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

[greasedupdeafguy]

I find comments like this really interesting and infuriating in equal measure.

It's already been explained by the managers who want 5 subs why they aren't using 3 every game - it's because they are more worried about injuries so keep 2 back if they can rather than 1, in case they get caught short handed and playing with 10.

We already know they would use the extra subs if they could, because all of us watched the summer Project Restart football where Pep used 4.1 subs per game, and Klopp and others did similar.


So to still complain about not using 3 subs at this point you have to wilfully ignore all the clear and reasonable answers that have been put out there just so you can have a moan about something.

We have the most expensively assembled squad in football, we can actually rotate players game to game unlike sides like Burnley. Why the fuck would they vote for something that clearly disadvantages them?

 

[domalino]

We have the most expensively assembled squad in football, we can actually rotate players game to game unlike sides like Burnley. Why the fuck would they vote for something that clearly disadvantages them?

They would vote for it like the bottom half teams of all the other leagues across Europe, because it's about player welfare and because they lose the most when players get injured.

Burnley and Sheffield United will reap what they've sown when they lose a couple of key players from overplaying them, and both will lose even more games.

And by the way Burnley have pocketed half a billion from TV money in the past 6 or 7 years, they have no excuses for having a 13 man squad when they have wage bills that rival Champions League semi-finalists.

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

They would vote for it like the bottom half teams of all the other leagues across Europe, because it's about player welfare and because they lose the most when players get injured.

Burnley and Sheffield United will reap what they've sown when they lose a couple of key players from overplaying them, and both will lose even more games.

I’m sure the clubs have analysed the risk and reward and come to the conclusion that what you’re saying is bollocks. There is no doubt in my mind we would have won in mid week with five subs.

 

[SWP's back]

He didn't make a single sub against United? I guess I watched a different game where Torres came on after an hour.

What was that about calling black, white and calling a spade a spade?

Fulham and point stands.

 

[domalino]

I’m sure the clubs have analysed the risk and reward and come to the conclusion that what you’re saying is bollocks. There is no doubt in my mind we would have won in mid week with five subs.

Yes of course 403 clubs are wrong and only the 6 holdouts are enlightened.

5 subs didn't help us break down Southampton in the same situation in July, there's no way you can claim we would have won with them.

 

[domalino]

Fulham and point stands.

The point doesn't stand.

Fulham was bookended either side by dead rubber CL games where he could (and did) rest everyone. You don't need subs if you're resting 9 players in the next game, and have already rested 7 from the previous one.

If we only had to play 1 competitive game a week, there wouldn't be substitutions at all.

 

[FantasyIreland]

A good idea would have been to introduce the two extra subs,as long as they are from the academy.

 

[SWP's back]

You don't need subs if you're resting 9 players in the next game, and have already rested 7 from the previous one.

You do if you worry about a fucking injury. Listen to yourself. If Pep was making the opposite point then so would you.

Let me ask you, are players more likely to get injured in the middle of a game or at the end of a game?

 

[Cobra]

The point doesn't stand.

Fulham was bookended either side by dead rubber CL games where he could (and did) rest everyone. You don't need subs if you're resting 9 players in the next game, and have already rested 7 from the previous one.

If we only had to play 1 competitive game a week, there wouldn't be substitutions at all.

So if Pep knew he was going to make a load of changes for Marseille, and knew that he wouldn’t need to make the full allocation of subs against Marseille because he was going to change the entire team again for the Utd match, why did he take all of the academy players out of the EFL Trophy match knowing that none of them would play?

 

[domalino]

So if Pep knew he was going to make a load of changes for Marseille, and knew that he wouldn’t need to make the full allocation of subs against Marseille because he was going to change the entire team again for the Utd match, why did he take all of the academy players out of the EFL Trophy match knowing that none of them would play?

He took a few kids out of the EFL game thinking our B team would get 2 or 3 goals up early and he could give the kids a run out like he's done in previous CL games with no pressure and the game already won.

And in the end we needed reinforcements to win the game around the 80th minute.

I would have liked him to play the kids, but I also have to find it funny because last year people complained that they prioritised the kids EFL trophy and complained when it took them out of contention for a midweek CL game.