http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32505749 I saw this and I'm not surprised the the players union are backing it. I wondered what our contributors think about this [if it were to come to fruition]. The talk of sin-bins won't go away, goal reviews are already in, squad numbers, players names on the back on the shirts, larger and larger benches, more subs - I reckon eventually you'll be able to swap players so they can rest and come back on. Perhaps a FIFA change in years to come means there will be no draws in league games [extra time and penalties instead]. Hmmm, sounds like the NHL to me but with more Prima Donnas rolling around holding their shins. Just a thought....
I think that allowing more subs will make the game more of a war of attrition than a tactical bout. It would invariably benefit the bigger teams with more resources and also lead to the game being broken up more, leading to international friendly style scenarios. I don't see any problem with allowing a side to name as many match day subs as they want like in Italy because that would allow more youth players a chance to be on the bench, however I don't think that the number of subs should change.
I'm not an advocate of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as that prevents good improvements. I think four subs is just another step in the direction of the bigger, stronger clubs. Another opportunity for play to be broken up by substitutions that are only used to break the flow of the game. If they want to bring in a new rule regarding substitutions, then make it no subs in the last five minutes of a game, even for injuries. That way the game flow can't be stopped on purpose.
No. 3 subs only, makes the starting lineup crucial and each sub must be chosen wisely. More subs takes some of the tactical pressure away from the manager and as stated above will benefit Chelsea et al.
My Grandad said this for years before he died and I have been banging on about it for a long time as well! Fed up of seeing managers make a sub in the 94th minute
Cannot see why more than 3 subs or rolling subs should be allowed. Apart from favouring the big guys, exactly what problem is it supposed to solve?
I don't mind changes to the game provided they don't cheapen the game. Sin-bins, for example, would be an absolute no-no for me. Leave them in ice-hockey, a dreadful game of often barely restrained violence. A 4th substitute is OK provided that those who support it realise that where 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th subs appear. 5th, 6th, etc... appear years later. Do we really want to go down the path where an entire team can be replaced eventually..? Perhaps we should have no subs at all except for bad injuries..? Perhaps it might be better to increase the numbers on the bench from 7 to 11 and just pick 3 or 4 from those..? The game will evolve whether we like it or not. I don't mind that, but it has to go in an acceptable direction that doesn't become unrecognisable from the association sport that started it all off. Above all, I don't want it cheapened from a sport to just another entertainment show.
No one has answered my question. What is the problem that can only be solved by increasing the number of substitutes? I can see no reason for it...it rarely happens that a player gets a serious injury when all 3 subs have been used.
You answered it yourself Fran. Those who back the introduction of a 4th sub need to realise where that thought process takes the sport. And besides, as you say, is the change really needed..? Probably not, in sporting terms.
I can remember the awful day when Campbell Forsyth broke his leg playing in goal for Saints against Liverpool in 1966. No subs at all in those days of course, so we had to play the rest of the game with 10 men and with David Webb, the right back, in goal, against the likes of Roger Hunt and Ian St. John, one of the best striking partnerships in Europe. We lost, needless to say, but when I see managers trying to waste time at the end of games by making needless substitutions I sometimes have nostalgia for those days. Perhaps when substitutes were finally introduced the FA should have copied what the Rugby Football Union did at the time, which was to allow substitutes when a player was deemed to be unfit for further play by a doctor. I know there is a huge positive side to having players on the bench who can come on and change the game, but when you see the difference in squad depth between the current top 4 and just about everyone else, the proposed increase can only benefit the bigger clubs. 3 subs is plenty, leave it as it is for crying out loud.
Subs definitely help....I bet some careers were ended by having to play on with an injury. Now players are so valuable that they would take them off even if it means playing with 10 men. Three is plenty.
The problem with tactical substitutions is that sometimes you use up all your options before an injury occurs. This happened to us away at Arsenal, if you remember, when Toby did his hamstring and we had to play the last 10 minutes with 10 men, which led to them getting the winner. Maybe the option of a 4th sub, but only in the case of an injury, would be a possible compromise?
And who decides how injured a player is....the physio of the team wanting to make a substitution? Can just imagine a signal going out to a tiring player and he suddenly collapses. Too open to misuse. Teams wd just use their 3 subs (if reqd, knowing they had a back up). Such an event is rare....we obviously took a risk and had bad luck...not worth changing rules for.
and there lies the problem; how do you know it is a genuine injury? That is the gamble the manager has to take.
No to more subs in normal games, but maybe teams should have an extra sub for games that go to extra time.
This. It used to be this way and i was kinda confused as why it was taken away. If a late equalizer falls and 30 minutes is suddenly added with only a couple of minutes rest in between I think an extra sub should be allowed to avoid injury.
