The on topic thread 3.0

Remove this Banner Ad

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,860
14,384
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
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.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
110,525
71,746
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EP
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.
Of course the squad size is the same, what do you think I mean by small squad? I literally explain what I mean in the post you quoted (the 'i.e.')

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. I've already mentioned how last season Hull in League One overwhelmed sides in the last 15-20 minutes because of our quality off the bench and being able to make 5 subs, there's a very clear case study. We're both agreeing 5 subs is a bad idea but you're coming at it from the wrong way.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bojan KantKick

Man United Legacy Supporter
Sep 5, 2014
23,201
21,068
Hertford
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Manchester United, Stevenage FC
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.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
110,525
71,746
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EP
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.
You've made your point about history, it's really not relevant. Repeating it over and over won't change anyone's mind.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
What have I repeated? Plenty of us have said it favours teams with greater depth, you don't think that matters. We move on.
Who disagreed that it favoues teams with greater depth?

It certainly does but can still be a good thing for all players and in all fairness I would trust the judgement of ifab over you, me or any person on the internet so if they make the change it is for the good of the game.

Case closed.
 

Bojan KantKick

Man United Legacy Supporter
Sep 5, 2014
23,201
21,068
Hertford
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Manchester United, Stevenage FC
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.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,860
14,384
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
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.
That's what I was saying in my first post about it. England had 85% possession against San Marino. The SM players were buggered from chasing the ball and started going down with cramp. But they could change half the team to counter that. England made substitutions from their better squad but it was to give some squad players a run after the game was won. It's probably an extreme example.

But Man City v Norwich might be similar. Man City could have easily run out the game with the 11 they selected. Norwich swapped players who were getting the run around. With 5 subs they might have reduced Man City's dominance in the 2nd half.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad