So to give me something other than the game to rant about... What exactly has reducing the number of players on the bench achieved? City's subs tonight... Basso, Dawson, Evans, Barmby, Simpson. If there had been seven subs - who else would have made the team? It's pretty hard to look past East, Bradley and Devitt. So what exactly has reducing the number of places done, besides damaging the chances for youth coming through?
Personally I think a keeper is a necessity on any bench and shouldn't be included in the count be it five or seven. The days of no substitutions was very harsh and even when two were the limit the sub keeper should always have been an extra.
It's ridiculous really, premier league teams have 7 subs.. Championship really shouldn't have gone back to 5
Stupid decision, it seemed strange only having four outfield players to choose from. Bad decision, what was wrong with 7 subs in the first place.
Dawson covers left back only, Barmby has little to offer. When Ayala signs and injuries are sorted we will see less of these two. Seven subs reduced to five should mean no place on the bench for faithful club servants.
Awful draconian and backwards thinking decision. Limits options and prospects for youth players - their main opportunities now will be for cup games (to which the FA will complain that teams aren't taking cup competitions seriously). Those pathetic managers who tried to make statements to their chairmen last year by refusing to fill the bench with kids when the first-teamers had injuries, to show the team needed investment, have shot themselves in the foot with this because they are the ones to blame.
Couldn't agree more. The official line is exactly that, isn't it? That it's five subs because Portsmouth couldn't field seven all the time last season... So the rules that govern all clubs is based on circumstances at one club in Administration. If a club don't have the full number, sorry, that's tough luck. 18 players is not an excessive amount for a club to have available on a matchday. It struck me how limited the bench looked last night. There were no options - only straight swaps. As far as I'm concerned - your squad should be who you can pick your subs from. Everyone registered by the club and present at kick off should be eligable. It's no advantage - there are still only 3 subs which can actually take place. You're right about Dawson sadly tiger_meyer. If we do sign Ayala, it's hard to look past it been one of him, Chester or Hobbs on the bench - and that means that a long serving and talented player is probably going to have his nose pushed on when he could be another option...
To look at it another way. On Friday, despite only being able to name 5 subs we didn't have a defender available that had played in a league match that wasn't included, had already named 2 midfielders, and effectively had an injured striker on the bench because he was the only option even close to being available, so what good would the 2 extra subs have been? I guess we could have named Harper on the bench.
That just one game, over the course of the season, key players will be injured and young'uns would of had the chance to feature if still had the 7 subs rule. Now with only 5, we are limited to that, and probably won't get the younger players through, or just to have them an option
ALL LOWER LEAGUE CLUBS. But it was the club CEO'S who made the call based on costs and win bonuses. Less subs mean less to pay out. Skys Goals on Sunday said that Championship managers are going to appeal this and ask for the return of 7. let the lower league clubs stay with 5. But yes this will hinder the youth for sure. And people still wonder why England are so cr ap. It makes no football sense what-so-ever. If its not broke then dont fix it eh ?
Yeah, it's the first game of the season before injuries and suspensions even kick in. As the season goes on we're likely to have our options further limited by additional injuries and suspensions and kids will have to be named anyway. That's stupid anyway. They should change the bonus structure so that they get paid based on time on the pitch. For what it's worth I don't care either way about the number of subs, all that happened in previous seasons was that Championship sides named more experianced players when ever they could, and when they couldn't nammed kids that very rarely got used so it doesn't really affect the youth development as much as is being suggested. They should perhaps have changed it to something using the 25 man squad/U21 list rules. They had it in the SPL a few years ago where you had to have a certain number of players under 23 in the matchday squad. We could have it as in an 18 man squad there have to be 4 players from the U21 list. Granted it sounds low because we had 5 in the starting lineup (Gulacsi, Dudgeon, Chester, Brady, Cairney) with Evans on the bench as well, but we do seem to have an abnormal squad with virtually nobody in the middle of their careers.
