Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

5 subs in EFL?

edited November 16 in General Charlton
I see Rich Cawley has tweeted the EFL are considering bringing in 5 subs as early as next weekend

Now we have such a big squad I wouldnt be to against this as it would show the depth we have
«134

Comments

  • But clubs in the position we were in last season with our squad size and the number of injuries we had would (and rightly should) be against it
  • edited November 16
    It would suit us but hard to see how enough clubs below the Championship would agree. The argument is valid though, it is a compressed season and injuries are more likely if players are pushed too much. 

    That said, if the Premier League brings it in, the EFL might feel a pressure to do so.
  • As long as we don’t bring more defenders on and go more negative when we are in control of the game. 
  • If we can have 9 subs, it might be worth recalling Davison, as attackers tend to tire more quickly. By contrast it's rare that you'd sub a centre back because you want fresh legs
  • You can't change the rules as you go along. Nonsense.
    Only the ones that benefits us  :)
  • edited November 16
    If the Premier League and the Football League are that concerned about the compacted season they should have implemented the 5-subs rule at the start of the season instead of possibly changing the playing conditions part-way through the season.

    I know the rules were changed for the post-lockdown restart last season but they were exceptional circumstances, cramming in nine matches in five weeks with little preparation beforehand.

    What has changed between the start of the season in mid-September and now? Nothing. We've got the same weekend - midweek - weekend pattern of fixtures that was announced three months ago, and we knew back then that matches would be postponed if players went crook with Covid which would cause a bit of a backlog.

    Yes, we now have a bigger squad and we could probably take more of an advantage than a lot of other sides in Division Three but it's not a change I'd be in favour of.
  • Doesn’t a bigger squad travelling to an away game increase the risk of spreading the virus.

    stay at home, slow the spread but let’s increase squad sizes
  • Sponsored links:


  • Sage said:
    The questions should be more about why did the Premier League and therefore, EFL, think they were so special and against the 5 subs in the first place when everyone else across Europe have 5 subs.

    The amount of injuries we are seeing across the board means something needs to be done, and it’s quite obvious that they’re not going to reduce the games by internationals or domestic cups, they bring in too much money from sponsors across the world.

    I also don’t understand the argument about increasing risk of Covid, the amount of people who travel to games is huge when you consider the medical, sports science, coaching and then players. Two more players are not going to make any difference, especially when they’re already spending time with everyone else who would normally travel anyway.

    Until games are back to normal a bit, so next season, something has to be done. If subs are used in a similar way to post-lockdown, as in 3 times per game + half time, it won’t make a difference in breaks of play.

    I am all for the idea, if it protects the players and keeps the quality of football we see at a high as possible standard, why wouldn’t anyone be in favour?
    It was the Premier League Clubs that voted against it, they asked the clubs to vote who wanted to keep the 5 subs and I obviously dont know who voted against and who voted for but against won and they went back to 3 subs, now managers have seen we are the only league that went back and are picking up injuries they all want 5 subs again 
  • edited November 16
    Sage said:
    The questions should be more about why did the Premier League and therefore, EFL, think they were so special and against the 5 subs in the first place when everyone else across Europe have 5 subs.

    The amount of injuries we are seeing across the board means something needs to be done, and it’s quite obvious that they’re not going to reduce the games by internationals or domestic cups, they bring in too much money from sponsors across the world.

    I also don’t understand the argument about increasing risk of Covid, the amount of people who travel to games is huge when you consider the medical, sports science, coaching and then players. Two more players are not going to make any difference, especially when they’re already spending time with everyone else who would normally travel anyway.

    Until games are back to normal a bit, so next season, something has to be done. If subs are used in a similar way to post-lockdown, as in 3 times per game + half time, it won’t make a difference in breaks of play.

    I am all for the idea, if it protects the players and keeps the quality of football we see at a high as possible standard, why wouldn’t anyone be in favour?
    Because it’s adding in new rules partway through the season that will disproportionately benefit the biggest clubs in each division. 

    I’m not against it necessarily, it just massively changes the dynamic of the season when we’ve already played 10+ games. 
  • The smaller Premier League clubs voted against it out of fear and spite, and are now suffering as badly if not worse then the top 6 from player burn out.

