from next season in a change back to the old format. 2 players will be disappointed but with our squad probably wouldn't make much of a difference in that we haven't got the biggest anyway.
I liked the 7 subs, but it won't be such a big deal for a club like Watford. Strange decision though. Why do we need to change?
It will generally help smaller clubs, but I see us as an exception to that rule. In recent years at least a couple out of Lee Hodson, Tommie Hoban, Gavin Massey and Sean Murray owe their debuts to the extra two substitute slots. And I've just been lazy in looking at the last few games of the season. It was probably a similar story with the likes of Bennett, Whichelow and Sordell too.
You can blame Portsmouth for this. Their "oh no we only have 4 subs" routine was pitiful last season. Don't they have a youth scheme? What has been regularly overlooked in football circles is the point NNW made - the extra slots have helped us blood the likes of Tommy Hoban.
I think it means the manager has to be a bit more tactical. Before they could have a bench which looked like this; GK, DF, DF, MF, MF, ST, ST. Or even just GK and 3 Defensive players and 3 Attacking. This is not very risky and allows for plenty of changes. However now you have to gamble on who you leave out, yes its easy to leave out a striker but who else? You could end up a goal down with 25mins to go and no attacking players to bring on and change that, or vice-versa 1 up and needing to defend. It makes things more interesting and keeps players honest and on their toes if they know they were just the extra 2 bench fillers they have to up their game.
Well said Dan I agree! it does not happen this season anyway, and the following season we may have to re enter the reserve league to give our kids some competitive game time!
The understanding I got from watching SSN was that it was happening this season. Paul Dickov (Oldham manager) was using pretty much the same argument about blooding younger players. Also according to PD, hardly any managers knew about this until today. The bizarre thing is that the Carling Cup still has 7 subs but that is a tournament run by the FL. Why do they have to be so weak when it comes to the PL teams? Elixir, it must be something to do with South Coast clubs with no money as Bournemouth also regularly failed to fill their bench last season.
like in the article i posted about it, they say from next season..does that mean this season or next season? (it's on the short news thread)...
The FL aren't exactly clarifying the situation: http://www.football-league.co.uk/fo...bs-to-reduce-subs-from-7-to-5_2293334_2398424 I guess we'll find out at Burnley.
I think Watford lose out on this account, as we can actually fill our bench with decent players! Benefits clubs who can have a very small squad like Portsmouth
Maybe the rule should be 4 subs over 21 and 3 extra under that age and from the clubs youth system. It would level the playing field a bit and encourage youth development. As an aside the teams that do name less than the maximum subs i hold their managers in complete and utter contempt and would never want them at watford- what does it say to the 17-18 year olds at the club?! your not even good enough if your the last resort. personaly i would favour a team forfeiting if they couldnt name a subs bench- this is a bad ruling is the FL so bad its clubs cant find some kids to put on the bench. Lets remember A Young was discarded by the club but got a chance and proved himself. Ultimately i feel this is about certain manangers posturing to protect their reputations last season! The other alternative i would favour is unlimited under 20's on the bench with maybe 3 or 4 others.
