5 subs is stupid. 3 subs were far better. Now, you can replace half the outfield players, which basically means you can change tactics completely. It means more of the result is down to the manager. It also means there’s less need to prioritise which games are important, you can start with your best 11 every game, and just substitute later if the result allows it. It also benefits clubs with bigger budgets more, as they can afford having a higher quality bench.
You must log in or register to comment.
Should be more/unlimited subs if anything.
You’re being downvoted but are entirely correct. Changing half of the on field players is stupid and is absolutely another way to both favour the bigger teams (I say this as an Arsenal fan) and enable football associations to further cram the fixture schedules with the excuse of “well, now you can rest players more easily due to more subs being allowed”.
Unfortunately many people on here are American and will likely struggle to understand the sentiment behind your point. The amount of injuries we’re seeing for many teams this year is staggering even with the increased subs. Players are being completely run into the ground. Unfortunately that’s just the way the game is heading - new UCL format with more fixtures, new WC format with more fixtures, and competitions like Nations League replacing friendlies which forces national teams to play their best players more often due to the prospect of tournament qualification being available if they miss out in the main qualifier.
Basically they’re trying to fill up the year with as many ‘meaningful’ matches as possible to increase revenue. The increased number of subs are just a way to keep players from complaining.
We actually don’t see many more games than we used to 10 years ago at the minute. What has changed is that the intensity of games has increased where players are expected to press until the last minute. Improvements in training and science have meant that players are playing to their physical maximum every game and aren’t getting rotated as much as you would think with 5 subs allowed. Generally managers stick close to their first choice 11 as much as they can and as a result players are getting pushed physically farther than ever before. In the 90s and early 2000s plenty of players could half arse it in training and perform on match day. Too much is expected of players physically every game for that to work any more.
5 subs is great but they are used less often than you would expect and probably less than what the players need. If you push yourself to your physical limit every game, any opportunity of a break is welcome (unless you are Bruno Fernandes.)
I agree that adding more games is only gonna make it worse but the amount of injuries that we’ve seen this year is incredible. And I can’t help but think that it is because of too many games as you say. In theory 5 subs allows you to rest players but in reality managers don’t use it that often, meaning that players are still being run into the ground.
All that talk from me just to say I agree with your assertion that there are too many games, but I disagree in that 5 subs are a necessity nowadays.
Yeah fair points. Of course there are freaks like Salah and Bruno that can play 90 mins 2 or 3 times a week at full intensity and be fine, but like you say the intensity is a lot higher.
I guess I do agree with you anyway that with how much is demanded of players now that we do need more subs, I suppose it’s just a symptom of the game now. I’d just prefer that we weren’t in a position where that had to be the case.
4 subs is optimal IMO, 5 is too much, it’s like fielding a new team
I can agree if the fourth sub is only for the GK.
But I do like to see an outfield player donning the GK jersey. It’s rare, and should remain rare, but it should be a possibility.
I guess you hate offsides, goalkeepers using gloves, and elastic waistbands instead of leather belts.
The world evolved.
I also hate coloured football shoes. They’re supposed to be black, with minor white details allowed. And no colouring the hair either. Call me an old grumpy fart. I know what I am.
It was always going to be an advantage to the richer clubs who could afford to have more and better subs, giving them more chance of winning late in the game
Since so many people here are fans of those bigger clubs, you’re probably right that it will be an unpopular decision.
Since so many people here are fans of those bigger clubs, you’re probably right that it will be an unpopular decision.
I’m in favor of both 5 subs and some form of salary cap.
I don’t see how a salary cap could possibly work globally, and if it was introduced on a local or regional basis you’d just drive more players to other places.
I also suspect that UEFA do SO much to appease the “superleague clubs” they would never approve it.
May also be against employment legislation in lots of places
It only works in the US because the teams are franchises and the players are contracted to the league itself (correct me if I’m wrong?)
But if you can convince me it would work, I don’t necessarily object…
My main issue with 5 subs is that it massively favours the rich clubs. They can now bring on 5 international players. And because more of their squad can play, they can fill their squad with more top players as there is more game time
More game time for more players = inevitably raising standard overall - can’t complain with that. 1st XIs are probably more fluid than ever as a result.
How about keep 5 subs, but add 2 to the starting lineup.
Huh… I mean… I’m pretty conservative about football, but maybe…
Definitely an unpopular opinion.
You are correct in your comment below that the game is changing, but you seem to think that’s a bad thing. Change is good for keeping up with the times and keeping the game modern. In this case, the change is a necessity in my opinion as the players are playing a lot more games (and much more intensely) than they were 25 years ago. Rest and rotation is required.
It also allows for more young players to get time on the pitch and develop their talents for our future first squads.
You are correct also in saying that it encourages tactical changes by the manager, but again I don’t see how that is a bad thing. A world class tactician managing a team of highly athletic talented football players seems like everyone’s dream to watch.
It also keeps half the field fresh for the last 30 minutes to keep it exciting for the entire duration of the game.
I litterally see no bad sides to this. Sorry mate.
Frankly, we should keep the 5 subs and roll back on the amount of games they’re playing and the stupid extra time crap as well.
With 5 subs, bench players and especially academy ones are given more chances, starters don’t get exhausted, final minutes of a game can be more exciting. Also Simeone can field 10 defenders at once, if he wants to keep a 1-0 lead.
Agree - 3 subs was perfect. Appreciate there are more games now and maybe clubs have to rotate more but that should encourage having stronger reserve and youth players coming through
3 subs ❤️
And yes, there are more games, but not many asked for them (aside from the money makers, skimming the cream)
no its not
It helps to manage the amount of matches and helps a lot in regards to youth development as there is a higher chance that the kids get a few minutes
OP thinks this is FIFA
Huh? As stated before here, fifa can go f* themselves. “today I feel gay…” yeah Gianni. I get it. You were bullied. Now you’re the bully and everyone not in the executive committee hates you.
I’d agree with you if the schedule wasn’t so insane
Schedule is another issue. At least the dense schedule isn’t a change in the laws of the game, rather a change in the rules of specific competitions. Still messed up though.