Seems a number of managers have complained about the reduction in substitutes. They say the reduction from 7 to 5, although financially motivated, will affect the advance of the younger players. Thoughts.
I agree in some senses that the youngsters won't be included in the squad, but if you have 7 subs you are still only able to use three at any time, and if a youngster is good enough he will be in the team. If he is not at the moment its hardly going to develop him as a player sitting on the bench is it? Surely he could gain more by going to a lower club and getting games?
Team selection should be based on ability. If this means the youth being involved then it would say either we have a crap senior squad or a great youth system. Either way It's the managers choice.
Some managers put young lads on the the bench for the experience of being involved in a match day squad. As the financial side, you would of thought it better to annouce it before all team's have based transfers and contract's on a 17 man squad.
I think it will advance the development of more versatile players who can play in more than one position, McShane when fit will be on the bench as he can play RB & CB, that's not to say he's technically great but he is flexible in this respect.
This is about the only positive you can get from it. Young players won't get a look in. Players become unhappy resulting in an unsettled squad. Young goalkeepers will get even less of a chance as most managers will run the risk of not having one on the bench. Risk of star youngsters having to be sent on loan to other clubs that they may form a bond with. If a team gets an injury early doors then they are ****ed. To think they didn;t consult managers, players, players agents ect is just bonkers. The people who run football are wrong as Hollowhead once said.
The strange thing is, they did ask the clubs, and the clubs voted for it. I know thaty isn't directly asking the managers but surely for example the Hull City board would consult Nigel Pearson before giving their vote, and the same would go for most clubs.
Presumably the financial benefit (whatever that is) outweighed the negatives caused on the playing side of things.
the better option would be to have a 7 man squad with 5 from anyone and 2 being players under the age of 21, belonging to your club so not a loanee, encourage youth and not spending, idiots.
Just go with 5, i don't see it really as that bigger deal, managers had to deal with it all them years ago, and they can start dealing with it now. If it is to hard for managers to deal with go find another job. I have had enough of such a trivial arguement over such a minor thing. If a youngster is good enough he will get on a 5 man bench.
I don't understand the financial benefit of this really. It's pretty simple if you don't have enough players to name a 7 man bench then don't and if you do have enough players to do it then go for it.
But you use the subs in different situations. If we were 1-0 down we'd be more likely to bring on Barmby than Devitt. If we were 2-0 up we might bring Devitt on for the last half hour to get some game time against a Championship defence feeling confident the game was secure but still having an opponent trying to get back into it. Having 2 less subs you don't have the choice of naming both on the bench in the first place. As we all have these dugouts designed for 7 man subs benches why don't we include them anyway? Alright they're not designated subs, but if they were only there for the matchday experiance and not to make it on the pitch why don't we run them through it? There's nothing to stop them going through the prematch routine, sitting in the dugout, and then doing warmups down the touchline during the game. In a way this will increase the chances for more players to experiance the atmosphere/pressure by being part of the setup because as they're unusable subs there's always the 2 seats and they can be rotated through more players.
