Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
New Five Sub Rule
LargeAddick
Posts: 32,639
I really can't see how this got passed at the League AGM. Yesterday I saw Howe, Poyet and Sven all say they were disappointed with it. All I can see is that it will hinder the progress of home grown players. No disrespect to him but we are more likely to see Hughes on the bench far more often than say Harriott or Pritchard. Also, it gives a manager far less options as you will have a keeper, a defender, a midfielder and then just a choice of two others. How often will we see more than one striker on the bench ? Games will suffer because a Manager may run out of attacking options due to a couple of injuries and so then will settle for the point they already have. I will as Kavangh at Bromley which way we voted. In my opinion a nonsensical change.
0
Comments
-
Championship and few League 1 clubs were outvoted by the rest0
-
Definitely a backwards step. Supposedly it was done to cut costs for lower league teams, but if it was that problematic for clubs there was nothing insisting they had to name all 7 subs last season so could've named just 5.
Also what's wrong with the number 6? Why does it have to be a jump of 2 each time?
0 -
I imagine it was passed to create a more level playing field. I can't really recall any concrete examples, but perhaps some teams couldn't get/afford 7 players on the bench, so ended up at a disadvantage to other sides. I imagine it won't make a great deal of difference though, since there are so many other ways in which football isn't fair, if you like.From our point of view, I agree it is frustrating since we do appear to have assembled a very competitive squad.0
-
Can't understand it. Huge step in the wrong direction for reasons stated above.0
-
Chris Powell voted in favour of it, by the way. The main reason apparently being that if only three are to be used, all bringing seven subs along does is annoy the ones who know going into a game they're plan C at best.0
-
Chris Powell voted in favour of it, by the way. The main reason apparently being that if only three are to be used, all bringing seven subs along does is annoy the ones who know going into a game they're plan C at best.
But surely it's better to be plan C than not even part of one
0 -
How could Chris Powell vote in favour of it... wasn't it a decision at board level?0
-
Championship and few League 1 clubs were outvoted by the rest
Obviously but why? Do League 2 clubs for example see it as extra expense regarding travel, hotel rooms etc. Do they think it benefits those Clubs with bigger squads than theirs?0 -
You'd think so, so would I but neither of us are players or managers. Maybe it feels different on the other end, so to speak. I admit this was not direct from Chris Powell but from Rick Everrit, so the fact is right but the reason perhaps not.0
-
Was passed overwhelmingly. Vast majority of clubs wanted to revert to five subs. You'd think it would just be the smaller L1 and L2 clubs that wanted a smaller bench, but only 7 of the 24 Championship clubs were in favour of keeping seven subs (source: Gus Poyet interview in local paper, Brighton were one of the seven clubs).
7 out of 24 Championship clubs ? That really does surprise me.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I was replying to Talal there to avoid confusion! And re: ISaw, I think it may have been a board call but if any of them voted against the wishes of their manager I would be VERY surprised.0
-
Maybe having a larger choice of subs puts more pressure on managers to get substitutions right?0
-
Do you think they're being sixist? :-DAlso what's wrong with the number 6? Why does it have to be a jump of 2 each time?
0 -
Poyet was on talk sport on this issue a few days ago and said the feedback they had got was it was expensive for travel and hotels etc.0
-
Poyet was on talk sport on this issue a few days ago and said the feedback they had got was it was expensive for travel and hotels etc.
an extra room for a night ? Why not book family rooms with bunk beds etc ;-))0 -
If it was a genuine squad size issue then fine but can't buy that it really was travel/accommodation expenses.Most L1 and L2 travel on matchday by road therefore accommodation is rarely required and having two less players on the team bus doesn't exactly do a lot for expenses reduction!Those that do pay for accommodation should not be doing so if they can't afford to put up an extra two people.Seems an excuse to achieve a "leveller" to me.0
-
Lower league clubs should cut their cloth accordingly. Tavel lodge's are good enough for a night.
0 -
Surely having 7 subs is better in every aspect?
What I dont understand is why can we not have 7 subs at league 1 and championship level and then 5 for league 2 and below?
We want to push the home grown talent through but this makes it even harder...0 -
why not leave it at seven and if you only want to name five for whatever reason then do so.0
-
Why not leave it at 1 as it was.
Pro
Less travel hotel and match fee costs. Some players will get paid more for a first team appearance
Clubs with small squads Weds 21 players, Brentford 18
Levels it up
Cons
Reduces options for managers
Reduces chances for fringe players
the game remains XI v XI on the pitch. 7 subs is quite new and we coped well enough before it came along. if anything we did better when it was three and five subs than we have with seven so maybe we should be happy.
Also as some pointed out on the other thread about this with have Matt Taylor. how many other teams have an outfielder who played in goal until he was 22? Secret Weapon in case all of our five keepers are injured : - )
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Regarding cutting the costs for away travel, clubs will still be taking a squad along with them in case of any last minute injuries/illnesses.
0 -
What does Keefy say on the matter? His must be the ultimate voice of authority on this.0
-
Should we not consider (like aome Managers already do) having five outfield players on the bench especially if we do have someone who can "play" in goal in the event that the keeper is carried off.
The bottom line is that, on average, I would say that a Team might lose a keeper once or twice a season (and we might even have used all our subs by then anyway). Against this, how many times could that fifth outfield option make the difference?
0 -
Not with Robbies injury record.0
-
How did we cope in the days of one sub?
Five subs is plenty - a spare keeper though is a must.
0 -
Personally think it should be "up to 7 subs". Keeps all parties happy.0
-
Still think it should be 6! :-)0
-
I read somewhere the '7' subs got reduced due to many teams not being able to field all 7 of the substitutes, i prefer 7 myself as it gives youngsters more chance of being involved in a game.0
-
This ruling means Doherty ,Euell and Hughes would always be on the bench because of versatility .There should also always be a Keeper I wouldn't fancy Matt Taylor in for a long period if there was an injury .
Therefore , that leaves one extra option to move around each game . I wish it had stayed at 7.0 -
I think they should have made it something like 5 subs + two under 20's to make up the 7, that way would encourage youth development.0
