Football league clubs vote to go with five subs, not seven. Doesn't really make any difference, just got to choose wisely http://www.hullcityafc.net/page/NewsDetail/0,,10338~2398486,00.html
Bet its the clubs who cannot name 7 like Portsmouth and Leeds Utd ? who wanted this. Dont seea problem with 7 as you can fill up with kids.
Don't understand the logic here. So we can't name 7 for league games but can for both cups? :s Wtf's the point?
Was going to add it will mean youngsters won't get as many chances to be on the bench, shame really. Maybe more teams will gamble and go without a keeper, Neil Warnock always did that at Sheff Utd. Don't know if I'm right in thinking he decided to have a keeper on the bench in the play-off final and that's why Deano wasn't selected?
I think it should be like the World Cup. Have a squad of 25 and everyone who isn't playing can sit on the bench.
Agree with OLM, this is another one of football's pointless debates. FIFA/UEFA/The FA will do anything to avoid acting on the real major issues of the game like technology and instead make up tiny things like this to talk about instead. When does this come into play? Not this season I hope? Surely it's too late for this because teams have started their recruitment for using 18 players per game, not 16.
Not necessarily a bench, just a group of seats in the stands like Man Utd have. Anyway, 7 subs was far better, it gave more flexibility in the sense that tactics could be changed in various different ways. E.g having both Koren and McKenna on the bench would allow us to either go attacking by bringing on Roko or more defensive by bringing on McKenna. Now there'll only be room for one. Stupid decision.
There doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation for it, it's hardly a pressing issue and there just doesn't seem to be any benefits from it.
How much does it really cost for a team to register a couple of youth team players and stick them on the bench? Like everyone else I can't really see the benefits of this. I'm surprised it got approved.
cant imagine any manager will be happy with this decision. 5 subs is stupid. you always need a goalkeeper, so 4 subs left for a defender, midfielder, striker and... hmm guess its not that bad it just doesnt give you many options. before we could have had mclean & adebola on the bench, now i think its 1 or the other.
With 7 subs you can have 2 defenders on the bench who you don't plan on bringing on unless there is an injury. For example we could have McShane and Dawson which would cover the entire back line, and the other 5 subs could be more attacking ones that we plan to use. With only 5 we can only have 1 defender meaning that for example if it was Dawson we'd go and get the right back injured or something like that. I know it worked fine in the olden days but the game has become faster and there are more injuries now. The really strange thing about it is that the clubs have actually voted for it. That means the majority of teams actually wanted it.
Like most people are saying, seems no point to this and only makes it harder for youngsters to break through. Reports are saying its because some clubs struggled to have a full bench last season, but thats bollocks. Who did they have playing in the reserves if they couldnt fill the bench? More like they didnt fill the bench as a form of one upmanship, to highlight to everyone how 'horrendous' their lack of players is.
It's mainly the lower league clubs with no money not wanting to be handicapped compared to say Huddersfield or P'boro who can afford to name 7 first team players and have more flexibility than those who run with total squads of 18 seniors. I know West Ham have a ridiculously good squad still, and from the way Leicester have been signing players without really releasing/selling any I bet there's a few players at each club starting to get a bit worried now. I think our 16 is pretty easy to work out unless there's some surprises in preseason (ie Ghilas): 1 Gulasci 13 Basso 2 Rosenior 5 Chester 6 Hobbs 3 Dudgeon 12 McShane 7 Koren 8 Evans 4 McKenna 11 Brady 14 Harper 9 Fryatt 10 Simpson 15 Adebola 16 McLean for now, Stewart once he's back because he can play on the wings or up front. McShane covers right back or centreback, Rosenior (with McShane to right back) covers left back. Harper covers central midfield as he is supposed to be able to play either a holding role or a more attacking role. Simpson (with Adebola or McLean up front) covers wide midfield until Stewart is back. Adebola gives us the different option/cover up front. McLean allows Simpson to cover the wings, but is replaced by Stewart so that an actual winger is covering it rather than Simpson out of position. Obviously if Dudgeon gets injured Dawson would be replacing him the next game, but we'd manage better for cover with McShane on the bench than Dawson due to Rosie switching. Bullard I've ignored for obvioous reasons, Olofinjana I suppose could replace Harper if we don't get him offloaded.
I think you've just highlighted the problem there, the player who had the biggest impact from the bench last season was Barmby and you've got no place for him now.
