Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you have this backwards. Teams with small squads, i.e. the worse teams, would generally keep their better players on the pitch. For example, are Leeds going to want to sub Raphinha off just because he's tired? By contrast, the better teams, with deep squads, would rotate their best players. United have Cavani on the bench, Greenwood, Martial, etc. 5 subs benefits the better teams.
All the squad sizes are the same. If you are saying the squad quality reduces with the lesser resourced teams then I agree. So Man U can rotate their squad for each game. But once the game starts if Leeds have better levels of fitness over a team then allowing more subs might be a disadvantage to them.
No it wasn't. It was dull and teams were overly defensive when holding on to a lead.I heard what you are saying.
But the game was also working fine before the new backpass rule was introduced in 1993. Just like now there were plenty who were against it but ultimately it has proven to be a good thing for the game. The game was also working fine with 2 points awarded for a win and a point for a draw. That rule was also changed to 3 points for a win encouraging more attacking football which it ultimately did.
And substitutes were not even allowed in the game until 1958. Rule changes saw it changed from 0 to 2 then eventually to 3. A change from 3 to 5 is just another evolution of a rule adopting to the modern game. I would say that Ifab making it a permanent rule change would have involved it being thoroughly researched / investigated before it happens.
No it wasn't. It was dull and teams were overly defensive when holding on to a lead.
The 5 sub rule is just a compromise to allow more unnecessary bullshit money spinning games to be played. It only strengthens the good teams as well.
Similar things were probably said when subs went from 0 to 2 subs then 2 to 3.
If Ifab are making a permanent change it will probably be looked upon as a good thing when all is said and done IMO.
Being able to sub half the out-field team is not a good thing.
If thats the case I dont see Ifab making it a permanent change. Theyve got most things right in the history of football rule changes so if they decide to do it it will be for good reason.
Good thing for the wealthy and influential clubs. Favours them massivelySimilar things were probably said when subs went from 0 to 2 subs then 2 to 3.
If Ifab are making a permanent change it will probably be looked upon as a good thing when all is said and done IMO.
Good thing for the wealthy and influential clubs. Favours them massively
Yeah it does fir sure but its also better for the welfare of all players in general.
Many were just as strongly against any subs being introduced as recently as 60 years ago, could be history repeating itself.
Being able to sub half the out-field team is not a good thing.
You saying it is the case doesnt make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. There are arguments for and against it.
What have I repeated? Plenty of us have said it favours teams with greater depth, you don't think that matters. We move on.
Different sport but rugby union are looking at reducing the number of substitutions during games. The theory goes that as players get tired, extra space opens up leading to more scoring opportunities.
Well their 2019 rule on accidental handball had to be re-assessed and there were contrary points made at the time that in time proved to be correct.I would trust the judgement of ifab over you, me or any person on the internet
Different sport but rugby union are looking at reducing the number of substitutions during games. The theory goes that as players get tired, extra space opens up leading to more scoring opportunities.