    5 subs should have been kept, and bringing it now is better then not
  • It is remarkable to think that over the years we've gone from no substitutes whatsoever to half the starting outfield players not playing 90 minutes
  • Rothko said:
    The smaller Premier League clubs voted against it out of fear and spite, and are now suffering as badly if not worse then the top 6 from player burn out.

    5 subs should have been kept, and bringing it now is better then not
    I disagree, it's the larger PL clubs with all the Champions and Europa League games to play, and stuffed full of internationals who are suffering most. I remember when we were in the PL, 38 games and short cup runs isn't difficult at all, when you're used to playing 46 league games in other divisions
  • If there are more players getting injured then surely there are less to fill the bench? Equally, if more are playing then there is more risk of more players getting injured especially those that enter the field from the bench as they may not have had sufficient time to warm up properly?

    How about doing something really revolutionary? Only sub players who are injured! How many times do teams have to take four players off in a game because they are all injured after all?


  • I'm not so sure it benefits the bigger teams in the Premier League. They benefit by having better players of course, but most teams have squads that are pretty deep. As you go down the leagues that is far less the case. Even with us, if we lose a couple of strikers we are in a bit of trouble. But if you have players of the calibre of say Williams, as one example, on the bench you have a decent league one squad.
  • This article states that there have been 103 muscle injuries in the PL so far this season and this represents an increase of 16%. That's an average of less than one more player being injured per club! 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Yes, statistically an increase of that amount is relevant. I suppose the obvious question is whether more subs is likely to reduce that and if the answer is yes, it should be introduced.
  • I don't know why we don't go down the route of American Football and have rolling subs. We could even have the football equivalent of "tag wrestling" just to keep the game flowing!
  • Pearce & Inniss > HHH & Shaun Michaels
  • I don't know why we don't go down the route of American Football and have rolling subs. We could even have the football equivalent of "tag wrestling" just to keep the game flowing!
    I'm really into the idea of Lampard bringing on Abraham to score a goal against Spurs, but Mourinho distracted the ref when it happened so he didn't see the legal tag and the goal gets disallowed. While Abraham is arguing and being taken back off by the ref Jose two foots N'Golo Kante. Classic stuff
  • This would be handy for the youth making the bench and a getting some minutes in depending on what is required in a game.
  • Ross said:
    It is remarkable to think that over the years we've gone from no substitutes whatsoever to half the starting outfield players not playing 90 minutes
    Exactly. I thought they were meant to be elite athletes? Yet Dave works 5 days a week, plays 5-a-side 2 nights a week, and 11-a-side on a Sunday morning after being out on the piss on Saturday night.
    Slightly different intensity at elite level to Dave having a piss behind a bush and then jogging his way through a Sunday morning game.

    It's like saying Usain Bolt could run a top level 100 metres every day because it's "only 10 seconds". But it's not going to happen.
  • Ross said:
    It is remarkable to think that over the years we've gone from no substitutes whatsoever to half the starting outfield players not playing 90 minutes
    Exactly. I thought they were meant to be elite athletes? Yet Dave works 5 days a week, plays 5-a-side 2 nights a week, and 11-a-side on a Sunday morning after being out on the piss on Saturday night.
    Slightly different intensity at elite level to Dave having a piss behind a bush and then jogging his way through a Sunday morning game.

    It's like saying Usain Bolt could run a top level 100 metres every day because it's "only 10 seconds". But it's not going to happen.
    But 50 years ago there were no subs. They were introduced (and as we know Keith Peacock was the first one to be used) to replace injured players. Not for tactical purposes.

    They are even used, late on, just to break up the flow of the game and to waste time - it is a fact that insufficient time is added to compensate for the removal of a player. Once the subbed player has shaken the hand of his team mates and even the ref and crawled off the pitch it is way over the 30 seconds that is allowed for that event.

    So tell the clubs that they must use them for injuries. But, perhaps, allow them three outfield subs and a keeper just in case he gets hurt too. Funnily enough, I've never ever seen a keeper being replaced in the last five minutes of a game - unless the match was heading into a penalty shoot out and the one on the bench was recognised as being better at saving them!

  • Or maybe address the timekeeping issue.
  • Or maybe address the timekeeping issue.
    They tried that one with the player meant to walk off at the nearest touchline. They frequently don't. Time wasting has, actually, become an art form over the years!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!