This is a mistake. Was good.
Sorry Sham, disagree, back to three is much better.
Not for the players…
It gave bigger clubs another advantage and meant you could totally change a game
Good. It weakened the clubs with less depth.
Get rid of the drinks breaks too.
I’m more worried for the players though. With the restart, current EL/CL restarts, next season starts mid-september, Euro’s/Olympic Tournament/Copa next summer. Even if they are all milloinaires, don’t have to ‘kill’ them.
They are also gone
Yeah I liked the 5 subs rule and the drinks breaks.
I think those tactics talks were really important for a team like ours where our manager seems to be very high touch and manoeuvrable.
I don’t mind going back to 3 subs, I do think teams should be able to have their entire squad on the bench though, like at the world cup.
I loved the five subs. It prevented games from being ruined by injuries.
I really feel like this was a huge mistake. Yes, it would have advantaged the bigger clubs. But I watch games now and teams are just fucking knackered. By the 70th minute each side is just hurting. At times it almost looks like a pub league tempo near the very end of matches, where everybody is slowly jogging or walking and then you wait to see if somebody is actually going to get up to full speed and then everybody else groans and starts to run too.
I also think the overall level of fatigue among players actually makes three substitutions effectively fewer than in a normal year. If half your team could go down with cramp seemingly any time, the risk of finishing with 10 men is even higher than usual if you use the third substitution too early. But that means you really only have two substitutions so there is even more load put on the players on the field.
It is a real problem for us having key players like Smith Rowe and Partey who can’t go 90 minutes. Hopefully both of them can build up their fitness (Partey especially this should be possible). But it is tough to go into a game knowing that two players can only go 70 because that puts such a load on everybody else.
I can see the rest of the season being a battle of attrition between massively knackered teams dealing with lots of injuries.
I’d advocate going down to 40 minute halves instead as a better option.
Your post is correct but this part of your post is why sticking with 3 subs won’t be considered an error in judgement.
The Premier League product may have suffered visually, but the League has never been closer.
Don’t understand why this was rejected, the number of injuries incurred by clubs this season is ridiculous. All teams register the same number of players, granted that the wealthier teams have better players but not sure how this will really give them a massive advantage over the crappier teams in the league. City or Liverpool and the other big six are keeping their positions even if every team gets only 1 sub.
I love the closeness of the league but I do think the product is suffering a bit and that its going to get worse as the games, minutes, and injuries continue to pile up.
The advantage of more subs feels more theory than fact at this point.
The aim is to help players conditioning which is a problem affecting all clubs. I don’t really see where the advantage comes from. Even the smaller teams were using 5 subs when they had the chance to.
I might have missed some but I don’t recall thinking any results last season happened because a bigger team made more subs.
I think he’s wrong on this one. It’s a positive move for all sorts of reasons in my view.
@Calum changed this to a more all purpose thread
What was it?
Club with less depth can rotate and keep their players injury free with this rule.