The reduction in substitutes from 7 to 5 was apparently unanimously agreed by FL clubs. The main reason cited was compliance with financial fair play rules. This strikes me as odd given that those rules are really designed to reign in clubs sitting at the head of the very top table of football. The sanction for failing to comply with those rules is exclusion from UEFA competitions so how can that impact FL clubs? Consider also that there are new "home grown" rules on the horizon and, as giving a youngster a place on the bench is also a common way of easing them in to the first team set up, this would seem to make that rule a more difficult one for clubs to prioritise. Regardless, most of us will agree that our squad is now strong, so how will we use the bench? Will it be prudence first with a keeper and two defenders, limiting attacking impact options? Will it be the reverse? NA has proven himself to be tactically adept so I'm not concerned, just intrigued. If you had to choose who was in the squad from Lambert, Connolly, Guly, Barnard, AOC, Lallana, De Ridder and Forte, what would you do? Even though they occupy several positions between them, you can't have them all, or can you?
Good thread. Versatility will be key an having people like Guly/Lallana/Cork/Forte and maybe de Ridder gives NA options. Those players can player almost anyway across the middle and up front. You can add Dickson and Harding to the multiple-position list too, though not as flexible. I'd have a GK, a defender, a midfielder, an attacking midfielder and a striker.
Who voted to make it unanimous? I've seen several managers (including our Nige) who disagreed. It reduces the chance for youngsters and the ability of managers to react to a game. One place will be the goalkeeper..rarely has any team dropped the 2nd goalie and it has backfired when it's been risked. All things being equal, managers will therefore attempt to cover all positions with the remaining four subs, sometimes with utility players. The other issue to affect your choice can be if you know one of your best players may not finish match. This will affect Saints adversely as we are a team with a strong bench, but will help weaker sides by limiting our options. It's going to make NA's job more difficult. Glad I'm not him.
How to use the bench sit on it The Fonz I dont see the point in restricting it to 5, if the FA are worried not enough English players make it through then this will just add to that problem
I'm not a big Neil Warnock fan (although I don't hate him, like many others do), but I always admired him for having the balls to not select a GK on the bench back when we had five man benches. It's a complete and utter waste of a space - spaces which are already limited. Yes by not having a GK on the bench, it does mean that that one time when your starting GK gets injured or sent-off, you've pretty much instantly lost the game - regardless of whether you're playing the team who are top or the team who are bottom. But come on, how often does that happen? When was the last time we had to replace Davis? Or any GK for that matter (I'm sure it has happened since the FA Cup Final in 2003, when Niemi went off, but there can't have been too many times). Be brave, be bold, take a calculated risk, and don't put one on your bench. That way you can go with a full-back, a centre-back, a winger, a central-midfielder and a striker. All bases pretty much covered. Even better if one of those players can play in a secondary position, such as your full-back being able to play in midfield. Having fewer spaces on your bench not only reduces your options, it also means you have to rely more on multi-positional type players - many of whom aren't often good enough to hold down one particular position. They can bowl a bit and a bat a bit, but they're never going to play Test cricket. I would much rather have an out-and-out centre-back, and out-and-out striker etc etc available to us on the bench.
How can you forget Dexter Blackstock in goal againt Newcastle in the cup! Agreed that if so wished the GK could easily be used by another out field option as the GK being injured is very rare.
I couldn't find the official unveiling of the rule but all the links I could find stated that the clubs had voted for it at a FL meeting at Leicester. Whether it was clubs, executives or committees it seems odd that any of them would have thought it was a good idea. Maybe it only needed a 51% vote share to go through, in which case, all the clubs with weaker squads would have voted for it for exactly the reason that Fran suggested. It will theoretically disadvantage clubs with stronger squads. Will we do a Warnock? I don't think so personally but it would be interesting to see what percentage of games see a goalkeeper leave the field. Certainly way more for red cards than injuries.
Having a goalkeeper on the bench is pretty much necessary because a) if you lose your keeper your day is pretty much over, b) the goalkeeper is the most likely player to be sent off. In professional football I don't think you have a choice. Anyway, logically I think you would have a defender, a CM, a winger, and a striker. Choice of defender is important as you want someone that can cover the full backs in an emergency, Seaborne and Cork seem useful for this if they don't start. We have a few wingers that can play up front which should be useful.
Cork played as defender for England U21s so is a versatile player. It's not who to play this season, but who to leave out. Tough decisions.
I think selecting a starting XI and a bunch of subs to go with them is going to be a tough gig for NA this season. Simply because there is no clear and obvious best starting XI. On the point of taking a keeper / or not, I would include one. Of the five subs, we can only use three anyway, and I do think that there is a lot of versatile outfield players at Saints now. So a GK plus 4 others should be OK.
I always liked Heskey (pause for groans). He made things happen for other strikers, which was why managers liked him.
