far rather they had the opportunity of the best players being available more of the time
Is football the only team sport with such few substitutions?
Rugby has 8. Basketball, American Football and Baseball have an unlimited number. Hockey and Ice Hockey have unlimited too.
Cricket? Why not have 11 batters and 11 fielders. Much more fun!
Football is also one of the few team games where you can't touch the ball with your hands! May be it's worth trying that out. Seems to work in American football.
Is football the only team sport with such few substitutions?
Rugby has 8. Basketball, American Football and Baseball have an unlimited number. Hockey and Ice Hockey have unlimited too.
Cricket? Why not have 11 batters and 11 fielders. Much more fun!
Football is also one of the few team games where you can't touch the ball with your hands! May be it's worth trying that out. Seems to work in American football.
Thankfully cricket has avoided the sub route, having occasionally tried this out, and quickly changed their minds. The all rounder would be rendered a bit pointless really if you could pick speciality batsmen and bowlers/fielders, and sub them in and out.
Then ball is in play for 60 odd minutes now, and the players aren’t exactly standing around doing nothing in those other 30 minutes.
player welfare is important, I know there are a few on here who think they should just suck up injuries and mental health problems, but I’d far rather they had the opportunity of the best players being available more of the time
In play 60 minutes. The last survey I saw was more like 30 .
We already see three substitutes used one at a time as a means to waste time or slow down the pace the game, having five makes that legitimate tactic a very negative and boring process.
FA should introduce time limits in making subs. Player must run off the pitch and the change should take no more than say 45 seconds or a yellow card, unless legit injury is involved. Easy rule change and stop a lot of the antics.
@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.
The ball spends more time out of play than it does in play. How come they are so knackered. I bet the ball is in play for 35 mins max and thatbincludes keepers wasting time from the 2nd minute on. The ba barely stays in play 15 seconds from ko before it goes out off after kick off. Everyone in a real job spend 10 hours a day including travel. What a joke.
Are you seriously comparing the effects on the body of professional football to Dave who spends 8 hours at a desk and 2 sat on a train?
@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.
The ball spends more time out of play than it does in play. How come they are so knackered. I bet the ball is in play for 35 mins max and thatbincludes keepers wasting time from the 2nd minute on. The ba barely stays in play 15 seconds from ko before it goes out off after kick off. Everyone in a real job spend 10 hours a day including travel. What a joke.
Players travel to games, that’s not a realistic comparison.
during a 7 to 8 hr working day, how much time is lost to go to the toilet, make a hot drink, chatting to the guy next to you, flirt with the office junior, looking at WhatsApp desktop or other websites?
proactive time is what, 5 hours?
maybe companies should implement a new rule, 8 hours at your desk, all time spent away from a desk is added on as stoppage time at the end of the day.
It had to happen given it was introduced in the leagues above. It SHOULD suit us in League One and it does represent an opportunity to blood youngsters e.g. when you are comfortable in a game. I am not opposed.
In our players marks thread will we have to make changes? As in give everybody who appears a mark, but those that appear for less than half an hour get ‘second class’ marks? It would reward habitual impact substitutes like possibly Aneke.
In our players marks thread will we have to make changes? As in give everybody who appears a mark, but those that appear for less than half an hour get ‘second class’ marks? It would reward habitual impact substitutes like possibly Aneke.
Last season a number of players who started a match and played the full game were awarded 'second class' marks.
@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.
The ball spends more time out of play than it does in play. How come they are so knackered. I bet the ball is in play for 35 mins max and thatbincludes keepers wasting time from the 2nd minute on. The ba barely stays in play 15 seconds from ko before it goes out off after kick off. Everyone in a real job spend 10 hours a day including travel. What a joke.
Are you seriously comparing the effects on the body of professional football to Dave who spends 8 hours at a desk and 2 sat on a train?
Not really a fan of this change. Football matches usually get better as they open up later on in the game with tired legs meaning more mistakes. Don’t think it’s needed in league 1 with fixtures probably going to be spread out more this season with starting season early and not stopping for the World Cup I’m expecting less Saturday - Tuesday weeks
I think it'll change further. The only way to ensure clubs remove players who may have concussion is to ensure they are not disadvantaged by doing so. The only way to achieve that without the risk of cheating (like in blood-gate in the rugby) will be to allow all subs to be used, and players taken off to re-enter the game if there are no subs remaining.
It's suits us when we have a player in Chuks who's ideally suited to be a 30 minute sub, but I don't like it. Rugby to me hasn't been improved by allowing large numbers of subs, forwards are conditioned to just play 60 minutes, and tired players are now suffering massive hits from fresh players.
Comments
Squads of 45 with Rolling Substitutes?
Imagine a marathon or triathlon race with substitutions permitted. Or a tennis match for that matter. It becomes pointless.
The whole idea of football is that you assume you must play for 90 minutes and pace yourself so you don't get tired.
Hate the whole idea but I'm sure the game will survive.
The big change will be when heading is not permitted !
Personally i think 5 is too many, especially if they also keep the 'extra sub in extra time' for cup games rule, as it means you can then change more than half your team.
Will definitely benefit the bigger clubs though, as they can then rotate and keep more squad players happy.
Rugby has 8.
Basketball, American Football and Baseball have an unlimited number.
Hockey and Ice Hockey have unlimited too.
And not good for injuries too, as those players on the pitch get battered by fresh bodies
player welfare is important, I know there are a few on here who think they should just suck up injuries and mental health problems, but I’d far rather they had the opportunity of the best players being available more of the time
Football is also one of the few team games where you can't touch the ball with your hands! May be it's worth trying that out. Seems to work in American football.
https://talksport.com/football/315919/average-ball-play-time-each-premier-league-side-201718-season-171127263506/
during a 7 to 8 hr working day, how much time is lost to go to the toilet, make a hot drink, chatting to the guy next to you, flirt with the office junior, looking at WhatsApp desktop or other websites?
proactive time is what, 5 hours?
maybe companies should implement a new rule, 8 hours at your desk, all time spent away from a desk is added on as stoppage time at the end of the day.
It would reward habitual impact substitutes like possibly Aneke.
And that was being incredibly generous.
https://www.efl.com/news/2022/june/new-colour-blindness-kit-clash-amendmen/