I think the one thing that is clear from this thread is that the 5 sub rule bought in this season is doing us no favours at all. Agree with what some have said here that clubs who have a good Academy setup should not be penalised because of clubs who cannot afford/do not have the players to fill a bench. I cannot see what is wrong with allowing up to 7 subs. If you cannot meet that number then name 5, 4, 1 whatever.
Dyche has said himself that last season younger players got a look in when under normal circumstances they wouldn't have. That might have been great for them at the time, but throwing them in at the deep end is not necessarily the way to go..and as has been said, a season is a long time, they will get their chance. Some are already out on loan, i suspect those that aren't are very close to making it to the first team bench. Patience is what they need, and i'm sure with SD's man management skills, he will have explained to those that had their chance last season, why they aren't getting it yet this season, and they'll be happy...for now.
Good to know if one of the newbies has to have an attitude re-alignment!! one of the reasons I dont want TP back!
Bizarrely, I think Roo has made an excellent suggestion here. Although I'd go further. Three named substitutes, and a maximum of three substitutions allowed. If you don't want to use one or more of the named players, you can bring on anyone up to the age of 20 that you like.
It's a myth to say that England doesn't have a good youth development system. And in fairness the FA and Premier League can take some credit for the improvement in recent years, not so much at this club but in general. The only problem is that the fantastic young players can't get a game, because Premier League managers need to use 5-6 of their substitute slots to cover every position, and hoard three or four youngsters who really need to be on loan through fear of running out of cover. It's even worse in the Football League with the 5 sub rule, particularly at the top end of the Championship where there is the £90m promotion prize at stake. The solution is simple. Make it easier for Championship and League One clubs to actually play these lads, and make it easier for Premier League clubs to recall someone who isn't playing or who is genuinely needed due to an injury crisis.
5* for that NNW! I would rep and like if i could. Like so many have said this new rule is just hampering the development of so many promising young stars. I remember a quote which can be applied to this situation perfectly, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one". It does not make sense; having 7 subs benefits those with a lot of money as they can afford to pay the 18 players match day wages, it also helps those with less money (such as Watford fc) as they can give their youth squad the experience of training with the full squad and even playing a senior match. The only teams which dont benefit are those with NO money and NO youth squad. Surely there are not that many teams being hurt by the rule? Even Portsmouth have a youth squad, and it is a lot cheaper than paying full senior players surely. This is just an example of people behind desks making decisions without proper thought.
I just see this five subs rule as the worst thing in football. Ihate it,'it panders to s. H. I t managers trying to cover themselves last season i blame one manager/club in particular, begins with p
As dumb ideas go it is almost the equivilent of the rule brought in for a player going off when injured. Someone abuses the system and then some pencil pushing no brain never been to a football match but somehow holds sway with the Football League suggests a solution that screws everyone. It does make you wonder if you have to leave your brains at the door (along with your spine) when getting a job with the FA or Football League.
