7 subs
- Thread starter johngalleyfan2
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Very good idea as it gives managers many more options when considering changes.
However, the major change to rules on substitutes should be that those who have been substituted, should be allowed to come back if a team is later reduced to less than 11 on the pitch due to injury.
Too often sides get a couple of injuries early on and then sometimes end with less than 11 for the last part of the game.The only time teams should have to play without a full complement is when their players are red carded.
I can go back to the pre sub days when many games were ruined because of serious injury early on in a game. Injuries in several FA Cup finals in 50's and 60's led to introduction of subs.
And yet my best memory of a 10 man performance came against tomorrow's opponents Watford at Ashton Gate in November 1954. Tony Cook, City keeper, broke his arm after a few minutes. Right back Ivor Guy went into goal and a few minutes from the end of a game heading for a nil-nil draw, left winger Jack Boxley snatched the winner for City! I even bought him a pint many years later from my Dad when we played skittles against each other.
Now that's the sort of battling we want tomorrow from our lads at Watford. An away win will be a good end to the week.
However, the major change to rules on substitutes should be that those who have been substituted, should be allowed to come back if a team is later reduced to less than 11 on the pitch due to injury.
Too often sides get a couple of injuries early on and then sometimes end with less than 11 for the last part of the game.The only time teams should have to play without a full complement is when their players are red carded.
I can go back to the pre sub days when many games were ruined because of serious injury early on in a game. Injuries in several FA Cup finals in 50's and 60's led to introduction of subs.
And yet my best memory of a 10 man performance came against tomorrow's opponents Watford at Ashton Gate in November 1954. Tony Cook, City keeper, broke his arm after a few minutes. Right back Ivor Guy went into goal and a few minutes from the end of a game heading for a nil-nil draw, left winger Jack Boxley snatched the winner for City! I even bought him a pint many years later from my Dad when we played skittles against each other.
Now that's the sort of battling we want tomorrow from our lads at Watford. An away win will be a good end to the week.
It makes it too safe in my opinion.
As an example, teams should be punished for having players sent off, and not have a ready made replacement sitting on the bench. The game is turning into American Football at this rate with unlimited players available for games.
I take Cidered's point re injuries, but for me that is part of the attraction where Managers and players earn their corn and luck (or bad luck) plays its part.
For me I'd like to see a maximum of 2 subs and no reserve keeper allowed.
As an example, teams should be punished for having players sent off, and not have a ready made replacement sitting on the bench. The game is turning into American Football at this rate with unlimited players available for games.
I take Cidered's point re injuries, but for me that is part of the attraction where Managers and players earn their corn and luck (or bad luck) plays its part.
For me I'd like to see a maximum of 2 subs and no reserve keeper allowed.
No No No, I have long believed that having too many subs is what is ruining football, as it allows teams to have big squads where players are happy to sit at clubs taking big wages (paid for by us fans) safe in the knowledge they can at least be on the bench most weeks. If teams could only name and play 3 subs a week, it may make players look at other clubs where they could play more regularly, which in turn should drive down wage demands. More prevalent in the Prem than the CCC, but one rule for all.
Going back to 7 subs was a good move in my opinion (I believe virtually every manager wanted it)
It give far more flexibility - for example you can have 2 defenders (full back and centre half) 2 midfield (central and wide) and 2 forwards.
Now that it is 7, there should be a rule that at least one of them is a keeper
It give far more flexibility - for example you can have 2 defenders (full back and centre half) 2 midfield (central and wide) and 2 forwards.
Now that it is 7, there should be a rule that at least one of them is a keeper
A very good point by Supcon that I hadn't thought of. Yes it means that clubs at the higher levels, Prem & Championship, are carrying squads of 24/25 or more with at least two players for every position.
This leads as Supcon has highlighted, to a concentration of players at some 44 clubs. Whereas if a club only had 2 keepers, 3 full backs, 3 central defenders, 6 midfielders and three strikers plus a couple of utility play anywhere types, we would be back to the sort of squad that Alan Dicks had to get us to the First Division.
That season only 17 players were used by City and two of them, Steve (?) Harding two starts, Brian McNeil 2 sub appearances and John Emanuel 3 starts and one sub.
Thus promotion was won by a squad of only 14 players for 42 leagues matches!
But to get back to the original question; 5 subs or 7? I have changed my mind to 5 only but perhaps the overall question should be whether to have a cap on the number of players registered for any club.
If this took effect how many should it be? And perhaps clubs should also only be allowed to borrow players to cover medically confirmed long term injuries or if one of the two keepers is injured. Or scrap the loan system and force clubs to play their under 18 or 21 Academy members! Or is that too radical?
This leads as Supcon has highlighted, to a concentration of players at some 44 clubs. Whereas if a club only had 2 keepers, 3 full backs, 3 central defenders, 6 midfielders and three strikers plus a couple of utility play anywhere types, we would be back to the sort of squad that Alan Dicks had to get us to the First Division.
That season only 17 players were used by City and two of them, Steve (?) Harding two starts, Brian McNeil 2 sub appearances and John Emanuel 3 starts and one sub.
Thus promotion was won by a squad of only 14 players for 42 leagues matches!
But to get back to the original question; 5 subs or 7? I have changed my mind to 5 only but perhaps the overall question should be whether to have a cap on the number of players registered for any club.
If this took effect how many should it be? And perhaps clubs should also only be allowed to borrow players to cover medically confirmed long term injuries or if one of the two keepers is injured. Or scrap the loan system and force clubs to play their under 18 or 21 Academy members! Or is that too radical?
It's a bit off a double sided sword, I agree with Supercon but with 7 you then get some youth getting onto the bench and in Bryan's case match time when injury's force the issue.
Maybe 3 senior players 1 goalie and 3 under 23's
Maybe 3 senior players 1 goalie and 3 under 23's
YES but no way should they come back on.
.. When I saw 7 subs again I must say I was a little dismayed...my feeling is a attacker defender midfielder and compulsary goalie = 4
unfortunately in this day and age feigning injury fouls etc has become an integral part of some players games and others often once or twice try it on so you cant really say bring back on a player if less than 11, tactically subs are used more than injuries so does that make the manager stronger or weaker...some actually dont use all 3 in some games...whats the point in a tactical substitution with 2 minutes to play other than to try and waste a bit of time !
for me 3 plus 1
it was always a joke moving back to 5 as some clubs claimed they couldnt field 7 subs.
I do think though that they should have 7 subs but have 2 of these 18 or under as every club has an academy so they would be able to do this and maybe it would give these younger players more opportunity to break through, though i could see most teams using an academy keeper
I do think though that they should have 7 subs but have 2 of these 18 or under as every club has an academy so they would be able to do this and maybe it would give these younger players more opportunity to break through, though i could see most teams using an academy keeper