Premier League clubs vote against 5 subs per match in 20/21

[kaz7]

Yeah, regardless of wherever or not you think Pep would use them, it benefits us.
I'm kind of inclined to think along the same lines of @Ric on this though.
It probably needs to be kept as it is.

I think it should go back to three, no surprise klipperty and no doubt noddy would like the advantage though

 

[domalino]

It'd definitely benefit us, but I'm still firmly opposed to it. Anything that widens the gulf between the top six and the rest of the league is bad for the game. They should be seeking to level things up, not the other way around.

It doesn't benefit us more than the status quo.

If 3 subs means more injuries (it will) then we have the depth of squad to cope with those injuries, while Sean Dyche will be putting out a 4 man bench (2 keepers) by New Years Day.

We can lose Aguero, Bernardo, Mahrez, Sterling, Laporte, Stones, Fernandinho, Walker and Mendy and we'd still be able to put out a team of top 4 quality players.


At its core, 5 subs rewards smart managers. It gives a new level of tactical flexibility, it increases the effect a manager can have after the game has started.

The teams who really suffer from 5 subs are teams who put all their money into a starting XI and have a massive drop off in quality on the bench. If you have a good quality bench, then even if that's just a midtable quality matchday 18, you will benefit from 5 subs.

But there's an inherent double edge to that - those are also the teams who will be extra fucked by a few injuries to their starting XI brought about by limiting substitutions.

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

It doesn't benefit us more than the status quo.

If 3 subs means more injuries (it will) then we have the depth of squad to cope with those injuries, while Sean Dyche will be putting out a 4 man bench (2 keepers) by New Years Day.

We can lose Aguero, Bernardo, Mahrez, Sterling, Laporte, Stones, Fernandinho, Walker and Mendy and we'd still be able to put out a team of top 4 quality players.


At its core, 5 subs rewards smart managers. It gives a new level of tactical flexibility, it increases the effect a manager can have after the game has started.

The teams who really suffer from 5 subs are teams who put all their money into a starting XI and have a massive drop off in quality on the bench. If you have a good quality bench, then even if that's just a midtable quality matchday 18, you will benefit from 5 subs.

It will be voted down though, because in the main, those who run clubs in this country are idiots who will cut off their nose to spite their face.

I still don't understand why they can't mandate that the extra two have to be academy players at the very least. Would allow teams to rest players without giving an unfair advantage to teams with more resources.

 

[ninjamonkey]

Thought it was beyond stupid to vote against it originally, it will help immeasurably with injury prevention and will see a sharp rise in youth players getting game time but I don’t see a change in the result, we will get a vote against it then managers will moan in the press when their injury list is bigger than the it healthy list after Christmas and the tv morons like carragher will be moaning about youth players not getting much game time despite being vocally opposed to this.

Yes it helps the bigger sides more but people talk as if the top 6 can just go out and buy all the talent in the world because they can make two extra subs during a game. The squad limits will remain exactly the same, teams are going to have the same squads whether they can make 3 subs or 5. this whole it creates a dividing gap concern is a much bigger issue for football that’s doesn’t go away by sticking with 3 subs, rejecting this change because of that is ignoring the problem entirely.

this is good for football which is exactly why it won’t come in.

 

[ninjamonkey]

It will be voted down though, because in the main, those who run clubs in this country are idiots who will cut off their nose to spite their face.

I still don't understand why they can't mandate that the extra two have to be academy players at the very least. Would allow teams to rest players without giving an unfair advantage to teams with more resources.

The issue with that is clubs will ultimately keep academy players hat might otherwise start back for that extra option. Why start Foden ahead of say Gundogan in midfield when we can bring him on after 70 minutes instead of starting him and not being able to replace him once he tires because we’ve already made 3 subs and there’s no academy kids left. There can’t be any added restrictions to it as they’ll always be negative impacts

 

[stonerblue]

Good. Was a shit idea.

 

[domalino]

 

[Ric]

 

[mat]

I hope we see who voted what.

 

[ninjamonkey]

What a surprise, the clubs vote against an actual good and beneficial proposal. I really hope we get to see the voting so that we can see the irony in all it’s glory when a club that voted against it has their manager moaning about injuries and fixture pile ups halfway through the season. Beyond stupid decision.